Keepitsimple

This is old news and was covered on this BLOG 2 weeks ago. It was disrcedited then - and I would question your motives for raising it again. To refresh your memory, the detainee in question was never captured by Canadian troops. This should have been a good news story- our soldiers went out of their way to protect the rights of an Afghan...but as usual, the partisan media jumped on another opportunity to portray the military and our Government in a negative light without making an effort to get the full story. Here are the facts, as later reported by CTV: DND issues clarification on Afghan abuse story Updated Sat. May. 5 2007 7:45 PM ET Canadian Press OTTAWA -- The Canadian Forces has released more details about an incident in which soldiers in Afghanistan intervened to save a civilian who was being abused. Reports of the June 2006 incident, taken from court transcripts, caused an uproar in the Commons on Friday. Lt.-Gen. Walter Natynczyk, the Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff, said Saturday that the way the incident has been portrayed is inaccurate. In cross-examination involving a lawsuit by Amnesty International, Col. Mike Noonan described an incident in which Canadian soldiers had to take custody of an Afghan man whom they suspected of being beaten by Afghan National Police officers. It was initially suggested the man had been captured by Canadian soldiers. But Natynczyk said that's not the case and the individual had simply been questioned by soldiers in the village of Zangabad, 50 kilometres southwest of Kandahar. The incident was used as illustration by Opposition parties that Canadian soldiers had handed prisoners over to abusive Afghan authorities, contrary to assurances by the Conservative government that no such incident had taken place. Natynczyk said the Afghan man was later picked up by police, and Canadian soldiers, who later came across him, noticed he had been injured. The troops arranged to have the man handed over to another police unit. In a statement released late Saturday, Natynczyk said there was no indication of torture. It is the first time the military has provided this kind of clarification about the controvery involving detainees. A government lawyer had initially blocked release of the information in Saturday's statement, saying it might violate national security. There was no explanation for the change of heart. Repeated interview requests to the Defence Department about the handling of prisoners have been directed to Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor's office. The only comment his staff have provided involves directing journalists to O'Connor's statements in the Commons. Since allegations that as many as 30 prisoners transferred by Canadians to Afghan authorities may have been abused surfaced in late April, O'Connor has taken questions only in the Commons and before a Parliamentary committee. Link: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0505?hub=Canada

This quote from today's National Post sums it up: Among many other things, that's how we ended up with the opposition parties forcing through bill c30 - the Liberal environment plan to honour Kyoto....and Paul Martin's bill to re-introduce the Kelowna Accords. The Liberals still don't understand that they lost the election. Link: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.h...e5-0a70cb662e44

I guess because I see a big difference between the words ELIMINATE and REDUCE....... The 1% redution was just a ploy to con the suckers. Let's do our math here. Let's assume that the GST was still 7%. If gas is $1.10 - like today when I filled up, you'd pay 7% GST on $1.10 or 7.7 cents. If GST is "eliminated" when a litre is over 85 cents, you'd still pay 7% GST on the 85 cents - that's about 6 cents. You wouldn't pay GST on the remaining 25 cents. But wait - the GST was cut to 6% so the GST for that entire $1.10 is 6.6 cents. So if we used the over 85 cent rule, you'd save .6 cents (that's six-tenths of a penny) on each litre. If you fill up with 50 litres, you would save about 30 cents on your $55 purchase - and that's using $1.10 as the price. So again, it's a partisan tempest in a teapot. What would you rather have - a policy that saves you 30 cents only when you fill up your tank...or a policy that saves you about one percent on every dollar of every GST eligible purchase - including gasoline? You see, when you get partisanship out of the way and look at things pragmatically, it's amazing what you can discover.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2004/05/17/..._gst040517.html That was Then http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/215240This is now I don't understand where you see a conflict. The promise of eliminating the GST when gas got over 85 cents was made in the 2004 election - which the Conservatives lost. At that time they were NOT promising to reduce the overall GST to 6%. Fast forward to the 2005 election and not surprisingly, the Conservatives have a new platform in which they promise to reduce the overall GST and make NO promise with regards to GST on gas over 85 cents.

Canada is taking over the training of the Afghan National Army. Here's a newswire article that explains the role but it also touches on the "Human Rights" guardianship of our military forces. It gives further insight into why we are there and what we can accomplish. U.S. transfers responsibility of training Afghan army to Canadians Tue May 15, 12:38 PM Link: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070515/...ining&printer=1

Posted to wrong topic.

As with many of the complainers, it's always about me, me, me. They don't seem to have the humanity to put themselves in the shoes of Afghan women and children....and that's in addition to the objective of ridding the world of a terrorist haven. Finally, this poster lost all credibility with his last comment - forget about Afghanistan, let's bomb Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. And while I'm at it, Jack Layton would have us pull out of Afghanistan and immediately send us to Darfur - an area that has specifically says it does not want interference from Western countries. Does anyone remember the catastrophe that was Somalia? So many armchair generals with so few principles and so little committment.

What is a Nationalist? Is it really that hard for people to understand that in Quebec, the majority of original French-speaking Quebeckers consider themselves Quebeckers first and Canadians second? It simply expresses the reality that their French culture is geographically isolated. It shouldn't be viewed as a bad thing and Nationalism is distinct from the 20% of Quebec who are diehard separatists. Just imagine if your province was the only province that spoke your language on a continuous day-to-day basis - wouldn't you be more attached to your province than to the country as a whole?

Many of our posters show their gross partisanship by omitting "balanced" choices. Your "poll" should have had a third choice: Totally Inappropriate Comparison

Somewhat off-topic but very much related to the Heavy Hand of government interference - does anyone remember Francois Beaudoin? I encourage you to read the whole article from 2005, by Lorrie Goldstein. This scandle didn't get as much play as it deserved in the Liberal media. Jean Chretien took horrendous, vindictive action against an honest civil servant. More than anything, this demonstrates the tyranny that existed in the Chretien PMO. How these guys have stayed out of jail is beyond comprehension. They were thugs. Link: http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/T.../pf-989928.html

A very accurate response. Right on, Noah.

Here's the story and the link: http://www.cbc.ca/cp/health/070508/x050817A.html Canada's ranking plunges on international scale measuring children's outlook Published: Tuesday, May 8, 2007 | 5:45 PM ET Canadian Press: PAT HEWITT TORONTO (CP) - On the eve of Mother's Day, a new report from an international charity shows Canada is plunging on a scale assessing the outlook for children in the world's countries. The report from Save the Children, based in London, has Canada dropping over the past year to 25th place from 5th on the Children's Index. The humanitarian group's index ranks 140 countries on measures such as children's mortality under the age of five, enrolment in day care, nursery school and secondary school. The United Kingdom is ranked 21st while the U.S. is at No. 30. "I think we are slipping," said David Morely, president and chief executive officer of Save the Children in Canada. "We have been cutting back on our social programs and we start to see that happening." Morely said while Canada's economic indicators have been getting stronger, social indicators have not. "I think if we're going to have a discussion in the country, perhaps it should be about what are the indicators that are going to drive us. Is it going to be economic or going to be social? Or how do we get a mix of the two so that we can move forward as a society?" Continue Article He said the main reason for Canada's drop can be attributed to the fact that it lags far behind the Europeans in early childhood education. "We know that's really key for child development and societal development. We're just not up to the same rate as other countries who are as wealthy as we are," he said. Canada spends 0.25 per cent of its GDP on early childhood programs while other developed countries spend up to two per cent. Iraq is ranked worst in the report, which used data from 1990-2005, because it has made the least progress toward improving child survival rates. One in eight Iraqi children died of disease or violence before reaching their fifth birthday. Save the Children found that improvements in child survival were being reversed in the world's poorest countries, including Botswana, Zimbabwe and Swaziland. Most of the world's 10 million child deaths each year - 94 per cent - occur in just 60 developing countries. In Canada, the report suggests six out of 1,000 children won't reach their fifth birthday. That's up from five out of 1,000 in a previous report issued at the same time last year. "It has gone up a bit, but it still is comparable to other countries. We are certainly seeing an increase and it's certainly a very disturbing increase to see that happening here in Canada," Morely said. While he didn't provide figures, Morely said there are higher mortality rates among First Nations children. In developing countries, the three biggest killers of children under five are newborn disorders, pneumonia and diarrhea. But in Canada and in other industrialized countries, the report says children are more likely to die of accidents, intentional harm, drowning, falling, fire and poisoning. "It is very different than the very, very, high death rates that we see in countries in sub-Saharan Africa or in war-torn areas where it is a lack of access to basic health care, not enough nutrition and easily preventable diseases are what kill children there," Morely said. "Here in Canada, where we do have a strong public health system, it tends to be accidents, except for some of the remote indigenous communities where health care is harder to get at." Factors contributing to children dying young in industrialized countries, the report found, include single parenthood, low levels of maternal education, teenage motherhood, substandard housing, large family size and parental drug or alcohol addiction. And death rates are higher for male children. "With Mother's Day coming up this weekend, and we're always talking about how we want to celebrate and honour our mothers, this report is trying to take a look at the situation of mothers and their young children all around the world and have all of us think as a society, well, what are we doing as a society to make sure that mothers and children are well cared for," said Morely. "It's not only what governments can do. It's what all of us as a society want to do to be sure that mothers and children are well cared for. That's what this report is for." © The Canadian Press, 2007

As someone said - this is not about climate change. They are not off the hook for Greenhouse gases - although they do get a 3 year delay. This is about smog and pollution. Funny how the Conservatives have been concerned about smog and pollution for years but nobody was listening - they were all on the Kyoto bandwagon. They've made what is probably the toughest committment in the world on smog pollutants. Didn't get much play in the media - only that they were embarrassing Canada again by not adhering to Kyoto. But now - yes now - now that there's an opportunity to bash them, the Sierra Club is issuing a Pollution Warning! Good work guys, where have you been for the last 5 years? And of course, the Conservatives are still not getting credit for targeting a 50% reduction in smog pollutants nation-wide by 2015. Nobody has died from breathing CO2 but plenty of people have died from respiratory ailments caused by smog. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

My point to this topic is that the Europeans didn't get it right on this first Kyoto go-around. It doesn't really matter why - there's plenty of reasons. Canada has pledged to go forward and reduce emissions by 20% by 2020 and they have pledged to be an active participant - in fact a leader, in negotiations for post 2012 Kyoto.

Here's a report published today about the failure of European Emissions Trading - the centerpiece of Kyoto's Global approach to curbing Greenhouse Gases. In Canada, we hear almost exclusively about targets - and our seeming inability to achieve them. Well, there's more to Kyoto than just targets. This article might give people some insight into why Canada is reluctant to belly-up to Kyoto. Here's some excerpts: Link: http://www.energy-business-review.com/arti...B5-D66CC822232A

I don't remember any specific amount....but yes, he did give some funding. What Canadian Prime Minister increased it by more than 12.8 billion? That increase is over 5 years and is "catch-up" money for a lot of neglect. It's pretty easy to increase something when you've starved it for funds for 10 years. More correctly, has there ever been a government that has reduced spending in the area of National Defence by as much as the Liberals did? Blame it on the deficit if you like but it's a fact. Here's an excerpt from a 2002 Macleans article: In recent years, the alarm over the crumbling state of Canada's military has been sounded so many times that it has ceased to cause any panic. Between 1993 and 1998, the Department of National Defence saw its budget slashed by 23 per cent as the federal government wrestled with the deficit. Bases were closed, equipment purchases were postponed, the military trimmed 27,000 positions, and commitments to NATO and peacekeeping were reduced. While Ottawa has returned funding to early-1990s levels, the lion's share of the new money - $3.9 billion - has gone to improve pay and living conditions for soldiers, sailors and air crews. Now, defence supporters are calling for a massive cash infusion to upgrade or replace the military's aging hardware. (Among the priorities: replacing the navy's 40-year-old Sea King helicopters. The Liberals cancelled a $4.4-billion chopper deal in 1993, but have yet to approve a scaled-back $3-billion version of the project.) Link: http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ind...s=M1ARTM0012331

Pretty naive.....the Taliban hold prisoners of war? They kill everyone! Here's an interesting article from this morning's Toronto Sun. It's a give-and-take on Afghanistan's torture issue between Licia Corbella and Sheila Copps. I don't think it's copyright so I'll include in here in addition to the link. It's worth reading: Beatings of detainees part of Afghan life CORBELLA: I thought Liberal party members were supposed to be culturally sensitive? Then why the outrage about Taliban prisoners getting beaten by Afghan authorities? Like it or not, beatings are the Afghan way. I know this because I have been to Afghanistan and witnessed people getting beaten there daily -- children, women, men. COPPS: The whole point of our presence in Afghanistan is that we are not the Taliban. By your logic any intervention outside Canada should ignore the rules of natural justice and throw the Geneva Convention out the window. George W. may cherry pick parts of the convention he ignores but thankfully most Americans now have his number. If Stephen Harper thinks this is just a liberal issue he is heading down the same solitary road. Unlike George W., Harper can actually run again. But not on his Taliban platform. CORBELLA: I'm being somewhat facetious, obviously, but my point is well founded. It appears Liberals care more about human rights of our ethnic minorities outside our borders than within -- or when they can score political points. How else to explain the Ontario Liberals coming close to allowing sharia law in that province? Sharia law runs counter to every tenet of democracy, equality and fairness, and yet Liberals were embracing it wholeheartedly. That's what I'm talking about, Sheila. Liberal hypocrisy. COPPS: I am afraid on this one you are mixing apples and hijabs. The fact is the Ontario government opposed sharia law and actually respected the separation of church and state. Previous governments (Tory) had actually implemented parallel systems for religious tribunals but the Grits turned it down. Do not allow your dislike for all things non-Tory to cloud your journalistic judgment. The only party that ever introduced religious-based justice tribunals was not liberal (in any sense of the word). CORBELLA: Gee, that's funny, all the news stories say it was Dalton McGuinty's government that was going to allow the medieval system of sharia to become law in Ontario. Sorry, Sheila, you can't blame the Tories this time. But you're missing my main point. It's people like, well, you, who for decades now have been telling Canadians we have no dominant or real culture. Official multiculturalism states all cultural traditions are of equal value and benefit to Canada. To even insinuate Canada is founded on the Judeo-Christian ethic and the British Parliamentary system and rule of law causes rabid foaming of the mouth and charges of racism and intolerance to be thrown about. COPPS: The religious tribunals predated the sharia debate. But the bogus rap on muticulturalism applies in Canada or Afghanistan. This is not about cultural sensitivity. It is about ensuring Canadians are upholding the laws of justice and prisoner treatment whenever and wherever we are involved. Otherwise, why even bother fighting in Afghanistan to build democracy? Democracy guarantees rights, including rights of prisoners. I know neo-cons may not like the spread of our liberal values. If not stay home and rattle minority cages in Canada. CORBELLA: Ah, so Canada does have "values?" You just proved my point. Canada has a dominant culture worth defending and democracy is part of that. It is a shame Taliban prisoners are being beaten by Afghan authorities once Canadians turn them over. The feds are trying to remedy that. Our troops are trying, in part, to teach them "our" values. When I was in Afghanistan, I saw children and women getting beaten, often for no apparent reason. Most Afghans live, at least by our standards, in squalid conditions. No indoor plumbing or heat and not enough food. Those I met said they were far better off than during the Taliban. These are the same complaints being made by some prisoners. To expect prisoners would be treated better than the general populace is admirable, but it will take time. It's a process, Sheila, and like it or not, we are exporting our culture because our culture is better. That is a statement most people in your party have trouble acknowledging. Do you deny this? COPPS: You would be hard pressed to find any Afghan or Canadian for that matter who would prefer someone else's culture to their own. But you are mixing culture with human rights. There is no single dominant better culture than another. They are simply different. Just pick up a copy of the Newfoundland dictionary and you will see the distinctiveness of their culture. The history and geography of Alberta create a uniqueness that is not better or worse, only different. And as for Quebec, vive la difference. Many cultures make a great country. Afghan people have many deep cultural roots and differences. We are helping build on their culture, not destroy it. Cultural imperialism means certain failure here or there. CORBELLA: That's what I was hoping you'd say and again, you're proving my point. Your comment: "There is no single dominant better culture than another," is relativistic nonsense. If you really believe that then you would have to agree that suttee -- the Hindu practice of throwing widows on their husband's funeral pyre -- is OK. After all, according to you, that's neither worse nor better, just "different." I agree many cultures make for a great Canada, as long as newcomers embrace and accept -- as most newcomers to Canada do -- the main tenets of our Canadian culture -- freedom, democracy, equality -- all founded on Judeo-Christian principles and British rule of law. People clamour to come here because of those values, not suttee or Sharia. Ultimately, you have defeated your own argument. If we were truly culturally sensitive then prison beatings in Afghanistan wouldn't be a big deal. Beatings are a part of Afghan life. We think they're a big deal because we are exporting our values -- which include the Geneva Convention -- to Afghanistan. But it takes time. It is not something you turn on like a light switch. COPPS: No culture is above the law and if a Christian man beats his wife, is he doing it as a faith-based act? Obviously not. Culture is not synonymous with thuggery. CORBELLA: No culture is above the law? The point is, different cultures have different laws. Some cultures would throw both you and me in jail simply for being outspoken or driving our cars. We have the best laws because we have the best culture and that's why we have the best country. It's all linked. Official multiculturalism is great when limited to food, dance, different peoples and other pleasantries, but leave our Canadian values alone. The time has come for Canada to define its culture and refuse to bend on it as your party so often insists it do. To do otherwise will be the ruin of Canada. Link: http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/...pf-4160007.html

What have the Conservatives done differently than the Liberals on this issue? It's a very difficult situation for the Conservatives to address in a minority parliament. If they try to do anything to modify the appeal process - that's a problem that's in addition to tightening up qualification - then they will be demonized by the opposition as "mean-spirited" and taking away peoples' rights. Is it proper than someone who lied to get into Canada can go through an appeal process that can drag on for 10 years? It's not an exception - if you have money to pay lawyers, you can drag it out forever. And of course, the flavour of the day is to have children while the process drags on - creating "humanitarian" grounds for staying. And meanwhile. the honest, hard-working stiff is waiting on the list to get in. Give the Conservatives a majority and I believe you'll see some common senses applied to both areas.

As usual, opponents of the government have jumped on a "Gotchya" opportunity. The damage has been done and I doubt Canadians will see the facts on the front pages. First of all, the Afghan in question was never a Canadian prisoner and secondly, Noonan never said they had been tortured - he said it looked like he had been beaten. There's a big difference. In fact, the bloodthirsty opposition has taken an opportunity to praise the Military for actually helping an Afghan - and turned it into something shameful. Here's an excerpt from today's Toronto Star. It must be very credible for The Star to print it: TheStar.com - News - Abuse story incorrect: Military Now says no sign Afghan was abused May 06, 2007 OTTAWA–The Canadian Forces have released more details about an incident in which soldiers in Afghanistan intervened to save a civilian who was being abused. Reports of the June 2006 incident, taken from court transcripts, caused an uproar in the Commons on Friday. Lt.-Gen. Walter Natynczyk, the vice-chief of the defence staff, said yesterday that the way the incident has been portrayed is inaccurate. In cross-examination involving a lawsuit by Amnesty International, Col. Mike Noonan described an incident in which Canadian soldiers had to take custody of an Afghan man whom they suspected of being beaten by Afghan National Police officers. It was initially suggested the man had been captured by Canadian soldiers. But Natynczyk said that's not the case and the individual had simply been questioned by soldiers in the village of Zangabad, 50 kilometres southwest of Kandahar. The incident was used as illustration by Opposition parties that Canadian soldiers had handed prisoners over to abusive Afghan authorities, contrary to assurances by the Conservative government that no such incident had taken place. Natynczyk said the Afghan man was later picked up by police, and Canadian soldiers, who later came across him, noticed he had been injured. The troops arranged to have the man handed over to another police unit. In a statement released late yesterday, Natynczyk said there was no indication of torture. It is the first time the military has provided this kind of clarification about the controversy involving detainees. Link: http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/210944

The problem with illegal immigration/refugees - and especially those with a tainted background - is that they take away the opportunity for someone else to come to Canada - someone who has played by the rules - someone who will make a better Canadian than someone whose first action was to lie and whose previous actions were questionable. No matter what heart wrenching tales can be spun after they arrive, the fact is they should not be here and the honest guys on the list are the ones who suffer.

Baird's forecast were an analysis of what would happen if we tried to meet our Kyoto committment - which amounts to reducing our emissions by 30% on average between the years 2008-2012. That means a 30% cut in 8 months and if we can't do that, we have to cut deeper in 2009...and if we can't do that, deeper still in 2010....so that we can average 30% reductions over the period. Even the Toronto Star today - for the first time - finally published an article that said we had to meet our targets by 2008. Do people really think that we can cut our emissions by 30% in 8 months or even two years without affecting our economy? It's just silly. Let's not get wrapped up in Left-wing handwringing that "we have to try". Simply admit we were naive in signing Kyoto, admit that we've not done much since then....and let's move on and get something accomplished. The European Union seems to get a lot of media attention in being champions of Kyoto. It may surprise people to know that since 1999, European emissions have actually gone up! After making a big dent in their emissions by closing a lot of state-controlled dirty factories with the fall of communism, they have at best, been treading water. They have now made a committment to reduce their emissions by 12% by the year 2020. We have just made a committment to reduce ours by 20%. That's why Baird said our targets were among the most agressive in the world. Let's stop focusing on this arbitrary year of 1990 - which was a self-serving European selection - and let's move on and make real reductions on a go-forward basis. Here's a few points (page 19) from a report by the European Environment Agency titles "Greenhouse Gas Trends and Projections in Europe 2006". EU‑15 assessment 1) Greenhouse gases emissions in the EU-15 have risen since 1999 and emission levels in 2004 were the highest since 1996. 2) In 2004, greenhouse gas emissions for the EU-15 were 0.9 % below the base-year level. This means that the EU-15 is little more than one tenth of the way towards its 8% reduction target under the Kyoto Protocol. 3) Compared to last year's analysis, emission reductions in the EU-15 projected for 2010 have become significantly smaller. This is due to changes in both the base-year emission data and in the emission projections of several Member States. 4) Enhanced efforts on top of existing domestic policies and measures, including additional domestic measures along with the use of Kyoto mechanisms and carbon sinks, are projected to amount to a combined emission reduction of 8.0 % below base-year level. These policies and measures would just be sufficient to reach the EU-15 Kyoto target (existing domestic policies and measures are projected to deliver 0.6 % (21), additional domestic policies and measures 4.0 %, use of Kyoto mechanisms 2.6 % and use of carbons sinks 0.8 %). 5) The achievement of an 8 % reduction assumes that several Member States substantially over-deliver on their individual targets. 6) Two Member States — Sweden and the United Kingdom — were on track to achieve their burden-sharing targets in 2010 and project that existing domestic policies and measures alone will be sufficient to meet or even exceed their targets. 7) Six more countries anticipate they will exceed (Finland, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) or meet (France, Germany and Greece) their commitment targets by additional measures, use of Kyoto mechanisms, use carbon sinks or a combination thereof. 8) The remaining seven Member States (Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Spain, Austria, Italy and Portugal) project that they will miss their targets despite the implementation of additional measures or the use of Kyoto mechanisms or carbon sinks. Link: http://reports.eea.europa.eu/eea_report_20...port_9_2006.pdf

I got very confused when I initially heard of the Globe story. On the one hand, I've heard Don Newman mention several times that Canada has really only captured and detained about 40 Taliban who were subsequently handed over to Afghan authorities. On the other hand, how did the Globe know where to find 30 of them and what were they all doing outside of prison? A retired General appeared on Newsworld alongside the smug Law professor who initiated the controversy - I forget his name. The General said that only 5 of the 30 were actually originally detained by Canada. The young professor said "that's a lie - how do you know this - all the names are confidential!". The General rolled his eyes. So really, as someone else said in a previous posting...in Afghanistan, if you want to find someone who'll agree to say something, you don't have to look too far. In summary, something smells rotten in Denmark (where the heck did that saying come from anyway?).

Would they drop enough for us to meet Kyoto? All hail Kyoto!!! We should most certainly be meeting these targets. By tomorrow. There are times when I'm tempted to agree but the truth is that Quebec is in pretty good shape on emissions because they have a lot of clean Hydro power. They are not Coal and Oil producers.....but maybe if they separated, there wouldn't be as much hot air going back and forth and it would help cool off Global Warming - oops - Climate Change.

Comment moved

I subscribe to both The Star and Sun (go figure). I buy the Post every now and then. The weekly editorials for the Sun are OK - the Sunday Sun's are very good. The general news is OK for a quick scan and the Sports pullout is convenient. Check out their website and read the Editorials - you may find that it's a handy-sized paper for a quick morning read with a coffee. The Star is a cheerleader for the Liberals and when that's not feasible, they'll switch to the NDP. Many of their general political news articles are "editorialized" to the extent that many look like they were written by smug anti-conservative college students. The Post and the Globe are almost always gentlemanly, using "Mr. Harper" and "Mr. Dion" in their reporting. The Star never uses "Mr. Harper" except via sarcasm. The Star hates the Conservatives - there's just no other way to describe it. I lean to the right but I guess I have masochistic tendencies - hence my Star subscription....but really, I like to get opiniuons from the Left and the Right. The Post is a Conservative supporter but they often take whacks at them just the same. I read them to get the view from the Right. I find that they lean right as opposed to the Star which is so far Left they have fallen over. I only read the Globe a few times a year. I find then a little snobby....can't really put my finger on it.