The Observer is Out To Lunch

Rachel Cooke of the Observer is really reaching in a new article on Michael Ignatieff:

---

Michael Ignatieff – writer, thinker and star presenter of BBC2's The Late Show in the 90s – is back in Canada after nearly three decades, and is the man most likely to become the country's next prime minister...

---

It's time to take a quick look at the numbers:

Angus Reid has the Conservatives at 37% and the Liberals at 29%:

---

Canadians see Harper as better suited than Ignatieff to tackle the economy (33 per cent to 23 per cent), health care (23 to 16) and crime (38 to 12)...The poll found that 27 per cent of Canadians favoured Harper as prime minister, compared to 16 per cent for Ignatieff.

---

If Ignatieff is "the man most likely to become the country's next prime minister" than I'm Mickey Mouse.

Cities at Night, From Space

While the astronauts have focused on more cosmopolitan locales, there's something missing: Pyongyang.

What nukes?

Plenty of praise for the former US president here, especially in the comments section where much is made of the benefit of Clinton's method of 'soft diplomacy'. Much is also said about North Korea's nuclear program.

Unfortunately, not much is said about Mr. Clinton's legacy of 'soft diplomacy' that ultimately led to North Korea's agreement not to develop it's nuclear program in the late 90's.
You remember, of course - the agreement where Kim Jon Il promised Clinton that the North's nuclear program was done for good? The one that led to massive re-establishment of international aid?
Well, some of you will recall that North Korea never actually stopped the program. Years later, we learned that it had been moving forward forward all along, and that the North had been playing everyone for fools - for years.

Let's be clear - everyone is glad that the imprisoned reporters are free, and we should all be happy for that. But the reality is, North Korea has scored yet another victory here.

Need some attention from the west? Arrest a few reporters, then act magnanimous when a former president of the U.S. comes calling by freeing said reporters - gaining a photo op and some measure of twisted diplomatic 'legitimacy' from appearing with a former leader of the most poweful nation in the world. And we are supposed to eat it up in the west, chalking it up to some sort of strange diplomatic victory. I am sure this will be heralded as 'progress' by some, and evidence that talking with dictators accomplishes something. Some will see this as evidence that the north is open to discussion.

Normally when a child misbehaves, you punish them, not accede to their demands by bribing them when they give you your car keys back. Kim Jong Il is interested only in playing everyone for fools and this is yet another part of that agenda - stall, stall, stall - until the North is permanently nuclear and can bully its way into getting what it wants.

So much for Clinton's diplomacy.

The Blank Slate Mind of a Liberal

If this is mean spirited:





Then what's this?:




Don't ask this guy:

---

Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable President Earl Ofari Hutchinson is calling the depiction, politically mean spirited and dangerous.

Hutchinson is challenging the group or individual that put up the poster to have the courage and decency to publicly identify themselves.

"Depicting the president as demonic and a socialist goes beyond political spoofery," says Hutchinson, "it is mean-spirited and dangerous."

"We have issued a public challenge to the person or group that put up the poster to come forth and publicly tell why they have used this offensive depiction to ridicule President Obama."

---

Get over it, you wuss. Obama hasn't even gotten an iota of the vitriol that was directed at President Bush over the years by legions of raving leftists, and all of a sudden they're acting shocked and appalled that their 'prince' has been mocked - and in an eye catching, clever way.

Those in glass houses...

The Incredible Fact-Checking Powers of Our National Media

They still haven't learned that punctuation matters. I don't know who writes your headlines, Shawn McCarthy, but I don't think they read your stories.

(For the geographically challenged out there, Saint John is in New Brunswick. St. John's is in Newfoundland and Labrador).

Screencap:




EDIT: Three days later and it's still up. Wow (and if you check the trackbacks, we have a secret admirer [Robert Day of 'Canadian Cynic']! How cute).

Surprise!

It looks like Canada has another round of honour killings:

---

A Montreal family has been charged in the deaths of their three teenage daughters and a 52-year-old caregiver, more than three weeks after police pulled four bodies from a car submerged near Kingston, Ont...
The girls' father, mother and brother all face four counts of first-degree murder each. The four bodies were discovered on June 30 in the Rideau Canal...
The family is originally from Afghanistan but moved to Canada after spending 15 years in Dubai. Police say the family's culture may have contributed to the deaths (Ya think? - Danté).

---

CTV states that the killings could be an "extreme case of domestic violence," but they've got it wrong. The fact that the father, mother and brother of these girls all took part in the killings shows that this was long planned - to kill four people by drowning them in a Nissan requires absolute premeditation.

Jennifer Lynch, please put this in your file.

Seems like a few other bloggers also others noticed this little tidbit in this National Post piece that interviews Jennifer Lynch, chief commissioner of the CHRC:

---

"Please, please, look. We have experienced 16 months of invective hurled at us, and at any time when anybody has tried to speak up and correct misinformation, gross distortions, caricaturizations, then the very next day there's been some full-frontal assault through the blogs, through mainstream media. I have a file. I'm sure I have 1,200, certainly several hundred of these things," she said.

---

What I would like to know is, what's in that file and what exactly is Ms. Lynch doing keeping tabs on her critics? Given the censorious nature of the CHRC and the information that has come to light about their dubious procedural methods (which have been detailed ad infinitum in the media, thanks mainly to Ezra and other bloggers), the fact that Ms. Lynch is keeping a file on the critics of the CHRC is, quite frankly, a chilling disclosure.

Sure, maybe she's just got a file on hand so that when the CHRC writes up their reports about how 'unfairly' they've been treated (maybe she should ask Ezra how he feels about that) she can draw up a few references to misquote. But quite frankly, I'm uncomfortable that a government agency with a history of going after those whose politics it finds 'disagreeable' (using questionable methods to boot) is keeping tabs on citizens who are critical of its purpose and procedure. That sort of thing is to be expected in totalitarian regimes perhaps, but not in free and democratic countries that are supposed to respect liberty and diversity of thought and opinion.

There are even more chilling questions to be asked: Who has access to this list: just Ms. Lynch, or the whole CHRC? Has it been shared with any law enforcement agencies? Was it compiled using government resources? For what purpose was it created, and towards what purpose will it be used in the future? The CHRC's mandate is being reviewed now, and these are questions that members of the parliamentary panel reviewing the CHRC's activities and mandate should ask (hint hint; i know you guys have visited here before).

In the meantime, BCF and Jay Currie have also written excellent posts that you should check out, including information on how you can file an Access to Information request with the CHRC to see what exactly Ms. Lynch has in her file.

Minister of *National Defense Breaks Arm in Charity Rugby Match

Apparently Peter MacKay broke his arm playing a charity rugby game that raised over $25,000 for the Military Families Fund. I think we all wish him a speedy recovery and I hope that he's back to full strength soon. National Greats like Rod Snow and Morgan Williams were also on the field for the game, so good on all of them for supporting such a great cause.

(On a side note, 'The Minister of Defense' is a pretty badass nickname for him to roll onto the pitch with, hey? And I'm betting the fear that our Defense Minister could literally knock his foreign counterparts to the ground at any given moment is probably a pretty sweet bargaining tool for Canada when it comes to military matters).

*Correction added

The Press, Doing its Job as Usual

...or not.

"Coalition would have deeply divided Canadians: Ignatieff"

---

If the proposed coalition of opposition parties had come to power last year it would have deeply and enduringly divided Canadians, says Michael Ignatieff.
“I'm in politics to unify people, not to divide them,” Mr. Ignatieff said.
....
“There was also a question concerning the legitimacy of the coalition that troubled me.”

But Mr. Ignatieff felt that Canada, entering into a severe economic recession, needed more certainty than the coalition could provide, comparing the tentative deal to an unstable three-legged stool.
....
“I felt it was very difficult to guarantee the necessary political stability during a time of crisis with three partners in a formal coalition,” he said.

“That was my first doubt. I couldn't guarantee the long-term stability of the coalition under the circumstances."

---

What's most interesting about this article is the fact that it doesn't deign to ask Mr. Ignatieff a glaringly obvious question:

Sir, your name is at the very bottom of this document; If you believe that the coalition was 'an unstable three-legged stool' that would have deeply divided Canadians, why did you sign your name to the agreement? If you believed then what you believe today - that the proposed coalition would have lacked the political stability necessary to lead the country through incredibly unstable financial times - why is your signature on that document?

Of course, none of us actually expect the media to do their job and ask political leaders tough questions.

You cannot have it both ways, Mr. Ignatieff. You are admitting that you believed the coalition would have been detrimental for Canadians; You therefore either signed out of a lust for power or a lack of courage to stand up for your principles. Which is it?

By your own admission, the coalition would have lacked the political stability that the country would have required to overcome the current economic recession. By your own admission, it would have deeply divided the country - and yet your signature is still on that document. You put the interests of your party ahead of the interests of Canadians; you can't just whitewash your actions by simply claiming that you were 'never fully on board' - your signature says otherwise. What is even more brazen is that you expect Canadians to buy your story. Journalists might not ask the tough questions; fortunately, Canadians will.

A Funny Thing Happened To Me On The Way To The Holy Land

Sometimes, it's hard to believe your eyes:

---

The Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan has boycotted the Pope's visit because he has yet to formally apologize for comments he made three years ago, in which he quoted a Medieval text that suggested the Prophet Muhammad's teachings were "evil and inhuman."

Jordan's top religious adviser commended the Pope for expressing his "regret" after that speech, but many Muslims want a full apology.

---

Contrast that with this: 

---

In Iraq, many Christians fled sectarian violence that broke out after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. Christians faced rape and kidnapping, and many were killed, while churches were bombed...Benedict has said that the goal of his trip is to foster improved relations between...Christians and Muslims...

---

So what I want to know is, where's my apology? A few (accurate) remarks taken out of context means that the Pope should get down on one knee and apologize to those who routinely call for the genocide of all Israeli men, women and children - but a systematic campaign of murder, bombings and rape is a-okay? 

This is the problem I have with the Catholic Church's middle east policy - I keep hearing about "dialogue" from the pulpit, but how do you open a dialogue with a group of homicidal religious fanatics who won't even meet with you unless you apologize for hurting their (easily aggrieved) feelings?