Ah, Yes

Universities at their finest:

Professors: US flag symbolizes racism, should not be displayed on campus

Europe Rising?

Good luck to them.

Wanna read a good book on the topic?

Try Anti-Americanism, by Jean-Francois Revel.

What The Left Doesn't...

...want you to know:

The Democrats Don't Own Dr. Martin Luther King

Aaawwwweee...

....Sometimes the news just tugs at the old heart strings:

Bus driver gives his shoes to homeless man

And theeeeeeeen, the Canadian MSM steps in.

Of course, it's far more important that we learn about how "those Americans" flubbed up, than it is to learn about the kindness  of a good Samaritan.

This Just In, From Mars...

So, there is life on Mars - - - and they're leftards!!

Good News

Canada Day survey:Canada growing prouder to wear patriotism on their sleeves

"The provocative results of a new survey challenge the long-held notion that Canadians are reluctant to be as outwardly patriotic as their brash American neighbours.

The Ipsos-Reid online survey of 1,100 people — conducted for the Historica-Dominion Institute in the days leading up to the Canada Day long weekend — suggest the Canadian sense of national pride is becoming an in-your-face swagger.

That is particularly true when it comes to the country’s most potent national symbol: the maple leaf.

One in five of those surveyed said they would consider getting a tattoo of a Canadian flag somewhere on their body.

They didn’t say where."

Hopefully that also means we're abandoning the "not-American" definition of who we are.

That only makes sense, given our proximity to the USA and to the availability of so much technology enabling communications - such as blogs, dare I say - across boundaries.

I've had a theory knocking about my head for some time now. We have gradually moved away from out British roots, because, after all, the Empire is no more, we are a nation of immigrants from all over the world, not just Great Britain. Despite the best efforts of the Liberal Party of Canada and the liberal media, we are becoming more and more attached to the values and lifeways of our cousins to the south WITHOUT FEAR OF BEING SWALLOWED UP.

I remember when we raised the flag in the morning at school it was the Union Jack that was hoisted on the pole. And high up on the wall in the front of the classroom invariably there was a portrait of Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip.

Now, it's only the Maple Leaf flag you see flying high in front of public buildings and I think the Monarch's mug is no longer staring down at school children.

Not only that, but driving around out in the rural and northern parts of knuckledraggerland one frequently sees the Stars and Stripes sharing the pole right along with the Maple Leaf - on private property, of course, not on government buildings.

Of course, what happens in the USA can easily screw us over (think the Keystone Pipeline), but not so much with Britain any more.

That wasn't so with my parents generation. They were very loyal to Great Britain, and when the mother country called, we, especially the men, answered. My dad had signed up and was in boot camp within days of Britain declaring war on Germany in 1939. It took the yanks a few more years and a lot of arm twisting by Churchill before the joined in.

We are slowly losing our ties to Britain, and have far more in common with our southern neighbours and that's not a bad thing, Martha.

Me Thinks The Castro Brothers...

...could take lessons from CBC fans. Those whose comments litter the comments section of the CBC's web based news stories:

Bash America: The Castros play to their base in Cuba

CBC fans, with the approval of the CBC of course:

Defence agreements signed with U.S.

I Think There's A...

...typo in this headline:

New Americas summit aims criticism at US

There's nothing new about that.

"American-Like" Musings

After reading American Myths: What Canadians think they know about America and having a bit of a conversation in the comments attached to a previous entry, I decided to pick up another book that I acquired along the way: The History of American Wars: From Colonial Times to World War 1 by T Harry Williams.

(I'm a compulsive book buyer. At least 2/3 of the books I own are still waiting for me to read them. One of the best places to buy books is at public library book sales. They periodically try to dispose of books that no one is borrowing or reading any more, and they go really, really cheaply.)

But anyway, back to my musings. On the top of page 22 of this tome are the following two paragraphs, in reference to what is known as The Seven Years War, or, in America-speak, The French and Indian War (Emphasis mine):

"Because it was a new kind of war and because the Americans were a new people and not as bound as Europeans by old rules, the conduct of the war departed in significant ways from the eighteenth-century pattern. This was most apparent in the American's disregard of accepted rules of war, in part a legacy of their experience with the Indians [Ed. who broke all the rules, or rather, didn't know such rules existed and would probably have laughed at them anyway and maybe did.]. They occasionally embarked on winter campaigns, at the time a practice almost unheard of -- partially because of the logistical difficulties involved but also because by the prevailing leisurely standards there was no need to fight in disagreeable weather.

The Americans performed in ways the British considered savage or treacherous. Their riflemen aimed at and shot officers, who as gentlemen were not be be fired at deliberately, a least not by common soldiers. A British officer stigmatized this American practice as showing a lack of "modern good breeding." [Ed. Maybe therein lies the source of Canadian anti-Americanism. Pretentious notions about superior "breeding". LOL!] Americans often resorted to unprecedented trickery. At the battle of Bennington a rebel militia force opposed British regulars who had been joined by Loyalist militia of the area. Neither militia group was in uniform, of course, but each wore distinguishing rosettes. A body of patriot militia fashioned Loyalist rosettes and infiltrated the British flanks and rear and from these vantage points poured in a devastating fire when the battle was joined. The result was a slaughter of the British and a shocking blow to feudal notions of honor in war."

Okay. What's the point of quoting these passages here? Well, quite simply, war tactics change over time. The pre-revolutionary wars, at least in Europe, were fought on open fields with lines of soldiers facing each other, picking each other off. It's a scene more likely to cause laughter today.

Likewise, our obsession with the Geneva Conventions and with modern "rules of war" may be our undoing. While it's perhaps not necessary to dispense with all of that good stuff, it may be helpful to understand that these conventions and rules were crafted based on, what was then recent, war-time experiences.

Terrorists and their sponsoring states do not play by those rules. To win, we must not delude ourselves into thinking that we are superior (of superior breeding) if we don't stoop to their level. Military innovation is often what gives the winning side the advantage. And that innovation appears in more than just the hardware used on battlefields or in the air. It also appears in rules and customs of combat. I mean, really, why wouldn't or shouldn't officers be shot? So too, why shouldn't captured terrorists be subjected to waterboarding, to name just two examples. If someone can release a worm like Stuxnet and cripple Iran's nuclear program, you know the conduct of war has evolved. And if a drone can eliminate in one shot three big al-Qaeda ringleaders, then hallelujah!

Another Misleading Headline

U.S. wanted Vancouver's supervised injection site closed

Right. If the ""U.S." wanted Vancouver's supervised injection site closed", you'd think the Vancouver Sun could show some evidence of an attempt by officials in Washington to bring pressure to bear on people in Ottawa and/or Vancouver or Victoria, wouldn't you. But no, this is about a private cable sent by an American envoy to his bosses describing the safe injection program in Vancouver and giving his opinion of it.

"The memo is generally favourable of the federal Conservative government's efforts to clamp down on the production and distribution of illicit drugs, including a national awareness campaign targeting youth and parents.

"However, local and provincial authorities have embarked on a number of so-called 'harm-reduction' programs," reads the cable, "including a drug injection site and distribution of drug paraphernalia to chronic users."

The document notes the federal government "continues to deliver a sharp message" to cities and provinces about the programs, but called for stronger action.

"Canada, or, as appropriate, municipalities such as Vancouver and Ottawa, should implement the (International Narcotics Control Board's) recommendations to eliminate drug injection sites and drug paraphernalia distribution programs," the cable reads, "because they violate international drug control treaties.""

And, you'll note the reference to international agreements and treaties regarding same, of which the City of Vancouver is obviously in violation. But oh no. This is a case of the U.S. interfering in our affairs according to a commentor. Again, so many people do not understand the role of the diplomatic corp.

Of course, the proximity of Vancouver to large cities in Washington State and the cross border illicit drug trade can't possibly have anything to do with it, either.

Take another toke, fella.

We Are All Neville Chamberlains Now?

For the sake of my own sanity, I have to presume that behind the scenes diplomacy has dictated that doing nothing makes good sense, but in my heart of hearts I cannot fathom why the Western world has stood by and let this happen:

What If Qaddafi Wins?

"If the Caligula of North Africa survives by fighting to the death and prevailing, he will surely inspire the other hard rulers to take the same strategy, especially after the humiliating and mostly nonviolent defeats of Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak and Tunisia’s Ben Ali. The killers of the resistance bloc — Iran’s Islamic Republic, Bashar al-Assad’s Baath Party in Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in Gaza — won’t likely be overthrown by peaceful demonstrations but by massive internally or externally driven wars."

I am quite certain Barack Obama is a follower of the Noam Chomsky/Howard Zinn school and is convinced that America's role in the world post WWII, is responsible for all the evils that currently exist in the world. In fact, with a little coaxing he could probably be convinced that America has been a force for evil since Plymouth Rock, and for all I know, he probably already does.

Either he has simply chosen to draw her back into the isolationist pattern of an earlier era, and not bothered to tell anybody, or he really is too addicted to golf and considers that more important than an imploding world around him.

In either case, the rest of the Western World has been all too happy to let America lead, with the result being that none of America's traditional allies have anything close to the power and influence required to keep the Ghadaffi's of the world contained. Thus we have to spend weeks attempting to find common ground, surrendering our sovereignty to useless organizations like the United Nations and the G8.

The result? By our own acquiescence, we have unleashed a terrible and destructive force, which, as we sit wringing our hands, will envelop us all and soon enough destroy us. We had better hope that China takes over, rather than the tyrannies of the Middle East. At least there is a very ancient and continuous civilization there; One which has produced some of the most transformative technological innovation the world has seen.  One which also, throughout the vast expanse of its history, has rarely had bloody conquest on its mind.  Indeed, quite the opposite. They often withdrew unto themselves believing so ardently in their own superiority that they had nothing to learn from the rest of the world. We may just be left to fend for ourselves.

History is full of great irony. I've taken to calling these uprising the Arab Spring,  as many others have, with the word "spring", of course, borrowed from the famous Prague Spring of 1968, which of course ended under the tracks of Soviet tanks. History does indeed repeat itself.

Related:

France fails to get G-8 accord on Libya no-fly zone

Lybian (sic) Rebels Flee Key Post, Retreat to Benghazi

Libya rebels face last stand as Gadaffi forces zero in on Benghazi

Fears terror cell behind new bomb campaign

But there is some good news in the world, for now:

Huge success for Egypt's protesters: State security will be dissolved

"A national security agency will replace Egypt's loathed State Security and Investigations Service. But protesters will be watching to make sure that the agency's practices, and not just its name, are changed."

As always, I'm both willing and inclined to give it a couple of years, or maybe more realistically, a couple of decades.  But, alas, I probably won't be around to see how it all turns out. Perhaps, in the interim, just as the Soviet Bloc fell away, the Arab Bloc will, too. Maybe Egypt will be the sharp end of the spear.

PS: The world really needs to get over its fixation with Iraq and Afghanistan as major mistakes. They weren't.  9/11 ushered in a new long war. Iraq and Afghanistan were but two hot spots at the very beginning of this new Cold War.

PPS: And didn't something like this contribute to the fall of the Roman Empire? Or some like to think so.

The Wheel's Still In Spin

Apologies to Bob Dylan, but truer words were never sung. "The Times, They are"  - indeed - "A'Changin'".

Muslim ‘Radicalization’ Is Focus of Planned Inquiry

Religious accommodation in Canada is going too far

Niqab debate: What should Canada do?

Hallelujah! Hallelujah!
 
As we enter the tenth year following 9/11, I do believe we have finally arrived at a place where we, the inhabitants of Western civilization, have finally recognized we do have a culture, it's a grand one and it's worth preserving and defending. And political correctness is worth killing and those who promote it should be marginalized.

In fact, I think those Random Acts of Culture taking place in malls all over North America are just that. What a pity that just before Christmas we have to be shown what our heritage is in shopping malls!! I hope this new found pride lasts all year and gets stronger and stronger as the second decade of the third millennium of Christendom unfolds.

And towards that end, I promise to kick up the PC volume on this here blog. Let me begin by saying to the United States of America, contrary to what so many people around the globe are saying, including your own citizens, I do not believe you are going into decline. You've made a mistake in your last presidential election, but you have a system of government that guarantees the capacity for self-correction.

And, although there are a lot of we whiny Canadians who spend our miserable, insignificant lives dissing you and your accomplishments, please know there are many of us who respect and admire you and appreciate what you do in the world.  I have no intentions of kicking you when you are down, and in my own puny way, I hope you will take my message the heart.  You do have friends, even if we like to tease you sometimes and even if some of you fail to recognized that not all 34,000,000 of us are rabid lefties.

We don't believe CNN or MSNBC, nor do we believe our own CBC. And I hope you don't believe a word the CBC or any or your own say, either.

/syrupy but heartfelt sentimentalism

Canada-US Love-Hate Relationship

I've been curious about this phenomenon for a long time, so I've been searching on the net for answers to explain it. Haven't found much yet, but I did run across a really funny joke that sorta sums up a lot of Canuckistanis' feelings on the issue. Behold:

"How many Americans does it take to screw in a lightbulb? One. But he just stands there with his arm in the air and waits for the world to revolve around him."

I don't care, but think that's funny. Now pardon me while I duck for cover.

You Don't Say!!

Really??

CBC pushes 'Anti-American Melodrama': WikiLeaks

Rest assured, my dear Yanky friends. Most Canadians don't watch or listen to our Grandmother's Corpse. She's rather a senile old bird whose blatherings never make much sense and are frequently embarrassing.

Halifax International Security Forum, Soundbites and the Media - Part 1

Last week an international forum on global security was held in Halifax. Attendees, panelists especially, included big guns from all over the world. CPAC gave it extensive coverage. Several hours of it, in fact, are up in video format on their website in the video-on-demand area under the title Halifax International Security Forum. 

There is also a website created by the agency which sponsored the forum, The German Marshall Fund of the United States, on which video of a large portion of the conference in posted.  There's close to twelve hours of it at that site and, apparently, this is the second year in which the German Marshall Fund has sponsored a forum in Halifax.

CBC's coverage was weak, to say the least. Thanks to all those alternatives out there in cyberspace, we don't need the CBC, or any MSM television outlet, for that matter, to filter such events through their warped lenses and spin them via carefully chosen soundbites.

Of course, neither CPAC's coverage nor the coverage at the German Marshall Fund site may not have been of each and every minute, because, as we all know, some of the best dialogue can occur while standing in front of the urinal in the men's washroom, at the coffee and banquet tables, or in the hotel gym. But, thanks to these video sources, at least we can listen to and view some of the formal sessions and come to our own conclusions.

Media coverage, being what it is, cannot be much more than soundbites, short interviews and the like, but they could choose to examine the themes of the conference, rather than just the occasional supposedly "gotcha" moment, like this one - 'Neuter Iran' U.S. senator tells conference - which serves their anti-American agenda so well. The senator in question is Lindsey Graham. Of course, Senator Graham had much more to say than that. In both CPAC's and the German Marshall Fund's coverage, we hear his entire response to a reasonable question from a reasonable journalist (yes, they do exist). He speaks to the question for a full four minutes (32:30 to 36:30) and essentially sums it up saying "all options are still on the table" AND a Democrat Senator seated beside him agrees with him.

Of course, it helps that Senator Graham is a Republican, one who speaks with a southern drawl to boot, which entitles CBC to be especially dismissive and suspicious of him.  Nevertheless, CBC commenters are treated to a tiny portion of his spoken words, a two or three seconds long soundbite only, and they are lapping it all up, frothing at the mouth with America bashing.  CBC "lap-dogs" seems to me an appropriate moniker for them and, of course, CBC's spin seems to have been mimicked up by media organs around the world, playing right into the hand of Iran's oppressive regime.

That piece is not the only one featuring an American Senator. This one's not bad,  even if it is naive - US Senator talks about nukes.  But, of course, in this case  the Senator is a Democrat and has no drawl, which makes her eligible for a friendly and respectful television interview, but it appears CBC believes its own soundbite selection amounts to good journalism even if it may have serious consequences for the people of Iran. Quell surprise!!

The discussions broadcast via both these websites were both highly informative and very encouraging. So, if you've got several hours to spare, and are interested in avoiding media spin, here's what CPAC covered:

First, there's an introduction with Peter Mackay, Canada's Defense Minister, Mark Carney of the Bank of Canada, who has some interesting things to say about reconstruction of the world's financial system.  Best soundbite from this segment comes at 1:22:50 when Denmark's Defence Minister Gitte Lillelund Bech talks about the distortion created by the media. The funniest part of this is the moderator is an American media personality, CNN's Jill Dougherty, who responds to Bech's criticism with a meek "Hum. Interesting. Interesting." Yah, right, Jill. CNN is one of the biggest offenders and it's one of the reasons I no longer have a cable subscription and have put my TV in (probably permanent) storage.

The second segment features Ehud Barak, Israel's Defense Minister, Janet Napolitano, U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security and Baroness Pauline Neville-Jones,  British Minister of State for Security, moderated by a BBC journalist.  Barak also makes a well deserved snipe at the fifth column media  - "..but not in front of a camera", he says, reflecting what we all observed during the Iraq war, namely that the MSM became the willing partner in a propaganda war waged by head chopping terrorists.

The third segment features Lindsey Graham, Republican Senator from South Carolina, part of whose comments I have covered above; Mark Udall, Democrat Senator from Colorado; and Norm Orstein, of the American Enterprise Institute, which must surely piss off CBCer, Jian Ghomeshi. Surely one of the highlights of this part must be the joke told by Mr. Orstein at the beginning of the session.

Segment four features Vic Toews, Canada's Minister of Public Safety and John Manley, former Deputy Prime Minister. One of the last questions asked by a member of the audience raises the issue of political correctness. I wasn't especially thrilled with the answer given by either of the gentlemen to whom it was directed, although Toews described police and government relations with ethnic communities which is encouraging.  But the specific question of political correctness was more or less sidestepped by both of them, I dare say, even flirted with.

Segment five deals with NATO and features Gen. Stéphane Abrial, NATO Supreme Allied Commander for Transformation (NATO is examining its future role in the world); Canadian Defense Minister, Peter MacKay; Condoleezza Rice, former U.S. Secretary of State and National Security Advisor and Murat Mercan, Turkey's foreign affairs committee chairman.

Section six features Premvir Das, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, India; Masafumi Ishii, a Japanese ambassador involved in international security policy and Admiral James Winnefeld, NORAD commander.

Section seven is an interview with U.S. Senator John McCain.  Section eight, which deals with the use of armed forces in disaster relief, features Gen. Walter Natynczyk, Chief of Canadian Defence Staff; the editor-in-chief of a major newspaper and a Pakistani television service and Gerald Martone, Director of humanitarian affairs for the NGO International Rescue Committee.

Section nine, the last session, includes the Belgian Defence Minister; a former U.S. national security advisor; the president of the Palestinian Economic Council for Development and Reconstruction and Said Tayeb Jawad, former Afghanistan ambassador to the United States.

See. I told you they were big guns.

And here's some of the other bits CBC chose to highlight (emphasis mine): Canada's Afghan mission might be extended

"The Harper government is considering a proposal that would keep hundreds of Canadian troops in Afghanistan until 2014 in a non-combat, training role, The Canadian Press has learned.

The move would extend Canada's military presence in Afghanistan three years past the July 2011 withdrawal deadline set by Parliament, but would remove troops from the front lines of fighting."

[---]

"Well-placed sources have told The Canadian Press they expect Prime Minister Stephen Harper to make a decision soon on a proposal that would send up to 600 troops to Kabul to continue NATO training efforts. The Canadian personnel would not be involved in combat operations."

[---]

"John Manley, the former Liberal deputy prime minister who headed Harper's independent panel on Afghanistan, confirmed in an interview that he had been briefed on the proposal. He said the training mission is a good fit for Canada after so many hard years of fighting in Kandahar."

Apparently, the CBC does not remember their own story from less than a year ago:

"The government has insisted Canada's military mission will end in 2011. But its ministers and staff — including Defence Minister Peter MacKay — have suggested Canadian soldiers could remain in Afghanistan beyond that deadline, though perhaps not in combat."

Nor do they have a clue about the difference between combat and development nor do they get it that for development to be successful, security needs to prevail.

Look. I know the value of the money we give you declines as the cost of living goes up and I know you have had to make do with whatever amount parliament decides you should get.  I also know you have a union which believes you are entitled to more and more of our money, but perhaps you should get out of the news reporting business altogether. Face it. You're not doing a good job of it.

And by way of illustration, here's another: 'Masked man' did not use Aeroplan ID: airline

"Public Safety Minister Vic Toews appeared to downplay the incident Saturday at an international security forum in Halifax.

He said that aside from the silicone mask, there was nothing unusual about the case, which came to light after CNN obtained a copy of an internal alert by the Canada Border Services Agency.

"In this particular case, as a result of a leak to a news agency, it became public knowledge," Toews said."

You can hear for yourself exactly what Toews said (Day 2, Panel 2 at the second site). He is answering a well framed question from the BBC journalist. His answer lasts two minutes and five seconds and goes into much greater depth about the procedures, which are common to all security agencies, government ministers and department heads, than CBC's little snippet would indicate.  He even suggests that intelligence about possible terror plots is something that these agencies deal with almost on a daily basis, and only the most critical ones, those requiring Ministerial briefing and direction, are brought to his attention.  It reminds me of the leftie media's fixation with the infamous "seven minutes", during which President Bush was supposed to have resolved the crisis immediately following the collapse of the twin towers on 9/11.

Moreover, CBC seems to have missed a larger issue, namely, leaks to the media endanger real people. The "masked man" presumably has family and others in China, who may very well be facing some unsavoury consequences because of that leak. Do you care, CBC?  You did the same thing with the Wikileaks documents and invited your leftie fans to pour over them to find savoury bits.

But over and above that, CBC seems to have missed the larger point of the conference, namely that military responses, while necessary, cannot be the only way to respond to terrorism. Development is also important, but the tremendous challenges of providing aid and development in backward nations, especially in failed states where there is no government, are very serious impediments. It's almost as if the entire purpose of the conference is, to them, the proverbial "elephant in the room".

We all know the CBC has a left leaning bias, but is our Grandmother's Corpse staffed with intellectual midgets? Yeah, I know. There's not much difference between the two.

Stay tuned. I'll have more.

Dinesh D'Souza Squares Off

...with two miserable, bitter, self-loathing, self-important old sourpusses:

Poor CBC

It must have really hurt to report this.

More Razor Edged Clarity from Bill Whittle

Hell No. We Won't Go...

...there.

Drop war-resister policy: rights activists

Amazingly, the CBC comments section is almost entirely against the "rights activists" position. Or at least the first few pages are. I haven't read them all.

For all you younger folk and older deluded ones, the Vietnam war draft dodgers were not in the American armed forces. There was a draft. They had received a letter ordering them to report for duty. Do you understand the difference? Apparently not.

Oh, and the title of this post is a slight variation on the 60's anti-war movement slogan "Hell no. We won't go." That's right. "We won't go." They weren't in a theatre of war. They were refusing to obey the order to sign up.

There is no draft today. All members of the American armed forces today volunteered to serve. They weren't ordered to join the armed forces.

These weasels think that their oath means nothing. Send them back. All of them. Our boys are dieing in Afghanistan and that gives me the right to spit on you.

And by the way, didn't anybody tell you before you volunteered that war is hell? The naive and yellow-bellied are not welcome in our country, not as long as we have a volunteer force ourselves, who are willing to lay down their lives for our country and our allies.

Go fuck yourselves.

PS: Okay. Finished reading all 112 of them although there will probably be a lot more before they close comments. I didn't actually count them, but I'm pretty certain a large majority are opposed to allowing the "war resisters" to stay in this country. Most are arguing they broke the law and should be treated as criminals, which renders them inadmissible to Canada.

Must Read for This Morning

Muslim Brotherhood Declares War on American: Will America Notice?