A Christmas Message

By the age of five almost every child knows the Christmas story of the baby in the manger. Many people from devout Christians to Agnostics celebrate Christmas with the understanding that December 25th is set aside to hail the birth of Jesus. We know Him to be the saviour of mankind, and for those who earnestly seek an understanding of the Christ Child, we accept the gift that God has freely given as our Saviour with the clear understanding that Christmas Day harkened the arrival of forgiveness of not only our sins but of our sinful nature.

This message is for many the hardest pill to swallow, in light of the fact that the world we know is and always has been in a state of sinful chaos as far back as man has recorded history.

The month of December has seen thus far four more Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan as a result of a war started in 2001 when a group of terrorists attacked an internationally occupied structure we knew as the twin towers. For at least 103 Canadian families this Christmas will be a bitter celebration as they look across the table and see an empty plate set for their fallen loved one. Many Canadians see their sacrifice for nothing, with no benefit for Canada as a nation or any individual Canadian. The fact is that no Canadian, politician, soldier or mother wants to see even one soldier die in action for no just cause. For many including myself, 2011 cannot come any sooner. We will breathe a sigh of relief the day our troops withdraw from that war torn country.

But are Canadian soldiers dying for nothing? Jesus’ birth was foreseen by the Hebrew’s 800 years before Jesus was born. In Isaiah 9:6 we read “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”

The middle east has always been in some form of conflict. Their history shows that oppression has always held the peace loving people of the east in either terror or fatal conflict. Almost every army has had a piece of the region. Interesting how Isaiah, a Hebrew prophet would describe the messiah as a “Prince of Peace,” a phrase we today use in describing Jesus. The fact is that as far back as history records, the people in the middle east looked for a saviour from death, oppression, occupation and war They are still looking today.

But Jesus did not grow up to be the war General many wanted him to be. Over thirty years later, when Jesus rode into Jerusalem on the back of a burro, people once again hailed Him as the Messiah expecting Him to raise a powerful army and drive the Romans out of the region and take the seat power from the corrupt King Harod. But instead, Christ taught peace, tolerance and salvation.

The same people that hailed Him as the messiah one day, turned on Him the next and called for his blood. His arrest, torture and execution is a matter of history. At that time His followers did not fully understand why he died. To many, his death was senseless and all for nothing. People did not see the direct benefit of Christ’s death on the cross for their nation, their family or themselves.

That was just the point. Christ died for what appeared to many to be a worthless cause. He died for people that did not know Him. He died for a war that was started by others. He died for actions that were so unforgivable that no man, king or army could turn the other cheek. He died for the shame that each person heaps on their soul. A shame that eats away at the very fabric of man and changes people in ways that hurt others. He died so that this life here on earth has true meaning. He died to save and give people hope.

For those 103 Canadian soldiers who fought and died and to those who will die, they do so for people that do not know them They do that for people they owe nothing to. They died to free those people who carry shame, who live in despair, who turn against them in actions that are truly unforgivable by man. They died to save and give those people hope.

This Christmas when we remember the birth of our Saviour Jesus, we remember that the baby wrapped in swaddling would one day die for the sinful actions of others. He frees the burdens for those would seek an understanding of Him and see who He really is. To sacrifice is not only brave but demonstrates love beyond simple understanding. This Christmas set out an empty plate for a soldier who through the love for mankind has died so others can live.

Armchair Accountability

The public has come accustomed to lip service by the people we pay to do a job. You hear it daily on radio and read it in newsprint. Lip service by definition is just that, phrases used by public servants to give the public the false impression that they are getting their money’s worth. Years ago when I was a police officer we had another phrase for it. It was ‘BBB’ or “bullshit baffles brains!”

A great example of this was reported in the December 1st issue of the Edmonton Journal. The story titled “Cease Fire Eyed for Hobbema” featured the RCMP’s plan to initiate a crime prevention program originally developed in Chicago IL, to fight gang related crime. The RCMP, in recognizing the increase of violent gun crime caused by gang activity on the First Nations Reserves, have looked into bringing “Operation Cease Fire” to Hobbema.

The First Nations Bands of Samson, Erminskin, Louis Bull and Montana have reported gun related crimes at an alarming rate over the past three years. To the RCMP’s credit, they recognize that they need a method of dealing with the victims, the public and offenders of these crimes. In response to this initiative, Kim Misik, a spokeswoman for Alberta Justice was reported as saying “If they come up with an idea for crime prevention, then we’re more than happy to hear about it.” The story concluded with that statement. To the casual reader the story showed that the police are doing their jobs and the government has responded.

All is well, right?

I say nay, nay! Hats off to the RCMP but ‘poo-poo’ to the Solicitor General’s Public Security Division. The simple fact that the P.S.D. appears to just sit around and wait for the police to offer up to the cop-gods solutions to serious short comings in the safety of the public is in direct conflict with the Police Act. Under the Police Act the Solicitor General responsibilities and accountably to the public is clear. According to the Solicitor General’s own website, “In Alberta, the provincial Solicitor General and Minister of Public Security ensures safe communities. Under the Police Act the minister must maintain adequate and effective policing services.”

The Police Act places a statutory obligation on the Solicitor General to ensure that there is adequate and effective policing and that standards are met. This would, by definition, include examination and the study of the violent crime out in Hobbema. It would include a pro-active role in developing or even finding crime prevention programs to assist the RCMP in meeting policing standards in any given community. This would not allow for the Solicitor General to issue a statement of “If they come up with an idea for crime prevention, then we’re more than happy to hear about it.”

You better be more than happy to hear about it! Perhaps we should be giving the salaries of the Public Security Division over to Hobbema RCMP detachment. They appear to be doing the P.S.D.’s job! The situation in Hobbema is clearly the P.S.D.’s responsibility to study, investigate, analyse and to develop, implement and carry out a solution to correct the problem. It is the responsibility of the P.S.D. to, through pro-active solutions, restore good order in the community. Anything less amounts to a failure to carry out the statutory obligation imposed by the Police Act and by the Constitution in placing the administration of justice with the Province, as it addresses the division of powers. I truly hope that the Solicitor General is not satisfied with the level of performance we now see in the Public Security Division.

This level of performance by the P.S.D. has also been demonstrated in the past two years as we witnessed small communities entering in appended agreements with the RCMP under the title of ‘Enhanced Policing’. One example was the Town of Millet funneling tax dollars to the RCMP for an additional Constable to patrol the streets. Like many communities, Millet has a concern regarding preventative patrols and response to several issues arising in their community.
To combat this, last year the Millet Town Council had entered in a three year agreement with the RCMP to provide an additional police officer for public safety. This should have at least raised the hackles of the towns folk, but since the Solicitor General’s Public Security Division had no issue with it, why not?

Once again I say nay nay. Why should the Town of Millet be put into a position of paying additional tax dollars for policing? Section 4(1)(b) of the Police Act states “As part of providing provincial policing services generally, every town, village and summer village that has a population that is not greater than 5000, shall, receive general policing services provided by the provincial police service at no direct cost to the town, village, summer village, municipal district or Métis settlement” Does the term ‘general policing services’ imply inadequate or ineffective? Thankfully, the Town of Millet approved to withdraw from this agreement in their last council meeting.

The tax payers of Alberta has been for too long allowing our public servants like the Solicitor General’s Public Security Division to function at a level that does not prevent victims, over-burdens law enforcers, and cost tax dollars that by law should not be required. It’s time the Solicitor General put people in position that have the abilities to carry out their duties and an understanding of their responsibilities to the citizens of Alberta.

A Beer Hall Putsch

“History is being made,” is a point made by one blogger. The NDP and Liberals have agreed to form a coalition government that will include the Bloc in order to take over the reigns of government from the ‘evil’ hands of Stephan Harper. It has only been a month since the election, which gave the conservative government 19 additional seats. The left-winger is cringing their hands in anticipation of their favourite people Stephan Dion and Jack Layton spooning their way into power. Knowing full well that the country does not endorse Dion, they opened the political crypt and dusted off Ed Broadbent and John Chrétien to show the people they have leadership.

The average Canadian is watching in disbelief as the coalition of losers has plotted to overthrow the government. What is taking place is by definition a Coup d’etat, “a sudden and decisive change of government illegally or by force.” The rest of the world, if they are watching, is seeing political instability in Canada that will affect foreign investment, a move that is at best ill advised in the light of global financial instability. Canada, until the lefties started to plan this putsch, has the strongest economy of all the G7 nations.

How does Harper get such a bad reputation in the east?
The liberal media, so prevalent in the east, rarely gives a right-wing government room to grow. One of the best examples is a Globe and Mail piece written last week by columnist Scott Reid. In his editorial he refers to Harper as, “Stephen Harper is the most dangerous animal lurking in the jungles of Parliament. He doesn’t play to win. He plays to conquer. Under his guidance, the public interest is always subjugated to his personal political advancement. And he poisons Parliament with an extreme, bare-fanged breed of partisanship that has no hope of repair until he is banished.” Reid goes onto addressing the upcoming coalition directing them to. “Their imperative could not be clearer: kill him. Kill him dead. Do not, whatever you do, provide him with an opportunity to extend his hold on power. Because you can be damn certain he will never again be so reckless as to give you a chance to finish him off.”

These are direct quotes from an editorial entitled, “Why the opposition can’t back down now” The real scary thing is that Mr. Reid is typical of liberal minded folks of the east. Bloggers, chat rooms and the like are chock full of liberals using similar language when expressing their view of the conservative government.

But lets us call the coalition what it is. This is a selfish move to grab power. It is a slap in the face of the democratic procedure of elections. It is a way for the leaders of the NDP and Liberals to set aside the wishes of Canadians and exchange that for the power ambitions of both Layton and Dion.

If this coalition succeeds in taking power we will have Dion as the Prime Minister, Layton as the Minister of Finance with the likes of Broadbent and Chrétien as advisors. The NDP have never held power, in Canada because the people do not want the socialist policies of that party. The Liberals lost the confidence of the people in the last election because they proved that they do not have the leadership to steer the country. The generous increase of electoral seats for the Conservatives was a tip-of-the-hat to Harper and the Conservatives that Canadians are showing more confidence in a leader that has not spoken from both sides of his mouth.

Some nay sayers will point out that the coalition came about as a lack of confidence in Harper as a result of him abandoning a proposal to end public subsidies to political parties, a subsidy that is only designed to pad a political parties ability to sway the masses using tax dollars.

The CBC reported on the night of the election when it became obvious that the Conservatives would be forming another minority government, that the NDP and Liberals will be forming a coalition. This showed that the ambitions of Dion and Layton are put ahead of the interest of our country. It is obvious to the clear thinker that the Liberals take the title, “Naturally Governing Party,” to heart as this Coup d’etat was planned from the offset and they were only looking for an opening.

The Globe and Mail columnist Scott Reid was the former communications director for liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin. His editorial is a window into the mind of the coalition. He stated, “The coalition must be ruthless. Be quick to signal that if Mr. Dion can’t win the confidence of his own party, or the country, an alternative will be identified before the vote in the House. This is a rare moment in political history. A prime minister has been foolish enough to sacrifice control over his destiny to others.”

That type of language was heard in 1923, “You can see that what motivates us is neither self-conceit or self-interest, but only a burning desire to join the battle in this grave eleventh hour for our German Fatherland ... One last thing I can tell you. Either the German revolution begins tonight and the morrow will find us in Germany a true nationalist government, or it will find us dead by dawn!” (Adolf Hitler, The Beer Hall Putsch.)

Harpers only fault in this debacle is giving the opposition as much rope as they need.

Die Englische Sprache

Can you relate? You are sitting in your father’s living room watching the evening news. All of a sudden, your father clenches his raised fist and yells, “That’s not how you say it!” The word is “Auspice’ not Ass…….ss!” Your father gets up and starts to write a letter to the TV station manager. Thirty minutes later he emerges with a smile saying… “I faxed it!”
This is not a fictional account. In the last six years my Pops has made a point of taking on the badge of ‘English Language Enforcer,’ identifying the media offenders on radio, TV and newsprint. A single word can send my Pops into a rant that causes the family to bow their heads in capitulation.

Like an episode of “All in the Family” my Pops and I get into a tense discussion on the English language. My position is that English is a living language with new words and expressions salting speech in an ever-evolving process, and his position is that a language is static. Words don’t change, only people pervert the spoken word. But my Pops position is one that has been instilled by his heritage, since he was raised in a two-language family. His mother and father’s native tongue was German and my father as well as his siblings all learned German in their youth.

So why is this an important fact?
German is the second largest language on the planet, closely followed by Russian. German has 185,000 words, with Russian holding onto to third place with 130,000 words. With that many words to its credit, a German game of “Kratzen” should be a cakewalk. The interesting part is that Germans do not add many words yearly to their language. So to a man of German heritage there may be only one way of expression, depending on what the topic is.

English is a beast that cannot be tamed!
English is a language that has 616,500 words with over 1,000 words added to it every year. Many of these words come to us from other languages, and more are added because of how they are used. “Ain’t, ain’t in the dictionary” is no longer a statement of fact. This example demonstrates how English is a living language, with new words and expressions salting speech in an ever-evolving process.

This simple fact should not leave one aghast, alarmed, amazed, appalled, astonished, bewildered, blown away, bowled over, confounded, dumbfounded, electrified, flabbergasted, flummoxed, overwhelmed, shocked, startled, stunned, stupefied, surprised, taken back, or thunderstruck at this capacious cornucopia we call the English language.

Canadians have a unique English experience. English Canada was founded on the Queen’s English, which is spoken by only 16% of all the English speakers in the world today. In contrast, are the ‘twisters’ of the language our American cousins to the south, who strongly influence Canada through Television, Radio and Newspapers. Over 66% of English speakers use American English in their written and spoken word.

By the end of the 21st century, the Queen’s English will have bit the dust, bought the farm, breathed its last breath, came to an end, cashed in its chips, deep-sixed, expired, gave up the ghost, kicked off, kicked the bucket, lay with the lilies, permanently changed its address, sprouted wings, took the dirt nap, went belly up, went to his final reward, punctuated its last period. In short, it may die.

The Americans have invaded the purity of the English that was taught in the classroom 50 years ago and it started long before that nation was formed. Because the English language is made up of 300 other spoken tongues, with the users of our language changing words yearly in contravention of the rules your grade three English teacher laid out.

One example of how our American cousins have changed the Queen’s English, is that at the end of World War II, according to Sir Winston Churchill, the Allied leaders nearly came to blows over the use of a single word during their negotiations, when some diplomats suggested that it was time to “table” an important motion. This small word, to the Canadians and British meant for the motion to be put on the table for discussion. But to the Americans it meant just the opposite. It means to put-off the motion to a later meeting. To anyone today who have served on a committee or a board, we now understand the term “to table” in the same way the Americans do. It took less than 50 years for us to toss out a snippet of the Queen’s English usage of a word.

Has English changed more since then?
So, when you are watching the news on TV and your father jumps from a daze and mumbles some incoherent insult at the News Anchor, remember that it will only get worse, devalue, degrade or rot away, … you get the picture.

Will You Die For Me?

You’ve seen it in motion pictures, the dramatic scene, arm stretched out as one lover asks the other, “Will you die for me?” Your hand is probing the popcorn and at that moment you hear a whimper to your right. You then notice that the gal who came to the theatre with you is sobbing, but nary a tear rolls down yours. It’s just a movie, no loss.

Have you ever walked up to a perfect stranger and looked them straight in the eye and say, “Will you die for me?” Or better yet, say to someone you don’t know, “I will die for you.” What you may get is a very strange look and depending on the situation, a visit from a white shirt. But then again, those are only words, and as the old maxim is “Actions are stronger than words.”
This whole preamble sounds absurd at best, but that is exactly what every citizen of Canada asks each soldier sent into a war zone. In the World Wars the threat was pretty clear. World War II saw a Nazi Germany threaten the entire world with policies that would have seen people without white skin, blonde hair and blue eyes either enslaved or killed at the hands of those following a murderous leader. That war saw over 14 million allied troops die to prevent the German, Italian and Japanese forces from fulfilling a final solution on our soil.

Those who lived and breathed in Canada between 1938 and 1945 not only asked the soldiers to die for them but also conscripted those same soldiers into service. Many hugged their loved ones for the last time, stepped on a train never to be seen alive again.

But before that soldier died for you and I, they endured a terrifying existence and by all definitions acted with resolve and fearless determination. The old saying that there are no atheists found in the trenches has special meaning to the solder being shot at, and knowing that the true enemy is encroaching on his position. Death is near, and as that same soldier jumps from his position of virtual safety, those same words are pumping through is heart, “I will die for you.”

The soldiers today fighting in Afghanistan know all to well that the call to duty is not a frivolous one. The threat from terrorism that ignited that war 8 years ago is a clear and present danger. No other time in history has the enemy walked on North American soil and orchestrated the deaths of our citizens. Canadians as well as Americans died at the handy work of those people whose goal is to thrust a final solution on our soil. The Canadian soldiers who have died fighting in Afghanistan knew all too well that the bullets flying overhead were from an enemy who is encroaching on his position. Our Canadian soldier jumps from his position of safety with that same mission statement of “I will die for you.”

The word sacrifice gets thrown about in many ways in our society today. Like many words, the true etymology of the word is lost on a generation where they consider the mundane with lofty expressions like awesome, fantabulous, and bodacious. Sacrifice has been lowered to mean the loss of ones time. It has been taken to a level where it is more of a word expressing numerical value instead of surrendering a life for the sake of others.

With every sacrificial death in battle, the family laid their son before the Alter of Society of which the ripple effect prevents the birth of grandsons and granddaughters whose contributions to society can never be measured. This is the true nature of sacrifice. November 11th is just one day we set aside for the remembrance of those lost in battle and those who served unselfishly to secure the leisure, free life we so much enjoy. The sacrifice was not only those who fought for freedom but is also the sacrifice of the soldier’s family, for those are the people who truly feel the cost of sacrifice.

Today with the world in constant conflict and Canada stepping from the gallery onto the stage, let us not just put one day aside to think of our soldiers present and past. It’s time we started to show our veterans and current serving military that we truly respect, care and love them. It is time that we should all understand that when a soldier steps onto the battlefield that soldier looks us all in the eyes and says, “I will die for you!”

Stupid is as Stupid Does

By the time you read this, the U.S. election will be over. It seems that over the past um-teen months we have been bombarded with media hype advising us who is more stupid than the other guy. Polls over the last couple of weeks put the Obama/Biden camp ahead of the McCain/Palin camp almost 2 to 1. It appears as though the USA no longer has the stomach for the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, or the human rights violations of the Bush administration and right wing politics in general. If everything went as the pundits predicted the world now has Obama as the President of the U.S of A. But then again, stranger things have happened.

Sarah Palin is just too folksy for her own good.
What probably hurt the McCain campaign was a telephone call from Canada. By now we have all heard about the prank telephone call made from Montreal radio station CKOI comedians, The Masked Avengers. These two notorious fellows impersonated President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy. The conversation, which lasted nearly 7 minutes long, exposed Palin as being ignorant of international politics, made her sound like a blushing schoolgirl talking to a rock star, and exposed her as not being a good listener.

Typical of our impression of the average American, Palin missed the prankster referring to the Prime Minister of Canada as being Stef Carse, a Quebec pop star. She missed Johnny Halladay, another French pop-icon being referred to as the U.S. adviser to France. Other points of embarrassment was Palin missing the prankster referring to ‘his’ wife as being good in bed, and appreciating the ‘documentary film’ “Nail ‘in Palin” made by Hustler magazine. Palin on all these points sounded like she was ignoring some of the risqué moments, only being flattered by his call, and showing interest in the caller.

In essence, Palin sounded like she had just received a telephone call from her idol, and was quite star struck. But one must at least admit that the Quebec caller spoke very fast with a thick French accent, switched from broken English to French during the call, and interrupted Palin at every turn in order to keep her off guard.

This call from Canada exposed Palin in a way that no political candidate would want to be. It showed that she is not internationally aware of her neighbours to the north, nor has she developed the guarded political stance that one would expect from a person of experience holding the Vice-Presidency office. It also showed that her campaign office is as folksy as she is. They in no way vetted the caller. But the fact that this call came from Canada in no way should make us proud.

Most politicians seeking office are not ‘fully aware’.
Take for example eight years ago when George W. Bush was running for office. CBC comedian Rick Mercer in his “Talking to Americans” segments stops Bush and advises him that Prime Minister Jean Poutine would endorse him. Bush replies, “He understands I want to make sure our relationship with our most important neighbour to the north of us is strong and we’ll work closely together.” Did Bush missing the faux-paux of our leaders name make his statement invalid, or even make him invalid? Just like Palin’s gushing over meeting the President of France on the telephone and missing the names spoken in a foreign accent make her inappropriate for office. Her casual approach to the prankster simply points out that she appreciated meeting President Nicolas Sarkozy via telephone.

When these people run for high office, the campaign road is intense. They talk to what could be thousands of individuals approaching them for a comment, quote or just to get a piece of them. For most people who run for office, all they would hear is, “Prime Minister…… Canada ….says..” Their response would be one of many that they used throughout the campaign. The point being is that they hear the title and not necessarily the name. Its their response that completes the joke. In the Palin call, the distorted accent didn’t help her.

But is Canada targeting active American Campaign candidates appropriate behaviour?
Shock radio is not a new thing. People enjoy listening to talk show hosts banter about politics, and poke fun at people they tend to disagree with. Palin was the perfect target, but a target that should have been left to an American Radio Station hands. The “Masked Avengers” from Quebec have not only tampered with a foreign election, they brought shame on themselves and maybe Canada.

Yes, talking to Americans and exposing their ignorance of Canada can be fun. But our style of humour has lasting consequences in places we have no business being.

Guilty by Profiling

Many American films of the 1980's portrayed scenes where travelers in the Soviet Union would be stopped by officials and asked, "Your papers! Show me your papers!" The frightened traveler would fumble as they produced travel papers, which included name, birth date and gender. These movies would portray the worried traveler being checked at least three times by the KGB before leaving the airport or boarding the plane. Movie goers here in Canada could bask in democratic arrogance because under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms we have the protection that, “The restriction of freedom has reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

Just how does a society ever degrade to that level of a police state?

Under the former liberal federal government, the Public Safety Act 2002 authorized the establishment of the "Canadian No Fly List," a secret growing list of Canadian citizens and permanent residents compiled by CSIS and the RCMP. This list identifies people who these two organizations deem to be "suspected" of being capable of endangering airline security. This list is maintained as a directive under the "Passenger Protect Program" which is under the umbrella of Transport Canada.

In the post 9/11 world, it sure sounds like the government is protecting it citizens!

But what you may not know is that this list can contain anyone who this small group deem a threat based on 'intelligence' information. They have the ability to profile and list people. This list is then made computer accessible for airport security when you pick up your boarding pass. If your name, birth date and gender matches, security is required to contact the police and the Minister of Transport. The police are then required to take action. Furthermore, the person on the list is not allowed any disclosure as to why they are on the list. Their only recourse is to appeal to the ominous sounding "Office of Reconsideration."

What this sounds like, is a chapter from George Orwell’s novel “1984.” Can this really be taking place in Canada?

Consider the case of 26 year old, Hani Al Telani, a permanent resident who is enrolled in Montreal’s Concordia University studying Computer Engineering. Last June, Al Telani checked-in at Montreal's airport after purchasing return tickets to Saudi Arabia in order to visit is mother and father. His vacation ended before it started, when he produced his I.D. papers at the ticket kiosk. The airline employee refused to tag his bags. While waiting, a Transport Canada official arrived and handed him an ‘Emergency Direction’ that declared him an “Immediate Threat to Aviation Security." In a sworn affidavit, Al Telani has declared that he is not a threat and he has no criminal record to indicate that he a danger.

Authorities refuse to disclose why he is on the list and what criteria they use to determine him a threat. Al Telani has now been publicly portrayed as dangerous and he is now looked at as a Saudi National who is considered a terrorist by Canadian authorities. Worse yet, this young man is unable to leave Canada by air. The only way back to Saudi Arabia to see his parents is by boat.

The “No Fly List” is something that has been adopted by other countries and first suggested by the US Department of Homeland Security. The USA has their own “No Fly List” and according to the US Government Accountability Office, more that 30,000 travelers have been falsely associated with terrorism when attempting to board a plane.

As an example, in January of 2006, U.S. fighter planes intercepted an Air Transat flight to Mexico because it was carrying a Canadian citizen of Lebanese origin who was on the U.S. “No Fly List.” Al Telani was our first “No Fly List” person targeted and our first case of false identification under this program.

This policy of giving a small group of ‘intelligence' officers the power to profile Canadian citizens to separate them as terrorist without due process of law, is a blatant violation of our chartered rights and freedoms. Canadians do not need the protection of a “No Fly List” as the Criminal Code of Canada already gives authorities the ability to arrest and detain suspects who they believe upon reasonable and probable grounds, that they are about to commit an indictable offense, such as a terrorist act. To just suspect that someone is a threat based on shoddy intelligence such as his or her religion, race, or where they were born is abhorrent to human sensibilities. We should all be outraged!

But, when I talked to one lady last week and disclosed this policy to her, the immediate reaction was, “That won’t affect me or my family.” That was obvious because this lady is a white female of Christian heritage.

We should all be reminded that just because a person is Islamic, darker skinned, Lebanese, Saudi, Afghani or from Iraq, by all probability they are not born terrorists. Looking for the bogyman in every corner of our society make us all Xenophobes and reeks of McCarthyism.

With the federal election just concluded, it is time that we remind those who we elected into
office to undo some injustices. The “No Fly List” is an unacceptable and unfair profiling policy that turns Canada into a quasi-policestate.

Perhaps Mr. Harper should add this ‘program’ to his justice reform efforts.

If the Harper government neglects the reformation of this program, it may give future Prime
Ministers something to apologize for.

The Enabler

‘Kids will be kids,‘ can be heard coming from the mouth of a person in authority, when discovering some young’uns have caused damage in your neighbourhood. It tends to be used to trivialize a problem, so that the victim will not insist on affirmative action. Yes, kids will be kids and things don’t change. All we need to do is wait until they grow up, right? But the problem with that logic is that others follow in their footsteps.

Recent events have brought to the surface a problem of bullying in our schools. Yes, being teased or embarrassed in school tends to be part of growing up, but when it comes to being bullied, the harassment goes beyond teasing, or even humiliation.

By definition a bully is a person who hurts, frightens or torments a weaker or smaller person. The fact is that all schools have bullies and because of their activities, children in our schools will be tormented on or off school grounds. It could happen inside the school, classroom, school yard, school bus and even online in chat rooms and social websites. It will happen anywhere a bully has the ability to make contact with their intended target or can manipulate others to do their bidding. But the interesting point is that a bully is not necessarily just a child or even a teenager. Bullies tend to grow up into adults and the behaviour continues into their workplace.

When the school bully confronts a child, the first thing the target of his or her aggression looks for is someone to intervene. But when no help comes, in many cases the victim keeps quiet, stewing in their humiliation because they may feel nothing will be done. The attitude and policy of the individual school can create an atmosphere that conveys to the victim, “keep quiet, they will just blame you, or worse, call you into the principals office.” How a teacher or administrator deals with the victim or the bully, goes a long way in preventing the behaviour from continuing. It can either convey to the school body that bullying will not be tolerated, or that bullying is condoned, or that it is just part of the school culture.

A 2006 study by the Government of Saskatchewan on bullying in schools, revealed some interesting facts. Former S/Sgt. George Anderson of the RCMP, when interviewing one teacher stated, “If a school tells you that they don’t have a problem they are lying.” The study showed that 71% of teachers said they usually intervene with bullying problems but only 25% of students report that teachers intervene. This is a clear indication that many schools don’t acknowledge or recognize when one of their students is being tormented. In essence, it is a strong indication that the faculty in some schools have become the enabler of bullying.

The effects of bullying can be long lasting, both for those who bully and those who are victimized. It has been shown that bullying behaviour during childhood is closely associated with future antisocial behaviour and criminal activity in adolescence and adulthood. Tormented students have reported symptoms of depression, anxiety, loss of self-esteem and occasionally, increased levels of aggressive behaviour. Even worse, where the schools have enabled bullying to thrive, there have been suicides as a result.

In a recent CBC report, Dawn-Marie Wesley, 14, of Mission, B.C., after constant bullying by three girls at school, left a suicide note that said, "If I try to get help it will get worse. They are always looking for a new person to beat up and they are the toughest girls. If I ratted they would get suspended and there would be no stopping them. I love you all so much." Dawn-Marie's younger brother found her in her bedroom where she had hanged herself with a dog leash. Incidents of suicide resulting from bullying are not common, but in more than a few cases in Canada, bullying has lead to the victim using death as a last resort.

It has been eloquently put by one teacher in our district that, “teachers wear many hats. Within the span of one school day we are teachers, counsellors, role models, coaches, supervisors, disciplinarians, nurturers, support systems, tutors, or just friendly faces to our students.” Teachers are also the first line of defence for victims of bullies. With all these hats, it must be recognized that in order to create a positive learning environment for the students, the students must feel safe. When a parent drops their child off at school, they are fully aware that teachers are more than educators. With that much power over their child comes great responsibility, and teachers need the support of not only the parents but also the school system they work in to create that safe environment.

In any case, bullying has been recognized throughout Canada as a serious problem, and it is necessary for each school to actively pursue a solution. It does no one any good to wait until the bully moves on because as we know, ‘kids will be kids’ and when one bully leaves another fills their boots. The problem will not just go away, it needs to be removed.

Disturbing Trend, But who is to Blame?

We are soon off to the polls and according to a recent Elections Canada study conducted on the last federal election turnout, 78% of those between 18 and 25 years old will not be voting. This drop in voter turnout is disturbing but even more concerning is that when asked why the non-voter does not attend the polls, the study revealed 25% were just not interested. With an additional 15% stating that they suffer from ignorance or just had better things to do. But overall, 67% polled provided a negative public attitude towards the system, candidates, or government when expressing a reason for not voting.

So, by our own admission, those who do not vote suffer from apathy, ignorance, anger and indifference when it comes to civic duty. Who is to blame?

I made a point of engaging a few people in their early twenties to test this study out by asking a few questions. What I found was very similar answers to simple questions. When I asked one young lady, “Who is the current Prime Minister of Canada?” I got, “John something.” When I pressed for a full answer I got “John Chrétien, I think.” Taking this further, I asked this gal, “Well, who was the first Prime Minister of Canada?” and this is where things got weird, “It was the John guy.” she said. Once again I pressed for the last name and in a half attempt at deflecting my incredulous look she stated, “The McDonalds guy”, with a chuckle. I said, “OK, I’ll take that answer, it was Sir John Alexander MacDonald.” Now feeling that I had engaged the thinking hemisphere I asked, “Was he Liberal or Conservative?” She was quick to answer “Liberal.” Wanting to gently pat her head saying, “good girl” I corrected her by stating “No, he was Conservative.” I guess the Liberal catch phrase, ‘Natural Governing Party’ must be working.

If this gal was a 12 year old kid staring at a video game during this conversation I would not have been so dumbfounded. But this adult, 8 years into voting age, is a successful businesswoman in Edmonton with real responsibilities. I advised her that I was using her as an example and she implored me to withhold her name. So don’t worry Suzanne, I won’t say a word.

When I was 17 years old, I could not wait until I was old enough to cast my vote. For some reason, I saw it as a rite of passage. It was as important to a hormone rushing teen as getting a drivers license, or hollering “Barkeep, give me another!” It was a moment in a young mans life when the maxim, “Eat the crust, it will grow hair on your chest,” reveals to be truth one morning. Or that moment when you actually need to put a blade into the razor. On election day, I would sit in front of the boob tube and watch intently as the results poured in. At the same time I would be calling my buddy and we would spew anger when we saw Pierre Trudeau standing with his hands clasped together, raised in the air, in victory. Election day was the only time TV was an interactive media experience. So why have things changed?

The Elections Canada study regarding voter apathy only gives reasons for not voting and not the cause. It appears as though there is no simple answer. But if we just look around we can draw a few cursory conclusions.

The first, I believe is that parents don’t engage their children on many topics. Politics only being one of them. The TV has turned into the child mentor and the school system their ethical guidance. The apathy of the parents interaction with the youth translates to the apathy at the polls. As a youth my father talked politics to me and instilled the importance of my one vote carries.

Second, young people have too many distractions coming at them. So much so, that if you stand a young person in a quiet room for 10 minutes their face begins to melt in boredom. They have become a generation of people needing constant input. This is seen in their fascination with cell phones, texting, facebook, ipods, movies, pop idols and video games. They have become a generation of turning inward and tuning out. It is no wonder that ignorance plays into the non-voter.

Third, our political campaigns have turned into a circus. In the old days it was unusual to see federal leaders throw insults at each other. It was business. Ed Broadbent of the Federal NDP and Joe Clark of the Progressive Conservatives were seen as pretty serious politicians. Even without chiselled good looks you got the sense that they were real contenders. They dealt with real topics, real concerns, not allegations of hidden agendas, who’s lighting up with whom, accusations designed to instil fear and anger, instead of engaging civic concern. Its no wonder the non-voter uses anger as a reason for avoiding the polls.

And last, I believe that the diminishing membership of the Service Clubs is a strong indication of civic duty declination. Many good service clubs and fellowships such as the Lions Club, the Loyal Order of the Moose and attendance in a church to name only a few indicate that the younger crowd is not interested in serving their community. It is a strong indication that without civic interaction with other community members the youth are getting disconnected and without conversation with your neighbours they are just not forming any real political opinions or even concern. It is no wonder the non-voter sights indifference to their civic duty of voting.
Yes it is a disturbing trend……but really, are we not all to blame?

Starve'em that'll Learn'em

Last week I sat in disbelief when I read in the Calgary Herald that our Minister of Education addressed the Calgary Chamber of Commerce and suggested to one of the largest business owners groups in Canada to shun high schooldrop-outs.

Dave Hancock suggested that the best way to motivate high school drop-outs to return to school is to just not hire them. He suggests that business owners can help Alberta lower its drop-out rate. “You can help by refusing to hire anyone without a high-school diploma,” said Hancock.
Punish the drop-out, that will teach them! Starve them out! If you have a drop-out working for you tell them to quit and get an education! If your son or daughter dropped out, whether it was recent or even a decade ago, put them on the unemployment line and make them think!

Is this the thinking that our former Attorney General, the ‘peoples attorney’ has? If it is I would suggest that his leather chair in his government office is too soft, and his vision is blurred by heavy cigar smoke. Does he not realize that in Alberta’s recent economic boom that the workforce has been shorthanded? In the past few years some small businesses have either shut down because they can’t hire help, or worse, the long-term employees are breaking their backs doing the work of two people. Not hiring the people who really need a job is not good advice for the Alberta economy.

I was expecting to read responses from journalists all over the province challenging Hancock for his gross short-sightedness. But the issue only got cursory coverage at best. Apparently high school drop-outs have no advocates.

What Hancock may not be aware of is that people drop-out of school for more reasons that just peer pressure or laziness. People have historically been forced from school due to family crisis such as the death of the bread winner, unplanned pregnancy, nervous breakdowns to name only a few.

Hancock’s speech only identified the reasons for a drop-out as greed. He suggests that they are tempted by our oil boom, citing that people are leaving school because they only want the big bucks that Alberta’s Oil Boom will bring. He suggests that after the money fervour is over with the high school drop-out is somehow unworthy of future employment.

I am not advocating people to not finish high school, quite the contrary, but those that have left school find themselves really needing jobs. There are those people, who after experiencing 5 years of reality suddenly find life harder than those who went onto a college or university. As a matter of fact, in Alberta, someone with only a high school diploma is treated much like someone who left school at grade 10.

I would think that a man like Hancock who formally had the position of ‘grand public defender‘, and now has the education interests of our Albertans as a portfolio would come up with a better piece of advice.

His reason for suggesting the shunning was that Alberta has the lowest high-school completion rate in all of Canada. Yet, Statistics Canada reports that Alberta’s drop-out rate has decreased from 15.8% reported in 1993 to 12% reported in 2005, with a national average of 10%. This is a similar trend experienced by all provinces.

Shunning is not what our provincial government should be suggesting. We live in the richest province with the greatest potential. What is needed is dynamic problem solving that would see funding and effort go into retraining programs for adult students. Give business owners incentives to hire those who need the jobs and at the same time motivate those businesses to be flexible with their employees when dealing with workers that are upgrading their educations. What is needed is for Albertans to work together and lift each other up, not tear each other down as is suggested by Hancock.

Do yourself a favour. Hire the person who needs the job. They are the ones that work hard and give you company loyalty. They can also be the type who will not be looking over the fence at every opportunity.

Geez… Edith, stop encouraging Meathead

Everybody sing! 1, and a 2 and a 3..."Boy the way Glen Miller played, songs that made the hit parade, guys like us we had it made, those were the days, and you know where you were then, girls were girls and men were men, mister we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again, didn't need no welfare states, everybody pulled his weight, gee our old Lasalle ran great, Those... were... the... days!"

Did you hear it? Just like “All In The Family” those days have come back. No kidding! CBC has scheduled a Canadian version of the 70’s era show “All in The Family”. The pilot episode will air two evenings. It starts October 1st with the second part on October 2nd. Don’t miss it!
Yes, Archie Bunker, Michael Stivic ‘Meathead’, Gloria Bunker the ‘the Little Girl ‘and Edith Bunker the ‘dingbat’ will all be there. My inside sources tell me that they have been casting that show for nearly three years and have made the selection. The role of Gloria was up-in-the-air because they had a tiff among the cast members whether she should be included. But the arguments from Meathead and a change of heart from ‘the dingbat’ made Archie concede. I am so excited!!

If you remember All in the Family, it was amazing. It was shameless in its political incorrectness. Archie was the power broker of the household. He would come up with some family policy, call a meeting in the living room in front of the TV, and tell everyone where the ‘bears#$% in the buckwheat’ is. We would watch as Gloria, ‘da little goil’ burst in emotions flailing her arms, Meathead seeing an opportunity to berate Archie echoes her sentiment. Archie would tell Gloria to shut up and Meathead would yell at Archie citing freedom of speech under the protection of democracy. “It’s a free country Arch.., you know that!” Sitting in the corner is a confused ‘dingbat’ one hand at her lips, top two teeth exposed with a deer-in-the-headlight look saying, “Who’s going to clean up this mess?”

Yep, they are back, and I will not miss an episode. I love Canada!

Can you see it?
The leadership debate will air Oct. 1st, Stephan Harper is cast as Archie, Michael Stivic is played by Stephane Dion, Gloria Bunker is amply played by Elizabeth May and of course in the corner is Edith Bunker brilliantly played by Jack Layton. What a family it is!

The events of last week was as embarrassing and funny for Canadians as Archie’s family was for Americans. The Conservatives didn’t want May in the debate, because they would marry up with the Liberals only to gang up on Harper. Always holding the balance of power and not knowing what to do with it was Layton supporting May’s exclusion from the debate. The feathers ruffled, and arguments ensued. Edith’s eyes glaze over and after an emotional plea, she sides with meathead and ‘the little girl’.

But rightfully so, the Greens, being a recognized federal party had a right to have their leader participate. All Canadians, whether they like the narrow focus of the Greens or not, knew that it was wrong not to have her there. But the fact that such drama had to occur at the planning stage for CBC is embarrassing to Canadians. The whole thing played out on TV, Radio, and newsprint for all to see. What is going on? What happened to fair play? Why are the people that we hold out as being worthy of our representation acting like a sitcom?

But when it comes to the actual debate it will be a must-see. The concerns of the conservatives and the initial position of the NDP relating to May, I believe, will come true. Anyone that has ever witnessed May speak, knows that she is extremely passionate about the environment to the point that she tends to get emotional. Her emotions can be detrimental to the Greens because she says things that will hurt those candidates running throughout the country. On CHED radio this week they played a sound byte of May referring to Canadians as ‘stupid’. This response was to a question on why there was so little political will for a carbon tax. What is not clear is if she was referring to other politicians thinking Canadians were stupid. There has been some allegations that the sound byte may have been tampered with, but even so, emotions tend to make her use words that can be taken out of context, and as a result, peppers her participation in a debate. We should be all looking forward to interesting moments on CBC.

It will be interesting to see if Harper can deal with three opponents challenging him on his enviromental policies, because with May in the mix, I suspect that the climate of the debate may get off track from time to time. (pun intended)

In any light, the federal election is getting up to speed and by the time the debate is on we will be in full swing. In the end, it really does not matter who wins the debate as long as Archie Bunker goes on to his spin-off. See you all in “Archie Bunker’s Place.”

Hey Steve... Wazzup?

Two weary travelers en route to a dinner engagement walk along a path, seeing a turd before them stop to examine it. After a careful investigation which included verification of its appearance, texture and aroma they satisfy themselves that it is indeed a turd and replace it exactly were it lay, and continue their journey. Thus is a parody of our expectations in the Canadian political landscape.

So I ask, Mr. Harper… Wazzup?
Don’t get me wrong when it comes to my feelings regarding the Federal Conservatives and Mr. Harper I really believe the man has stepped up to the plate. He has made good on promises and has carried himself well before the liberal bias press and the people. He has stood the ground when harangued by the opposition and the nay sayers. In essence until last week I have been proud of Mr. Harper.

With every person that we put on a pedestal the bubble must burst. Bill C-16 which was introduced by Harper, received Royal Assent in May of 2007 putting into place a fixed election date which was intended to prevent a ruling party from manipulating the election process. Did Harper violate this new law?

Bill C-16 as passed, legislates that Canada will have elections every four years and that the people will go to the polls on the second Monday in October of the fourth year. This in essence set the next scheduled election for October of 2009.

It will prevent elections from being called later, like the situations of the past where the ruling party could hold power to five years at a time or even longer. It ensures that we the people can toss out our government every four years. However, it does not prevent the government from calling an early election which is what took place this week. Canada is going to the polls, with under three years of running this country under Mr. Harpers belt. How did he do it?
Well, Bill C-16 provides for the non-elected Governor General the ability to dissolve the government for such things as non-confidence and of course at the request of the Prime Minister which is what actually happened. On Sunday Mr. Harper convinced the Governor General to dissolve the government. Ok, so Bill C-16 is a ‘Fixed Flexible Set Election Date’ law.
We pick it up, check it’s texture, give it a sniff and put it right back into its place. It is what it is.....

Did Mr Harper break the law? No.

Did he do something illegal? No.

Was it the right thing to do? That depends on which side of the fence you are on. But my feeling is no, it wasn’t the right thing to do. Just because an act is legal does not necessarily make it right. The very law that was to be part of the accountability package still did not prevent the ruling party from calling an election to the benefit of that very party. The opposition from the NDP, Liberals and Greens rightfully hollered .. Nay.. Nay!

I, a right wing quasi-redneck born-in conservative voter has to call it as I see it. As much as it hurts me….. “Harper, your off-side!” By all appearance and by all polls, Stephan was getting the confidence of the people. He was making strides in the east, and for the first time since the MulroneyCampbell debacle we have a ‘right winger’ in the office that the people can trust.
Trust is the only thing a leader has when it comes to preventing the grumblings of the people. It is the very thing that makes or breaks political divisions. Trust is the characteristic in human beings that either keeps the peace or the lack of, fires the first volley! Stephan, you have our trust, stop @#$%^&* with it!!

What the federal conservatives did was not so grievous that they cannot get the votes to win the next election. Take a look at what we have to choose from. Each party has its good points and by opinion it’s bad points. So if you are able to vote for the party alone, what the leader of the party does rarely causes a voter to change their colours. But in the case of the swing votes, they are usually based on the popularity factor.

To choose from we have the Liberals lead by Step-on (here comes the green shaft) Dion, the NDP is lead by Jack (just talk to the terrorists) Layton, and the Green Party, Elizabeth (include me in the debate) May. As odd a bed fellows as those four are, and I include Harper in the count, they appear to be a good mix for conducting our business. But what Harper did by calling this early election, thus painting himself with the same brush he painted the Liberals with, is give a foothold to his opposition whether official or otherwise.

So on October 14th when I go to the polls as disappointed as I am, my political colour will not change. But as the many who feel the same way I do, I believe the chink in Harper’s armour, will change the political landscape on October 15th.

And to all the candidates hoping to represent us here locally, I wish them good luck and God speed!

Throw the Bush down the well.

The scene is simple. Clutching the podium with both hands the ‘Dis-cid`er’, as in one who decides, addresses the world on CNN and tells Russia – ‘git out of Georgia!’. ‘We don’t want yur kind here’… "Psst.. George, it’s Georgia, not Georgia," chides his Press Secretary.. "Oh yeah, we’ll get out and respect the freedom of yur neighbors" Bush gives his double neck thrust, you know the ‘I have spoken nod’ and stages left.

‘Throw the bush down the well…..so our country can be free’ should be the new South Ossetia Anthem. As reported in the media, the headlines read, "Bush tells Russia to get out." At first my eyes crossed in disbelief at the sheer hypocrisy.

The masher of Baghdad is giving ethical advise to their old Cold War adversaries, Russia.
But let us not forget that the Russia of today is not the Soviet of yesterday, and the conflict that prompted Russia to enter South Ossetia was first sparked when Georgia attacked, resulting in Russia’s intervention. Georgian President, Mikheil Saakashvili, invaded, knowing full well that
South Ossetia would resist and knowing that his forces would have to take on Russian peacekeepers already installed.

South Ossetia was once formally the South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast with the Georgian
Soviet Socialist Republic, which broke away in the 1990’s after the fall of the Soviet Union. It declared independence from Georgia during the Georgian-Ossetian conflict.

Unfortunately the United Nations have never recognized its independence from Georgia,
which is why the Russian peacekeepers were installed there in order to force South Ossetia
autonomy which they clearly desire.

So why is Bush siding with Georgia? Politics make funny bedfellows. Mikheil Saakashvili is a good politician, a master manipulator.

Gifted in English, French, Russian and Ukrainian, with some command of Ossetian and Spanish, he is a man of international influence. He was born in the former Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1967, he received a fellowship from the United States State Department in 1993, and a Masters of Law from Columbia Law School in 1994. The following year he took classes at The George Washington University Law School. Then in 1995 he returned to Georgia and ran for public office and won a seat in the parliament as a party member of the Union of Citizens of Georgia. By 2001, he would resign from his position in government, declaring his former colleagues corrupt, and formed the United National Movement, a left of center political party similar to the Social Democrats in Europe. By 2004, he was elected President by 96% of the votes cast.

Since his election, he has sought to be a strong ally with the US by supporting the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, with troops. Further, he is actively seeking membership in NATO and the European Union. He has also made movement in reducing former corruption in Georgia and is seen as a social reformer, which is greatly applauded by the US. However, in a speech in January of 2004, two weeks after taking power, he directed his Justice Minister "to use force when dealing with any attempt to stage prison riots, and to open fire, shoot to kill and destroy any criminal who attempts to cause turmoil. We will not spare bullets against these people."

But the man who is known as the youngest national president in Europe, a social reformer with a public distain for old corruption, is quick to pull the trigger when it comes to foreign policy. Before Georgia attacked South Ossentia, U.S. officials warned Saakashvili not to provoke Russian militarily by sending Georgian troops into South Ossetia. Further, the U.S. and Russia have been involved in a struggle for influence in Eastern Europe, which at first glance calls into question the
motivation of the U.S. support of Georgia.

These two positions seem to be in opposition with each other since Georgia’s military entry into South Ossentia was motivated by Georgia’s desire to completely control both North and South Ossetia. If successful, U.S. allies would have gained a greater influence of Eastern Europe through the acquisition of territory.

But when is comes to the foreign policy of our neighbours to the south, we have seen them fulfill their intention through military action. They have publicly bragged that their intelligence community is active in the manipulation of political and social structures of other countries.

These actions usually precede escalated policy implementation. We saw this during the Iraq war and suspected it in the Vietnam Conflict, Mogadishu and other miltary actions. So what is the U.S. supporting Georgia in this conflict?

George Bush has publicly opposed a new US friend by requesting Russia’s removal from the G8 and has publicly ordered all Russia’s troops out of South Ossetia. He has chosen a relationship with Georgia over what can been seen as a more internationally stable relationship with Russia. In doing so, Bush has sought international support for the man, Mikheil Saakashvili. This moves seems fool hardy and maybe even dangerous. One must ask, what does Mikheil Saakashvili have
that Vladimir Putin doesn't?

Answer: American education and American grooming.

The Cost of Hysteria

Have you ever asked the question, what is the cost of hysteria?

To put a value on hysteria one must at least have a good grip on what it is. Hysteria is behaviour exhibiting overwhelming fear or emotional excess. Ask yourself the following. Is there a day that goes by that you do not hear about the environment? If you have not read about it in a magazine or newspaper, you have probably heard about it on a talk show on the radio or TV. Popular personalities such as Oprah, Ellen or Muary Povich have over and over done shows on it. CNN, Fox News, ABC News, CBC and Discovery have all drilled it into your heads. Political types such as Gore, Obama, Clinton, Jack Layton or Stephan Dion have all made it their pet project. In all, you get hundreds of impressions coming at the average ‘Joe’ regarding the environment daily.

For those folks converted to the newest green religion, if you shrug off their concerns they look at you like a leper, or worse a fool. Reduce your greenhouse footprint, is the newest catch phrase.

We are all the enemy of the environment these days. Two years ago livestock was touted as biggest methane polluters, so much so, that some countries have looked into taxing those farmers raising cattle, pigs and sheep. You know, those nasty creatures with rear fleshy exhausts. Put a plug in it is the answer. But then all living creatures spew methane, the second most feared greenhouse gas, second only to carbon dioxide. Should we reduce our own numbers as well? Or tax us all to discourage breeding?

Recently in parliament, Liberal leader Stephan Dion announced that if elected, he was going to impose a carbon tax on all Canadians. He would start by taxing home heating fuels. Sheesh, good thing he didn’t hit us at the pumps, its not like heating your homes is a big deal in Canada!

Can anyone tell me at what point did the focus of pop culture start to run along side Henny Penny and Chicken Little? Why are our governments starting to implement ‘Acorn Policies’? It seems like when the acorn fell on the liberal mind they have been exciting the masses ever since. Hysteria is what we are seeing and it will only cost us in the end ~ pun intended.

The language of the politician is carefully selected to appease the fear in the masses by reinforcing the political lies and at the same time making us all feel so smart and informed. Just after Dion announced his carbon tax plans he stated, “I am convinced that far too many political elites underestimate Canadians. When you speak to the minds and the big hearts of our great people, good policies translate into good politics. In fact, time and time again Canadians have been ahead of their politicians of knowing what is needed.”

Yeah, that’s it! Within 12 hours of Dion‘s speech, someone was probably sitting on a bar stool preaching to the masses how it is good for Canada, the environment and our international obligations to give, give and give more. Do you think that it will stop there?

The costs imposed by the rapid implementation of the global warming hysteria, will hurt our economy. Last week it was the USA announcing that Alberta Oil produces too much carbon dioxide to extract it from our tar sands. In effect, the USA is threatening not to purchase our oil.

This is a direct result of “Acorn Political” pressures caused by the hysteria of global warming science. Is the sky really falling? Yes it is. It is not the environment, it will be our economy. Is the Tar Sands Project important to you and me, the average Albertan? … ah yes!
The truth is that there are a lot more scientists who refute the “human caused” global warming theory. The problem is that when they speak out they are immediately labelled as Big Oil supporters or deniers. There is no consensus on anthropogenic global warming. Nobody even says what the "consensus" is on. It is, at best, a theory and a poor one at that. In short, the earth is warming ever since the last ice age and it will keep warming, but whether that warming is man-made is just the ‘Acorn Politician’ using fear to effect change that they could not accomplish when the masses are happy. For example, global temperature measurements in the ocean over the past five years have shown that the oceans are cooling slightly, and atmospheric global average temperatures for the past 10 years have slightly dropped .555C. This is data that has been tabulated, but pop culture would rather be told that the end is near rather than just sit back and enjoy the weather.

Before the hysteria hit, our Canadian government, whether provincial or federal, (which includes the former Liberal cabinet), where implementing policies and laws to protect the environment, which included all forms of pollutions from gases to solid wastes. These policies were put into motion and have been effective. The fact is that past legislation driven by political processes were weighed based on the results with the overall wellness of our economy. This careful balance seems to be curtailed by the pressures imposed by environmental hysteria, fuelled by those either ill informed, or worse.

It is time to wake up. Click your heels together people and lets get back on solid ground! Make government policies on sound science, not unproven theories. Maybe its time that cooler heads prevail.

Acorn Politics in Action!

A new riding summer is upon us, a year has passed and nothing has changed. I had hoped that we would have seen some dynamic change in our political scope. It would have been good to see more opposition seats for the Alberta conservatives to deal with, but alas, the good old provincial PC party has us in their grip. Don’t get me wrong, I have always swayed to the right but I would have like to see some balance.

They say there are two camps of thinking in politics. On one side there is the right, and the
other the wrong.

That’s not very fair, but the latest news regarding our oil sands situation makes one stand back and drop their heads.

Back in January (2008) the United States passed energy legislation that prohibits federal vehicles from using fuels derived from dirty oil. Dirty oil of course is not oil with lumps in it, its oil that is deemed dirty because of the CO2 emissions as a result of production.

The problem is that the US Federal government doesn’t have their own fuel pumps; they buy
their fuel from the regular pump jockeys. So, any fuel going into the US must be clean. Do
you see what I see?

The only oil source that has recently been slapped by our favorite pet dog KYOTO is crude oil produced in Alberta in the tar sands projects located at Fort McMurray, Alberta and actively produced by SunCore and SynCrude.

That very money pit that has driven our economy for the past 20 years to where we are
paying nhouse values have reached nearly half a million dollars for a bungalow in Edmonton, Alberta, and has made the Edmonton-Calgary corridor the fastest growing economic zone in the world.

KYOTO barks and everyone jumps. Bad dog! Is tar sand oil production spewing so much CO2 into the air to keep the liberal awake at night? Is Alberta the big bad polluter everyone wants to believe?

The truth is that Canada is one of the lowest polluters in the developed world. The US, India
and China are passing more gas into the atmosphere then a bunch of rednecks eating peanuts and beer at a Grey Cup Football party.

No, the real threat is not our dirty oil; the real threat to the US is that they need to convince the sheep that a war in Iraq, and maybe Iran is needed. Yes, the big bad terrorist is the official reason to be there, but many of the power elite in the US has oil interests in the kingdom and they all know that possibly the ‘new’ oil kingdom could be Alberta.

Better use the fervor on Global Warming to ensure that we don’t buy Alberta oil. ‘If we can’t invade Canada to take the resources, lets just use fear created by ‘Acorn Politics’ to boycott Canada.’ When Chicken Little and Henny Penny had that Acorn fall on their head, the sky must have been falling, and they have been running around screaming global warming ever since. Are we experiencing Global Warming or Economic Cooling? Some say both, but the fact remains that there are a lot more scientists who slap down the anthropogenic global warming theory. Problem is that they are immediately labeled as Big Oil supporters or deniers There IS NO CONSENSUS ON ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING! Nobody even says what the "consensus" is on. It is, at best, a THEORY and a poor one at that. In short the earth is warming ever since that last ice age and it will keep warming, but whether that warming is man-made is just the ‘Acorn Politician’ using fear to effect change that they could not accomplish when the masses are happy.

If you want to spoil the economic balance of any operation you have to panic the masses. It’s much like killing the profits of a hatchery, walk into the chicken coop, and yell, ‘Howdy Girls’ at the top of your lungs, after the feathers fly, most of the eggs produced are spoiled.

The truth is that temperature measurements in the ocean over the past five years have shown that the oceans are cooling slightly, and atmospheric global average temperatures for the past 10 years have slightly dropped .555C. This is data that has been tabulated, but pop culture would rather be told that the end is near rather than just sit back and enjoy the weather. This nonsense is what’s allowing powers like the U.S. to use the barking KYOTO to pass laws that are going to hurt you and I economically. The only way out of this is to slap sense into the masses and not spoil our eggs.

I was proud of the Harper government (Canadian) when they took a cool stance on KYOTO, but after pressure from the liberal media, it looks like they are beginning to look more weak minded on the subject. Then there is steady the Alberta Premier, Eddie Stelmach, he surprised us when just last week he stood up and announced that if the US don’t want our ‘dirty’ oil we will sell it elsewhere. You might think that’s a hollow threat, but the likes of China would love our oil, and we have been producing this oil at a rate of up to 1.1 million barrels a day. Is Alberta the new kingdom, mmm maybe!

In any light, it’s a new year, we are dealing with the same crap, the more things change the more they remain the same.