The “Acceptable” Target Group

Can you imagine the outcry if this was directed at any other national group?

Anti-Americanism in Canadian newspapers reflects negatively on Canadians and only serves to create animosity. It is a vile habit of casual insults, slander, and misconceptions that we would not tolerate if directed against any other group. But in the Canadian media, it’s just par for the course.

The Globe can do better than this. They have to do better than this, because of how this reflects on Canadians. And they’d better start soon.

In Light of the Wilders Trial

Even if the trial was just an ordinary procedural matter, it would be on the back of an outrageous law which severely limits the right of free speech. I don’t condone everything Wilders has to say, but his right to say it is fundamentally important to the maintenance of a Western democracy.

Nonetheless, it is fairly obvious that the trial is political. Why else would Harry van Bommel, a  Socialist Party politician in the Netherlands, be allowed to get away with this?

A translation of what the protesters are shouting while van Bommel is calling for intifada?

“Hamas, Hamas, send the Jews to gas.”

Van Bommel claims he didn’t hear the comments, at the protest he organized. I doubt that, as I can hear them clearly on the video, and van Bommel is between the shouters and the camera. He did, and he did nothing to stop them. These comments are significantly worse than anything Wilders has said – so why is Wilders being dragged through the courts, while the anti-Semite van Bommel is allowed to run free?

I am in favour of free speech. I believe van Bommel should be incessantly attacked in public debate, not charged with a criminal offence. But if you do have laws that limit free speech, at least apply them equally.

Fortunately for Wilders, his popularity in the Netherlands has skyrocketed, in part because of the trial.

Miss May

So, it turns out that mere hours after her appearances in protest of prorogation, and the virulent and inaccurate rhetoric of her followers comparing Harper to a dictator, new evidence comes to light suggesting that Elizabeth May is doing her utmost to avoid mandatory leadership reviews. High-ranking critics within the Green Party are suggesting that it is becoming the Elizabeth May Party of Canada. Again, we’ll have to see how this plays out, but if it is true…

Abandoning Neutrality

The Globe and Mail used to be the paper I trusted most for news. Until early this year, the Globe was what I considered to be the most neutral and unbiased source of news in Canada. Over the past year and a half, my personal image of what the Globe stands for has caused me to respect it less and less as a paper. Though I still go there to check up on the news, based on recent decisions I can no longer see it as a neutral or reliable paper. I understand that the Globe has a history of criticizing everyone, especially the incumbents.

Nonetheless, their coverage of prorogation is absurd. Not once in a headline article about prorogation have they mentioned the use of it previously in Canadian history, and detailed how it was used under Chretien, Mulroney, or the eternal darling of the media, Trudeau. But alright, I thought. Their job is to report modern day news, and they are doing that, even though they are ignoring the background of it. Bad journalism, yes, but still acceptable enough.

Then I saw this:

The Globe and Mail Homepage - January 23rd, 2010

A collection of articles and comment submission pages – six, to be exact, with more being linked to around the website – dealing with prorogation. Among these, not one is a factual and balanced analysis of the situation. Every single one is heavily editorially weighted. You have an obituary for thirty-six bills that died on the order paper, including a separate article – designed almost exactly like a Liberal press release – deliberately chosen to drive more and more Canadians against prorogation.

Was it that they weren’t selling enough papers? Or is it the influence of staff? I don’t think it matters. What does matter is the question:The Globe and Mail is supposed to be Canada’s neutral newspaper. But this is simply editorializing, right on page one, to drive readers along their own agenda. Where they should be informing, they are not offering a rational and balanced analysis of the situation, which gives the historical facts, present situation, and motivations of both sides. They used to do that.

I think it is unfortunate that they have abandoned that principle. I will no longer purchase their newspaper, but only continue to read it online. If I pay for my news, I want it to be clear and factual, and as unbiased as it is possible to get. There is a place for editorials, and excellent writers thereof – in the editorial section. That section should not overlap, or should overlap as little as possible, with the reporting of the news.

The Globe and Mail used to be very fair and rational. Worthy of respect. Is a return to that too much to ask?

Canadians – Tough on Crime?

Apparently, the answer is yes. A poll by Angus Reid has just found that far more Canadians today believe that criminals should be punished harshly than they did a mere six years ago. While the vast majority agree that rehabilitation is an important part of preventing crime, and take the sensible position that attempts should be made to prevent crime before it even occurs, the poll also finds an opinion that will be much more surprising to the Canadian left.

That fact is that 62% of Canadians believe that there should be an option to punish murder with the death penalty. While far lower than the 84% that believe so in the United States, and 5% lower than the amount that agree with the statement in Britain, it is a huge increase from the mere 48% of Canadians who supported it in 2004. 31% of Canadians also believe that the death penalty is a suitable punishment for rape.

This rightward swing in Canadian politics isn’t just occurring with respect to crime, either. Only 43% believe that the state should fund abortions when requested, a similar number to July 2008. When asked if abortions should be funded in the case of emergency only, less people said yes. Interestingly, however, their support did not shift to the position that abortions should always be funded, but rather to the position that they should never be funded by the government. Only 3/10 Canadians believe that abortion should be unrestricted.

A conservative-leaning Canada. About time.

Brown wins Senate Seat

Scott Brown (R), a former state senator for Massachusetts, has just been declared the victor in the United States Senate seat in Massachusetts that was formerly held by prominent left-wing Democrat Edward Kennedy. The election, between himself and Martha Coakley (D), was one that Brown was not expected to win. Massachusetts had not sent a Republican to the United States Senate in decades, and Coakley had a strong lead in the polls until recent weeks. Even a last-ditch attempt at a campaign appearance by Obama to salvage her numbers did not produce enough results to stop the upset.

This victory will give the Republicans the crucial vote to stop the Democrat supermajority, meaning that they will no longer be able to force through legislation at will. The election, which Brown cleverly turned into a referendum on government spending and health care, represents a heavy loss for Obama. While this discontent may not yet mean a landslide of Republican victories in the midterm elections, if even Massachusetts goes against the Democrats, they are in deep trouble. Most damning for the Democrats is the voter demographics – independents, who won Obama his Presidency in 2008, abandoned his party in droves, and proved to be the decisive factor in a state where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by 3-1.

This victory for the right in America will give Obama a rude awakening about how the common, independent American feels about the competence of his administration.

Israeli Response to Haiti

This post is essentially a redirect to a very good piece of satire that was published in the Daily Telegraph about the anti-Israelis frantically scrambling to bash Israel in the face of their response to Haiti. The Israeli record in Haiti, by the way, includes being the first country to set up a working and clean field hospital to provide a secure place for the treatment of wounds, as well as being one of the most efficient teams working on reconstruction.

Undoubtedly the anti-Semites of the world will say that it is merely a station for harvesting organs, or otherwise some equally inane theory.

I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate Israel for their excellent humanitarian work.

After all, if we left the news to the Kleinites,  we’d never hear “Israel” and “excellent humanitarian work” in the same sentence.

Today in Kleinworld

Since I have taken a strong personal stance against Naomi Klein in the past, I would like to take this opportunity to direct the attention of my readers to this article by Terence Corcoran in the National Post. In essence, the article summarizes the profound contradictions between Klein’s beliefs and reality. It focuses on Chile, Venezuela, and Haiti. Chile was the nation which Klein tried to, in The Shock Doctrine, use as an example of a working socialist state overthrown by capitalism. Of course, as we have seen in the recent elections there, as well as Chile’s increased prosperity brought on by a return to democratic capitalism, she was profoundly wrong. Naturally, she has not acknowledged this, but has redirected her focus to Haiti, warning against a “capitalist and corporatist takeover” there.

I posted this not only to acknowledge the contradictions in her works, but to show the callousness of her attitudes. If she truly wanted the best for Haitians, she would not pressure them to take a course that has so obviously failed in the past. Instead of simply admitting that she was incorrect, and altering her views to take that into account, she is attempting to use a country in ruins to advance her own political agenda. What needs to be done is not what Klein thinks is best for Haiti, but what is actually best for Haiti.

I am not sure what that is – but I am fairly sure that it should not be something which has so obviously failed in the past, so many times over.

MSNBC’s Schultz Promoting Electoral Fraud

Here is the video link.

And I quote:

“If I lived in Massachusetts, I’d vote ten times…I don’t know if they’d let me or not, but I’d try to. Yeah, that’s right, I’d cheat to keep these bastards out! I would. Because that’s exactly what they are.”

Ed Schultz, who hosts a news show on MSNBC, would commit voter fraud to keep the Republican Party out of the Massachusetts Senate seat. If he isn’t fired immediately, MSNBC shouldn’t complain when it is said that they are just as, or more, biased than, say, Fox.

Massachusetts is Trouble for Obama

In the previous week or so, the run-up to one special election (what we in Canada would call a by-election) has generated more heat in the United States than the Ukrainian and Chilean elections – both of which represent important regional shifts – combined. That is the 2010 United States Senate special election for the state of Massachusetts, which will replace the Democrat Paul Kirk, who was in turn the appointed replacement for the deceased Ted Kennedy. Kirk will not run in the election, as he has stated very explicitly that he will be only a “bench-warmer” in the Senate.

The Democrats will be represented by Martha Coakley, the Attorney General of Massachusetts. The Republican candidate is Scott Brown, a member of the Massachusetts State Senate. Normally, the result of the contest would be a given – Massachusetts has a vast Democrat supermajority in both the State House and the State Senate, and all of the members they send to Congress and the Senate in Washington are, at the moment, Democrats. For a fiscal and mild social conservative like Brown to win in Massachusetts, the campaign would need to be made about a very polarizing issue.

Fortunately for Brown, it is. The issue that is in question is Obama’s performance, and whether the Democrats should be trusted with what is essentially complete power in the White House, Congress, and the Senate. Due to dissatisfaction with the Democrats in Washington, largely with Obama’s health care plan, the election has become very close. In some polls, Brown is ahead by up to seven points.

Obama has been forced to actively campaign for what has been a safe Democrat seat for decades, and the Democrats are still behind. Obama made a fatal error – he promised too much, and dealt with the things he did address inefficiently. The bailouts resulted in massive amounts of debt, and there have been numerous concerns with regard to his foreign policy. The big issue, however, was, and remains, health care. The health care plan of Obama bears a strong similarity to that of Mitt Romney, the last Republican governor in Massachusetts, which could be why it is such a polarizing issue there. Many felt that Romney’s plan was ineffective. On the right, the same criticisms now levied against Obama were being thrown at Romney. On the left, many might feel that Obama does not go far enough, and may just stay home. That leads to a decent point swing in Brown’s favour.

Obama should be worried. Little more than a year after being elected, he has already squandered most of the goodwill he campaigned on. In what was once one of the safest seats in the Union, he has been forced to fight as the underdog.

This election will decide the direction of America. And that is the reason it carries more weight and earns more headline space here than two national elections – in regional powers – combined.