Rosie O'Donnell is about 90% Right in this Clip

I can't believe im agreeing with Rosie! Man she has guts. She basically said everything right, except the part about invading countries for oil and money. Those "War for Oil' slogans are just there to distract the left-wing mob from concentrating on the real reasons why America is invading Middle-Eastern countries. Rarely do you hear in the media why America invaded Iraq and why Iran is next. There was this one documentary from the "Passionate Eye" on CBC that explained why this is happening. The documentary was called "The World According to Bush." I remember watching it for the first time and my jaw dropped to the ground. I could not believe what the CBC was showing on air. What was more surprising was that they actually repeated the airing of the documentary. That documentary broke some many "unwritten rules" when it comes to North American media.

The Psychology of Blogging

Thinking about the discussion in class today, I actually went and did a follow up on Jason Kottke's blog, as well as look on several random others. Like we discussed, they really do seem to follow the same theme: namely a central figure who makes the blog, usually cynical, who manages to win a fandom of suckups and mindless followers. This reminds me of the phenomenon of MMORPG (Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games) games and the sort of digital escape world it creates. In games such as World of Warcraft and Eve Online, relative nobodies who are "losers" in real life are able to obtain great fame, popularity, and political clout in a "world" which allows them to excel. Just like the Underground Man mentioned by Prof. Gibson who writes notes because he is bored, people who blog do it also because they are bored, with the additional factor of potential popularity increase. In Notes from Underground, no one ever read the protagonist's writings, except the reader. However, for blogs, the potential audience is simply staggering. Thus it seems, that many of these bloggers blog simply for attention and to please their fanbase in order to boost their own self-confidence, and perhaps feel like a big shot. Maybe I'm wrong. Thoughts?

Charest gets the Kim Campbell treatment

I love the political irony. For those who dont know, Jean Charest was Kim Campbell's DPM. During the 1993 election she got a public beating when she lost her own seat...now it seems her DPM has gotten the same thing. Charest, although still Premier of Quebec, lost his own seat to the Mario Dumont Party. Quebec abolished their senate back in the 60s so its not like he can just run from there. He will probably step down and let someone with less baggage take over. Anyone expect he will run federally ? If so, as a former PC, will he be a Conservative, of a Liberal ?

Oh Snap!

It looks like there's a new party sweeping the scene in Quebec. The ADQ have solidified 31.2% of the popular vote (I'm watching the cbc's coverage as I write this) and grasped 42 seats. The Liberal Party as of right now has 46 seats, but Premier Jean Charest has LOST his seat!! All of that hard work the Prime Minister did in gaining Charest's trust and friendship has seemingly gone down the tubes. I presume someone will give up their seat to Charest so he can sit in the legislature, but this is a huge loss for the Quebec Liberals.

It seems that there is a changing tide in Quebec. The people seem to be sick of the same old BS. Could this trend continue into federal politics during the next election? Maybe the Conservatives will be able to get a strong number of Quebecs Parliamentary seats. Reply if you feel obliged to.

New Budget

Hi guys, as I was taking Professor Gibson's advice and looking for a political blog (brownie points?), I came across this comic that I thought was great, especially with our recent discussion on the new budget. It pretty much looks at the new tax breaks and says it's not very conservative budget, but it's conserving power.
http://www.filibustercartoons.com/

According to the National Post, the budget spends approximately $5800 per Canadian. Why is this "conservative" government had such incredible increases in spending? The budget allocates a great deal of funding for social programs and the government has hired another 50% of its environmental enforcement officers. I wonder, did people vote Conservative because of their great social services? Or did they vote Conservative for the exact opposite reason. There are no tax cuts, just increased spending hidden to look like tax breaks.

The Future of Blogs in Politics

As I’ve mentioned in previous posts, I volunteer at Deb Matthews’ MPP constituency office in LNC. Lately there has been a lot of discussion in the office over what are the pros and cons of having your own blog and utilizing web podcasts. Obviously, blogs are dominating political discourse and podcasts are becoming the way of the future. While ideally it would be great if every MPP and MP could have their own blog that they constantly contribute to, creating and maintaining a blog requires a lot of time and resources. As Professor Nesbitt Larking mentioned, it is surprising that a huge political scandal hasn’t yet arisen since the advent of videophones, podcasts and blogs. Therefore, using blogs also present a risk for political figures to be caught doing or saying something that they perhaps shouldn’t be.

Do you think that it would be better for an MPP or MP to have their own blog so that they could at least partially direct the dialogue that surrounds them, or do you think blogs are not a good idea because they open up an available avenue to easily say something wrong or inappropriate? Also, do you think that with the increasing use of technology that MPP and MP’s should be given extra monetary resources from the government to maintain blogs and the digital world in general?

Adding to my previous post

I just watched an episode of "Dateline NBC: To Catch a Predator" series which is possibly the most repetitive things on TV. Some guy thinks he is chatting with a 13 year old online and arranges to have sex, then shows up, is interviewed, cries, gets arrested. I am addicted to this, and disgusted by it at the same time. Although I recognize that they are creating valuable evidence to be used in court...should they wait until after the verdict has been delivered before that can air it to the world ? This just goes in line with my previous post....good luck on essays everybody.

Conrad Black in the media

Has anyone else been watching the lead up to the Conrad Black trial ? When watching its seem to alternate between either "hes guilty" or "this is gonna be fun viewing". Not that I personally believe anything this guy says, in my book hes just a lying thief...but sensationalizing this as yet another "trial of the century" is a little worrysome. It brings into question the very basics of justice....Can anyone get a fair trial with a media firestorm around them ?

This post makes me think about Scott Peterson....did they even have a body during that trial ? Gloria Allred was always on the news talking about how guilty he was to the point that people were standing outside cheering for the death sentence of someone they never met. Did Canada do the right thing during the Bernardo case ? Stopping the press from publishing stuff would sure be tricky now, I think we have talked about this in class.

If anyone has ever sat thru that stupid nancy grace program, you can see how the line between a trial and a circus is being blurred....any thoughts ?

STOP POLITICIZING OUR MILITARY!!!

It is understandable that since Canada has taken the leading role in afghanistan combat operations people want to make it publically known that they are giving their moral support in the effort. It is only natural that this would be the case in a country that so loves its national identity on the world stage. What concerns me, however, is the amount of partisan dribble that comes from the mouths of those same supporters.

It seems that Mr. Harper continued to create a partisan divide over Canada's soldiers in the House of Commons today. In response to a Liberal request for the resignation of Minister O'Conner, the Prime Minister shot back at the Liberals declaring that it appeared to him that the Official Opposition was more concerned with the plight of Taliban detainees in Afghanistan than their own soldiers.

I'm not even going to go into why this statement was fundamentally the wrong thing to say. What I am concerned with is this idea that if you disagree with government policy on war you are not in support of the Canadian Forces. I am so tired of hearing this type of BS. Supporting a national military does not entail the absolute support of governmental foreign policy (this kind of argument was used in the lead up to the Iraq war and it caused the castration of the democratic party until this year). Nor does it entail the succession of human rights accountability during an operation. The people who hold their tongues during military operations in order to 'support the troops' are the same people with those idiotic bumber stickers of the same slogan. Mindless advertisement does not a citizen make; questioning, holding government accountable, and holding military officers accountable for actions unbecoming of them is what true support is all about.

Canada needs a military to sustain its reputation at home and abroad, as well as to aid those in need all over the globe when the time should come, but this does not mean that we as citizens should stand by while policies and actions by our government and armed forces are being committed which are against the fundamental principles of what Canada stands for. It's time for us to really give our military the dignity it deserves.

Passports

Today, on the UWO main page, I read an article about the US Ambassador to Canada talking about passports at Western this week. (http://communications.uwo.ca/western_news/story.html?listing_id=22880). This is an important issue, because due to these new requirements, Canadians and Americans travelling by plane to areas in North and South America now require passports. The new requirements for those travelling by plane began January 23 of this year. Those travelling by land or sea will have to obtain passports, if they don't have them already, by January 1st, 2008. Hopefully Passports Canada (http://www.ppt.gc.ca/index.aspx?lang=e) prepares for the likely increase in demand for passports better than they did in this year, because it took around 5 weeks extra for someone to receive a passport due to extra demand. You think they would anticipate this and hire more workers. More information on the passport requirements are on this website: http://travel.state.gov/travel/cbpmc/cbpmc_2223.html.

Will increasing security by requiring us to have passports protect us any way? Or is it merely another increase in security produced by the fear-mongering after 9-11? I live near the border to the US, and lot of people I know regularly travel to the States, however they don't own a passport. The new requirement starting next year might effectively stop them from travelling across the border. And same goes for Americans coming across the border to drink here in Canada. I'm not sure if it will accomplish much other than taking money out of travellers pockets. Passports are expensive and have to be renewed frequently.

It's no big deal, really.

Lord Black spent this past weekend shopping absentmindedly in Chicago's famed Miracle Mile. Just an average day spent with his wife and daughter.
Is it really that easy to put aside the nagging thoughts that in 48 hours time, your multi-million dollar trial begins, in which you could face 25 years in prison?

With any luck I will never be in that position. But I would think that if I were, I wouldn't spend the last hours before my trial shopping in an elite stretch of stores, flaunting my wealth and my carefree state. Or at least this is how it appears to me. Is this Black showing confidence in his legal team? Or showing his arrogance? Or is it showing absolutely nothing at all?

RIAA Sues Stroke Victim in Michigan

I was browsing Slashdot and came across an interesting article (There are links to court documents):

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/
03/riaa-sues-stroke-victim-in-michigan.html

Long story short, it's about a lawsuit brought against a man who was allegedly involved in copyright infringement activities. However, this man as a result of a stroke is suffering from severe physical disabilities and health complications with only a disability cheque as his sole source of income. Yet the RIAA proceeded with the suit anyways despite this. To me it seems the RIAA has gone to draconian lengths to protect their interests, and will even bleed a helpless man dry in order to set an example. While I don't completely condone online file-sharing and downloading, I can understand why because of this and the RIAA's other selfish and despicable activities, that they are so hated within and outside of these communities. These communities often profess defiance of the RIAA as one of the main justifications for their activities, and after seeing this article, I can see why.

Thoughts?

Handing over Detainees in Afghanistan

I've finally circumnavigated Blogger and am able to post again! If anyone else is having trouble with posting with the changes made, and has found simply signing up for Google accounts doesn't help, I have had to delete both my old blogger and new blogger accounts, and then sign up and request that my password info. is sent to me. Now it seems to work again... I hope!

Now, onto my story:

Yesterday, Defence O'Connor minister visited Kandahar, Afghanistan following an admission that he was insufficiently informed on some operations there. This admission was in response to accusations by the ICRC and opposition critics that O'Connor's claim that the Red Cross was responsible for monitoring the treatment of detainees in Afghanistan.

There are currently four investigations regarding how Canada deals with detainees in Afghanistan. All four deal with concerns over abuse and torture used in Afghanistan and claims that human rights are being ignored. Despite these concerns, Canada hands over detainees acquired in Afghanistan to the supervision of the Afghanistan Independent Huan Rights Commission. This contrasts with other countries who prefer to maintain a supervisory role.

Mr. O'Connor intends to take a 'hands on' approach to the situation by visiting with Afghan officials and reviewing processes. Liberal defence critic Denis Coderre said he doubted whether Mr. O'Connor's trip to Afghanistan would improve the conditions of the detainees.

For more information visit: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070312.wafghan12/BNStory/Afghanistan/home

The aspect of this story I find the most interesting is the way in which the story is framed. The focus, with the budget coming up, tends to be on what impact this has on fiscal management and use of taxpayer's money. For me, this isn't particularly relevant to the issue of Afghan Detainee treatment. However, the press has picked up on the climate of Parliament and the issues coming up.

Second, I wonder about the issue itself. It seems to me that while it may be desireable to allow Afghan authorities to deal with internal affairs themselves it could turn into a major problem. The other issue I see is that every country is taking their own approach. I think an international body should be made responsible for monitoring all detainees, so that no one state is relied upon for the protectio of human rights. This is particularly important given the uncertainty of the hatred that may be felt towards certain detainees. I find it irresponsible for our troops to hand over prisoners who have been captured by their efforts without assurances that our standards of human dignity are upheld. I think it will be very interesting to see what comes out of Mr. O'Connors visit and what role this plays in parliament, or if in fact it simply is a power issue and will disappear in favour of other issues.

Anyone with more information on this story and any thoughts, post!

Bush's spending habits

Once again President Bush's victory in Afghanistan, is costing a little more than he had imagined. Yesterday the Fearless/foolish leader of the American people told congress that he'll need them to approve his request for more funding and more troops in Afghanistan for this coming spring. Military officials believe that the US troops should anticipate an increased threat from the Taliban in the near future, and that more funding is necessary to neutralize the situation. Bush is asking for $3.2 billion and 8,200 more US troops to be sent to Afghanistan for support...
Now, my military knowledge is not extensive, But I have been led to believe from a group of different US military glossary sites that a troop is somwhere between 60-200 military personel depending on the size each platoon within the company. In any case, I think the cost of the war in Afghanistan is too high and the decision to send more troops with more money is a waste and Bush is making a mess before he leaves office for the next president to try and clean up.

It's time that people step back and realize that some countries are just not situated properly for a fully functioning democracy at the present time.

Online Censorship

If your like me you know that Youtube is possibly the greatest time waster since computer solitaire. Also if your like me and would rather select what you want to watch than have someone else do it for you, you watch news stories online and if its bad you go to the next one.

Well, now it seams that Youtube is being banned in Turkey because the government doesn't agree with some of the videos posted on it. Those who access it via a Turkish ISP will now be faced with a page saying the site is blocked. This isn't the first time it was blocked. I remember I while ago a Brazilian model's case caused Brazil to shut off access after a user repeatedly posted a video of the model on a topless beach...or something like that. According to a CBC article one of the provinces of Australia banned access in schools because of possible offtending content.

This bring up a question of who is allowed to censor material online ? Do governments have the right to cut off our access to information which they cannot filter ? Can, like in the Australian example, The University of Western Ontario decide that you can no longer access youtube at school since it is bad your study habits ?

So the question is, who is allowed to play big brother ?




http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/03/07/tech-turkey.html

Harper & Charest- BFF?

Has anyone else noticed the friendship being formed between Prime Minister Harper and Quebec Premier Charest? Especially in the weeks leading up to the announcement of the provincial election, they were all over the media, smiling and shaking hands. Is this Harper trying to make friends with the Liberals in Quebec, to help gain more support in the next federal election?

With the provincial campaign underway, the three provincial party leaders in Quebec are focusing on sovereignty and recent federal motion concerning Quebec as a nation. Charest has stopped just short of openly supporting Harper's definition of what the definition of Québécois is, only after a Montreal newspaper publicized quotes from Harper in 1995 where he defined the nation being based on ethnicity.

Charest and Harper- Best friends forever? Or is this just some short-lived scheme to get them both through their next elections?

Harper "respects" Kyoto?

I was looking up articles on the internet, and I found some more petty attacks from Harper on Dion. It was concerning Bill C-288, the Kyoto protocol implementation act, which requires that the Conservative government respect Canada's commitments under the Kyoto accord. Harper found an another opportunity to bash his best buddy, Dion, he said "I guess this is what the Leader of the Liberal Party has come to. He failed so badly on his own plan, he is now asking us to produce one for him."

Apparently, Harper has recently made a public "decision" to "respect" the Kyoto Accord emission standards. However, regarding Bill C-288, Harper said, "I would point out that the bill has no plan of action in it. The bill gives the government no authority to spend any money to actually have a plan of action." Environment Minister John Baird traslated what Harper said with, "how could the government implement a bill with 'no money and no regulatory powers' behind it. So it's a bit of a joke."

Hmm, smart move Harper, remember the environment is the number one issue for the public at the moment. It's a serious campaign issue, not just a chance to bring down your opponent. People would prefer your positive action on the issue, rather than just insulting bills that were passed by a majority of Parliament!

The two websites I got my quotes from are:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070216.wxkyoto16/BNStory/International/
and http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/TopStories/ContentPosting.aspx?newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20070215%2fkyoto_harper_070215&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V2&showbyline=True

Clang, Clang, Clang goes the trolly...hopefully

The Mayors of Canada's biggest cities met today in Montreal to go over what needs to be done with big-city transit systems. One of their proposals consists of the Federal Government financing $2 billion annually to the cities to help with growing demand for public transit and upgrade requirements in the systems of each city.

Toronto Mayor David Miller noted that the move toward improved city transit would also greatly help the Conservative government reach its environmental goals by making public transit a viable option for Canadians. As well, a move in this direction adds much needed revenue for cities - Miller argued Toronto could make an extra $400 million as a result of a change in transit policy.

Personally, I see public transit as a necessary ingredient in solving the problem of Green House Gas emmissions. But more importantly, it helps to decrease the pollutants in the air we breath all year round. Does anybody remember last summer? I sure do! I had to bring a bottle of water with me to walk four blocks down the road!

I know that the Conservative government doesn't really care about the environment. They care about the issue, sure, because it gives them face value in the House of Commons and will for the up-comming election, but they really don't care. Health care and the economy, however, will always be at the top of a political party's list of things to improve. It won't come and go with the tide of popularity. This initiative to decrease air pollution and give city transit a much needed boost is the perfect issue for the government to take on. It's the best of both worlds. They look green, their boosting the economy, their taking stress off of the working class who can't easily get around without a car, and cleaning up the air people breathe (something the 'clean air act' couldn't do).

I say give it a shot. Lets face it, London's transit system in particular needs any help that it can get.

Another Conservative Government? OH NO!

I was reading The London Free Press yesterday and I stumbled upon a very interesting poll.

It based around if Canadians voted today, who would they cast their ballot for?

Here is the poll that was released by the Canadian Press and put together by Decima Research. It was based upon 1000 respondents from February 22-26. It has a margin of error of 3.1 points, 19 times out of 20:

Conservatives: 36%

Liberals: 27%

NDP: 13%

Green: 13%

Bloc Quebecois: 8%

What is very scary is the fact we might have another Conservative government led by Stephen Harper, if this poll is correct! However, my opinion aside, what was a very nice surprise was to see how much support the Green party had! Good for them, bad for the NDP!

Therefore, what do you all think? Do you think this poll is how things will roughly turn out? Is it a joke? Are these polls pointless?

Your thoughts......

Alas, we knew her all to well

Am I the only one who doesn't care that Anna Nichole Smith died? Yes, I know that sounds heartless, cruel, insensitive, blah, blah, blah, but I'm sorry, really, why do we care? She was a blond bombshell who was an ex-stripper, married a 90+ year old, got rich when he died, gained 100+ pounds then lost it about a year ago and now she's dead from a drug overdose. She contributed nothing to society other than boosting Entertainment Tonight's ratings over the past year.

When I heard that Anna Nichole Smith died I had no reaction. I wasn't happy, but I wasn't sad either. I was essentially forced to find out all the nitty gritty details from CNN's 23 hour a day coverage of the 'event' (Lou Dobbs' show was the only one that didn't have coverage). Thanks to them I now know the contents of her fridge when she died. I am certain I am dumber now for having watched even the small amount of coverage I did watch.

Please give me your thoughts. I hope I'm not the only one who feels this way.