A modern parable

Three men are in an ice fishing hut. It’s fairly well tricked out because they have a pot bellied stove and a good supply of wood. One of them likes to smoke cigars that smell like smoldering oily rope.
One of the guys brings in two blocks of wood and throws them into the fire. It is a fairly mild day and the hut becomes a little warm. Immediately both of the non smokers blame the smoker for the rise in temperature and kick him out of the hut.
What’s the point? The sun is going through another one of its regular cycles (which take place over decades). This time it is putting out more energy (the ice caps on other planets are melting as well). The environmentalists have pinpointed human pollution as the over whelming factor in global warming. Yes we need to deal with the guy who smokes the oily cigar. Deal with pollution – yes absolutely. Follow schemes promoted by a politician who would like to ride the issue into the White House? Follow the recommendations of those who have a very nice career, thank you, from riding the environmental horse to the bank? I hope not.

I Wonder

7/19/07
I Wonder

I wonder if the Taliban have people in this country who understand English and read our newspapers and listen to our news broadcasts?
I wonder if they find joy in the news that there are politicians who are constantly lobbying to pull our troops out of Afganistan?
I wonder how much this encourages them to try and kill even more Canadian soldiers?
I wonder if Mr. Layton and his party understand that they are now personally responsible for the death of every soldier that the Taliban kill.
Don Cook

Pessimists

The new softwood lumber agreement has revealed the liberal’s basic pessimism - they are saying that the glass is only eighty percent full.
The Liberal government ragged on the problem of softwood lumber tariffs for 8 years and got no where. Stephen Harper makes one visit and a month later there is a tentative agreement. I would call that very fast and effective work.
The cry from the Liberals and others; “We only got four of the five billion that the U.S. took in tariffs.”
Lets live in the real world for a while shall we. The U.S. is the world’s only super power. They do what they want in any sphere from trade to military policy. There are powerful lobby political groups in the U.S. representing the states which produce large amounts of lumber. They are constantly lobbying for higher tariffs on Canadian lumber. Our Liberal Prime Ministers went to talk about the lumber issue and got nowhere. The President would not take the political heat it would cost him to lift the tariffs. If the Liberals had not been playing to what they thought were Canadian prejudices against the U.S. by their stupid public remarks the lumber tariffs might not even have be in place. The problems in the lumber industry lie at the Liberal’s door.
What do we have now? We get back four billion dollars. Yes it is not five billion dollars. Did you expect the U.S. to roll over an play dead? That one billion gives the president some breathing room with the political groups which he wants to keep on side to pass the rest of his legislation. If the rumors are correct we also get a guaranteed piece of the U.S. lumber market (34 percent). Churchill knew what he was talking about when he said; “You can trust no country beyond its own self interest.” Stephen Harper has done very well in dealing with our great neighbor would does not have to listen to anyone. Quite an accomplishment. Maybe his secret agenda is to do thinks right in this country for a change.
Don Cook

A Canadian tragedy!

I have just heard some devastating news. If we Canadians do not keep up our slavish devotion to the Kyoto agreement people at the UN will not think well of us. Isn’t that shocking? We wonderful Canadians would be in bad odor at this prestigious organization.
Maybe I don’t quite understand. Is this the organization which puts representatives of states run by repressive and cruel dictators on the human rights committee? Is this the organization which sucked its thumb and dithered while hundreds of thousands died in Rawanda? Is this the organization which has watched as hundreds of thousands have died under Moslem thugs in Darfur? Is this the organization in which huge sums of money have gone missing in various scandals. Is this the organization in which the most ruthless countries in the world set policy and constantly attack the West? Is this the organization whose top representative gives jobs to family members and seems to have been involved in the oil for food scandal? That is the UN you are talking about?
You know I don’t really care what they think of me or my country. Their failure to have a good opinion of us just might just be a great compliment..

Single Tier System?

No. We have a multi tier health system. If you have lots of money you go to Rochester or some other expensive clinic in the U.S. and get your diagnosis one day and your operation or whatever else you need in the next week or two. We all understand that. But the great cry at election by Liberals and the NDP is that we must retain a one-tier health system.
Let’s be honest. If you work for a company (especially the government or in education), which has a great health plan, you get semi private or private accommodation. People who don’t have that coverage in our country get to stay in a four-bed ward. This is not special treatment? This is not “a two tier” health system?
It does not stop here. Did you know that there are more of the advanced diagnostic machines per capita in the Ottawa area than anywhere else in the country – under a “national one tier health system?” Does that surprise you? Our former Prime Minister used a “private clinic” specialist, which had “diagnostic” machines for those who wanted to pay for them. The great champion of “one tier health care” Mr. Leighton had his hernia fixed at the best “private” clinic for hernias in Canada. Do really believe that a politician or a high-end government employee in Ottawa, or Toronto or anywhere else in the country goes on the same waiting list for critical surgery or a specialist waiting list? The multi tier health system in already in place and no one is going to make everyone, regardless of social or financial states go to a four bed ward or wait six months to see a specialist. To provide everyone with private rooms and instant access (as the higher end politicians, rich and connected have) to our health system is far beyond our financial capacity.
Is the answer to these “special” exceptions forcing everyone into a four-bed ward and a six-month wait for a cancer surgery? No. One answer is to allow “private” clinics and hospitals to provide alternate care, competition and a more diagnostic machines like CATT scans, MRI machines etc.
Before you turn blue and have a heart attack (remember you have a long wait to get to the table for that bypass) think rationally about this.
If you allow private clinics to build and provide care you do a number of helpful things all at once.
First- the people who build the clinic have the expense of building the facility and buying the machines and paying their staff.
But you object they might make money from our health system and take our tax dollars when they provide treatment under our health system.
Do you ever think of whose money paid for the beautiful hospitals we have? Who buys the diagnostic machines in those hospitals? Who pays the staff in those hospitals? The question is not will they make money providing the same services, which our present public service provides, but this. Why would someone come in, build a building, buy expensive machines and pay staff and make a profit when they get the same price (from our health system) that our present hospitals do? Is it possible that there are some things in our health system, which could be done more efficiently if they had competition for the tax money spent on your present care?
Second – more facilities would mean shortened wait times. We might even get to the place where reasonable wait times like a couple of weeks would be available in either a “private” or public facility.
But you object since it is a private facility rich people could jump the waiting list and get faster access to care than everyone else.
Do you think that it is not possible to license such facilities on the basis that they must provide service to all on the waiting list before they provide service to special interest groups?
Do you think “rich people” would go somewhere else if the present system was efficient and they could get rapid access to what they need here (most rich people are rich because they do not spend money unnecessarily, they do not go to foreign clinics because they want to spend money but because they want rapid service that they cannot get here under the present system). If our system were efficient then they would have no reason to go elsewhere.
Do you think that our present public system might improve if they had to bid for taking care of you rather than having a monopoly which has no real check on its costs?
Do you think it would be bad for the country if the rich peoples money stayed in the country and paid taxes and salaries in Canada?
Do you think that, our own people being served first, people from other countries might come here and spend their money in our excellent health system or the private facilities rather than paying the huge price which is exacted by the specialized clinics in their own countries.
Do you think that charging a modest premium to out of country people who come to use our private or public health system, when there is room, and so support our health system would be a bad thing.
If the private clinics knew they had that option do you think they might provide even more facilities so that they could take care of you and I and have extra room to sell to others?
Do you think that keeping more of the best doctors and specialists working in our country and in our hospitals because they have adequate facilities and salaries would be a bad thing?
These are only some of the questions that need thoughtful answers before we opt for a system which will continue to provide better care and access times for the rich and those with enough pull and influence in our present “multi tier” health system.

Wire taps?

I’m not sure I understand this. The President of the United States is supposed to cure every problem his people face from hangnails to terrorist attacks. He has his national security people record and computer mine (look for key words that indicate hostile intent like “bomb” etc. in phone calls going out of the country) He does not get a court order, and warn the terrorists that they are being monitored, for each of these individual wire taps focused on suspicious people. Now comes the part I don’t understand. There is a manufactured outcry about violating the rights of terrorists to privacy in their phone conversations?
Let me try and understand this. You have a terrorist living in your basement apartment. Of course he did not include terrorist when your lease application asked for occupation – he just paid you in cash. He is making phone calls to his terrorist friends in Europe, the Middle East, Pakistan, Afghanistan whatever. You don’t want the law enforcement people to know that this person is a terrorist? You don’t want them to know he is going to blow up your bank? You don’t want them to be able to find out that he is going to blow up your house to do away with all witnesses so no information you could give would help them catch him?
This is not a case of the government listening to you make arrangements to move unreported income to an off shore bank. This is not the government listening to you arranging a clandestine love affair. This is not the government listening to you making a dentist appointment or phoning your sweetie.
This is war. These are people who hate you and want you, your family and our way of life destroyed.
The terrorist has sacrificed his civil rights when he/she became a terrorist. Armies are supposed to be governed by the Geneva Convention. There is no “ Convention” for terrorism they have no limits. Tie your law enforcement people’s hands and both you and your bank will be blown up.
Take a good look at the people who are screaming about this. They are opportunistic politicians who will use any stick to beat Bush and His administration. Most of them belonged to a party and an administration, which dithered and did nothing to deal with terrorism as it spread its tentacles across the world during Clinton’s time. The rest of the outcry is being fueled by the press who hates Bush on principle and want to create a news event. Wake up. Just imagine how all this furor has made the terrorists more careful and as you put restrictions on your law enforcement agencies they will have the “freedom” blow up both you and your bank.
Maybe I just don’t understand why individuals and a whole society wants to bare their throat to the butcher.

Let’s have a gun registry that works

The Liberal’s and NDP throw up their in horror at ordinary people having guns (they probably jump on chairs when they see a mouse as well). They say that ordinary, hard working; responsible Canadians should not have guns because they cannot be trusted to use them responsibly. According to these theorists every Canadian is a potential mass murderer. The stupid herd of ordinary Canadians (who are not on the inside of the their parties) would either be careless or randomly kill their families, friends and coworkers if they freely possessed these terrible engines of destruction.
Those who are against the present gun registry say that it is people who kill other people no guns are necessary.
The abolitionists say that it is guns, which kill people so people should not have guns so they can kill others.
In this case I must partly agree with the abolitionists. It is a certain kind of people who have guns who kill other people. The people who kill people are usually those who have exhibited criminal behaviours, threat makers` or career criminals.
The present gun registry takes guns from the hands of those who are responsible and may need them for their occupations. It leaves guns in the hands of criminals. Criminals will not register their guns and will obtain all the guns they want from suppliers the government does not and will not take measures to control.
The answer is to have a national registry of these humans who kill or demonstrate the capacity and potential to kill or intimidate and harm others with guns. It is guns in the possession of these people, which are deadly.
The number of such people is relatively small and would not incur the boondoggle that we that have now. This would free up the huge amounts of money that is being spent and put guns back in the hands of those who are responsible in their use.
How would we accomplish this?
Very simply. No one who has a criminal record has the right to have a gun in his possession. Career criminals have forfeited the right to own offensive weapons of any kind, guns, knives, explosives or anything else by which they could cause bodily harm. Those who are mentally unstable should go into such a registry until there is unequivocal proof they are no longer dangerous. Anyone who has made threats of violence of any kind should go into the registry. Those who have used offensive weapons to commit any crime would be put into the registry and be banned from owning offensive weapons for life.
It’s all very well to put people on a list but criminals will still have offensive weapons including guns in spite of any laws that are made. The problem is not with the laws but with their enforcement. Career criminals in Canada are given all the rights of freedom from search and seizure, which other responsible citizens possess. These are the people who kill people and laws about their having guns in their possession so they can rob, terrify, mug, intimidate and kill others should be enforced.
Our law enforcement agencies should be given the right to do randomized searches of such people, their dwellings and vehicles at any time without probable cause for weapons of any kind. If found in possession of such weapons there should be mandatory sentences for each level of infraction. Here are some suggestions.
The criminal who has in his/her possession an offensive weapon will be given a mandatory sentence of 5 years. Those who sell guns to criminals mandatory sentence 15 years. Those have used offensive weapons to make threats against the well being of others a mandatory sentence of 10 years. Those who have used offensive weapons in committing a criminal act mandatory sentence of 15 years – no exceptions or chance of parole. Those who injure anyone while committing a crime with offensive weapons should receive a mandatory sentence of 20 years no exceptions no parole. Those who kill with an offensive weapon a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years to life no parole.
You say this is a violation of basic human rights. Whose rights? We have laws in place, which make mandatory search and seizure of anything that could be used as offensive weapons in our airports. There is no hint that the law of search, and sometimes that can be a strip search, is a violation of personal rights. Such searches ensure, as much as possible, the safety of those on the airplane. Our country is a vehicle in which we travel to our still uncertain future. Government is responsible to ensure our safety from those whose profession (criminals) or condition (mentally unstable) puts the rest of the citizens in danger.
Yes it is guns that kill people. But it is only particular kinds of people with guns who kill people.
The tragedy of the four officers murdered out west by a man with a long record of aggressive and criminal behaviour would not have happened if such laws were in place. Our customs officials have had this right of search and seizure for years. Since exhaustive searches were instituted at our airports we have had few incidents of highjacking. There is no reason that those who have a record of criminal behaviour should not be subject to the same kind of laws that protect us when we travel on airplanes. It has worked. It is effective.
It is the right of the reliable, ordinary Canadians in this country to have the freedom to walk our streets without fear, to live in their homes without fear of home jacking and have guns for sport, collection and protection.
Canadians need the protection and freedom that such legislation would give. It is good to see a party with the guts to face down liberal pantywaists that believe they have the right to regulate the lives of others by their phobias and leave us helpless before a rising tide of lawlessness.

Don Cook

On the death of a policeman

Would someone please tell me the difference between the death of a police officer trying to deal with drug dealers and the death of our soldiers in Afghanistan? Both died protecting us from evils, which threaten our society. Both gave their lives for us and should be deeply appreciated. Why then should we have demands to lower the flag for heroes dying abroad and not for heroes dying in our defense here? Jack Leighton promoting the idea that we should withdraw from Afghanistan and shift our emphasis to Darfur outrages me. Such attempts to make political profit by supporting suffering parents attempts to change our way of honoring our fallen heroes is despicable. Should our policemen be assigned to only monitor food banks rather than deal with organized crime because it’s safer? We have responsibilities to our country and to our society. Brave men have volunteered to defend our freedoms both at home and abroad. Let us not discount and dishonor their courage and their sacrifice because the work is dangerous. They wanted to make a difference and we should honor their willingness to make such sacrifices for us.

Canadian Media

Two incidents this year demonstrated what the media of this country really is: the Wayne Gretsky dust up and the Muslim cartoon incident.
In the first case, on the basis of rumor only, the press ran riot for a couple of weeks trashing Wayne Gretsky, his wife, his life style and his morals. It turns out that neither he nor his wife have been charged with anything. On rumor of “sources close to the investigation” a good man’s career and livelihood were trashed. Where are our fearless news hounds now that Wayne and his wife have been exonerated? Where are the retractions and the apologies? Were is the Mia Culpas from these sterling guardians of truth and the public conscience?
The second incident which highlights what the media in this country are all about is the cartoon fiasco. Some mullahs took the cartoon published in a small Danish newspaper. They published and distributed it in Muslim countries for a whole year following its appearance in the magazine. They harangued sincere Muslims in many countries about this blatant attack upon their religion. These fanatic mullahs had also produced other cartoons which never appeared in the paper in Denmark and used them to feed the outrage in Muslim countries against the West. What did our media do? They took pictures of the outrage promoted by the mullahs - and never investigated the staged nature of the whole event to see the phony nature of the complaint. Then our brave media moguls; who are supposed to give us real insight into our world, would not show us what the furor was all about. They were afraid that there might be some danger to them personally if they published the cartoons and acted as real news gatherers and publishers.
These two incidents demonstrate what the Canadian media has become. They claim to be lions who fearlessly seek to throw light into the dark corners of our society and the world. They have demonstrated that they are nothing but jackals who feast on sensationalism and run whenever real danger or sacrifice might be necessary. The problem is not the reporters who often risk their lives to get real news. The problem is the people much higher up the food chain who either take a poll to see what people want or decide what spin they will put on the news to serve their own interests.
Now to the latest crusade by our fearless media moguls: a campaign to get our soldiers out of Afghanistan. Every day we hear from the all the media a spectrum of the negative aspects of our soldiers being in Afghanistan. Why all the furor? The reasons are several. First because for the most part their philosophy of how things should be falls somewhere between Paul Martin and Mr. Leighton. Second because they want to find some means of nailing and discounting the new Conservative government. Third because they think the world runs on the same “moral” basis that they have displayed in dealing with the two revelatory news items already mentioned. Fourth and probably most important is that they do not understand the nature of what is happening around us. War has been declared against our whole society by a well funded organization whose goal is to destroy us. This is much like the blindness which muzzled soft headed politicians and “news people” as Hitler rose to power and the same attitude which called Stalin’s slaughter of twenty five million of his own people “social readjustment.”
Next time you turn on your television, pick up a magazine, listen to a radio broadcast or look at a newspaper remember what Mark Twain said, a reporter early in his carreer said about the media: “Believe only half of what you see an nothing of what you read.”

Candidates for Liberal Party Leadership

We know that all politicians have secret agendas. Mr. Martin told us that Steven Harper had a secret agenda so knowing that Mr. Martin had associated with politicians for a long time and knew well what they were up to we believe that all politicians especially Liberals must have a secret agenda . Here is what we think some of those candidates hidden agendas might be based on their previous associations.

1. Martha Hall Findlay, Lawyer

We don't know a lot about Martha Findlay but since she is a lawyer (what else do we have to say) and obviously has associated with lawyers for a long time we suspect that she has a secret agenda. We suspect that she will want to get our country into lawsuits which will then be farmed out to companies owned by her lawyer friends.

2. Stephane Dion, Sociologist

We know that Mr.Dion was a cabinet minister and has been in public life for a long time. However I don't think we know him well enough to trust him with the job of Prime Minister. He is a sociologist with a French heritage. We suspect that he has a secret agenda. We believe that he will use his contacts with the media to brain wash us all with subliminal messages that will suggest that we vote Liberal.

3. Michael Ignatieff, Historian, Teacher

We know that Mr. Ignatieff has been a history teacher at Harvard. He spent a lot of time out of the country and so we don't know who he may have become. We think he has a secret agenda. We believe that he will want to make all our brightest students go to Harvard. We also suspect that he would pass laws which will mandate all of us going to history enhancement classes two hours per week (remember high school history). Let us hope that he does not become leader of the Liberal party. His secret agenda would bring us all a fate worse than death.

4. Maurizio Bevilacqua, Life long politician

We know that Mr. Bevilacqua started his political career at twenty-eight. This means that he has associated with politicians for a good part of his life. We are sure that he has an secret agenda. We believe that the fact that he is a life long politician makes his secret agenda a real secret but we are sure he must have one.

5. Gerard Kennedy, Historical Researcher and Food Fank Founder and Manager

Mr. Kennedy was a history teacher and became a founder and manager of food banks. We believe he has a secret agenda. We believe that if he became leader of the liberal party he would close all restaurants and grocery stores and make it impossible for us to get food from anywhere but an authorized food bank.


6. Bob Rae' Lawyer, Professional Politician with a brother who is a Vice President Power Corp

Bob Rae has been a leader of the New Democrats Party. Now suddenly he has become a Liberal. This is suspicious. We believe that he has displayed part of his secret agenda. We believe he was always a Liberal who was bent on destroying the New Democrats. Look at how effective he was in doing that when Premier of Ontario. We believe however that most of his secret agenda is still secret. There are some hints however in his family connections. His brother is a vice president of Power Corporation and we believe that if elected leader of the Liberals he would try to contract all government services out to that company.

7. Scott Brison, Business Man Salesman

Scott Brison was a successful business man and salesman. This means he is a double threat. He was successful and a salesman. We are sure he has a secret agenda but we cannot even guess what it might be. Who knows what salesmen think when they have a smuck on the wire? This makes him even more dangerous because he could successfully sell us his secret agenda and we would not even know it.

8. Ken Dryden, Lawyer, Business Man

Ken Dryden was a great goalie for the Montreal Canadians as well as a lawyer and business man. We believe that he has a secret agenda. (Who can tell what goes on behind a goalie mask?) We believe he would use his smooth talking lawyer lingo to talk the whole country into becoming Leaf and Raptor fans. He has publicly confessed that scrapping the Liberal's daycare plan made him very angry. We believe that his involvement in formulating this plan and his anger spring fom his secret agenda. He planned to show unending videos of Raptor and Leaf games to the children in day-care so they would be brainwashed to become prey for his (perhaps) former business associates.

9. Carolyn Bennett, Outstanding Doctor and University Professor

Carolyn Bennett is an outstanding medical doctor and University professor. We believe that, coming from her background she has a secret agenda. We believe she will try to bring forward legislation which would force all prospective voters to go through a rigorous medical examination (especially the dreaded prostrate check) before qualifying to vote. We also fear that she would be likely to make a University degree mandatory for all professions including ditch digging.

10. Hedy Fry, Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and Status of Women.

Hedy Fry is a doctor and was Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and the Status of Women. We think we know her secret agenda. She will want to barbecue all the residents of Prince George BC and/or all former members of the Alliance Party. We believe that she would prefer to do this on a cross shaped spit. This will pay back the people of Prince George and the Alliance members for being racists.

I do hope the Liberal party will be wise enough to get some different leadership candidates who might not have such dangerous secret agendas.

Our Losses in Afghan

Our Losses in Afghanistan

It is always tragic when people die before they have lived full lives. It would be just as tragic if we lost 4 people on holiday in Mexico to bandits. The question is not if our fellow Canadians died but what did they die for.
Why are our soldiers in Afghanistan? They are there to continue the suppression of a determined and deadly enemy who stated objective is to destroy Western civilization (of which we are a part). This fanatical fundamentalist group used Afghanistan as a training ground for terrorists. Terrorists came from around the world to be trained in te basics of using explosives, rocket launchers and various other kinds of weapons. Their next step was to return to their countries of residence and carry forward their revolution. Some attacked the populations of the countries in which they lived. In other cases the terrorists used their country of residence (like Canada) as a staging area to mount attacks against our neighbors to the south.
Our soldiers are in Afghanistan as our small part in the war against this terrorist organization. When you destroy the terrorists training facilities you begin to reduce their ability to slaughter victims in Canada and our Western allies. Our soldiers are participating in a war which has been foisted upon us by these fanatics who want to bring the whole world under Sharia law and make all nations Muslim.
Where should we deal with the terrorists? In the countries they come from or only when they come fully trained to submerge themselves in our population and after they have slaughtered our citizens by their attacks. It is certainly better to deal with these monsters before they are loose in our population. Who would you have facing these killers? Should our local police be expected to face terrorists who use military weapons and explosives. Should we expect our local populations to face terrorists attacks with petitions, fishing rods and baseball bats (the only _weapons  our former government thought citizens should possess). Is it not much better that our soldiers who have training  military weapons and vehicles face our enemies in their own countries?
These are only the selfish reasons why our soldiers should be in Afghanistan. The fact that people in another country are being oppressed, tortured and killed by these fanatics should move us in compassion to free them and keep them free from oppression.
Have Canadians completely lost perspective on our responsibilities to those in other countries that we would sit in safety while others live in misery and oppression? Are we so short sighted that we do not understand that we have attacked by an enemy whose objective is to make us into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban? Why do we close our eyes to the fact that we are dealing with a well funded, fanatical organization that hates us and aims to destroy us, our country and our civilization. This enemy will not be turned from its objectives by treaties or concessions. They attack us based on their religious understanding of the world and only elimination of the organization and those who continue to follow it_s principles will bring peace.
Our soldiers have died as part of this struggle. We should mourn them. We should honor them. We should support their families. We should make sure their families are taken care of because of the great sacrifice they have made to keep us free. These heros volunteered to lay their lives on the line for us. Surely we will not dishonor their sacrifice and memory by using their deaths as a pretext to sit on our hands until the fanatics begin terrorizing our cities.

Don Cook