Friday, September 30, 2005
Captain Ed of Captain's Quarters refers to Newsbeat1 which refers to Hansard, the "minutes" of what is said inside the House of Commons, also referred to by the Captain himself. Sort out if you wish, but I'll give y'all some of the juicy stuff here.
Over 100 boxes of documents have been seized from the Department of Public Works by the RCMP. Minister Scott Brison refuses to address Conservative MP Jason Kenney's demand as to whether they pertain to the Gomery Inquiry.
Wow- over a hundred boxes of documentation seized by the RCMP, itself suspected by some as being too close to the political arm of the state. The imagination naturally runs wild. Perhaps it's not merely Adscam but could be much more, as opined by Captain Ed.
Pee-yewwww! Who made that stink, Spendwell Dingwall or Pierre Le Pettipew? Or perhaps old Paulie himself? Wouldn't you like to find out what happens to all the money that somehow magically disappears off of your paycheck or pension check or whatever?
Newsbeat1 refers to Hansard, based on Sept. 29, 2005. There was questioning and "answering" about now-disgraced-and-resigned Canadian Mint big kahuna David Dingwall's extragavant spending of our money. About three-quarters of a million worth. The gov't side claimed no rules or laws had been broken. Hmmmmm... know what? If blowing incredible amounts of money the average person could only dream of having on mundane expenses is not against the rules or laws under Paul Martin's Liberal administration, then isn't that proof of corruption? I mean, how could anyone have overlooked such possibilities for the abuse of taxpayer money? It's mind-boggling. As far as I'm concerned, the political people must have seen to it that it'd be as easy as possible, and not against any "rules", to blow budgeted funds as patronage appointees see fit in order to live as comfortably and, dare I say, luxuriously, as they please, in accordance with standard hedonistic "Liberal" tradition.
Take the Libranos. Away. Far, far away. Please, please, please!
Thursday, September 29, 2005
I'm doing this continuing expose of MSM anti-Conservative hostility due to a longstanding and progressively, increasingly proven-to-be-true suspicion that the MSM in general has demonstrated a desire and perhaps a business/political interest in actively seeking to maintain the Liberal Party of Canada in power forever, regardless of the very real dangers of perpetual Liberal rule, including the danger that Canada might not even have a future if the Liberals are reelected again this coming election.
Global TV's Peter Kent, running as a Conservative in the upcoming election, alerted Mr. Goldstein to a "recent study by two Ryerson University journalism professors".
These findings are contained in "The Canadian News Directors Study", an informative survey of the political leanings and demographics of TV news directors, conducted by Marsha Barber and Ann Rauhala. The results were published in the May 2005 issue of the "Canadian Journal of Communication".
Among the findings of the study:
* Almost half of all Canadian television news directors, the individuals who have the most influence in determining what political news is covered on your favourite nightly newscast and how it is reported, vote Liberal.
* A TV news director working at the tax-funded CBC is almost three times more likely to vote for the NDP in federal elections, compared to his or her counterpart in the private sector.
* When this research was compiled in 2002, just over one in 10 (11.4%) of all private sector news directors said they would vote for the Canadian Alliance. However, not one news director at the CBC described himself (or herself) as an Alliance voter.
Note the unsurprising finding that the CBC is particularly leftwards-biased. Who would've ever noticed without a study to tell us?
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
A controversial title, even for a weblog post, for sure, but this is an important issue for Canada to deal with.
Lately it looks like there may soon be a push in Parliament to raise the age of consent for sexual activity from its current 14 to 16.
Here's an excerpt from the actual law as it stands today:
The Criminal Code does not now criminalize consensual sexual activity with or between persons 14 or over, unless it takes place in a relationship of trust or dependency, in which case sexual activity with persons over 14 but under 18 can constitute an offence, notwithstanding their consent. Even consensual activity with those under 14 but over 12 may not be an offence if the accused is under 16 and less than two years older than the complainant. The exception, of course, is anal intercourse, to which unmarried persons under 18 cannot legally consent, although both the Ontario Court of Appeal(3) and the Quebec Court of Appeal(4) have struck down the relevant section of the Criminal Code.
That'd be a good idea, though it should be even higher, like perhaps the legal drinking age, 19.
Why, one cannot even legally drive until 16. One cannot purchase, view, pose for or act in pornographic media until at least 18. One cannot legally drink alcohol until 19 or even more. Why in the world would any rational person who cares about the well-being of children ever believe it couldn't be somehow harmful to a fourteen-year-old to have sex with adults of all ages? Who among us believes the average 14-yr-old possesses the intellectual and emotional capacity to engage in such activity without being somehow harmed, exploited, etc.? We're talking fourteen, for heaven's sake! Just think about all the other age restrictions on the other things above and ask why fourteen for this?
Indeed, this is a question I'd like to see Liberal Justice Minister Irwin Cotler answer without the standard political BS.
The Canadian Sentinel hereby challenges Minister Cotler, Prime Minister Paul Martin, the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois to prove the age of consent should be left so low and to prove that anyone would be harmed by raising the AOC to 16.
Anyone else want the leftists to justify their preference for such a lack of state protection for the vulnerable children of Canada?
Feel free to give your point of view. Don't be shy about criticizing the government- it's your right under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Don't be shy. Let them know what you think about their cavalier, extreme lack of caring for Canadian children.
The comments section here is, as always, open.
Update: Sept. 29, 2005:
The Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc have voted down the CPC bill to raise the AOC from 14 to 16.
Which returns us to the question asked in the title of this post. Once again the left has shown its true colors of brown, green and grey, rather than their claimed "rainbow" colors.
Each day now brings with it more damning evidence of dangerous "liberal" leftist extremism, meaning it's increasingly critical to wipe the political slate clean of "Liberal" tyranny in the upcoming election.
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Seems whoever wrote that editorial (I believe it could be theoretically anyone, not necessarily the actual editor of a paper, unless required by law) is surprised that Conservative Leader Stephen Harper has indicated recently that the MSM must shoulder much of the burden of blame for the non-issue, unnecessarily overblown CPC malcontent Carol Jamieson's screechery against Mr. Harper. Note that it is her historical wont to do to all conservative leaders.
The editorial reads, in part:
Suck it up, Mr. Harper. You're not the first politician to have to deal with uneven, and even unfair, media coverage. A campaign spent treating journalists assigned to cover you as the enemy is a recipe for disaster. Like it or not, many Canadians make up their minds on how'll they vote not from campaign events in their community, or slickly (or not) produced ads, but on what they can sift from news coverage, day after day, until election day.
Oh, the arrogance! Of course, all politicians have had some unfavorable MSM treatment. However, the author of the editorial fails to accept that it's plainly apparent to anyone who has had open eyes, a functioning brain and an ability to identify clear patterns over time that conservative leaders and parties are at an unfair disadvantage relative to leftist "liberal" leaders and parties. See the related post immediately below this one for more on that.
The author also seems unwilling to admit to him/herself that there's no doubt that "Liberal" leaders in Canada have always treated the MSM exactly as described in said editorial. Trudeau- runs away, cavalierly belittles reporters, etc. Chretien- why, he's been shown on television actually physically threatening a reporter in Parliament and himself always ran up the stairs so as to avoid questions and nearly never scrummed, not to mention his sexist treatment of CBC's Christina Lawand, effectively telling her she's getting old, to go have babies and apply to a social program about which she simply asked a legitimate question. Now, just watch Paul Martin control media access to himself via RCMP physical intimidation (during his photo op visit to tsunami-ravaged Sri Lanka -the nation with the Tamil Tiger terrorists, but that's another story-). All this despite having a relatively easy relationship with the left-leaning MSM! They let them get away with far more than any conservative ever could!
Most arrogant of all is the author's monopolistic claim that the electorate will only be properly, fully informed by "sifting from news coverage". Whose coverage, the MSM's biased crap? And how many people actually have the time to go over all of it, every day, and take many hours of the day just figuring it all out for oneself, filtering out all the blatantly biased leftist spin, wondering what important facts were omitted from reporting? No wonder the blognet is expanding in relevance and readership at an amazing rate- this very blog (nee 9/11/2005) has had, since counting started Sept. 15, 2005, 600 visits with over 1,700 separate post views. By today, the 26th of September. Not bad for a perfect nobody with no money, no employees, only a pc, an internet connection and the internet and his brain to work with. And I'm not alone, either. Understand that, leftist MSM elites.
A warning to the MSM: clean up your act; grow up; do your job as real professionals or have your organizations purchased by citizen investor groups one by one and see the CRTC be abolished and replaced with a proper watchdog enforcing rules that serve the people, not the governing party. Don't dismiss this warning. We're already sliding down that slippery slope.
Monday, September 26, 2005
From the report:
Peter Kent has written to 29 academics at journalism schools, asking them to closely monitor coverage of the next election.
Four journalism professors have indicated interest.
From Mr. Kent's letter, cited in the report:
"Given my first-hand experience in newsrooms across Canada over the years, I believe that most Canadian journalists are small-"l" liberals,
"It is also clear that Canadian journalism schools tend to be staffed by predominantly liberal professors who, year by year, turn out even greater numbers of liberally conditioned graduates and post-grads."
"Is there an inherent liberal bias in some of our leading news organizations or, asking the same question another way, is there an inherent anti-conservative bias in some of our leading news organizations?"
There's more in the report, including description as to the blatant, astonishing but little-realized-by-most-people difference in media coverage of the Conservatives versus that of the Liberals.
It's pointed out that whenever small minority of Conservative members creates some fuss, the media tend to extrapolate from the few to the whole. With the Liberal Party, this is not the case, and this pattern of mainstream media (MSM) behavior is, in my opinion, clear, undeniable proof of leftist, anti-Conservative bias in the MSM.
The Canadian Sentinel will do what it can to monitor and expose this indubitable MSM hostility towards the Conservative Party of Canada. Without this scrutiny of the MSM, which is "federally regulated", by the way, Canadians may be unable to make a fully, properly informed democratic decision on election day, which is what the Liberals, naturally, want and have long counted upon.
Sunday, September 25, 2005
Ms. Jamieson, known for her long history of attacking all Conservative leaders in the past, recently made a left-wing media darling of herself by continuing her bizarre, uncalled-for attacks upon the CPC's current leader Harper.
Reynolds and Fortier rebut in their letter:
First off, Stephen Harper’s leadership is not in question. Those who are publicly attacking him represent a miniscule proportion of our total party membership. One critic in particular, Carol Jamieson, has garnered a disproportionate amount of publicity that belies her lack of credibility. Ms. Jamieson is a perennial malcontent who has militated against party leaders from Joe Clark to Stockwell Day and now Stephen Harper. She represents no one but herself, and none but the credulous take her seriously. Moreover it has come to light that some of the people she claims support her dissidence have denied it, further undermining the integrity of her claims.
The bottom line is clear. Stephen Harper is the best political leader in Canada. He is bright, articulate and passionate about his party and his country. His grasp of policy is unparalleled. He is someone who has thought long and hard about the issues. He has great faith in Canada’s unlimited potential, and knows clearly where he wants to lead us as a nation. No phoney photo-ops, no outlandish rhetoric, no promises that will never be kept. Leadership, vision, commitment. That is what Stephen Harper brings to the table. And that is why all of us, no matter our particular views on different issues, need to support our leader and our party.
In summary, it is simply bad politics to publicly attack your leader. It serves no one’s interests. Our party and caucus are strong and united. We have sufficient funding, a wealth of qualified candidates, a strong national membership base, and a caucus that is the envy of the political world. And we are led by the most intelligent politician in Canada today. Leave the carpers in their well-deserved obscurity. Let us focus on the future and work together for our fellow Canadians, and for Canada. (emphasis mine)
In short, Ms. Jamieson is merely helping the Liberals, deliberately, in my opinion. She knows that by carrying on with this irrational, assinine, unjustified nonsense she is giving the corrupt, cavalierly worthless, authoritarian Martin Liberal Party a big present. Why doesn't she just go and join Belinda Stronach on the benches of the soulless, principleless greedy opportunists who really couldn't care less about Canada and Canadians?
And, by the way, I would suggest that Mr. Bourque focus his attention upon something far more important: the TPC TechScam scandal which is expanding all around him.
Update Sept. 26, 2005: A Matter of Timing at Small Dead Animals: Kate reports on another Liberal scandal, the Firearms Registry, upon which Auditor General Sheila Fraser is training her skilled eye and is scheduled to report on it this coming February. Also includes coverage of the Carol Jamieson bugalaboo.
Read it and see for yourselves.
It's doubtful the mainstream media will pay any attention to this matter.
The Israel Air Force launched three air strikes on buildings in the Gaza Strip early Saturday in the first air attacks since Israel completed its pullout from Gaza last week, the Israel Defense Forces said.
Palestinian hospital officials said three people were lightly injured in the IAF operation.
The air strikes came after Palestinians launched 26 Qassam rockets at targets in Israel, 21 of which landed in the western Negev town of Sderot, wounding five Israelis, one moderately and the others lightly, the army said. Six others were treated for shock.
Israeli Cabinet has approved the retaliation (haaretzdaily.com).
Update: According to CNews, the number of missiles fired into Israel is thirty-five:
Israel launched a "crushing" retaliation Saturday against the Palestinian Hamas organization in the Gaza Strip with deadly air strikes, troops massed at the border and a planned ground incursion after militants fired 35 rockets at Israeli towns - their first major attack since the Israeli Gaza pullout.
Israeli Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz told security chiefs in a meeting "the ground of Gaza should shake" and he wanted to exact a high price from Palestinians everywhere, not just Hamas. He promised a "crushing" response, including air strikes, targeted killings and arrests, participants said afterward.
For the Palestinians' part:
Palestinian Interior Ministry spokesman Tawfiq Abu Khoussa called the plan a "serious escalation that will lead to a new era of violence."
Will it never end? Israel has bent over backwards, given up its rightfully-won-in-the-1967-war-territory, forcefully evicting its own Israeli citizens from their homes in a goodwill peace gesture towards Palestine. Yet Hamas doesn't care and obviously only wants war and to destroy Israel. When will the international community come to see what's really happening in the Middle East? How can so many not see that Hamas has always and still does want to destroy Israel simply because it's not an Islamic state as Hamas wants?
Now is the time to put an end to Hamas and all terrorist organizations. The truth cannot be denied.
Update Sept. 26, 2005:
See the latest on this story at Small Dead Animals.
AnchorPin.Redpin gives us some more straight dope on the not-so-straight dopes whom more Canadians than ever before have come to revile. They link us to John Gleeson's Winnipeg Sun column wherein he enlightens us as to more...
Also reporting intensively on the scandal (the TechScam one, actually) is Kate at Small Dead Animals.
Friday, September 23, 2005
From the article:
A scandal at the federal government's giant technology fund has widened with Industry Canada acknowledging that as many as 15 companies improperly paid commissions to middlemen or lobbyists. (Emphasis mine)
Until Thursday, Industry Canada had acknowledged problems with only four firms...
Now they admit fifteen... interesting...
The fund, created in 1996, has already committed $2.75 billion for 275 projects.
Wow. That's a lot of taxpayer money. A lot of projects. Bet it'll lead to an explosion of world-altering revolutionary technological inventions! But if the program's been up and running nearly a decade, where are the results? Anything like the invention of the telephone? Like the lightbulb? The internal combustion engine? (Anyone know if those inventions came about as a result of taxpayer money being handed out?)... is this value for the money? I say no. Let's end the program.
This week, (Industry Minister David) Emerson said he was replacing Technology Partnerships Canada with a new program beginning on April 1 next year. The Transformative Technologies Program, to be overseen by an expert panel of business people, is being billed as more transparent and accountable.
Rather a simplistic solution, isn't it? Give it a new name, put in some new, probably Liberal-loyalist "expert" "business people" and claim it's "more transparent and accountable"? What reason is there to believe the Liberals really mean to put an end to this TechScam thing? They've barely done anything much with all the other scams and boondoggles...
If the ultra-far-left had its way all the time, these are the kind of books that'd be available to read to the little ones. I'm sure they're, fortunately, fiction only.
The one with Elmo and Grover titled, "Elmo Experiments" is quite choice. If one is, however, a paranoid leftist, then don't go to that site and don't look at the what-if book concepts. They might offend, as they ring true about what the left thinks.
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Ah, yes. Here the MSM goes again. With their fetish for negatively reporting on Conservative Leader Stephen Harper. In this article from CNews, written by Dan Dugas, with the headline: "Harper angry at dissidents, media", we see more pure opinion without fact to back it up.
Whoever wrote the headline, be it Mr. Dugas or some special, sinister MSM headline-for-manipulation-of-readers specialist, certainly seems to me to have ignored the lack of evidence of any "anger" on Mr. Harper's part and nevertheless chose to perpetuate the popular MSM stereotype of Mr. Harper as "angry", as if having any kind of emotion makes one unfit to be Prime Minister (hey, Jean Chretien was many times visibly angry, we recall, and current PM Paul Martin is on record as declaring "I'm mad as hell...").
Mr. Harper said:
"Any Conservative, anywhere, at any time, can, by criticizing other Conservatives, become an instant and enormous media star. That's just the way it is, we'll have to get used to it."
How is that evidence of any "anger"? Reporters should simply state what Mr. Harper actually said without declaring their own belief as to what he may have been feeling as he said what he did.
Here's some more of what Mr. Harper said, with reference to a small number of party malcontents who have maliciously, unreasonably badmouthed him:
"The Conservative leader who wins, the leader who brings Conservatives together and unites them, is a leader who, frankly, ignores such people.
"It is a leader who does not spend his time attacking other Conservatives, it's a leader who spends his time attacking the Liberals and that's what I intend to do."
Can anyone explain how in the world this is evidence of "anger"? As far as the I'm concerned, it sounds very rational and leaderly.
Since the early nineties I have noticed the MSM abuse the headlines in an attempt to hurt Reform, the Canadian Alliance and now the CPC. CNews should be ashamed of itself and, I believe, should retract the misleading headline claiming "anger" on the part of Mr. Harper. And declare they regret the mea culpa.
Sept. 23, 2005:
CNews has changed its headline today. It now reads:
"Harper ignores Tory dissidents".
CNews has done the right thing.
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Incident at Grand Island, NY
Suspicious Activity by Two Men of Middle Eastern Origin Near Water Treatment Plant
On a beautiful late summer day about two weeks ago, a waterfront resident looked outside of the rear window facing the river (and Canada) and observed two men of obvious Middle Eastern origin carefully studying the Niagara River from a privately-owned dock. The witness, reportedly a long-time resident of the island and one who knows area residents, knew the two men did not belong there. Their suspicious and inexplicable behavior also added to the concern of the witness, who called the U.S. Border Patrol to report the incident as it was taking place. The Border Patrol, a constant presence on Grand Island, advised the caller that they would send someone to investigate.
Meanwhile, the unexpected presence of another neighbor apparently surprised and “scared-off” the two Middle Eastern men, who upon being surprised by the neighbor’s presence, fled from the dock to a large sedan bearing Ontario, Canada license plates that was waiting for the men at a nearby water treatment facility. The men apparently managed to elude the Border Patrol who arrived a short time later.
Additional details of this incident will be contained in future issues of the HQ INTEL-ALERT newsletter as they are developed.
One may subscribe to HQ INTEL-ALERT via this page: http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/hqintela.asp
Note that the suspected terrorists fled in a vehicle with Ontario plates.
Has anyone seen this incident reported in the mainstream media?
Note: Updated at 4:45 pm 22 Sept. 2005.
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Actual professional pollsters and front-line poll-sounders (the people paid to bug us at suppertime with questions on our voting intentions, etc.) are invited to respond.
Here are the questions from the concerned commentor:
So how about this for possible impact on the outcome of liberal polls.
Call made - respondant found out it was a poll, doesn't trust them to be unbiased, hates the liberals and won't talk to the polster. So his "never vote liberal" never even gets considered. Not undecided, just refuses to talk to polsters. How many of those do they get?
We are pressed by the media to believe these polls, but know so little about how they are done. I don't mean the high level common practice. I mean has anyone ever sat all the way through the process, right from deciding who to phone, to how questions are asked, what do they do if the person called speaks german? or spanish, or english??
Do they ask the first caller the same way they ask the 1000th caller. what if the polster can't quite understand the answer, do they just interpret what they heard? Do they call the same people from one poll to the next.
What do they do with the people who are sarcastic and rude?? Does one person make the calls or do 100 people make the calls. Is it just a job to those making the calls? Something to get through as quickly as possible? Do they ever just ignore the call and fill in the answers in order to stay on schedule? I would love to poll the polsters to find out what their answere would be and if the results would mirror the results they get from those they question.
Given the kind of corruption we see in the Liberal party, how many of the people making the calls are Liberal party supporters? Or known to the Liberals, who know how to put out the "warm and furry mat". I can't ask you to influence the outcome, but we know how hard you work and just might have an good job in government when you get tired of polling? conspiracy theory? Sure! But so many questions unanswered. So many reasons to distrust.
I wish someone would organize a poll that was so transparent, it could truly be trusted.
Why is it always the Liberal friendly media putting out these polls? Has the Western Standard ever done one where the results were any different? (not on alienation - on voting preferences)
September 19, 2005 8:49 PM
What say you, all ye pollsters out there?
Monday, September 19, 2005
Let's just look at the Liberals and Conservatives here, for they're the only parties that really matter when it comes to forming the next government. Libs: 40%; Cons: 24%, according to the claim made by Leger Marketing.
Bear in mind that:
"The numbers were reached after distribution of the 20 per cent of respondents who were undecided. "
Ok, so apparently it's standard practice in the polling profession to "distribute" the undecided percentage among the parties. But I personally find this to be worthless in terms of reliability, as regardless of established "scientific" methods as pertains to polling, the real world will not in any significant likelihood mirror this arguably arbitrary practice, however esteemed it may be amongst pollster peers. After all, polling is not an exact science any more than is economics, which itself has plenty of disagreement among its own peerage. Why do the pollsters seem to be so cocksure that their "science" is so damned exalted and practically above question? This is the impression I have gotten from discussing polling with those who understand it best- the members of the profession. It's best to provide the raw, undistributed numbers, including the undecided, so as to allow the electorate to better judge for itself and draw its own analysis, in my opinion, which I believe would be shared by many Canadians who don't like to be told what to think.
Here's some actual pollster analysis:
"It shows that even though they (the Liberals) went through hard times last spring, it seems that they're slowly coming out of it," said Anne-Marie Marois, Leger Marketing's research director.
In my opinion, that's pure opinion, completely at odds with common sense, as more Canadians than ever before are aware of how bad the Liberals really are and therefore would be highly unlikely to vote Liberal at such an implausibly lofty rate, which is the same as the Liberals have had, roughly, under Chretien when he won his majorities. Never happen again in a very long time, one must realize. Exact science, sure. Sure. But the pollsters will still defend their exalted "methods" and "techniques", of which they love to point out we know little or nothing, therefore our opinions are wrong and theirs are right...
Another surprising statement of Mme. Marois:
"And as long as he waits at least until the Gomery report is out and as long as the Conservatives still have Stephen Harper leading the party, his chances can only improve."
Ah, yes. There we have it: a clear partisan bias, as far as I'm concerned. Mme. Marois really should have been more judicious when opining about Mr. Harper's leadership's supposed effect on the relative electoral chances of the Tories and Grits, especially as she offered no rationale or even polling numbers (which really don't mean much crap to me). There's no reason for any intelligent, open-eyed Canadian to believe that there's anything lacking in Mr. Harper's leadership, unless they let his partisan opponents tell them what to believe. Also, there's Mme. Marois's bizarre logic that waiting till the Gomery report comes out will improve Liberal support! Only in the "Bizarro World", for sure! Man! Some people just go and make public spectacles of themselves by making such statements.
My own experience with polls is this: When a poll comes out claiming increased Liberal support and decreased Tory support, the MSM will go to work trying to get that claim rammed into the electoral consciousness. Why, here in Saint John, NB, the "Telegraph Journal" this morning put the "Lib-40%" poll right up on top on the front page. Contrast this with when polling claims increased Tory and decreased Liberal support. Never have I seen this on the front page of the TJ. Perhaps it'll be buried deep down in a little blurb of an article, barely noticeable. Plus, many times, I've seen one MSM outlet report on a poll favorable to the Tories, but nowhere else. A few days later, a poll comes out saying the Tories are "down" and practically the entire MSM in the nation takes off with it. Real-life story here. Leads one to the reasonable belief that the MSM is cheering for the Liberals. The longer they keep it up, the less reliable they'll be perceived as a source of objective information. No wonder so many people all the time are turning to the blognet to help them develop their perspective on whatever "information" comes their way.
Remember, polls are for dogs to piss on.
Saturday, September 17, 2005
In part, Mr. Bush said:
"As we rebuild homes and businesses, we will renew our promise as a land of equality and decency and one day Americans will look back at the response to Hurricane Katrina and say that our country grew not only in prosperity but in character and justice."
A beautiful, progressive plan, as any reasonable person could easily agree.
But Tom Clark doesn't want any part of this optimism and progressiveness. He says, instead:
"Anybody who knows that part of the United States knows its rather sorry history ... What George Bush wanted to do politically was shore up his support in the black community."
Oh, yeah? And how does Mr. Clark figure he's an expert on US history and on what Mr. Bush wants to do? Pure opinion; no factual information...
And, naturally, Mr. Clark, as any dutifully anti-conservative liberal MSM elitist obviously must, cites "some polls"...
"Some polls suggest 56 per cent of the American population feels less secure about what their government can do to protect them than they did before Katrina,"
Once again, an arrogant leftist MSM elite hides behind the tinfoil-like armor of "the polls", not specified, mind us... of which Mr. Clark seems to suggest, all find that exactly 56 percent of Americans feel "less secure"... Apparently Mr. Clark cares not a whit of having some kind of healthy perspective as to how unreliable polling can actually be regardless of its established scientific-like methodology and pollster peer esteem. Of course, after all, if one goes about asking people, following a disaster of this magnitude, if they're feeling less secure, one can naturally expect such an answer. And even if the "polls" are miraclously accurate, so what? How does this logically help Mr. Clark's attempt at making Mr. Bush look as if he really doesn't care at all and rather just wants to look politically good? Why, Mr. Bush can't even run in the next US presidential election, therefore, it's more likely he wants to do the right thing for the right reasons!
And the MSM tries to dismiss us caring, concerned citizens of the blognet who believe in factual information dissemination, as irrelevant, amateur, pajama-clad losers trying to play like we're a real information medium...
Looks like they're no better than we are, doesn't it now?
Friday, September 16, 2005
"Two Thumbs Up"- Ebert & Roeper
Rated "R" for Language (well, no surprise there; it's critical of Michael Moore!)
Yes! Arnold Schwarzenegger, according to an aide, is set to announce today that he'll run for reelection as Governor of California in November 2006.
The Sentinel predicts Arnold will continue his famous winning ways began way back as the greatest bodybuilder in the world, indeed considered the greatest of all time.
Don't you hope the Americans amend their constitution to make it possible for great, non-native-born American citizens to run for President?
Imagine the Terminator as President of the United States of America. Imagine how he will deal with Al Qaeda. Imagine him rolling up his sleeves and pummeling Osama Bin Laden into mush...
I'll take a ringside seat for that one.
The Cnews article to which I referred has disappeared suddenly this morning. The other news sites of the MSM have nothing at all on this troubling information.
I have seen this sort of thing many times over the years. A report or two making the Liberal Party of Canada look extremely bad comes out, and then... absolutely nothing. What happened? Did the long arm of the Prime Minister's Office reach out threateningly all over the place, causing all to fall silent on the story? I've been scanning the MSM sites, but no joy on the story whatsoever. Scanned a few blogsites, but again nothing.
I could be somehow wrong, but I believe it's better to say something about a matter of potentially grave concern than to timidly stay silent out of fear of mortal humiliation. What if there's something to it? Why, just read the Cnews article as linked above! Decide for yourselves.
Whenever something comes out making Conservatives look bad, the MSM cannot shut up to save its life. Remember the Grewal tapes exposing the Liberal behavior wrt... oops, whatever happened to Andrew Coyne, I wouldn't want to happen to me, as I have no idea how horribly he may have been treated... anyway, the MSM cared not a whit about accuracy, but rather of making Mr. Grewal, CPC Leader Stephen Harper and the entire CPC look bad. All the so-called "experts" claiming the tapes were fakes, but without proof thereto... the nonevent at the airport with a package that already passed security anyway... and so on... see what I mean?
As I said on the last post on this matter, if something's left up to the MSM, if it's their job to inform the people of important or potentially important facts, then often, if the Liberals would be politically hurt by the information, we learn little or nothing of it. It was bloggers who brought down Dan Rather and exposed Liberal wrongdoing by forcing the MSM to take real notice and do its job. I am hoping perhaps the blognet will do its job this time as well.
Has anyone any information to share on the Industry Canada "audits" of improper payments to intermediaries, as we saw in Adscam? Remember, it's in this post.
Thursday, September 15, 2005
The blognet is basically a subset of the blogosphere, which itself is rather monstrously diverse, with pretty much no limitation as to blog type or content.
The blognet is much more narrowly focussed. Its function is as a new current events medium run largely by ordinary citizens who care enough to ensure that real-world information being collected and disseminated, be it by the mainstream media (MSM) or by governments or merely by individuals, be as factual as possible.
This is a rather new concept, most famously exemplified in CBS's Dan Rather's well-known forced-by-a-caring-blogger-with-a-sharp-eye resignation from his lofty, powerful MSM post for his at-least-negligent false reporting on US President George Bush in the 2004 US Presidential election. More recently we saw American blogger "Captain Ed" thumbing his nose and publishing court-banned Gomery inquiry testimony, which created an unprecedented-for-the-governing-Liberals firestorm of disgusted condemnation from Canadians of all walks of life and political orientations. Had the Captain's reporting been left to the MSM, I surmise, the particular "banned from publication" revealations of the inquiry would most likely have been relatively downplayed and Paul Martin's Liberal Party would have escaped far less damaged than they actually did.
The blognet is a cooperative, collaborative community of amateur-but-serious citizen reporters and watchdogs. It has been demonstrated as "catching", as with a dragnet, discrepancies, omissions, lies, etc. by the "authorities" and the MSM and training the harsh spotlight of scrutiny upon them. Certainly the blognet is relatively in its infancy but growing and maturing very rapidly, with, for example, premier current events blog Small Dead Animals recently passing the one millionth site visitation since its inception in early 2004.
For the upcoming Canadian general election, I propose:
- Intensification of scrutiny of MSM errors and evidence of bias and exposing them to the public to enhance informed decision-making on election day. The same goes for political dishonesty and dirty tricks, which need to be discouraged via exposure and discussion by as many citizens as possible. It's our right, after all.
- Keeping within current (and very wrong) election law regarding spending on political expression, I recommend that serious bloggers actually advertise their blogsites in the MSM so that a greater number and diversity of citizens can benefit from their service to their country and their fellow citizens. It's insufficient to simply build it and expect them to come, as they'll be unaware of its existence. Advertise however you can afford. There will be some extra hits for sure, and if just a few people end up better-informed, then they may tell others about your blog and perhaps themselves even get involved too.
The leveraged power of this new medium remains hugely untapped. It's time to attach the faucet to the keg.
Stand up for Canada. Stand on guard for thee. After all it is your country too.
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
"Recently disclosed documents show Industry Canada has already spent at least $755,000 probing 52 companies to determine whether they inappropriately paid middlemen to secure cash ..." (Emphasis mine)
"...the investigation so far has been unable to come up with answers in about 30 per cent of the cases studied, so Industry Canada has begun a fresh round of audits to dig deeper into the firms' books. "
"In June, Industry Minister David Emerson confirmed that a 2004 audit of five companies receiving money from the technology fund identified $3.7 million in improper payments to intermediaries."
Where's Sheila Fraser? Hopefully now training the crosshairs...
The blognet can also do its part. Let's see what else comes out and do our duty...
The Liberals must be forced to face the spotlight on their incompetence in managing our money yet again!
So what if three disgruntled members have their panties in a wedgie? Big, fat, hairy deal. Everyone has an opinion, but these three haven't a leg to stand on.
Let's not go there again. Ignore these three. Stephen Harper knows pretty much what he's doing better than ever. He has the goods. Compare him to "Mr. Dithers" Prime Minister Paul Martin. Doing so sobers one up and drives home the realization that Stephen will indubitably be better for Canada... by far.
The three blind mice in question also claim we've plenty of time to select a new Tory leader. Talk about ridiculous claims in the face of reality. Not only isn't there any reason whatsoever to question Stephen's fitness as PM, there is not time to worry about anyone's leadership, save for Paulie's of the country, of which there is none anyway.
Back to the real matters at hand. No need to make much ado about nothing, but as for the MSM, nothing surprises me. We must do what we can to keep the MSM from getting too full of itself within its ivory towers.
Stand up for Canada. Stand on guard for thee. Not for three.
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
Mr. Mulroney is upset, saying he feels "devastated" and "betrayed".
It's causing quite some controversy. Mr. Mulroney, according to Mr. Newman, has said some critical things about fellow former PM Kim Campbell, to which Ms. Campbell, apparently annoyed at his long-ago criticism, replied for herself. The blogosphere is rife with discussion of this tempest in a teapot.
Of what consequence is it that Mr. Newman wrote this book? None in the real world, unless we foolishly make it of consequence.
This is nothing more than a money-making stunt for Mr. Newman and a welcome distraction for Prime Minister Paul Martin in taking some rightfully critical attention away from his corrupt, lackluster, sorry excuse for a government.
Canadians would be well advised to roll their eyes at the MSM for making a big deal. Why, we've seen the devastation in New Orleans caused by hurricane Katrina and, instead of focussing discussion upon what we should be doing to prepare for similar disasters in Canada and discussing many more truly relevant matters such as the threat of terrorism and the rapidly deteriorating state of democracy, the MSM chooses to yatter on about their neverending fetish, Mr. Mulroney.
Leave him alone already. He's not at fault for the many, many inexcusable problems from which Canadians suffer or may someday suffer. Hello, the fault lies with Paul Martin and his "Liberal" Party.
Let us instead direct our anger towards those who really have it coming, and allow Mr. Mulroney to recover in peace from his long illness and enjoy his retirement. For heaven's sake, Canadians are supposed to be nice, pragmatic people!
Sunday, September 11, 2005
Today, as much as ever, Canada needs all of its citizens to "stand on guard for thee". There are many threats to the well-being and future of our great nation with which we must all deal.
The Canadian Sentinel was created by a citizen who cares what happens both inside and outside Canada's borders.
As The Canadian Sentinel undergoes initial construction, your comments would be welcome to help it to grow and develop.
Stand up for Canada. Stand on guard for thee.