Religious Intolerance By Any Other Name

Is still religious intolerance

Let it never be said that Canadian Cynic doesn't have his uses. They're few and far between, but he does have them.

Coming to us via the perennially-crazed Lulu at Canadian Cynic today is the Atheist Conservative, who has an imaginary bone to pick with Stephane Dion over whether or not Dion is a Scientologist:

"I don’t want to assert to [sic] heavily here, as I don’t have any evidence besides Stéphane’s own writings.

What concerns me is his recent "Bridge to the Future" plan. It smells like Scientology. It stinks like Scientology, I should say. The Scientology belief is that people progress along a "Bridge" to unlock their personal inner power.

I ravaged the internet and could only find cursory hints that Stéphane might have links to Scientology, but nothing definite.

We need to hammer this quickly. If Stéphane Dion is a Scientologist, he needs to be resign from public life for the betterment of the entire country.

I know I’ve got a bit of tinfoil-hattery going on here, but I think, in this case, it’s healthy. It’s possible, and it would be nice to see politico’s distance themselves from this dangerous, murderous cult."

What "Loreweaver" seems to be taking issue with is an essay Dion published in Policy Options Magazine. Ironically, the opening paragraph casts a long shadow over Loreweaver's post. For once, Stephane Dion -- allegedly a very poor communicator -- has said something I couldn't say better myself:

"As the party of the centre in Canada, the Liberal Party
of Canada spent much of its history building an
inclusive country."

While I contend that the Liberal party certainly hasn't built our "inclusive country" all on its own (consider that the alleged centrepiece of the Liberal party's accomplishments is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms originally written as the Bill of Rights by John Diefenbaker), the ultimate premise of Loreweaver's post -- that Scientologists are somehow unfit to hold public office by simple virtue of being Scientologists -- flies directly in the face of the inclusive country that Canadians have built together.

In the long and short of it, Loreweaver takes exception to the very gall of Dion to use a bridge metaphor in the article. (Apparently, Scientology uses a lot of bridge metaphors as well.) He then uses this as an opportunity to jump to the conclusion that Dion is a Scientologist, and thus unfit for public office.

For its own part, Dion's article is often a historical revisionist flight of fancy -- imagining that the Liberals built programs such as Universal Health Care because they believed in them, not leveraging the survival of their minority government because it was demanded by Tommy Douglas and the NDP -- but it's really just a regular recounting of Dion's policy beliefs. None of it seems terribly religious in any regard.

But Loreweaver's attitude really underlies what is all too often a rash streak of religious intolerance underlying the beliefs of the most devout fundamentalist atheists.

The argument put forth is that Scientology is inherently menacing to public policy, and that any Scientologist should be immediately disqualified from holding public office because of their religious beliefs.

Such attitudes have been seen before. In the United States, hostility to Catholicism became the basis for discrimination against Irish immigrants, who were viewed as potential traitors to the United States (it was assumed their first loyalties would always be to the Pope).

This hostility was so deeply rooted that John F Kennedy became the first Catholic President of the United States in 1961 -- nearly two hundred years after the United States was established.

The hysteria that took root then is ultimately the same as the hysteria that takes root now: particular candidates should be considered unfit for public office because they can't be trusted not to govern according to their religious views. The argument raised by Loreweaver against Dion is ironically the same argument raised by countless other "concerned parties" (who often also identify themselves as atheists) against Mike Huckabee, who reportedly believes in creationism.

Yet both the United States and Canada have both been governed by religious people beliefs ever since the establishment of either country. The "imminent disaster" that so many critics, like Loreweaver, site when insisting that individuals with unsavory (or, as is the case with Scientology, kooky) religious beliefs be considered unfit for public office has yet to materialize.

There are, of course, scenarios in which an individual has embraced religions refined into political ideologies -- this is the case with the most militant Muslims and Christians -- who, one hopes, the public at large will reject if they can't be trusted not to govern according to religious dogma.

But such is hardly the case with Dion. In the short run, Loreweaver's entire argument becomes more than a little pointless, as it turns out that Stephane Dion is a non-practicing Catholic. Not a Scientologist.

But even if Dion were a Scientologist, his worthiness for public office should be assessed according to his political beliefs, not his religious beliefs.

To declare him unqualified by simple virtue of his religion is the height of religious intolerance -- bigotry that, unfortunately, the most extreme fundamentalist atheists are more than willing to promote as "sensible" and "rational".

But never in the history of the world has bigotry -- flat-out bigotry -- been "sensible" or "rational". Mostly because bigotry is born in the most insensible and irrational places the human heart has to offer.

Ironically, this is a lesson that Cynic and his ilk have to learn as well -- but that's another story for another day.

Contest Over

Edwards endorses Obama

As the months-long campaign for the Democrat Presidential nomination has drawn on, contenders Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have both been looking to land that perfect knockout punch -- either at the polls, or in terms of key endorsements.

Yesterday, Barack Obama has probably landed that punch. It was rumored to be months in coming.

As reported at length virtually everywhere American politics is reported on, yesterday former candidate John Edwards endorsed Barack Obama for president.

"Democratic voters have made their choice, and so have I," Edwards announced.

"There is one man who knows and understands that this is a time for bold leadership. There is one man that knows how to create the change, the lasting change, that you have to build from the ground up," he added. "There is one man who knows in his heart there is time to create one America, not two ... and that man is Barack Obama."

Edwards took some time out to lavish some praise on Hillary Clinton, whom he reportedly considered endorsing.

"What she has shown ... is strength and character, and what drives her is something that every single one of us can and should appreciate," Edwards said. "She is a woman who, in my judgment, is made of steel, and she's a leader in this country not because of her husband but because of what she has done."

Clinton has put up a very respectable struggle, but Edwards' endorsement may have knocked her campaign down for the last time.

In terms of the delegate count, Edwards' endorsement is largely inconsequential. He has a grand total of 19 pledged delegates. None of them are obligated to support Obama, and they aren't nearly enough to secure a decisive victory.

But with Obama ahead in the popular vote, pledged delegates and even superdelegates (which Clinton had looked to as her last, best hope), Edwards support should be enough to swing enough of his supporters to transform Hillary Clinton's already-uphill climb into a sheer 90 degree grade.

Of course, given the numerous calls for Clinton to quit the race so Democrats can focus on John McCain, and Clinton's steadfast refusal to quit, to presume she'll finally throw in the towel would be more than a little bit premature.

At least we can presume Edwards finally got his Jet ski.

Partisans With Short Memories

Omar Khadr affair has serious implications for Liberal party

There's little question that the ongoing Omar Khadr affair poses a significant dilemma for Canada, one that, by necessity will eventually have to be addressed by the sitting Conservative government.

Yet as the issue continues to gather steam as a partisan issue, the Omar Khadr case has also taken on some very serious implications for the Liberal party -- implications that Romeo Dallaire and Stephane Dion don't really seem to comprehend.

"Canada is alone among Western nations in not having secured the release from Guantanamo of one of its nationals. Prime Minister Harper must finally ensure Mr. Khadr receives the same consular support that any other Canadian -- detainee or not -- would receive," Dion lectured in September 2007.

Dallaire first publicly announced his intention to agitate on Khadr's behalf on May 1 of this year.

"I'm going to be a pain. Every time I stand up in the Senate, the leader of the government knows I'm coming at her and every time she gives the same answer, she is losing more and more feathers," Dallaire said.

"There is no depth of logic in [the government's position]," Dallaire added. "There is a real smell of short-term political fiddling. There's no doubt that's influencing the decisions. It's setting up Canada to lose enormous credibility when it's being tested on one of its own people."

Of course, the problem for Dallaire -- and for the entire Liberal party -- is this: where was Romeo Dallaire before May 1, 2008?

Where was Stephane Dion and the Liberal party in July of 2002 when he was first arrested by US troops in Afghanistan?

The answer: in power.

Where was Stephane Dion and the the Liberal party on September 19, 2004 when Omar Khadr turned 18 years old?

The answer: in power. Romeo Dallaire would be appointed to the Senate the very next year.

And what did the Liberal party do to help Omar Khadr? Not a damn thing up until their ouster from office in January 2006.

This party that now wants to agitate on Khadr's behalf, and take up the mantle of human rights and clemency for child soldiers, didn't do a damn thing on Khadr's behalf when they were in power and had the ability to do so.

It's a reality regarding this affair that only serves to undermine them politically. While both men may well be legitimately concerned for Khadr's well-being -- and Dallaire's previous tragic experience with child soldiers arms him with particular credibility to this end -- their previous inaction only serves to discredit them.

As each man seeks to lecture the government from the opposition benches of their respective House, their sudden show of concern is starkly contrasted by their previous silence while sitting on the other side of the aisle.

There is a serious issue underlying the Khadr case that must be resolved.

But in order to contribute constructively, Dion and Dallaire need to cool their partisan fires, think back to all the things they didn't do when they had the opportunity, and accept their share of the responsibility for the current state of affairs vis a vis Omar Khadr.

Then we'll be one step closer to recognizing the Khadr affair for what it is: a non-partisan political issue that demands resolution.

The Toronto Star Asks:

How low will the Conservatives go?

Not this low:



This has been another Accuracy in Reporting minute.

Hillary Finds the High Road

But can she walk it?

As the campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination has drawn on, it has typically become even more contentious and even more divisive.

Hillary Clinton finally spoke out on that particular topic today, as she noted that she would prefer her supporters vote for Barack Obama should he secure the Democrat nomination.

"Anybody who has ever voted for me or voted for Barack has much more in common in terms of what we want to see happen in our country and in the world with the other than they do with John McCain," Clinton announced.

"I'm going to work my heart out for whoever our nominee is -- obviously I'm still hoping to be that nominee, but I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that anyone who supported me... understands what a grave error it would be not to vote for Senator Obama," she added.

Yesterday, Clinton won the West Virginia primary in a 41-point victory dismissed by some as irrelevant -- a win Clinton desperately needed to justify staying in the race.

But with the vast majority of observers insisting that the race has largely been decided in Obama's favour, one has to wonder if Clinton has finally found the high road so she walk it, or so she can use it to travel to a Vice Presidential nomination.

After all, one remembers some of Clinton's recent rhetoric, and remembers how low Clinton was willing to stoop in order to get -- or at least maintain -- an edge over Obama in West Virginia.

But if Clinton is resolutely determined to actually walk the high road, the prospects of a Democrat president in 2008 may have just brightened significantly, as those helping to turn the lights down on that possibility -- entrenched Clinton and Obama supporters unwilling to vote for the other candidate -- may have just been given cause to think twice before voting for John McCain.

Tough Questions Regarding Omar Khadr

Child soldier, terrorist, or a little of both?

The controversy surrounding Omar Khadr came to a head during a hearing of the foreign affairs committee on international human rights, as Lt Gen (ret) Romeo Dallaire and Parliamentary Secretary Jason Kenney came to odds of Khadr's treatment.

Today, Dallaire compared Canada unfavourably to Al Qaeda for not treating Khadr as a child soldier.

"The minute you start playing with human rights, with conventions, with civil liberties in order to say you are doing it to protect yourself … you are no better than the guy who doesn't believe in them at all," said Dallaire. "We are slipping down the slope of going down that same route."

For his part, Kenney took exception.

"Is it your testimony that al-Qaeda strapping up a 14-year-old girl with Down Syndrome and sending her into a pet market to be remotely detonated is the moral equivalent to Canada's not making extraordinary political efforts for a transfer of Omar Khadr to this country?" Kenney asked.

Dallaire was typically resolute in his answer.

"If you want a black and white [response] … I am only too prepared to give it to you: absolutely," Dallaire replied. "You are either with the law or you are against the law. You're either a child soldier or you're not. You're either guilty or you're not."

The dramatic nature of Dallaire's response aside -- that is certainly one thing that Dallaire excels at -- the issue really is not that simple, regardless of what Khadr's advocates may claim.

The Khadr affair has taken on some degree of partisanship, as the Liberal party's Dominic LeBlanc, NDP's Joe Comartin and Bloc Quebecois' Vivian Barbot have been quite vocal on his behalf.

For his own part, general Dallaire has proven to have little use for partisanship. As an individual with extensive experience dealing with child soldiers, his concerns are certainly genuine.

The confrontation really underscores a key dilemma as it regards Omar Khadr: notably, whether to treat him as a child soldier or a terrorist.

Certainly, the age at which Khadr was taken prisoner by US soldiers -- 15 years -- is of issue. There is absolutely no question Omar Khadr was a child soldier. However, there is a larger question about whether or not Khadr should be treated as a terrorist.

Dallaire insists that Khadr should be released almost immediately. But the experiences some other countries have had releasing terrorists should give Canadians cause to think twice.

Considering the experience Algeria has had with its clemency program -- in which terrorists surrendered peacefully in return for a full pardon, only to continue to plot and carry out attacks such as the various bombings this past year.

Of more concern still are the activities of Khadr's family. In particular, Abdullah Khadr, Omar's older brother, was arrested in Pakistan for buying weapons for Al Qaeda.

While Khadr's tender and impressionable age certainly warrant consideration, one must certainly consider that Abdullah Khadr -- 25 years old at the time of his arrest -- serves as an example that the militant ideology taught to them by Ahmed Said Khadr has taken root very deeply indeed.

If Omar Khadr is simply released into Canadian society, we must realize that we are taking a tremendous risk. Upon release, he very well could be a ticking time bomb.

It's important to note that Khadr's US military lawyer, Lt Cmndr William Keubler, has assessed Khadr very differently.

"The Omar Khadr they describe does not exist," Kuebler previously testified. "He is not one of our enemies in the war on terror, he is a fellow victim of those enemies."

Keubler's assessment of Khadr could very well be accurate. But Canadian officials had better be certain before releasing Khadr into the general public. The stakes are simply too high to take any unnecessary risks.

Some of Dallaire's other criticisms were spot on. The highly questionable legality of the legal proceedings -- not to mention the torture -- at Guantanamo Bay are clearly of concern to any country whose citizens are being held there.

The question is not really if the Canadian government should be seeking Khadr's release into their custody. Certainly they should. The question is what Canada should do with Khadr after taking him into custody.

It's a very contentious question, one that will continue to provoke a good deal of controversy yet. But one thing is for certain. Canada needs to bring Khadr home. His brother Abdullah's criminal responsibility is much more certain, and even he has been in Canadian custody since 2005.

"The way to sort it out is you get the prime minister of this country to call the president and say 'I want my boy out and we’ll fill out the paperwork after.' And that's it," Dallaire insisted.

Likewise, what to ultimately do with Khadr is something better left until after he's back in Canadian custody.

And When They Have Nothing Else to Say...

They resort to this. Anything to avoid addressing their own intellectual dishonesty.

But we aren't that surprised, are we?

Marty's Barking Up the Wrong Tree... Again

There's nothing like vindication to brighten your day

The perpetually intellectually dishonest Marty Rayner was at it again yesterday, taking issue with a post here at the Nexus noting the successful detection and prevention of two Kandahar bomb attacks.

One should recall that the post in question noted that the revisionist crowd would be dismissive of the recent success. And Marty, god bless his intellectually dishonest soul, just had to take it upon himself to prove it:

"It takes a special kind of stupid to take yesterday’s report that Afghan security forces foiled two improvised explosive attacks in the province of Kandahar and declare this “Another Sign of Success in Afghanistan” when you consider that over 920 police officers were killed by militants in 2007 and that on the very same day as the “sign of success” in question, Afghan police killed a protester and wounded three others who were demonstrating the earlier killing of three civilians by coalition forces in eastern Afghanistan."

Which would certainly be awful if it were all as simple as that.

Unfortunately for Marty, he declines -- as he so often does -- to fully address the news story he sites as proof that those Afghan police are just awful:

"Dozens of protesters blocked a road Saturday in eastern Afghanistan, claiming U.S.-led coalition forces killed three civilians, and a local official said police fatally shot one of the protesters and injured three of them.

Villagers from the area carried three bodies to a major highway during the protest. Police allegedly opened fire, killing one and wounding three.

The coalition said its troops were attacked Friday while searching compounds in the Shinwar district of Nangarhar province.

"Several militants were killed" and nine insurgents were arrested, the coalition said in a statement Saturday.

The coalition said the operation was targeting a "foreign fighter network" and that militants in the area had recently attacked coalition forces. The troops destroyed several automatic rifles, grenades and ammunition discovered in the compounds.

Interior Ministry spokesman Zemeri Bashary said the government is investigating the villagers' claims.

"The coalition claimed they were fired upon from a house and the enemy were gathered there, but the villagers claim those people who were killed were innocent civilians," said Mohammad Hashem Ghamsharik, spokesman for the Nangarhar governor.

The head of the Nangarhar provincial council, Fazel Hadi Muslimyar, said police opened fire on the protesters, killing one and wounding three. Police refused to comment.

The Afghan government has pleaded with coalition forces to coordinate more closely to avoid civilian casualties, but foreign troops says insurgents hide in villages, using civilians as human shields."

The video, in particular, that Marty cites, is entirely in a foreign language. A grand total of one line in the entire minute-and-a-half long video is translated via subtitle, noting the claim that those killed and detained by US troops were civilians.

A claim that Rayner has decided to take at face value, despite the weapons cache discovered and destroyed.

Against this particular backdrop of deliberate misinformation, one is led to take with a grain of salt the claims that protesters were fired upon -- or at least wonders if, as is so often the case, these protesters were actually armed.

Rayner also notes the casualties taken by Afghan Police over the past several weeks -- once again, indulging himself in overlooking the fact that the casualty rates were addressed in the original post, and noted for what they are: evidence that, despite numerous examples of success, plenty of work still needs to be done.

Marty engages in all of this fanciful argumentation to underscore an argument that, somehow, the discovery and aversion of two bomb attacks isn't a success. The implicit stupidity of that particular argument need not be addressed here.

But what does need to be addressed here is the efforts of Rayner, and many of those who think like him -- to obscure the public record in regards to all things pertaining to Afghanistan. It will be addressed further in the future.

Through the Looking Glass

Martin Rayner, meet whoever the hell this guy is.

The obvious differences aside, it's almost like looking into one of those disturbing funhouse mirrors. Or like that old Star Trek episode.

"Dion's Carbon Tax Gambit" is Big Game Politics

Plays to weakness in Canadian politics

According to the National Post's Terence Corcoran, Stephane Dion's proposed carbon tax is a huge, ill-conceived gamble.

And it is. It plays to the general Liberal strength of putting together a good-sounding idea, making it look good on paper, then worrying about the planning after they get the votes.

But the carbon tax may be the first sign that Dion is ready to put his money where his mouth is, take some risks, and play big game politics. And if he plays his hand right, this is one idea that he very much could parlay into a tenancy at 24 Sussex Drive.

It isn't that the carbon tax is such a fantastic idea.

It won't do anything to curb carbon emissions -- economic research shows us that unless they're extravagantly high, taxes do little to provide an incentive to stop consuming a product, be it gasoline, tobacco or alcohol, and often in fact make a person feel entitled to continue consuming guilt-free.

It will absolutely never be revenue-neutral -- taxes, by their very definition, aren't ("revenue neutral" is an obfuscatory phrase).

Last, but not least, knowing the record of Liberal governments in Canada, we don't even have any guarantee that the revenue accrued under a carbon tax will be spent as Dion insists it would be -- in helping to offset carbon production with energy efficiency and carbon-capture projects.

But Dion's willingness to promote a carbon tax attacks what has become a structural weakness in Canadian politics.

In particular, a recent poll conducted by Nik Nanos found that most Canadians (31% of those polled) prefer Stephen Harper's vision of Canada. However, those that do account for less than a third of Canadians.

Dion himself slipped three points in the vision category. Jack Layton lost four points and Elizabeth May shed two. Harper, however, stood pat from previous findings.

Instead, an increasing number of Canadians are becoming unsure as to who is offering Canadians the best vision. According to Nanos' findings, a whopping 35% had no preference.

There's good reason for this, and it comes back to the very real sense among Canadians that our politicians have foregone any sense of vision.

And while the carbon tax's inevitable effect on fuel prices could make the vision that Dion is promoting potentially hazardous, one can't underestimate the potential drawing power of a politician with a vision.

After having spent so long without politicians with any demonstrable vision -- aside from Preston Manning, Brian Mulroney has been the only federal leader to give voice to any kind of vision at all, let alone one that Canadians are prepared to buy into.

There's also a lot to be said about a politician who's willing to take a risk. If Dion truly sticks to his guns on this one, he could see a lot more Canadians to take a long second look at the Liberal party. While there's no guarantee that they'll be willing to give him the political capital necessary to place his bet on a carbon tax, his chances to do that should improve significantly.

Then again, quite a few Canadians are likely not very eager to support a politician in gambling on Canada's future.

At the end of the day, Dion may find himself placing this bet all on his lonesome. But only time -- and lady luck -- will tell.

Another Sign of Success in Afghanistan

Afghan police foil bomb plot

In a turn of events almost certain to infuriate various historical revisionist naysayers, Afghanistan's police force took a big step toward earning their stripes today, foiling two bomb plots in Kandahar.

Afghan Security Forces started early in the day when they seized two vehicles filled with explosives and arrested three people. The arrest garnered information that allowed them to locate and disarm two Improvised Explosive Devices in the city.

Reportedly, one of the IEDs was found near a school.

The cars were suspected to be transporting explosives to Taliban forces in Panjwai.

"They were giving bombs from Pakistani Taliban to Afghan Taliban," said Kandahar provincial police Chief Sayed Aka Sakib.

Of course, to pretend that today's events represent a triumph for Afghan police and that all the hard work training police in Afghanistan would be more than just a little premature.

Some of the casualty rates being absorbed by Afghan anti-drug units demonstrate that there is still a lot of work to be done in Afghanistan.

But today's events remain an encouraging sign -- regardless of what the revisionists may or may not have to say about it.

Truth Hurts

Better ban it

Apparently, the cognitive dissonance being experienced over at Unrepentant Old Hippie has simply become too much to take.

"I have a lot of patience, but even I have limits. You can come here and be a jerk, insult people, and falsely attribute things to me that I never said -- but only for so long. Then it becomes trolling -- annoying and boring."

Except that you did say those things, JJ. All of them.

Banning people from your Haloscan is one thing, but you'll never delete your own shame -- and you definitely have cause to be ashamed.

A French President Who Knows How to Handle Quebec

Sarkozy wants to help Canadian unity

In another move certain to infuriate Gilles Duceppe, today French President Nicolas Sarkozy announced he wants to "bring together" Quebec and Canada.

But what a difference 41 years can make.

On July 24, 1967, then-French president Charles De Gaulle addressed a crowd assembled outside Montreal City Hall. In years since, it would be identified as a hallmark moment for the Quebec sovereigntist movement. "Vive le Quebec libre!" he announced.

"I'll confide in you a secret that you will not repeat," he said. "Tonight and all along my route, I found myself in an atmosphere of the same kind as the liberation" [of France from Nazi Germany].

"One day or another, Quebec will be independent," DeGaulle was quoted as having said only four years earlier.

De Gaulle was visiting Quebec partially to commemorate Expo 1967, which was being held in Montreal. Historican (then-television reporter) Joe King, who reported extensively on De Gaulle's visit would later note that the visit "seemed staged to breathe nationalist life into Quebecers".

"He was pretending that he was liberating these villages," he added. "The whole thing was an act, from one end to another. The whole thing was a pretence to stir up trouble."

De Gaulle's characteristic arrogance is well documented in the pages of history. Certainly, De Gaulle was an individual who believed himself entitled to interfere in the affairs of numerous countries -- including Canada.

More than four decades later, there's been quite an attitude change in the French Presidency.

"The future of Canada and of France will be the future of two countries, not simply allies, but friends," Sarkozy said today. "Our friendships and our loyalties do not oppose one another. We bring them together so each can understand what we have in common. We will turn toward the future so the future of Canada and France will be the future of two countries that are not only allies, but two friends."

Sarkozy made the remarks while visiting a Canadian military cemetery in Beny-Reviers while commemorating the 63rd anniversary of VE Day, marking the end of the second World War in Europe. The sacrifices made by thousands of Canadian troops -- mostly English Canadians while most French Canadians stayed home -- in liberating France is something that De Gaulle certainly overlooked. Its comforting that succeeding French Presidents haven't done the same.

Of course, Gilles Duceppe will almost certainly have something to say about Sarkozy's efforts at helping to unite Canada.

Remarkably, although Duceppe will certainly protest until Canadians have tired of hearing from him, Sarkozy's intentions toward Canadian Unity will have far less an effect than he -- or Canadians -- would like to hope. France simply hasn't been viewed as important to Quebec nationalists for many years now.

All the same, relations between Canada and France -- especially vis a vis France are moving in the right direction. Nicolas Sarkozy is a credit to the country he serves.

Half Way to a Thousand Posts And Not Tired Yet

This is the 500th post published to the Nexus of Assholery. And while I try to refrain from self-indulgent monologuing, this is one time I think I've earned it, so I'll indulge myself in an opportunity to share some of my personal thoughts on exactly what's been going on here for the last few years.

First off, a lot of work goes into 500 posts -- at least, a lot more than one would expect. It's a long journey, and a lot is learned.

As a political blogger, you learn a lot of things on your way to 500 posts:

Some people will like you. some people won't.

Some people will debate you. Others will refuse.

Some people will be honest. Some people will blatantly refuse to be honest.

Some people will take criticism. Some people won't.

Some people will stand up with you for what's right. Some people will lack the courage.

Some people will respect you. Some people won't.

Some people will prove to be worthy opponents. Some people are simply pathetic.

A person makes a lot friends and a lot of enemies on their way to 500 posts. A person will win battles and they'll lose battles. There will be good times and there will be bad times. But it's been worth it here all along.

To my edification, I've won a lot more of my battles than I've lost -- although the defeated refuse to own up to their defeat. There are legions of hiveminded sycophants who would likely beg to disagree -- but it's hard to take such mindless individuals seriously.

It's rewarding to stick to one's principles and win while your opponents abandon theirs in the name of victory -- and thus lose. It's fun to watch your opponents play into your hands and attack what they believe are weaknesses, but are really places of strength disguised as obvious weakness.

(The fact that so many left-wing demagogues have yet to comprehend the Nexus Credo is proof enough of that -- as is the fact that some right-wing demagogues have yet to comprehend that this is not exclusively a conservative blog.)

If you're stalwart and disciplined enough, it's enjoyable to watch them scramble to assassinate your character, and put forth some rather pathetic efforts. The fact that they would resort to attempts at character assassination at all is evidence that, yes, you've gotten to them, and they simply don't know how else they can win.

(They can't; but fortunately, they aren't smart enough to figure it out yet.)

And the desperation, for some of them, is really starting to show:

"You progressive bloggers need to set up a schedule to organise your focus on Teh Nexus."

Of course, there are two problems with this: first off, that all too often, my opponents turn out not to be neither true progressives nor conservatives, but simple demagogues in disguise -- anything that gets people to buy into their every word, every thought, is inherently rewarding to them and unfortunately there are all too many people who are willing to do that.

The other problem is that they've already tried to play the numbers game and lost. The fact that I'm still here, still blogging, still defiant, and still taking it to them is proof enough of that.

They may not be honest enough to admit when they've lost. But the edifying thing about beating someone good and decisively is that you never need to hear them admit it. You just know you've won. Most of the time they know it, too, but just aren't honest enough to admit it.

But you see it. You see it weighing on them. And every so often, they let their facade slip, just a little. When they indulge themselves in fantasies like this:

"The righties like Patrick are just worried that the next time they go to bully some emotionally charged and vulnerable person that person will fucking punch him in the face and then curb stomp him. It's pure self interest, nothing more. It's hard to bully someone when your jaw is wired shut and you're in a wheel chair."

If that isn't a fairly disturbing look into the inner recesses of the mind of a demagogue, one would wonder what is. Besides, deep down, everyone around here knows who the bullies are. And these people seem to like them just fine.

Bullying isn't the issue. It clearly isn't when these people slavishly applaud and worship at the feet of a pack of consummate bullies. The issue is their desire to silence and utterly erase the views of anyone who disagrees with them.

If they haven't yet figured out that they'll never get that satisfaction, they need to get the message.

My name is Patrick Ross. I'm the author of the Nexus of Assholery, and I'm here to stay. No amount of attack is ever going to change that.

Those of you that message is meant for know who you are. Expect to hear from me early and often. Don't expect to enjoy it.

And I'll see you at 1000 posts.

Obama Expects to Have Nomination In the Bag

Barack: Two weeks to a finish

Barack Obama believes he's two weeks away from being able to get serious about his campaign to become the next President of the United States of America.

The magic date Obama's looking forward to is May 20. "If at that point we have a majority of pledged delegates -- which is possible -- then I think we can make a pretty strong claim that we have the most runs and it's the ninth inning and we've won," he insists.

Some estimates put Obama as few as 175 delegates away from an outright victory.

However, considering the Democrat practice of dividing delegates up proportionally, it's unlikely that Obama will achieve the 2,025 delegates by that date -- West (May 13) Virginia has 39 delegates at stake and Kentucky and Oregon (May 20) have 60 and 65 delegates, respectively.

Claiming the 175 delegates he needs to close the race basically depends upon Hillary Clinton throwing in the towel, which is unlikely to happen anytime soon. Recent estimates indicate that Clinton has sunk her entire Senate salary and all the proceeds from her book into the race.

"This is a little like déjà vu all over again," Clinton said. "Some in Washington wanted us to end our campaign, and then I won New Hampshire. Then we had huge victories on Super Tuesday. Then we won Ohio and Texas and Pennsylvania. And I was never supposed to win Indiana. Well, I am running to be president of all 50 states."

Meanwhile, Clinton has indulged herself in some potentially damaging political rhetoric.

"You know, there was just an [Associated Press] article posted that found how Senator Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans - white Americans - is weakening again, and how the whites in both states [Indiana and North Carolina], who had not completed college were supporting me," Clinton said. "These are the people you have to win if you're a Democrat in sufficient numbers to actually win the election. Everybody knows that."

It isn't too hard to look into that statement and read "white voters are going to decide the president". Those who are looking at this contest along racial lines are all too likely to read precisely that.

Racial tensions in the race have already exploded numerous times already. Most recently, on Tuesday, Clinton supporter Paul Begala insisted the Democrats "can't win with eggheads and African Americans".

This, of course, can't help but devastate the Democrats' claim that they are the party of "black America" and that they are the party of racial equality.

Certainly, Begalia, like Clinton, couldn't have intended the comments the way they sound. Unfortunately for them, however, those comments will all too often be treated the way they sound. And they don't sound good.

The Obama/Clinton contest has, at this point, been misplayed too entirely to benefit anyone but the Republicans. If Obama does manage to get this contest wrapped up in two weeks time, it will likely be to the benefit of the party.

Just don't expect Hillary Clinton to go quietly. She simply won't.

What Opposition MPs Gossip About Over Their Crib Games

Maxime Bernier's ex-girlfriend his own business

Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier's ex-girlfriend may have been born to be wild, but the reaction of Opposition MPs to recent revelations about her suggest that they've spent the better part of their lives walking on the mild side.

It's recently hit the news media that Julie Couillard, a woman formerly so close to Bernier that he described her as his spouse, had previously been involved with some members of the Hells Angels biker club -- the very same organization likely responsible for recent threats against Diane Finley.

At one point, Couillard was even reputed to be a target of Maurice "Mom" Boucher. "At one point the suspicions were so high that there was a contract on her … She was going to get it. She came close to getting it," testified Stephane Sirois, who turned informant in 2003.

Couillard accompanied Bernier to Rideau Hall for his swearing-in as Foreign Affairs minister, and accompanied him on several trips abroad.

Unsurprisingly, Opposition MPs have demonstrated little shame in trying to transform the revelation into a soap-opera-plot-cum-political scandal.

"Mr. Bernier needs to explain because we want to know if there were any matter of national security involved," Liberal leader Stephane Dion announced.

"They are everyone's business and we will raise them in this House," Ignatieff added.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper disagrees. "I hear that one of my cabinet ministers has an ex-girlfriend," Harper quipped. "It's none of my business, none of Mr Duceppe's business, none of Mr Dion's business. Mr Duceppe and Mr Dion are quite a group of gossipy old busybodies."

And Harper's precisely right. Bernier's romantic liaisons are nobody's business but his own. And to suggest that a woman who was targeted for assassination by Maurice Boucher is a national security risk is more than a little ludicrous. If anything, the prospect that a villain like Boucher considered her threatening enough to want her dead suggests the exact opposite.

To put Bernier on trial for Crouillard's previous taste in men -- something he didn't even know about until the media brought it up -- is a ridiculous farce.

Unfortunately, the Opposition has shown a taste for ridiculous farce of late.

From the moment she arrived in Ottawa, Couillard has been fodder for ridiculous farce. Some may recall her name on the tongues of Parliament Hill gossips once before, when she showed up to Bernier's swearing-in ceremony wearing a scandalously revealing outfit.

If anything, Canadians should probably be wondering why Bernier and Couillard aren't still together -- biker girls tend to look pretty decent in black leather. Sexy. (You need a hanky to mop up some of that drool, perv? -ed.)

All joking aside, Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff need to remember that this is the Canadian House of Commons we're talking about here -- not The Young and the Restless.

Although one does wonder what Stephane Dion will do next week when his evil twin brother makes a reapperance on the scene. (You'll know him when you see him -- he's the one with the mustache.)

Nelson Mandela is Not a Terrorist

Nobel Peace Prize winner needs to be removed from terror list

In a not-so-shocking recent revelation, it's been discovered that former South African President Nelson Mandela is still on a list of those considered to be potential terrorists by the US government.

And the US Congress is only now debating legislation that would force his removal from that list.

Of course, the United States aren't the only ones who have experienced telling terrorists and legitimate freedom fighters apart. Perpetually fresh in the memories of many Canadians are the terminally stupid remarks of Conservative MP Rob Anders who, as a then-Canadian Alliance MP, called Mandela a "Communist and a terrorist."

"He's the politically correct kind of 'lib' left poster-boy of today," Anders would later add. "I would say that 30 years from now Nelson Mandela will not be lionized as much as he is today."

It was a stupid (as then-Prime Minister Jean Chretien generously described the remark) notion then, and it's still stupid now.

Only in this day and age could Nelson Mandela, who successfully managed to force the abolition of South African apartheid, share a space on a list with Osama Bin Laden.

Hopefully, that will change within the next 30 hours -- not merely the next 30 years.

There Are No Superheroes to Save Us From the Indiscretions of the Arms Trade

Superhero film highlights arms trade in a new way

This weekend's big box office winner, Iron Man, is far from the first film to take aim at the arms trade over the last couple of years.

Andrew Niccol's Nicholas Cage-powered Lord of War took aim at the international arms black market in 2005.

For the savvy viewer, Iron Man crosses the finish line as a similarly thought-provoking film (although admittedly with a lot more explosions along the way). This time, however, the film's target is the arms black market's necessary handmaiden, the legal international arms trade.

Robert Downey Jr -- a remarkably befitting choice -- plays Tony Stark, a carefree but brilliant man who has parlayed his unparalleled engineering genius into astounding wealth and renown as the world's top weapons manufacturer.

All too often, the only thing more appealing than his work life -- where he labours along side personal assistant Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) -- are some of the obstacles he has to overcome -- particularly, attack dog reporter Christine Everheart (Leslie Bibb). Even his normally-stuffy military attache, Jim Rhodes (Terrence Howard) can be loosened up every once in a while.

However, Stark's life changes forever when he travels to Afghanistan to showcase an incredible new weapon he's developed -- think of it as a self-propelled cluster bomb on steroids. While traveling in Afghanistan, he's ambushed by what seem to be terrorists and taken hostage.

His captors turn out to be not terrorists, but the Ten Rings, a band of world domination types -- although some would argue there is little difference -- who expect him to build them a missile just like the one he just test fired.

To help him accomplish this, Stark is provided with a significant cache of his own company's weapons, which have somehow fallen into the hands of the Ten Rings.

But Stark has a problem. Shrapnel lodged in his chest during the ambush is being held at bay only by an electro-magnet installed in his chest by his cell mate. Instead of building a missile, however, Stark builds himself his ticket out of captivity -- the Iron Man armour which transforms Stark from billionare playboy cad into intrepid super hero.

Upon breaking out of captivity, Stark decides to shut down Stark Industries, leave the weapons manufacturing business, and perfect his armour design.

But Stark is eventually spurred into action when Everheart, his part-time nemesis reveals that recent atrocities taking place in a barely-identified place in the world (it could be a Middle Eastern country or an Eastern European country -- the film isn't entirely clear) are being committed with weapons manufactured by his own company.

Stark quickly discovers that Obidiah Stane (Jeff Bridges) has been selling these weapons to groups like the Ten Rings, and probably others like them. Now he intends to wrest control of Stark Industries away from Stark, and presumably continue to profit by selling arms both over and under the table.

Stark notes at one point of the film that the arms trade has "no accountability", and to a large degree this is true.

In particular, some may recall a revelation last year that Canada's federal government hasn't released a report on arms exports for the last four years. The last available annual report showed a jump to $678 million in exports in 2002 from $302 million in 1997.

In the meantime, Canada has become a mass weapons exporter -- the sixth largest in the world.

The emergence of Canada as a legitimate power in the weapons trade and a notable lack of transparency regarding who is selling those weapons, and to whom (in particular weapons weren't tracked if sold to the United States) has implications for Canada's foreign policy.

In particular, Canadian firms were known to be increasing their exports to various Latin American countries in the mid-to-late '90s.

Considering some of the events taking place during that time period -- civil strife in Guatemala and a suspicious coup d'etat in Haiti -- one can't help but wonder if the combination of arms exports to Latin America and a demonstrable interventionist streak in the foreign policy of Canada's biggest ally could have resulted in a chapter of Canadian history few Canadians would be comfortable with.

Another interesting issue at play is a lack of public knowledge of who is investing in Canadian defense firms -- namely, us. Every Canadian who has paid a CPP contribution has invested in the arms trade, as the Canada Pension Plan has invested no less than $2.55 billion in Canadian defense firms.

Certainly, numerous Canadians would find this particular revelation to be unsettling, to say the least.

There are reasons why the arms trade has many secrets it is loath to surrender -- just as Tony Stark discovers in Iron Man.

Just as the arms black market poses distinct challenges in terms of foreign policy, so does the legal arms trade. After all, the weapons sold in the black market have to come from somewhere. And while poorly-tended weapons stocks in former superpowers -- as well as stocks taken overseas and left their by existing superpowers -- have provided black market dealers with abundant stocks, what often offers them the best profit is the most current materiel.

And to pretend that arms firms have no incentive to sell to oppressive or warlike regimes would be nothing less than an exercise in naivete. Black market arms dealers can often be a means to this very end.

It's time for governments the world over to put a shorter leash on weapons firms.

After all, we can't count on real-world arms dealers to be as surprisingly conscientious as the fictional Tony Stark.

Even Though We Didn't Need It...

Proof that, as opposed to feeling a little embarrassed, these particular pro-abortion extremists are actually quite pleased with themselves.

Frankly, it's every wife beater's wet dream: if these people have their way, the day a domestic assault can excused by saying "the bitch had it coming" aren't all that far off.

Sad.

Gilles Duceppe to Canadian Francophones: Go Fuck Yaself

Surprise! Duceppe only cares about Quebeckers

Ever since its emergence in 1968, the Parti Quebecois and its federal stalking horse, the Bloc Quebecois, have often been fingered for having an insular view of Francophone issues.

In particular, Quebec sovereigntists have often pointed to the survival of French Canadian culture as the most important reason why Quebec needs to separate from Canada and become a sovereign state.

But if one ever points out that there are numerous Francophone communities throughout Canada -- not just in Quebec -- one often provokes a response from these individuals not much different from Dick Cheney: Wal-Mart greeter.

Such was the case today when Governor General Michaelle Jean conjured the utter gall to suggest that there are Francophones outside Quebec.

"There are a million of them out there fighting to save their language and their culture," Jean said. "And I will tell president Sarkozy, 'Look beyond Quebec.'"

Predictably, Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe is positively outraged. In particular, he's outraged that the Governor General -- a symbolic representative of the British monarchy -- would dare speak about matters pertaining to Francophone culture, or Quebec.

"I think France should look beyond Michaëlle Jean," Duceppe announced. "Mr. Speaker, we are elected. It's not like a monarchy. A monarchy is anti-democratic."

"The representative of the Queen repeated that the 400th anniversary celebrated France and Canada," he added. "Does the Prime Minister realize that we're talking about the 400th anniversary of Quebec City and of the Quebec nation? Isn't it the Quebec nation we are celebrating, and not a ridiculous monarchy?"

Of course, there are two problems with this. First off, Jean said the commemoration of the 400th anniversary of Quebec City's establishment was an opportunity to celebrate "permanence of the French fact" in North America, "more particularly" in Canada -- and all of its Francophone communities.

Secondly, the establishment of Quebec city very much is, as Prime Minister Stephen Harper reminded Duceppe, common heritage.

"Four hundred years ago in Quebec City our country was born," Harper replied. "The foundation of Quebec City is also the foundation of Canada. The Governor-General is the successor of Samuel de Champlain, the first governor of Canada. All Canadians celebrate that very important historic event. It's our common heritage."

Even Liberal leader Stephane Dion -- likely desperate for an opportunity to take a crack at Duceppe -- added in that Quebec City is "considered the cradle of francophones in North America, the cradle of Quebeckers, French Canadians and all Canadians."

All of these things are, of course, true. But unfortunately the insular ideology of the Quebec sovereigntist movement has little room for such truths.

One of these truths undermines a fundamental principle of the Quebec sovereigntist movement, and the two political parties that have been created to advance its agenda: the idea that Quebec is the single and absolute stronghold of Francophone culture in Canada.

It is not the case.

In fact, Francophone communities endure in Canada from coast to coast to this very day. From Bonneville, Alberta to Nipissing, Ontario to Shippigan, New Brunswick -- and countless communities in between -- there is an abundance of Francophone culture in every single province in Canada.

Naturally, this shakes the Quebec sovereigntist movement, which is so often preoccupied with the concept of the Pure Laine Quebecois, and built upon what is -- regardless of whether they will admit it or not -- a racial/cultural ideology that offers little room for outsiders.

Certainly, the Quebec sovereigntist movement has often courted the support of ethnic and cultural minorities when it needed them. Yet one also remembers Jacques Parizeau's xenophobic response when Quebec's ethnic communities helped to rebuke the vision forwarded by himself, Rene Levesque and Lucien Bouchard.

It's unsurprising that Gilles Duceppe would react so violently to the very notion that Francophones outside Quebec matter. Those whose path he continues were never really ready to make room within their narrow view of "Quebecois nationalism" for minorities inside Quebec. Why would they worry about a few lingual minorities outside Quebec?

In this day and age, it isn't often that the Bloc Quebecois show their true colours. But today Gilles Duceppe has done precisely that, and in effectively raising his middle finder to Francophones outside Quebec (many of whom, by the way, have roots in Quebec) and scores of great historical Quebeckers -- like sir Wildfred Laurier -- Duceppe has shown the amount of respect he has for Quebec's real history, and the real history of Canadian Francophones.

Precisely none. Especially when he has the opportunity to peddle the Quebec sovereingtist brand of historical revisionism.

Hillary Clinton is Not Going Home

Hillrod to stay in the race despite major setback

After her big win in Pennsylvania, many people were beginning to think that Hillary Clinton's campaign was beginning to grow some real wins.

One day after a big loss in North Carolina and a narrow victory in Indiana, Hillrod's prospects of securing the Democrat Presidential Nomination are beginning to look continuously dimmer, as Barack Obama continues to nurse a narrow lead in terms of both pledged delegates and the popular vote.

To give herself an extra push, Clinton has loaned her campaign another $6.4 million. She had previously lent her campaign $5, meaning she has, to date, sunk $11.4 million of her own funds into her campaign.

Hillary Clinton is not going home.

Up until yesterday, Clinton's strategy was to erase some of Obama's lead in pledged delegates and popular vote enough to draw enough superdelegates to her side to offset the difference, and emerge the Democrat Nominee at the Democratic National Convention.

Even her chances of that are looking ever-slimmer as George McGovern -- a man who will certainly hold a considerable amount of sway amongst the party-elite-selected superdelegates -- has urged her to drop out of the race.

"It certainly was not out of any less respect for Senator Clinton," McGovern announced. "I think she has waged a really courageous and valiant campaign. She will have my affection and admiration for all of my days. But I think mathematically the race is all but won by Barack Obama and the time has come for all of us to unite and get ready for the general election in the fall."

McGovern, who previously supported Clinton, has now decided to back Obama.

It's hard not to admire Clinton for choosing to soldier on despite the extremely slim odds, and it all really comes down to one of life's simplest maxims: continue to fight so long as you can win.

Even though her chances may be slim indeed, Hillary Clinton very much can win this contest. While the party elite may not necessarily agree that prolonging the primary process is in the party's best interest, at least Clinton will make things interesting up until the very end.

Close Mouth, Swallow Pride, Repeat as Necessary

Alberta opposition parties may finally be starting to figure this whole Alberta politics thing out

After decades of Progressive Conservative government, Albertan politics may finally get the breath of fresh air that it so desperately needs.

As reported in the Edmonton Journal, the Alberta Federation of Labour -- one of the organizations behind Albertans for Change and the aggressive attack ad campaign against Ed Stelmach -- has proposed a "unity pact" between the Alberta Liberals and NDP.

"We are proposing an agreement that would stop centre-left parties from running candidates against each other because vote splitting is keeping the Conservatives in power," wrote AFL president Gil McGowan, who drafted the five-page proposal almost immediately after the 2008 provincial election.

In essence, the pact would combine three agreements:

First, the Liberals and NDP would decline to run candidates against one another, in theory allowing each "centre-left" candidate (as McGowan describes it) to monopolize the "centre-left" vote.

Secondly, the two parties would campaign separately, but agree on a core list of principles they would work in favour of if elected.

Thirdly (and finally), the two parties would institute major electoral reform should they form a government, including possibly a proportional representation system.

"I'll be blunt, it's deliberately provocative because after the election in March it became clear to me that we need to do more than the usual post-election navel gazing," McGowan insists. "We have to start thinking about new approaches because if nothing changes we're looking at another 40 years of one-party rule."

For their part, both NDP leader Brian Mason and Liberal leader "Cowboy" Kevin Taft have agreed to consider the pact.

"Everything's on the table at least for the Alberta Liberals," says Taft. "Everything from the name of the party, the leadership of the party, policies, the structure of the party, and the possibility of reaching out to supporters in other parties, all of that is on the table right now. There's a lot of conversations going on."

"I have my own views," added Mason, "but I think at this stage what I want to do is encourage party members to have that discussion and we need to work through this as a party to come up with an idea of where we want to go as a party."

Mason has also noted that the NDP are willing to work with the Albertan Green party.

Of course, there's no guarantee that Liberal or NDP candidates would manage to capture the entire left-of-centre vote in any one riding across the province. In fact, experience with the Conservative Party of Canada -- which has never totalled the combined vote of the Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservative parties since merging -- in fact suggests otherwise.

But a non-competitive pact, particularly in urban centres such as Edmonton and Lethbridge, could make a few seats worth of difference. Based on 2008 results, not quite enough to form the government, but enough to strengthen the opposition enough to look forward to better results in the future.

"From the right of the political spectrum we will be accused of trying to hijack the political process," admits McGowan. "And from the left we will be vilified for 'selling out' and abandoning core principles. Harsh words will be spoken and more than a few relationships and friendships will be broken. But it still needs to be done."

Of course, forming a "unity pact" is only part of the strategy Alberta's opposition parties need to employ. Another part of a winning strategy for the Albertan Liberals and NDP is a good, hard second look at their respective policy platforms to evaluate whether or not Albertans are likely to favourably respond to.

The other side of the equation that will still need to be addressed is leadership. Brian Mason is irrelevant in Albertan politics, and will remain so indefinitely, unity pact or no unity pact. Meanwhile, Kevin Taft has taken on all the characteristics of an embittered, facetious little wannabe who is slowly beginning to realize he never will be. Neither one of these two men is capable of leading the province, and eventually their parties will have to address the sad state of affairs in their front offices.

Without better policy, more relevant to the interests, concerns and needs of Albertans and better leadership, the unity pact -- if adopted, and there's no guarantee of that yet -- will remain a moot point.

Alberta's opposition parties need to open their minds, close their mouths, swallow their pride, and repeat as necessary.

More Arguments We Suddenly Accept

Elderly man "had it coming" pro-abortion zealots insist

One simply has to hand it to some bloggers. The meaning of the word hypocrite simply never seems to penetrate their skulls, even while they're in the act of making one out of themselves.

And sometimes it starts with something so simple as forgetting the lessons that we're taught in the most formative years in our lives -- or making a conscious choice to discard them entirely.

Consider the recent case of various left-wing bloggers who approved of the assault on 69-year-old Ed Snell.

Their basic argument, in the end, has basically boiled down to "well, we had it coming."

And in their minds, it's an argument that we suddenly accept. Accept that we don't.

It behooves us to remember that Nathan Richardson, the 69-year-old Snell's assailant, was 23 years old -- a full 46 years Snell's junior. Clearly, Richardson is much younger, bigger, and stronger than Snell -- something that only serves to underscore the shameless brutality of Richardson's assault.

It's the very same principle why our society condemns violence by men against women. Generally, men are much bigger and stronger than women. It's why many women demand stronger domestic assault laws, to protect women.

But there are defenses that we simply don't accept. Arguments such as "she had it coming".

Provocation is rejected by almost anyone as a defense in the case of violence perpetrated by a man against a woman and, normally, against a senior citizen. But swap that woman for an elderly man with political opinions that the individual in question finds offensive, and the response suddenly changes from one of condemnation to something like the following:

"If you're going to stand on top of your car yelling at people, yeah, someone's probably going to take you down a peg." -Pedgehog

"Guys like Snell are the moral equivalent of fraudsters who deliberately step into the path of an oncoming car and then fake their "injuries" to be worse than reality, hoping for a financial payoff. In Snell's case, he was hoping for a legal payoff.

Too bad the judge didn't drop his sorry ass into a cell." -Chimera

"Does one have the right to follow up a verbal assault with a physical one?

If there is no other way to end the verbal assault, you're damn right you do. It may not be legal, but it was absolutely the right thing to do." -Realitybites

"Would it be terribly improper of me to point out that Mr. Richardson is quite the hotty, and is welcome to push me down any time he wants?" -Realitybites

"My feeling (and I'm guessing probably most peoples' feeling) is that Snell poked a stick through one too many fences expecting beagles to be behind them, and eventually came up with a rottweiller. That doesn't make the rottie a good guy, it just makes Snell a dummy who it's extremely hard to sympathize with, and easy to ridicule. Some would say he had it coming." - JJ

"I'd have kick the old fart in the nads while he was down for good measure - make him think twice about harassing my wife or girlfriend (don't tell my wife about her) during such a time." -Mike

"That's precisely the reason why not following up with a kick to the head was a bad thing to do." -Chimera

"I couldn't care less if the old guy disagreed with my POV -- he was being an asshole, for the umpteenth time in his life, and he got what was coming to him." -JJ

"Snell got what he deserved. Like I said at JJ's, I would have kicked him in the nuts a few times while he was down. It would have been worth it." -Mike

Suddenly, these are the kinds of defenses these people believe should be accepted.

But if we don't accept the "he had it coming" defense from nine-year-olds who beat up on five-year-olds... if we don't accept them from men who beat up on women, why on earth would any rational, sane adult accept them on behalf of 23-year-old men who beat up on 69-year-olds?

We don't. Then again, these aren't rational, sane, well-adjusted people. It's become entirely evident that this particular faction of the pro-abortion lobby has completely lost their minds.

It's all rather sad. One certainly doesn't have to approve of Snell's views, or of the method he chooses to express them, in order to admit that the violence perpetrated against him was wrong.

And it was. Indisputably -- whether these hateful psychopaths want to admit it or not.

The funny thing is that as soon as an abortion clinic doctor is targeted by an act of violence, it's used to paint the entirety of the anti-abortion lobby with the same terroristic brutality, despite the fact that many members of the anti-abortion lobby are willing to come out and condemn such violence.

Yet when violence is perpetrated against an anti-abortion activist -- even in the course of a confrontation as lop-sided as this one -- they approve. If one were to treat these individuals as they evidently imagine themselves -- as representatives of their movement -- it becomes hard to believe that the entire movement doesn't carry the very brutal, violent edge that they imagine -- and condemn -- in their anti-abortion opponents.

It's all the more reason for, whenever these particular crazed extremists of the pro-abortion lobby rant and rave about the latest outrage perpetrated by anti-abortion terrorists, their condemnation should be greeted with nothing but scorn. Sympathy should be extended to the victims and their families, but the cowardly, shameless hypocrites who approve of and, make childish excuses for, violence perpetrated against their anti-abortion opponents deserve to be treated with nothing but contempt.

We will not accept those arguments from men who beat women, and we will not accept them from young men who assault septuagenarians.

May 2008 Book Club Selection: Worth the Fighting For, John McCain

Better know a would-be President vol. 1: John McCain

With the 2008 United States Presidential election quickly approaching, time is becoming of the essence to start to get familiar with the candidates.

Although many Canadians like to imagine a degree of detachedness from American policy, the fact of the matter is that whomever gets elected President of the United States -- long considered the leader of the free world -- will have a real impact on people the world over.

This month's Nexus book club selection will be the first of a three-part series. In the vein of Stephen Colbert, we'll call it "Better Know a Would-Be President".

It's unlikely that a clear picture of who will be the Democrat nominee will emerge anytime soon, so it may be best to start with the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain -- and perhaps best to at least start with his own words.

Worth the Fighting For is an illuminating look at McCain, his career, and the values that make him tick. Not only does the book deal with his military career and chronicle how it blossomed into a political career, but it also provides a deeper look into McCain himself, by continually profiling various individuals he has come to regard as a hero. (Yes, even those who consider themselves Presidential material have heroes.)

On the political side, McCain pays particular attention to his various cooperative efforts with Democrats (quite fittingly, for the man who has managed to garner himself a reputation as the most non-partisan of the partisans).

Not that he doesn't spend any time on any "outrages" perpetrated by Democrats -- the sordid John Tower affair garners particular attention. McCain very much is capable of partisanship.

Unlike many politicians, he's also capable of owning up to his own mistakes. He even goes out of his way to address his own flip-flopping over the Confederate Flag during the South Carolina primary -- one that certainly helped him lose the state when he contested the 2000 Republican presidential nomination.

If the observations of commentators like Warren Kinsella prove to be astute, John McCain may very soon be making many decisions -- trade-related, foreign-policy related and defense-related -- that will have very real impacts on the lives of ordinary Canadians.

The time to better know a would-be President is now. Worth the Fighting For provides a window into the deeper heart and mind of the man. It doesn't necessarily provide a complete picture -- autobiographies rarely do -- but it's an excellent start.

Even the Toronto Star is Starting to Figure it Out...

The Liberals are the party of big business.

The Conservatives? Not so much.

Insite Making Partisan Mountains Out of Political Molehills

Safe injection site poses dilemmas for addiction treatment, federal government

If one were to believe some of the rhetoric being forwarded by supporters of Insite, Vancouver's Safe Injection Site and (predictably) opposition MPs, one would think that the site is under immediate threat of being shut down by federal Health Minister Tony Clement.

"This is going to be catastrophic for people who have substance abuse problems, for society, for taxpayers, for crime," said Liberal MP Dr Keith Martin. Martin was, at the time, referring to then-forthcoming Conservative party drug policies.

Some may recall that the policies covered three different pillars: enforcement, prevention and treatment. In one of the most blatant examples of intellectual dishonesty in recent history, various left-wing ideologues refused to ackowledge the fact that $32 million -- the largest parcel of funds being doled out under the new program -- was directed toward new treatment programs, while another $10 million toward prevention programs. The very same treatment and prevention programs that most of Canada's top drug-policy experts advocate.

One sees a similar rhetorical feat being accomplished in regards to Insite. While those who support the site and those who benefit politically from portraying the government as dangerous and reactionary in regards to it have combined their efforts to perform an act of rhetorical slight-of-hand to try and apply pressure to keep the site open, it turns out that a lot of the hysteria suggesting that the site is in imminent danger of being closed is simply that: hysterics.

But to begin to demonstrate this, one really needs look no further than the most recent news-making item regarding Insite: the release of a recently-completed report about Insite's impact -- or, more notably, lack thereof -- on crime rates in its surrounding community.

"We looked at crime rates in the area surrounding Insite, and we talked to business operators, we talked to service providers, to police, to residents in the surrounding vicinity. We found, overwhelmingly, people had very positive sentiments," said Neil Boyd, a criminologist at Vancouver's Simon Frasier University. "Not only that, crime rates were quite unaffected by the implementation of Insite. ...In fact, we found some improvements in public order with respect to decreased injection debris, decreased injections around the site and those findings simply corroborated other research that had been carried out prior to our study."

Insite operates under an exemption to Section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

"I don't think there's much doubt anymore," Boyd said. "We have to move to close this chapter and give Insite a long-standing exemption."

There is strong support for Boyd's case. But one also needs to keep in mind that it was Tony Clement, in October of last year, extended Insite's exemption, which was due to expire. This was the second extension that Clement had granted the operation while his Conservative government examined the issue.

Naturally, the extensions themselves were treated derisively by opposition MPs who benefit politically from portraying the Conservative party as being too hard on drugs.

"If Prime Minister [Stephen] Harper really believed that Insite is a useful tool in treating addictions, he would have extended the program for years, not months," said Martin, who insisted that the extension was simply a "stalling tactic" used to leave the issue open so the Conservatives could close the site if they're able to win a majority.

"I am a little cynical about these short-term extensions. It's no way to address a serious health issue," agreed Victoria NDP MP Denise Savoie, who also harped on the Conservative party's alleged "narrow ideological view" on drugs.

This, one remembers, was coming from a party whose press release counter-factually admonished the Conservative party for allegedly not supporting treatment and prevention. Talk about a narrow view.

It would also be indicative of a narrow view to suggest that a fledgling government -- as the Conservatives have been for the past two years -- shouldn't review any active policies of the previous government that may give them cause for concern. And whether the varying supporters of Insite like to admit it or not, Insite does pose a number of practical, moral and ethical dilemmas for the government -- dilemmas that require time to examine.

In particular, Insite does pose a dilemma for politicians who understand that crime often has an interrelated nature. Drug addictions, in particular, have been shown to have an impact on property crime rates. While Insite has been decisively shown to not negatively impact crime rates in its community, the study itself was still important. Property crime in regards to Insite is one dilemma we can now consider effectively solved.

A Health Canada report released last month dealt with this particular dilemma, along with numerous others.

Among those other dilemmas is whether or not Insite provides users with an incentive to seek treatment. Harm reduction strategies clearly do a lot of good. The one particular benefit that offers the greatest public advantage is probably stemming the spread of sexually-transmitted disease.

The recent Health Canada report suggests that the number of referrals from Insite to detoxification and treatment centers has increased the overall use of these facilities -- certainly yet another feather in Insite's cap.

Another dilemma is whether or not the public funding for Insite is a particularly wise investment considering that it essentially supports the use of illicit substances. Clearly, the public benefit of the site would have to exceed its costs. The Health Canada panel conducted a cost-benefit analysis of Insite and found that it accrues $4 worth of public benefit for every single dollar spent. Clearly Insite passes this test as well.

The report also concludes that Insite saves lives by preventing drug overdoses.

"Overall, the report is very positive and confirms our research that the site is doing what it's supposed to do -- provide health benefits without increasing harm," said Sam Kerr, a researcher for Centre for Excellence on HIV/AIDS.

But meanwhile, one also needs to consider the fact that many organizations -- including the CEHA -- were apprehensive about even this study, concerned it would be used as a pretext for closing the site. Clearly, that isn't the case.

With the federal government's investigations into whether or not Insite represents a wise expenditure of Canadian tax dollars bearing obvious fruit in terms of keeping the site open, those who support the site -- and those who seek to benefit politically from it -- have resorted to strenuous data mining on the topic, scouring Tony Clement's comments regarding drug policy in general in order to find some sort of evidence that he intends to close the site.

What has emerged are some rather ludicrous attempts at twisting some otherwise largely-benign comments. In particular, some of these individuals went out of their way to distort some comments made by Clement to the Canadian Medical Association:

"The messages young people have received during the past several years have been confusing and conflicting to say the least," Clement announced. "We are very concerned about the damage and pain that drugs cause families and we intend to reverse the trend toward vague, ambiguous messaging that has characterized Canadian attitudes in the recent past."

"Harm reduction, in a sense, takes many forms," Clement added. "To me, prevention is harm reduction. Treatment is harm reduction. Enforcement is harm reduction."

And, of course, they are. But the simple truth of Clements words didn't stop individuals like Stephen Hwang, a researcher at the University of Toronto's department of medicine, from trying to read intonations of ideological danger into Clement's comments.

"The health of a nation is placed in peril if our leaders ignore crucial research findings simply because they run contrary to a rigid policy agenda driven by ideology or fixed beliefs," said Hwang, in a letter co-signed by 130 like-minded doctors and scientists.

But if Clements agenda was really "driven by ideology or fixed beliefs", one might have expected that he would have avoided visiting the safe injection site, or acknowledging any information that supports it. Instead, he's done the exact opposite.

"I had a good chat with the staff there, understood some of their procedures, asked a lot of questions, got a lot of answers," Clement announced after touring Insite in January 2007. "I think I am continuing to get a deeper understanding and this is all part of being the best health minister I can be for the country."

That was a big part of the short-term rulings made by Clement, while he waited on his own research into Insite, its impact on the surrounding community, and the impact on its users. The fact that the research corroborated previous research is and remains largely immaterial. The simple fact of the matter is that facilities like Insite need to be reevaluated on an annual basis.

Even though Insite is clearly an ideal way to help tackle some of the serious issues that accompany drug use right now, there's no guarantee that the factors that make it so ideal -- a favourable cost-benefit ratio, low impact on crime rates, referral to addiction-treatment services and saved lives -- will endure indefinitely. There may very well come a time in the near future when a new approach becomes necessary, be it due to changing conditions in the surrounding community, or the introduction of newer, more dangerous designer drugs, or any number of other things that are almost certainly going to change in a dynamic society.

Until that time arrives, however, it would clearly benefit Canadian society to allow Insite to continue performing its valuable services. A longer extension to its Drug and Controlled Substances Act clearly needs to be granted, just as Neil Boyd insists.

However, that extension needs to be well short of permanent. At some point over the next two or four years, Insite should be evaluated by Health Canada again, and continually every two or four years after that.

Insite should never be allowed to attain the position of an ideological drug policy orthodoxy that may never be challenged. In fact, it needs to be challenged on an annual basis, and Canadian society needs Insite for as long as it can stand up to scrutiny.

Such reevaluations should be considered minor political maintenance for an operation that, by its very nature, will almost always be contentious.

In the meantime, Canadians should reject the rhetoric of those trying to transform these political molehills into partisan mountains.

Canadians Continue to Vote With Their Wallets

Even the NDP is out-fundraising the Liberals

Liberal leader Stephane Dion should probably be in the process of re-thinking any thought he may have had about trying to force an election this summer after seeing 2008's first-quarter fundraising numbers.

January through March of this year, the Conservative party pulled in $4.95 million from 44,345 donors. The Liberals raised a mere $846,129 from 10,169 donors -- only four times what the Green party pulled in ($210,962 from 4,731 donors).

Even the NDP managed to raise more funds than the Liberals, amassing $1.1 million from 13,329 contributors.

And you can't win an election with money alone, the Liberals need to keep in mind the other half of this old Jean Chretien maxim "you can't win without it".