The stats are in: Conservatives are having more children than Liberals (Phew!)

It's pretty basic common sense that having children is a more important part of the right-wing mindset and life goals than that of the left. That is not to say, of course, that all left-wing thinkers don't want to have children (obviously a lot of them do), or that all right-wing thinkers want to have a fruitful flock of their own (obviously they don't). But undeniably, children are a more important, common part of the Conservative life.

Birth control is more encouraged in left-wing circles than in their right-wing counterparts. Almost every religion advocates against the use of contraception, and those who are devoutly religious tend to fall on the right side of the spectrum. Family values, the idea of your "typical family structure," and the importance of having a family is a more Conservative mindset, while focusing on individual goals and lifestyles is more left-wing. Wanting to do things independently, outside of a family unit, such as live a lavish party lifestyle or travel a lot are not exclusively, but do tend to be, more popular goals of those on the left, while tradtional marriage and raising a family is more important to those on the right.

Throw all these factors in a pot (..or a uterus?), and, statistics proving, Conservatives are having more children than Liberals and NDPs. (I'll pause for either a "YAY!! THERE IS HOPE AFTER ALL!" or an "Oh, crap.") The NP reports:

.....
"Today's liberalism is completely wrapped up with the notion of self. The legacy of the 1960s "if it feels good do it" ethos is alive and well. Modern liberals often embrace these teachings and incorporate them in the way they live their lives and maintain their relationships.

For dramatic proof, go to the streets of a liberal enclave like San Francisco, Seattle or Vermont. There will be plenty of expensive boutiques, antique dealers, health spas, sushi bars and upscale coffee shops. But you won't see very many children. The reason is not that right-wingers have dumped buckets of birth control pills into the San Francisco municipal water supply. The simple fact is that many on the liberal left today just don't want to have children. A 2004 U. S. survey showed that a typical sample of 100 unrelated adults who called themselves liberal will have 147 children. That contrasts with the typical conservative, who is likely to have 208 children per 100 unrelated adults. That's 41% more.

Why is this important? Because raising children is a difficult and selfless act that is also an important civic duty. The survival of our society -- not to mention our Social Security system! -- rests on individuals bringing up a new generation."
.....

I'm smiling, and I hope you are too. There's more:

.....
"Some might conclude that this is a result of the high cost of living in desirable cities such as Boston, New York and San Francisco. But in these childless meccas, we also see some of the highest per capita expenditures on luxury goods, spas and personal therapies. It's not a lack of money; it's a lack of interest. The General Social Survey found that 69% of those who called themselves "very conservative" said it was important to them to have children. Only 38% of corresponding liberals agreed."
.....

Personally--and this is not just because I'm a Conservative, I don't think--I want to have children. I can't really picture my future without getting a good job, getting hitched, and having kids. But I know a lot of people who don't picture the same kind of life. (Come to think of it, none of them are Conservative...) But reproduction to me not only seems like a beautiful thing, but also a necessary thing for the survival of a species. Why wouldn't you want to? Obviously, there are important reasons why, that I'm simply failing to understand. And frankly, I think that's a good thing. If someone doesn't want to be a parent, then they probably wouldn't make a good parent. So I'd much rather them not have children, if that's the case.

.....
"Many on the left proudly proclaim themselves to be "child-free." (They angrily reject the term child-less because it implies that they are missing out on something.) Partly, this is a result of liberal pessimism about the future. Concerned about overpopulation, dwindling environmental resources, global warming, etc., some liberals don't want to have children because they see them as an environmental hazard. Billionaire Ted Turner reflected this attitude when he thoughtfully announced his regret at having five children. "If I was doing it over again, I wouldn't have had that many, but I can't shoot them now and they're here." No doubt, this sort of sentiment makes for charming conversation around the Turner dinner table.

Far more common is the modern liberal notion that children are a burden, something that will get in the way of one's self-fulfillment. As any parent knows, raising children is hard work. It requires emotional commitment, selfless acts, large quantities of time and scads of money. Many liberals just don't want the inconvenience. When asked by the World Values Survey whether parents should sacrifice their own well-being for those of their children, those on the left were nearly twice as likely to say "no" (28% to 15%) when compared to conservatives."
.....

And a knee-slapper to top it all off..

.....
"A look at some popular Web sites offers plenty of evidence that this is a major strand in modern liberal thinking: "The trouble is, many of us bright, liberal people know that procreation is a quaint, antiquated concept."
.....

Yes, that must be it. My wanting to take advantage of the most amazing thing my body can do, and simultaneously do something completely selfless and purposeful and beaufitul, is just a result of my being stuck in the past. Silly me.

Might I add that it is mentioned in the article that approximately 80% of children will adopt their parents' political views? Ahh, lovely.

"Nova Scotians deserve better": You're right Dex, they sure do.

Although Nova Scotia hasn't ever had an NDP premier, the New Democrats are currently leading in the NS polls. That'll kind of blow your mind after watching a clip like that. For some reason, people like to hear what they want to hear, and then not actually check to see if their politician ever followed through with his promises. Generally, the party that tells it like it is (aka: presents honest answers and solutions to real problems) isn't as popular as the one that says whatever sounds pretty and fluffy and sugar-coated. (mmm...that does sound delicious...)

Living in Halifax, I sometimes find it hard to believe that there is a Progressive Conservative government in power, based on the general hippie dipster attitude. Then I'm sent videos like this one. Keeping in mind that the Liberals don't have much of a chance right now, the Conservatives have a fair shot. I mean, we certainly don't want lying maniacs like Darrel Dexter and the NDP in power. Because, like he said, we deserve better. :)

We're actually not dogs, thanks.

"You'd see them start gather and in a very short time they would just leave. And then, in two to three days, maybe four days, they weren't even coming back," he said. "So what happened is that they found some other place to go, obviously, but they didn't even come back to that place anymore."

But why?

"a ringing in his ears that he would later describe as sounding "worse than nails on a blackboard."

...

Tell me, what group does this blurb sound like it is addressing? Raccoons? Dogs? Mmm, actually no. It's teenagers.

The NP reports:
.....
"The 17-year-old's disappointment at finding the Mississauga, Ont., restaurant's front doors locked at 11 p. m. was eclipsed by annoyance as he became vaguely aware of a ringing in his ears that he would later describe as sounding "worse than nails on a blackboard."

Unbeknownst to Mr. Singh, a device emitting an irritating high-frequency sound audible only to people under 25 had been installed outside the restaurant to scatter young crowds known to loiter in the area after hours."
.....

Excuse me if I interrupt the painfully irritating that only I can hear, but believe it or not, just because we're under 25 doesn't mean we should be treated like dogs, you disrespectful maniacs.

.....
"Ultrasonic technology used in this way should be regarded as criminal assault. Directing sound waves aggressively with intent to create harm, annoyance or distress would be unlawful in most civilized countries," Simon Davies, director of Privacy International and visiting fellow at the London School of Economics, wrote in an e-mail.

"The technique is not only a gross invasion of privacy, but is also an assault on human dignity. The technology should be swiftly outlawed."
.....

Thank you! I admit that much of the loitering and vandalism is committed by people under 25, but I hardly think that accounts for all of it. And even if it did, I find this method of keeping "youth" away from places a gross violation of human rights. Perhaps it is an obscure violation, in that it doesn't break any laws or anything like that, but creating our own little dog whistles to keep us in check is beyond degrading. It may do the trick in keeping youths from loitering, but in doing so it treats them like animals, and assumes the worst from anyone under 25.

***
Hypothetical situation:
Let's say I'm driving along, on my way to, I don't know, church. Or some "youths for the future" conference. Or a meeting with the Queen of England. Something really promising. Suddenly, my tire pops and I have to swurve to the side of the road to call for assistance so I can make it to my super-do-gooder-future-of-society-type engagement. Unfortunately for me, I happened to pop my tire beside a convenience store, and when I go outside to see what the problem is, I experience an unbearable buzzing in my ear. At this point, I would probably hop in my car and turn on the radio, but the battery is rather low, and I'm not allowed to idle anymore. So I withstand the buzzing until my brain feels like it's going to explode and shout into my cellphone for roadside assistance to come rescue me. (Luckily my cellphone was charged!)

Finally, after what seems like an eternity of nails scratching down the longest chalkboard ever, the roadside assistance guy shows up. Maybe he's even cute. Unfortunately for both of us, he's 23 years old. So when he leans down to fix my tire, he begins to experience the same unexplained ringing in his ears that I had been experiencing. Although I'm relieved I'm not crazy when he tells me he hears it too, my promising future crumbles in front of me when he informs me that he cannot stay to fix the tire, and the only other guys working the shift that night are also under 25. You see, he knows all about the new Mosquito Ultrasonic Teen Repellent Devices that are at work here. He may be cute, folks, but he leaves me in the dust at the side of the road where I'm not only now alone and unsafe, but in the midst of the most painfully annoying sound I've ever heard...and it just won't quit. Too bad I can't call anyone to come get me in at least the next two hours because I'm out of town on a long drive to meet with the Queen. And too bad that meeting started twenty minutes ago!
***

Okay, far-fetched or not, that situation must have at least vaguely pointed out why these silly devices are a bad idea. Not only would they make situations such as that (brilliant) hypothetical one possible, but they also seriously demean those of us who are under 25. We're not all criminals. And even the criminals don't deserve to be treated like dogs before the commit an offence. Also, hearing this painful buzzing might be rather upsetting to your body, as it presents clear discomfort.

.....
"What you see with this technology is that it becomes more and more easy to invade a person's space, except now we're [no longer] talking about the territorial space of a home, but we're actually talking about the physical parameters of the body," he said.

"Traditionally the safeguard for all this was consent. An officer at a border can't just search you at will or do a body cavity search -- God forbid -- or something really invasive to your body. Likewise, a doctor can't do any kind of procedure without your consent. So, what you're seeing [with some ultrasonic technology] is the application of a technology that impacts clearly on the central nervous system."
.....

This guy makes a good point:

.....
"So, if I am a business owner and I have a convenience store and I have people dealing drugs outside the store or people just hanging out and customers don't come into the store, what do I do? Do I go broke? Do I just pack up my company and go away?"
.....

Except not. If someone is dealing drugs outside your store, you call the cops, genius.

"Heil, Suzuki!"

Last month (or the month before...I don't remember), I told you all about 'The Great Global Warming Swindle,' a fantastic documentary about global warming. It's creators didn't win a Peace Prize or anything, but it's still roughly 1000000x better than 'An Inconvenient Truth.' The documentary, which aired originally on BBC in Britain, essentially discussed how natural factors--such as a shift in solar radiation--are the cause for global warming. As opposed to the mainstream, forced-down-our-throats-with-the-barrel-of-a-gun view that we are responsible. (Okay, there's no guns. Yet.)

In today's National Post, Lorne Gunter discusses the totalitarianism of the greenbabies, and the surprising outcome of an appeal to the Office of Communications (BC) that 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' was "unfair, biased and totally misleading." Now, if anyone has actually watched the movie, you will know that this suggestion is very laughable. The documentary consists of a bunch of scientists, researchers and university professors expressing their findings on the causes of global warming. Nothing is unfair or biased, as they most likely wouldn't want to smear their reputations (although I'm sure they did, among much of the leftist elite). There are some simple-enough-for-a-kindergartener charts and pictures, and a bunch of graphs and stats that aren't nearly as tweaked as their Inconvenient counterparts.

Still, the general suggestion goes against the common belief. Might I mention, of course, that the common belief is based on more pressure than proof. Gunter received an e-mail (one of many) following the ruling:

.....
"My favourite--because it is so representative of the mainstream environmental thinking--said my frequent columns on global warming are "not only an insult to our intelligence [sic] but should never have seen print" because they "mislead the readers" so as "to cause harm and offense."
.....

How self-degrading! Like the readers don't have enough mental capacity to distinguish between two different viewpoints and make an educated decision for themselves, so only one viewpoint should be expressed. Many points of view should be expressed so that readers are able to make informed decisions, once they've heard all sides and taken in all evidence. Only then, in fact, should their opinions be deemed educated or informed. When they've had the education to inform them. But that's not the way of the global warming cult. If you suggest any other possibility--an act that should be nothing but greatly encouraged in the field of scientific research--you are deemed a "denier;" a title akin to those who deny the Holocaust.

.....
"To allow that there is any source other than man is heresy among environmentalists, journalists and many scientists. Their insticts being authoritarian rather than scientific, this group's ultimate goal is greater government regulation of human activities that upset their ideological biases, particularly corporate and consumer activities. If it could be proven that warming is naturally occuring, rather than human-induced, there would be no justification for expanding government power in the name of saving the planet since natural warming would be beyond our ability to control.

And since these green authoritarians are as interested in silencing their opponents as they are in disseminating their own views, they appealed to Ofcom that Swindle was unfair."
.....

Now I understand that lots of lefties choose to believe in man-made global warming for many reasons, particularly because I'm a student at a Canadian university. Not only are most of the professors shoving this gobbledeeguck down the students' throats from the get-go (there's a first-year class at my school on the environment that focused mainly on why man-made global warming exists and is a major threat), but the students are preaching it too. If there's ever a better time for a person to be an uber-green hippie than while they're in university, I'd like to hear it. The events going on around school, the artists, the cafes that surround campus, the classes, the style, the activism...it all reflects that mindset. So I get it. I get why you want to not only believe in man-made global warming, but preach it as well: because it's trendy. All your friends are doing it. Standing out as that student who challenges the rest on issues that are fundamental to the "cause" of these people is not an easy, nor usually fun role to take on. And then these students grow up and maintain the same views for a great deal of time. Some of them grow out of it, thank God, but most people cave to peer pressure and fall into the mainstream for their entire lives, unfortunately. And so we have our own little green army.

So there are aspects of the psychology behind it all that I can understand. Heck, if you're raised in an Amish society, chances are you're going to believe what the Amish believe and carry on that lifestyle for your existence, as well. It's what you're taught to believe, so you believe it. But there are a few parts of this green movement that I just don't understand how people so willingly follow. Clearly there are several totalitarian aspects to the movement--this article discusses a very prominent one: the attempted silencing of all viewpoints counter to theirs. But there are some VERY CLEARLY totalitarian things that jump out at me as just pure hilarity. Full-out unbelievable ridiculousness. For example:

.....
"But since prominent environmentalists such as David Suzuki and NASA's James Hansen have called for the jailing of those who disagree with the global warming orthodoxy, it can hardly be said that Swindle's opponents are any more even-handed."
.....

Suzie and his croonies want to THROW PEOPLE IN JAIL if they disagree with what he's saying. How messed up is that?! How on earth can people support this lunatic after he says something like that? Something so clearly totalitarian, with no logical basis, that it's rendered completely ridiculous, at least in my mind. I mean come on, people. Jail? For disagreeing with an environmentalist? Dear God.

In a world full of war...

I was feeling a little depressed about the state of the world, this morning. We have relentless war in the middle east that doesn't look like it's ending anytime soon. And as a result I can't even visit the place I want to visit most (Birthright also makes it free!) without fear. A state that stood for so much peace and liberation is constantly under siege and no one is doing enough about it. In fact, many--who are unaffected and have no idea what is going on--are saying that "they're getting what they deserve." And then you look at the news over here; shootings, crime, and massive racial tension. So I needed a a little pick-me-up, and I think you deserve one too.

My friend showed me this picture--it's grafitti, I know--but I think it's very cute, and a little less cynical than my usual blogging.
You know, to perk up a Monday.

But "peace" isn't a word in the dictionaries over there

Regardless of who becomes president of the United States, and regardless of what measure they take in an attempt to make peace in the middle east, they're going to have a tough time. Now obviously one is a better candidate for this than the other--predominantly because the other doesn't seem to think there's much of a problem to address--but no matter who does the job, it's going to be a hurdle. Mindelle Jacobs reports in the Sun:

.....
"Whether it's the genocidal Hamas which vows to destroy Israel or the supposedly more reasonable Palestinian Authority which purports to back a two-state solution, the embattled peace dove had better dive for cover. Militant Muslims, as usual, have hijacked the agenda.

Common sense suggests that any long-standing solution to the Israeli/Palestinian impasse requires some kind of territorial swap on both sides to acknowledge the demographic and geopolitical realities in the disputed area. But that necessitates the Palestinians agreeing to what is ideologically impossible in their eyes--the recognition of Israel's right to exist."
.....

Jacobs is pretty much right on the button, here. In order to make some sort of a peaceful agreement, both sides need to be at least somewhat satisfied. But the Palestinian side will NEVER be satisfied with Israel maintainning its existence. And Israel doesn't seem to be backing down anytime soon (and they'd better not). So a peaceful agreement, therefore, will never be reached. Kind of depressing, but very realistic. If something is going to be done in the middle east, it isn't going to be through means of some pansy peace agreement that will mean nothing to the Palestinians. Judging by what we've all seen, them saying they'll be peaceful does not necessarily mean they're going to be peaceful. And at this point, they're not even saying that at all. So I guess something else will have to be done (and don't ask me what that something is)!

If you haven't seen Adam Sandler's new movie "You don't mess with the Zohan," because you think it looks really dumb, but you're interested enough in the middle eastern politics to be reading this post, GO SEE THE MOVIE. As long as you're up-to-date with what's going on in the middle east, and are open to laugh about it a little, you'll enjoy it...I promise. My favourite part of the movie was when Zohan (Sandler) was fighting this Palestinian terrorist guy, and the terrorist starts yelling at him about how his people stole the land and are savages and the rest of the usual blah blah blah. Sandler responds with something like, "Right, because my people have never occupied this land in the past." Very funny. But very true! The Israeli people were there first! They existed first! If it's a matter of whose land the land is, historically it belongs to the Jews, sorry!

.....
"But back to the Jews, who were living in the area for centuries before the Muslims invaded Jerusalem and declared it theirs. Apparently, Jewish history doesn't count. Hence, the push in recent years by radical Muslims to delegitimize Israel by pretending that the ties Jews have to their ancient homeland are mere legends.

As the Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) has pointed out, both Hamas and the allegedly more moderate Fatah teach Palestinian children that all of Israel is occupied Palestine. It is as if the Jews came from outer space."
.....

Okay, Palestine. The land was originally ours. Then you came, pulled a "finders keepers, losers weepers," and got in a huge snit about it all and waged war. That doesn't change the fact that it was ours first. We just happen to be better at sharing. And we don't tend to raise our children to have hate and murder on their minds from the get-go...

.....
"The incitement and loathing for the Jews continues at a frenzied pace in both Gaza and the West Bank. Farfur, a Mickey Mouse-like character, was beaten to death by an Israeli police officer on a Hamas TV kids' program earlier this year. Then there was a rabbit character on the show who declared, "I, Assud, will finish off the Jews." The girl hosting the show replied: "Allah willing!"
.....

Now, as far as I know, kids tend to grow fond of their favourite cartoon characters. Children love Mickey Mouse. (Personally, I wasn't a fan for too long, as my dad explained to me that Walt Disney was one of the main contributors to the Nazi Bank of Germany, as soon as I could understand what that meant, but all my friends loved Mickey. And I loved him too, for a while.) Children certainly wouldn't want to see Mickey get murdered on screen. (In our country, we don't show cartoons where the main characters get murdered on screen, but that's just another one of those dandy little "differences in culture.") And whoever was the murderer of Mickey would instantly be hated by the children watching. So these kids are brainwashed into hating Jews from the time they're in diapers.

And that's not all...

.....
"The anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attack on New York is almost always celebrated in political cartoons in the PA-controlled papers. As well, inflammatory sermons that make no concession to pluralism continue at local mosques.

The demonization, according to the PMW, includes prayers for the genocide of Americans and praise for al-Qaida.

"There is no reason to hope that the U.S.'s leading role in the push to create a Palestinian state will prompt the Palestinian Authority to reverse this hate ideology," the PMW concluded in its report.

A major re-education campaign is needed to bring about a change in attitude, it said. Good luck with that, Barack Obama or John McCain. Demented Palestinian leaders, academics, writers and imams have been poisoning the minds of their people for years and years."
.....

What we're doing now (virtually nothing) isn't working. What they plan to do won't work. There needs to be a serious uphaul of thinking when it comes to approaching the conflict in the middle east. Any takers?

More with the Jew-bashing

A quickie must-read at Dust my Broom:


.....
"A couple of weeks ago we announced that the Canadian Arab Federation was sponsoring a 9/11 Truther conference...

"Among the literature that visitors were urged to take was a newspaper with content smacking of antisemitism, for example, “it’s a fact” that “Zionists [are] controlling the media,” “Zionists in Canada don’t care about Canada’s sovereignty and are willing to join the US, where they control Bush,” “Zionists attack our advertiser [not named]… threats by Toronto Zionists who attack the messenger rather than improve themselves and their nazi [sic] ways,” and “Rothschild owned big pharma killers.”

...we are constantly being lectured by these groups that purport to represent Canadian Arabs and or Muslims about 'Islamaphobia' and racism yet they are constantly involved in hate events themselves."
.....

DUMB QUOTE OF THE WEEK

"You know what I want to know? How did guns wind up in my neighbourhood? ...We need a show on how did these guns get there? Why is there so much violence in our community?"

-rapper Nas, on the Colbert Report, when asked about his criminal gun possession


Uhh...
Nice dodge, Nas ;)

Saudi texbooks: Teach the knowledge, and they will apply it

If you raise a child to believe something, they will most likely believe it. Whatever you teach a child at a young age will doubtlessly stay with the child forever. That knowledge will be set in the child's mind; for instance, right and wrong. Hitting another child is wrong. Sharing is right. Even if the child strays away from, and acts counter to, the values he/she was taught, he/she will always have them set in his/her mind as THIS IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO and THIS IS THE WRONG THING TO DO. This also applies for belief systems. If you raise a child as a strict Roman Catholic, chances are they will be Roman Catholic when they're older, or at least remain inkeeping with the fundamental beliefs of Roman Catholicism.

At this point, we all know that Saudi Arabia is kind of whack. Or uh.. their values are rather "different" than ours. For the most part, we raise our children to abide, at least loosely, by the fundamental laws and values of our Western, Judeo-Christian-influenced society. That doesn't mean we're all Christians. That means we all generally abide by the laws that were influenced by Christianity, and are inkeeping with the values that religion has imposed (ie: we don't kill eachother, too often). In Saudi Arabia, however, the values are different. Children are taught to believe, from a young age, a lot of absolutely terrible things. And these things aren't just thought to be awful BY ME because I can't recognize the difference in culture. Sorry, but these things are just downright awful.

The NP reports:
.....
"Despite a promise to remove attacks on other faiths from the public school curriculum, Saudi Arabia's state-produced textbooks still refer to Jews and Christians as apes and swine, insist that Jews conspire to take over the world and on Judgment Day "the rocks or the trees" will call out to Muslims to kill the Jews,"
.....

When American diplomats caught word of these fourth-grade texbooks, which are used to teach 5 million muslim students, as well as many, many more in muslim institutions all over the world (in Lagos, Nigeria, Buenos Aires and BRITAIN, for example), they called for the textbooks to be revised for the 2008/09 schoolyear. The Saudi Arabian government--which, by the way, is the composer and distributor of these books--agreed to revise them. Now that the revised versions of the books have come out, we can all agree that these might not be the most trustworthy of people. Here's an example of a multiple choice question in one of the books, as written in Anne Applebaum's article in the post:

.....
Q: Is belief true in the following instances?

a) A man prays but hates those who are virtuous.
b) A man professes that there is no deity other than God but loves the unbelievers.
c) A man worships God alone, loves the believers and hates the unbelievers.

A: c) A man worships God alone, loves the believers and hates the unbelievers.
.....

That means you! Answer (b), the one that most of us would probably abide by (provided we are religious), is false. These children are taught that they are not true believers (aka: truly religious, ticket to heaven...) if they simply believe in God. No, they have to HATE the unbelievers to be true believers themselves. When you teach a child, age 9, this, they are going to believe it. And it's not like this kind of thinking is discouraged as they're growing up. No, upon entering grade nine, these children are taught that "Jews anc Christians are enemies of the believers." This is the kind of thinking you do not grow out of, people. Especially if growing out of it includes being shunned by your community and family, getting stoned in a stadium and not going to heaven when it's over.

To ice the hate cake, they're also taught to believe that "Jews conspire to gain sole control of the world," and that the Crusades haven't yet ended. Well, I know that I've been conspiring to take over for quite some time now... Give me a break! This is the kind of terriyfing thinking that reportedly spurred the Holocaust. Applebaum adds:

.....
"These passages, it should be noted, are from the new, "revised" Saudi texbooks."
.....

Normally, we probably wouldn't care what the textbooks in other countries say. But when these students are going on to live and work in Canada, sopping up our benefits like a dirty mop that reeks of soft jihad, I'd say it calls for legitimate concern.

It's about time more people just came out and admitted it...

Conservative Women Rule!

.....
"We keep on hearing about how women don't like the Conservatives, so, let me clue you in. The best Canadian blogger, Kate at Small Dead Animals, just happens to be a Conservative woman. Joanne, at Blue Like You, just happens to be a Conservative woman blogger. Then we have Sandy at Crux of the Matter, and NB Tory Lady, and the Girl in Blue, Joan Tintor, Five feet of fury, Conservative Queen, and many others. You can add to the list in comments, I'm sorry if I've missed anyone, but I suspect they can handle it, being Conservative women.

Conservative women are straight shooting, no nonsense women who don't just talk about something, they DO it. I am proud to be identified as a Conservative woman, I have never lost a fight (Okay I've never actually been in one!), I have never backed down from a problem, and I rule my house by gentle persuasion not fear. But I do rule.

Conservative women, take a bow."
.....


I couldn't have said it better myself.

Give it a read! But just a tip, if you plan on reading the comments, read the first few and then scroll to the bottom or just stop. You'll see why.

DUMB QUOTE OF THE WEEK

"Nothing like a wounded and tortured 16 year old boy to whet the inquisitors appetite and rain pride down upon our great and noble nation. Let the banners unfurl and the trumpets sound, we are a people that stand by the torture of children."

-Canadian Cynic, speaking about well-known terrorist Omar Khadr



*Note: I was going to just quote one of his posts where he says "twat" like, a thousand million times--instead of using actual words to intelligently explain whatever logic he thinks he's putting together in his mind--but I really didn't want that many dirty words on my blog in one day!

A sad day for Israel

If I can ask one favour of you this week/month/year, it's that you read these articles. Throughout this post, I'll have links to a few articles, all from the National Post. There are three articles in total, all discussing the same basic story, but if you could take fifteen minutes out of your day to read all three, I promise you it will be well worth it and that it will benefit you greatly.

Yesterday was a very sad day for Israel, when Lebanon returned the bodies of two Israeli soldiers they were holding captive. Prior to this, the Israeli government and people had no knowledge of whether their men were alive or dead. Lebanon said that knowledge would come when they were returned to their home country, once Israel returned to Lebanon the bodies of many soldiers killed in battle, and five terrorists who were alive and well, one of whom is well-known murderer Samir Qantar. The families of the two Israeli soldiers waited with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert at the border with hope in their hearts for the safe return of the two soldiers. The men, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, were carried over the border in coffins.

The coffins were met with joy in Lebanon and tears in Israel. Hezbollah has a very strong influence in Lebanon...

.....
"Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, in a rare public appearance, welcomed five Lebanese freed from captivity in Israel on Wednesday after his guerrilla group returned the bodies of two captured Israeli soldiers.

Mr. Nasrallah, whose movements are kept secret for security reasons, embraced the ex-prisoners at a rally in Beirut.

"This people, this nation and this country, which gave a clear image today, cannot be defeated," he told the crowd before leaving to deliver a speech by video link from a secure location.

...

As fireworks lit the night sky, tens of thousands of people waving yellow Hezbollah flags gathered in Beirut for the rally to celebrate the release of Qantar and four Hezbollah fighters.

Crowds threw rice and mobbed the cars carrying the men to the rally in the southern suburbs, a stronghold of Hezbollah.

The ex-captives waved Hezbollah and Lebanese flags at the crowds before Mr. Nasrallah's brief appearance sent them wild.

The Shi'ite group, which is backed by Iran and Syria, earlier handed over the Israeli soldiers in two black coffins."
.....

So who is Qantar? What was his crime? Although he is obviously a well-known--and celebrated!--Jew-hating terrorist for Hezbollah--and proud of it!--his sins get a little more specific...

.....
"Among the freed prisoners is Samir Kuntar, who, in an attack against a northern Israeli town 30 years ago, killed four civilians, including a four-year-old girl whose head he smashed against a rock. Regev and Goldwasser, though soldiers, were kidnapped in Israel in an unprovoked Hezbollah ambush. Their repatriation is an occasion for national mourning. The Lebanese, by contrast, are celebrating the exchange and hailing Kuntar as a hero."
.....

When Qantar entered the Israeli man's house to murder him, he first killed the man's four-year-old daughter by smashing her skull in with a rock. The Israeli man's wife was hiding in a corner of their house at the time, with her toddler son, who was crying unstoppably. In an attempt to quiet him in order to save both their lives, she put her hand over his mouth. The little boy ended up smothering to death because of this.

.....
"Kuntar, who received an official Israeli pardon that set aside four murder convictions handed down in 1979, taunted his former captors Thursday by vowing to attack Israel again."
.....

In any westernized country--America, Canada, Israel, etc--smashing in a toddler's head with a rock is considered disgusting, regardless of the little girl's cultural background. In western countries (today), people are jailed for that and thought to be absolutely vial creatures. In Lebanon, these people are celebrated.

Tears filled my eyes as I read these articles this morning. How, HOW can people read these articles and still support the Arab countries in this war? How can news like this be on the front page of the National Post and still people call the Israeli people the terrorists? Israel did not celebrate the deaths of the Lebanese soldiers. Israel mourned the death of their own, like decent human beings would. This trade that Israel made with Lebanon has not only exposed how horrible Hezbollah and the Lebanese people can be, but also it has left the Jewish state in a very vulnerable position. Like good, loyal people, the Israeli government vows to use whatever means necessary to free a soldier held captive. Now that Hezbollah and other terrorist groups know this, however, it can more easily be used as a tool to violently outsmart Israel.

.....
"Has Israel once again demonstrated its humanity, its commitment to its soldiers and its compassion for their families? Or, has Israel enhanced the chances for further kidnappings while reducing the terrorists' interest in keeping their hostages alive?

The answers are scarcely clear-cut. In return for their service in a citizen army, Israel guarantees that it will do everything to bring its soldiers home, should they fall into enemy hands. Regev and Goldwasser, reservists performing their annual duty, put on their uniforms confident of that pledge. So, too, were their relatives and friends. "We need to pay whatever price it takes in exchange for any captive soldier," said a fellow reservist. "This is what we were raised on, this is the government's duty, and this is part of serving in the Israel Defense Forces." A Jewish state, moreover, Israel often resembles an extended family, in which it is impossible to ignore the pain of any branch. Finally, by valuing each individual, alive or deceased, Israel is demonstrating its strength as a free and democratic society."
.....

The "Israel often resembles an extended family" part really got to me.

.....
"Yet, by trading convicted terrorists for illegally abducted Israelis, Israel guarantees that similar kidnappings will occur in the future. Indeed, even the Palestinian Authority, now engaged in peace talks with Israel, has acknowledged that taking Israeli hostages is apparently the only way to extricate Palestinians from Israeli jails. More deleteriously, the terrorists, confident of receiving live prisoners for dead Israelis, will be more likely to kill their hostages. In fact, recently released footage from 2000 shows that two of the three Israeli soldiers kidnapped in a Hezbollah border attack, and later exchanged

for more than 400 security prisoners, were taken alive but returned in caskets. Similar fates might be met by Ron Arad, the Israeli navigator shot down by Shiite forces in Lebanon in 1986, whose whereabouts Hezbollah still refuses to disclose, and Gilad Shalit, kidnapped by Hamas two years ago and held for ransom ever since.

Indeed, the deal not only endangers Israelis but threatens the entire Middle East and, eventually, will threaten the West as well. Hezbollah, a jihadist organization that has already precipitated one Middle Eastern war and whose leader, Hassan Nasrallah, tortured the Regev and Goldwasser families by hinting that their loved ones were living, has triumphed."
.....

While the promise that the Israeli government will save any one of their soldiers if captured--by any means necessary--is a decent thing for a government that conscripts their citizens to the army to do, it has some serious downfalls.

.....
"There is currently much debate about the possibilities for dialogue with Iran and for persuading it to desist from enriching uranium. But having succeeded in extending its influence into American-occupied Iraq, dominating Syria and intimidating the Gulf counties, Iran will not be easily contained. The prisoner exchange with Israel will further embolden Iranian leaders and encourage their belligerency. The result is an Iran less likely to respond to Western blandishments or incentives and more convinced of its ability to "wipe Israel off the map."
.....

Terrifying, no? Well maybe not for those of you who believe that the Israeli people are the terrorists and that Israel should indeed be "wiped off the map." But for those of you with a conscience and a brain, I can relate when you are undoubtedly feeling sick to your stomach right about now. How can people think Israel shouldn't be fighting when this is what they have to face; people wanting--and trying--to wipe them off the map? How can people think the Israeli people are the bloodthirsty terrorists when their enemies are dancing at the sight of their dead bodies and celebrating child-murderers?

.....
"The fathers of the two Israeli soldiers spoke of their pain at watching the transfer of their sons' coffins on television...Zvi Regev said on Army Radio: "It was a terrible thing to see, really terrible. I was always optimistic, and I hoped all the time that I would meet Eldad and hug him."
.....

Meanwhile,

.....
"We swear in the name of the almighty Allah and in the name of your pure blood that we will continue in this path and never give up until we reach the place that was given to you by God," said Kuntar."
.....

This breaks my heart. How can people side with these relentlessly crazed mass-murderers? I just don't understand it at all.

AHHH!

Rosie O'Donnell is coming to Halifax!

.....
"For the second time in three years, Rosie O’Donnell is heading to Halifax.

Ms. O’Donnell, her partner, her four children and over 2,000 other passengers on board the Norwegian Dawn cruise ship will drop anchor near Pier 21 this morning.

"I can’t wait," the former talk show host wrote in a recent post to her online blog. "There is a magic there on a boat full of us all together."
.....

Man this woman scares me. There's something about her violent-ranting-to-hide-her-obvious-insecurity that I find terribly unsettling. That and I just love Elisabeth Hasselbeck.

.....
"Ms. O’Donnell previously visited Halifax in 2005, when she promoted the city as a gay-friendly destination.

In the three years since, Destination Halifax has taken advantage of her endorsement, tapping into the lucrative gay and lesbian travel market and even setting up a separate online web page for visitors from those communities.

Last month, staff with the municipality’s tourism marketing board led a tour of the city for a small group of gay American journalists in the hopes of further publicizing Halifax’s gay-friendly image south of the border.

Kevin Kindred, chairman of the Nova Scotia Rainbow Action Project, said he is pleased to see gay tourism flourishing in the province."
.....

Uhh.. another thing I find unsettling: a place being a tourism hotspot for people of a certain sexual orientation. Is there a spot that's especially quaint and to-be-enjoyed by straight people? That said, why isn't there a Straight Pride Parade? Well, it's because I'm not terribly proud of being attracted to the opposite sex, and I don't think the rest of the "straight community" is, either. I don't think it's something to necessarily be proud of. I mean sure, be proud of who you are! But to allow your whole identity to revolve around your sexual orientation? That's a little odd...and kind of sad. I like guys. That's just how it is. I don't see why that warrants a huge, festive, tax-dollars-funded parade. And I don't see why anyone's sexual preference would.

This blog--and those who contribute to it (aka: me)--hold homosexuals in no lower a regard than heterosexuals. But I do think that the outrageous identity can, often times, be taken a little too far. Why would a place be great to visit for a guy who likes guys more than a guy who likes girls? That's pretty ridiculous.

And come on Halifax. Don't make a big deal of Rosie coming to town! She's just awful.

"Liberty" has no place in the modern Liberal ideology

There's a fantastic article in yesterday's Toronto Sun that explains the lack of freedom in the party that seems to think they're the most liberty-loving in Canada. Theo Caldwell writes:

.....
"In recent days, liberals around the world have made headlines for doing what they do best: Hectoring and bossing.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown lectured his countrymen on the evils of wasting food shortly before tucking into 14 courses over two meals at the G8 summit in Japan.
U.S. presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama has advised Americans that maintaining their homes at 72 F is unacceptable in the eyes of the global community.
Meanwhile in Canada, so-called human rights tribunals continue to pillory columnists and comedians, and liberal justices recently ruled a father had no right to ground his 12-year-old daughther."
.....

Yay! We totally took the cake for the most stupid example.

On a technical level, we on the right have facism on the far side of our spectrum, while the left has communism. To most lefties, communism is a positive term! (I know, I know.) But what people have to realize is that it doesn't work. Every applied example of communism has shifted quickly into facism. The "political spectrum" that so many see as a straight line is, in reality, a great big circle. I think that once some of these lefties admit that facism isn't just a 'far-right ideology,' but rather it is a scary middle point that any political party can creep into, they might be better able to see the error in their ways. But uh, that's just a theory.

It's a huge pet-peeve of mine to be labeled a facist. And it happens to all of us, all the time. The reality is so reverse it will make your head spin. Most Conservatives today are leaning more towards Libertarianism than ever, due to the recent legitimate fear of having our rights taken away.

The fact of the matter is that Liberals in Canada today do not fully understand the notion of liberty or fairness. They're all about controlling what citizens can and cannot do, patrolling their private matters, and handing out sentences without a fair trial--without evidence, even! "Liberalism" has turned into a kind of "Soft Totalitarianism" in a lot of cases, especially in this country. But they still all pride themselves on believing in freedom and unicorns and what-not, all the while accusing the right of being "facist." Personally, I think they should all drop the holier-than-thou act, get off their high horses and give their heads a shake. Or a smack, or whatever.

.....
"Specifically the term "liberal," which is derived from "liberty," ought to be replaced with its common synonym, "left-wing." The reason for this is the totalitarian impulse of those who espouse modern liberalism. If a person imagines his wisdom and privilege are sufficient to tell you what you may say, how much you can eat, and how to raise your children, chances are excellent that he is what we would call in common parlance a "liberal."

But of course, he is no freedom-loving fellow. And liberals, as they are known, do not always base their prescriptions for others' lives on their position or perspicacity.

Indeed, they have a much more powerful and devious rationale. That is, the Common Good. "Don't you care about (insert 'the children' or 'the whales' or, most often these days, 'the planet?') Such is demanded of anyone foolish enough to dissent from whatever orthodoxy is populating liberals' protest placards at the moment."
.....

Ah, the 'Common Good.' What a powerful tool that is! Disagree with man-made global warming, and not only are you a facist, but you hate the environment and the world and the people living in the world (especially the children, and ESPECIALLY the babies) too! Disagree with self-proclaimed environmentalist Al Gore and you're pretty much digging your own grave. Come on people, that's pretty messed up. I like how Caldwell words it:

.....
"The left does not have the evidence of history on its side--they do not even know what that evidence is. True leftists are even less aquainted with facts than with showers. Your divergence from the herd is sufficient to kindle their wrath."
.....

(If that's not facist, I don't know what is.)

.....
"As evidence, liberals refer to Al Gore's movie, while we cite the 20th century.
Nowadays, being liberal has nothing to do with freedom."
.....

I smell a HRC case coming on...

Just kidding, this isn't Canada we're talking about!
In response to Obama's huffing anf puffing over the cartoon, the New Yorker said that it was a satire meant to criticize those who actually accuse Obama of all the things shown in the cartoon, and to highlight how ridiculous the accusations are.
Yeah, right.

I loved the cartoon in the sun.

My sincere apologies

To everyone who keeps checking this page and is getting royally pissed off with the fact that I haven't posted in a while,

I'm sorry! Really, I am. I've been working far too often to help make some ridiculously pricey tuition payments, and I've been somewhat under the weather. As a result, I've been sleepier than usual and have been seriously slacking. Do keep reading in the coming days for more frequent posts!

Thanks for (still) reading!

The festive unveiling of Mega Mosque

The largest mosque in the country (for now) opened in Calgary on Saturday. And Stephen Harper was there to greet the 5000 smiling faces at the religious ribbon-cutting ceremony. I remember in a writing class of mine, I was told that the best writing comes when you look at a situation and think, "What's up with that?" My writing on this subject might not be as good as the article I found in the Calgary Herald, but I'm definitely sitting here with a big WTF on my forehead.

Here's what Mayor Dave Bronconnie had to say:

"What we see today is a testament to your faith and commitment to the community. Your mosque is a proud new landmark on Calgary's skyline,"

The muslim community was shedding tears of happiness. Harper was forcing a smile. Dion was doing his best to speak english:

"Canada will show the world Muslim communities can flourish in a secular state like ours,"

Okay, so the mosque now defines the geography of Calgary. Religion is suddenly encouraged in our previously-so-adamantly-secular country. The Prime Minister and his opposition were there to open a mosque. What the hell? Mosques and churches and synagogues go up every day (okay, maybe bi-weekly for synagogues) so what makes this one so special? Can we do anymore to win the ethnic vote here, Harper?

"In this mosque, we see the love and benevolent faith of Islam," he gushed. "Ahmadis embrace Canada and Canada has embraced you."

Gag. I usually like the PM, but come on. I don't see this happening for any other religious group. (If I did, I'd find it equally weird). But like, okay. We get it. Canada loves muslims. Christ. But why was this a national event? Is there something I'm missing here?

An excuse to park yours in front of the TV

Just a reminder that Wendy is on Micheal Coren tonight.
I believe it's 8:00pm on CTS (usually channel 9) in Toronto, and 9:00pm in Halifax. Any other time zone and I haven't a clue. Check your local listings? Check it out.

NEW AND EXCITING addition to The Girl in Blue!

I decided to create a new special Monday slot on my blog for two reasons:

1) Monday's are notoriously terrible and boring
2) There are so many stupid things being said out there that everyone should be able to enjoy

To brighten up your Mondays and share some of the hilarity of the left and beyond, please get a kick out of the first of many...


DUMB QUOTE(s) OF THE WEEK!

...
Stefan Dion, on why Canada should implement a carbon tax:

"Bring Canada in conformity with what the world expects from Canada -- to have carbon pricing in Canada. Then nobody anymore will pretend that the oil coming from Alberta should be boycotted."
...


I seriously don't know how people understand this guy. (His reasoning OR his basic english skills)


.:. source: NP

Just another day in the GTA

The other day, as my friend and I walked down a busy street in downtown Toronto, we were met with interesting looks from some young, fully cloaked muslim females and their looming male counterparts. The males were glaring while simultaneously hovering 'protectively' over their daughters? wives? whatever, they could very well be the same age. The looks from the gals is what got us. Several nice, well-balanced looks of disgust...with a hint of intense longing. After waving obnoxiously to the ethnic audience we'd accumulated, my friend and I wondered aloud why those girls--who obviously wanted to wear minidresses and heels out to dinner as well (God forbid!)--wouldn't just rip off the burkas and join the party. Then we remembered what happens to the girls who dare to do so, even in this country.

For God sakes. Welcome to Canada.

A little something to enrage a good chunk of my readers

And make the rest of us think.

RightGirl sheds a positive light on what will doubtlessly be a super-controversial issue:

.....
"The Americans have finally figured out that while not all Muslims are terrorists, all terrorist are Muslims. It only took seven years.

--> The Justice Department is considering letting the FBI investigate Americans without any evidence of wrongdoing, relying instead on a terrorist profile that could single out Muslims, Arabs or other racial and ethnic groups.

Law enforcement officials say the proposed policy would help them do exactly what Congress demanded after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks: root out terrorists before they strike.

Although President Bush has disavowed targeting suspects based on their race or ethnicity, the new rules would allow the FBI to consider those factors among a number of traits that could trigger a national security investigation.

Currently, FBI agents need specific reasons - like evidence or allegations that a law probably has been violated - to investigate U.S. citizens and legal residents. The new policy, law enforcement officials told The Associated Press, would let agents open preliminary terrorism investigations after mining public records and intelligence to build a profile of traits that, taken together, were deemed suspicious.

Among the factors that could make someone subject of an investigation is travel to regions of the world known for terrorist activity, access to weapons or military training, along with the person’s race or ethnicity." <--
.....

I'd like to find out more about this new policy. While it could get REALLY sketchy, this would certainly prevent the Khadr family from simultaneously dancing in the street on 9/11 and collecting their hefty welfare cheque. That is, if it was proposed in Canada, which would never happen. We like to say "oops!" here.

B.C. prof denied funding to research/watch people kill themselves

A large handful of academics were outraged by the decision made by Kwantlen University College in British Columbia to withdraw its approval of one professor's research proposal. Prof. Ogden specializes in death and suicide. His area of proposed research included watching people kill themselves. No, really.

Granted, to fully understand the methods and thought processes of a person who is committing suicide, witnessing this act may be necessary. If not necessary, it would doubtlessly expand the general knowledge regarding the topic. That said, there are some obvious unethical aspects of this issue. If a person were going to commit suicide, and had someone watching it in order to gather research to benefit the "greater good"/academic community, that person might be more likely to go through with it, even if holding back crosses their mind. The person committing suicide would most likely shy away from looking scared or like they're having second thoughts. Which could lead to a horrible situation.

Professor Ogden would inform the person whom he would watch end their life that he could not interfere. He could not tell the person to got through with it if they were having second thoughts. He couldn't encourage the idea in any way. (Mind you, isn't watching it intently encouraging it, in a way?) This also means that Ogden could not DISCOURAGE the idea in any way. In the name of research, this is a the proper method to approach the situation. But in the name of humanity, how could you watch someone put a gun to their head without at least trying to make them stop? Telling them they had something to live for? Both outcomes--watching the person go through with it or otherwise--would be equally interesting, according to Ogden. So if the person with the gun to their head said to Ogden, "Do I have a reason to live? Should I end it all?" Ogden could not respond.

Research is undeniably an important part of a developing world. The academic community thrives on it, and the rest of the population benefits from it, certainly, in most cases. But suicide is such a questionable topic. Research has a very high value, but can one really put a value on a person's life? The university withdrew its approval of Ogden's research because of "legal risks associated with the proposed research," but according to many (very upset) academics, they break the law lots in the name of research. This is definitely a moral issue for the university as much as it is a legal one. And for good reason.

How someone could watch another human being end their life, without interfering whatsoever, is beyond me. But there is an interesting side to this issue. According to the article in the NP,

.....
"Mr. Ogden also refuses comment, citing his "concern for keeping my job."

He directed inquiries to a sympathetic criminologist at nearby Simon Fraser University in Burnaby. John Lowman says the "stop research" demand made by Kwantlen is typical of academic administrations in Canada that "have become afraid of controversy." It isn't clear what prompted Kwantlen to undertake due diligence of Mr. Ogden's work, or why the school chose yesterday to refer to it as "proposed research."

"The research was funded, it was underway, it was in progress," Mr. Turk said. "This is the first time we've been made aware of a university prohibition on research that had already been vetted and approved."
.....

I agree that Canadian universities are all about avoiding controversy. If anything goes against the norm, they're all over it, silencing it ASAP. And it was very irresponsible of the school to begin funding Ogden's research and then withdraw, for whatever reason. Personally, I wouldn't have approved the funding in the first place, on the basis of unethical grounds. The university put themselves in a tricky situation here.

I don't know. Research is important, but life is fundamental. Without life, there would be no research at all. There would be no inquiry into issues such as these. The right to life is not equated to the right to death. Life is precious--death is unknown. And witnessing voluntary death, for whaetver reason, is not only illegal, it is more than likely a form of encouragement.

Happy Birthday Canada

mosaic |mōˈzā-ik|

a combination of diverse elements forming a more or less coherent whole : an incompetently constructed mosaic of competing interests.

...

Hmm.. seems to imply that these diverse elements would work together to form something beautiful. The rockies are beautiful, the Pacific and Atlantic; beautiful. The prairies are...probably beautiful to some. The land itself seems to work together and form something more beautiful than the people do! Diverse elements with jagged edges, constantly pricking eachother at the sides. Peaceful multiculturalism is a nice idea. But the mosaic just doesn't work. Accomodating everyone to a degree is a nice idea, but giving everyone exactly what they want in order to win a few votes is a weak and terrible strategy. One would assume that a person would leave their country and come to ours because they like our way of life better; because they want to embrace it. One would be wrong, in this case.

Unfortunately, Canada, you have become an international laughing stock. While priding yourself on being the most free of all the nations, you allow your citizens' rights to be stripped from them, for simply having an opinion. And when I say your citizens, I do not mean your new citizens. I mean the ones who have been here since the creation of you as we all know it. Their fellow citizens, in fact, bend over backwards to accomodate the different (and often crazy) ways of life that your new citizens impose upon you. But when it comes to the descendents of your founders, well, they are oppressed. And apparently, that's completely okay.

It's all too bad what has happened to you over these past few years, Canada. The idea of right and wrong has been twisted so very out of shape that most of your citizens don't even know which is which anymore. The freedom you so proudly offered us has been taken completely out of context and used against us. The land we celebrate today doesn't even exist anymore. Citizens of Canada don't even need to stand for her national anthem. And that is not okay. But the thing is, we facilitate it all.

Shame, really.