Mr Harper's Brilliant Senate Appointments

Assuming the people accusing Mr. Harper of hypocrisy are not partisan shills mouthing talking points, consider this. Like a game of chess Mr. Harper is arranging the board for the new majority government to effect senate reform: Something the Liberal dominated senate has blocked thus far. Even Mr. Harper's minor suggestion to give the senators a term limit of 2 terms was rebuffed by the Liberals.

So since the Liberals do not want to cooperate and insist on keeping the old rules, Mr. Harper has no choice but to play by them. How can he be faulted for that? Should he have just left those seats empty?

For my part, Mr. Harper has demonstrated a political genius and savy not seen since John A. MacDonald. No one has achieved this tight rope that is minority government for 6 years straight.
It really is amazing. He has used maybe most of the levers of power to keep a stable government. Something we all should be thankful for in this crazy world.
____________________________________________
Read more: http://www.canada.com/Harper+takes+control+Senate+with+appointments/4004559/story.html#ixzz18hoz0T8z

 

@DJBALL 6:42 "Religion or sports does not belong in politics. What planet is Harper from anyway?"

Part of Harper's genius is to appoint people to the senate who represent the broad spectrum that is Canada. Nancy Green is a senator who has done very well in that capacity, (Olympian ski champion).
Canadians care about sports. We feel like we need to be thinking about national fitness and accomplishment, who better than Mr. Smith to give voice to it in the house of quiet reflection??

Across Canada, 10% of the population attends church regularly. 50% identify with a Christian Denomination. Is it inappropriate to give that part of Canada a voice in the upper house that only amounts to less that 2%? Apart from the fact he will give the street-level view of the lives of gangs and street-violence, it would at least inject the human side in the debate about getting tough on crime.

Mr. Harper is brilliant if you ask me.
__________________________________________
Read more: http://www.canada.com/Harper+takes+control+Senate+with+appointments/4004559/story.html#ixzz18hpB4WQa

 

@8:17 I live in the Rockies, East Kootenays.BC. I hardly think PC HQ would be based way out west. I have been to the mountain tops, so sometimes have a different view than the low-landers out east.

Harper can hardly be blamed for compromising given the fact he has been given a minority to govern with. One does not have to look far to see the sort of obstructionism that has gone on in the senate and committees. The view is clear from here, maybe its too smoggy down your way.

One thing is for certain, we will not have any chance of seeing senate reform with out a PC majority in the house and the senate--even then it would be a herculean task. Incremental reform wouldn't be hard, but a serious overhaul would take a profound amount of cooperation, not just in the Houses of Parliament, but also the provinces and territories. It may involve a national referendum. It may not be able to be done in 1 term

Read more: http://www.canada.com/Harper+takes+control+Senate+with+appointments/4004559/story.html#ixzz18hpJpUGs

_______________________________________

 

 

I live in BC.  Over 95%+ of the province is crown lands.  First nations almost to a village have access to it from their boundaries.  The receive preferential funding if they want to log it, fish it, mine it, or just enjoy a clear cold night by the fire.

That is not to say I am not aware of people on reserves having great trouble.  Caucasion, Asian, African and First Nations people have the scourge of alcoholism and drug addiction that is so devastating.

But there are some places that are extraordinary.  The natives at West-bank, BC.  Have extraordinary wealth.
I think rather than white people telling 1st Nations people what to do, 1st Nations should mentor and establish their brethren.  Possible only if: they lay down deeply entrenched prejudice between the tribes.

The "Carn" age.

R E S P E C T.
Canadians should be respected by the BOC and our governments. It was according to their plan that Canadians stepped up, bought vehicles, houses, furniture, appliances in the midst of a recession. It was the intention of the BOC to create liquidity, so they dropped the prime. Banks were flooded with cash, so they encouraged debt in various ways, sometimes lowering the criteria, the down payment, and increasing the amortization period.

Canadians weren't stupid. They rearranged mortgages so debts from 10-30% could be re-consolidated, which saved enough money they could continue to step up throughout the recession. This was one of the keys to Canada's recovery. What differs between the US and Canada was predatory lending: In the US, mortgage companies intentionally qualified people that, odds were, going to be paying far far higher payments simply related to their likelihood of being unable to pay--therefore requiring them to pay higher penalty interest rates. Canadian mortgage companies and banks were never about that so far--which saved us from collapse.  Because our home prices were never depressed by a huge repo market, we were able to retain equity in our homes: a vast pool of wealth--which disappeared in the US.  Trillions of dollars of wealth evaporated with that melt-down.  We would be foolish to think it cannot happen here.  We need to pay attention.  By keeping the rates low, banks make money and Canadians can save it--just raise the criterion for lending.

The real villains are the credit card companies, quick-loan outlets, payday loan companies etc. These prey on the weak, and the poor with unprecedented spreads some over 30% above prime. They prey on people who have been put out of work, or in poverty, and gouge them for all they are worth. In a sense, if mortgage companies can relieve that atrocity somewhat, by allowing consumers to re-fi, they have done themselves a big favor.  If we want to pay down net debt, no financing vehicle should be able to charge more than 5% over prime.  If that means CC companies etc.  have to tighten their criteria that would be a good thing to drive down net debt.  Customers will have more money to retire their debt.

But the biggest villain however, will be Mark Carney--if he now treats consumers with disrespect. Instead of recognizing Canadian heroism, for stepping up. If he ratchets up rates and starts the process of gouging those who can least afford it and those who saved his bacon and those who will have to dump their houses on the market--or lose them. That's when the real "Carn" age begins

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/12/13/carney-interest-rates-warning.html#socialcomments#ixzz182BkAzhu

If consumer debt is such a problem. Stop the Banks/CCards from raping us like they do.
I would rather see 15% of my payment boosted on debt reduction then paid to MC for interest.
But no, they hope no one's looking HBC Mastercard is over 30%!!! When they pulled that one we chopped up that charge, and eliminated it. But they are all high. If Canada wants to get serious about reducing consumer debt they can do so without raping the poor. Shame on you for your userous predatory force in Canada, Shame on you.

I actually appreciated your article sir, would love to hear/read the transcript of the speech Dawkins tried to heckle.

I suppose the diatribes I have read here are the product of Canada's educated elite.  You are right: it is the same old same old stuff.  Nothing knew it wasn't knew from before when the argument to the question became resolving.  You hardly can blame the Canadian intellectual.  Our universities show profound lack of rigor.  For example, on of the last greatest philosopher of faith was Soren Kierkegaard, the father of existentialism.  I have read with many philosopher students were cursorily engaged with Kierkegaard, a wiki version or a wick version in very expensive philosophy text books.  I know philosopher grads at an MA and Phd level, but it really is astounding to discover how they came to my programs without reading original sources.  Some have studied Kierkegaard "in depth" but the never actually read his opus magnus: "Sickness unto Death".

Sadly I too often find people have mad hard decisions about philosophical world views based on Coles notes versions of the text at best.  Therefor agnostics and avowed atheists have formed their views on very crumbly foundations.  Almost as bad as lots of Christians who surprise surprise have even more rudimentary positions.  So after taking on a few light weights, the ballsy posters may one day meet a giant slayer.

Yet it would seem posters here who appeal to reason have fallen down in attempts at proffering it. I can here them saying "don't bother us with facts and rebuttals our minds are already made up"

O Canada the Deficit!

O come on!  Canada got what all the parties demanded:
Stimulus spending even if it caused a deficit.  Do you guys think Canadians don't have the IQ to remember that?  The wringing of your hands on this again and again and again won't make it more believable:  Canadians can see right through it.  This was a stimulus deficit not a structural deficit.  The "social" programs that might be cut are the programs to stimulate the economy that were employed over the past 2 years.  To great effect compared to everywhere else in the world.

And there can be no comparison with the US.  If we were to compare our deficit with the 2.5 trillion dollar deficit down there, then the Canadian deficit would have been 250 billion! Almost 50 percent of Canada's total debt!  So either no one is intelligent enough to crunch the numbers, or you think Canadians can't divide by 10, or you actually intend to be trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

A welfare bum speaks:

Please allow this contrarin position:  I have 4 kids who are now late teens to early 20s.  I have a crippling disability for the past 10 years.  My wife works 2 jobs and has her own small business just to make ends meet.  I feel every negative comment about those "lousy welfare bums" because I get a CPP cheque for 800 or so a month.  I really don't blame those who say this because I really really hate being in this place, a useless member of Canadian society.  I have tried to do something that needs only my free time, a small business, but in my opinion was too sick to make it a success.  (the 2008 crash didn't help I suppose).

I am trying my best, its been hard on my family, but they are all trying too.  Where I am at right now is the place in life where parents want to help their kids with their education.  My oldest, unable to afford university, got his class 1 and works for the city of Victoria.  My daughter is in university-education faculty.  My son is at the Art Institute of Burnaby (and you thought university tuition was expensive?) My youngest did a cooking program at the local college, cooked for the Olympics and now is training to be a great chef at an upscale restaurant in Vancouver.  My wife and I have provided pretty close to 1,000.00 to the kids to help out. (please understand it is profoundly humiliating to even admit this.)

Why am I saying this?  Because first of all I am thankful for what we do have, and what we have been given.  At least Canada was good enough to my family so that none of my kids had to go work in sweat shops.  For that I am profoundly thankful, and am thankful to every "cranky" tax payer who has complained about my ilk--I am too painfully aware from whence these Canadian blessings came.

I am an ignorant person.  I have worked with poor folks for 30 years.  My kids watched as heroin addicts to come down crashed on our couch.  I have stood with a destitute mother of 4 who's partner just left her.  I have seen cupboards as bare as a baby's butt.  Or children who wear soiled diapers because there was no money to buy any.  I have seen the trap of alcoholism where a parent buys a mickey instead of child's shoes.  I know the deep darkness of depression and mental illness, exacerbated by stress.  I have watched suicides be lowered 6 feet down.

This sort of poverty is very difficult.  It tends to set up patterns that are hard to break.  I have no beef with the wealthy.  I am glad for those who can hire people struggling to stand up--and do so without taking advantage of them.  I am glad we offer something to people scraping bottom.  Though we raised 4 kids with a salary/living below the poverty line, there was always enough soup in the pot for someone in worse shape than we were.

Sometimes I think that the difference between a rich man, a comfortable man, and a poor man has a significant luck factor.  If you are comfortable, and there is nothing wrong with that, it can be difficult to really understand the death-grip of poverty.  I am not sure 20k cash would help most of these people.  I can see the vampires moving in: the drug dealers, the payday cash places, and credit companies that specialize in gouging the poor with 40% interest rates. *All vampires* should be illegal. A lot of that money would pay off their debts..and give them a chance to get the monkey off their backs.  Perhaps a couple mandatory financial orienteering classes before receiving the cash would help a lot, given many of them have never seen a 2000.00 cheque.

Studies from long ago realized that 100% of income received by the poor returns to the economy.  So 56 billion dollars would be a shot in the arm to some aspects of the economy.  And would ripple through it generating wealth and jobs for more Canadians--I suppose that is,

I criticize that atrocity.  It is very concerning to see that sort of racism or religious intolerance in a democratic society.  And I consider myself a friend of Israel.  It is healthy to be able to expose any such failure whether it happen here, (recall the recent cross-burning) or there. 

It is important to differentiate however, Canada is not a country of Cross burners, nor is Israel such a country.  The matter should be resolved appropriately, so in the response, the justice issue is the point of valid critique. 

To place it on a the nation reflects the new-antisemitism because the isssue of prejudicial motive is exposed.  Consider the ludicrous idea that Canada is a country of the Klu Klux Clan.

The Poor

I am an ignorant person.  I have worked with poor folks for 30 years.  My kids watched as heroin addicts to come down crashed on our couch.  I have stood with a destitute mother of 4 who's partner just left her.  I have seen cupboards as bare as a baby's butt.  Or children who wear soiled diapers because there was no money to buy any.  I have seen the trap of alcoholism where a parent buys a mickey instead of child's shoes.  I know the deep darkness of depression and mental illness, exacerbated by stress.  I have watched suicides be lowered 6 feet down.

This sort of poverty is very difficult.  It tends to set up patterns that are hard to break.  I have no beef with the wealthy.  I am glad for those who can hire people struggling to stand up--and do so without taking advantage of them.  I am glad we offer something to people scraping bottom.  Though we raised 4 kids living below the poverty line, there was always enough soup in the pot for someone in worse shape than we were.

Sometimes I think that the difference between a rich man, a comfortable man, and a poor man has a significant luck factor.  If you are comfortable, and there is nothing wrong with that, it can be difficult to really understand the death-grip of poverty.  I am not sure 20k cash would help most of these people.  I can see the vampires move in: the drug dealers, the payday cash places, and credit companies that specialize in gouging the poor with 40% interest rates. *All vampires* should be illegal.

Studies from long ago realized that 100% of income received by the poor returns to the economy.  So 56 billion dollars would be a shot in the arm to some aspects of the economy.  And would ripple through it generating wealth and jobs for more Canadians--I suppose that is, all that money that would be left if they could pay off their debts...

Harper's Genius

I respect that. I think the Conservatives displayed brilliant strategy this week. They have been on the record for Senate reform for ever. However, the opposition have blocked every attempt at it. Alright the CPC says, I guess we will have to play the game the way its always been. They have to appoint replacement senators, the Liberal majority in the Senate has been defeating and thwarting the government's agenda. Because this is done behind the scenes and not on the floor of the house, and because the Liberals have dominated the Senate for so long, we never heard about it.

Now that tool is disappearing, so they are crying about it. Harper has seen the only way to get Senate reform is 1) To get a majority in both houses. 2)Demonstrate by way of crisis, some of the problems with keeping the Senate from reformation. 3)Introduce Senate Reform legislation while the keening need is on everyone's mind.

Like him or not, you have to admit, its brilliant. Harper has demonstrated his genius, and history will remember him for it

Don't be ridiculous.  Are you so ignorant to not know the way the Senate has worked since confederation?
The party in power if it stays in power long enough secures the majority of the Senate.

The idea was that the composition of the Senate would change slower over time than the HoC, so that governments that win sequential majorities, who thereby have indicated they are governing well enough to win most of the seats in sequential elections, those governments be ceded the power of the majority of both the HoC and Senate to further a sustained mandate.  An election of a HoC in a fluke angry election, or a reactionary minority is restrained by virtue of the much slower shift of power in the Senate.

As copyright legislation looms...

This legislation is nothing but a rip-off of the rights of the citizens of this country.

Copyright law was originally established to protect the rights of citizens, while balancing incentive for invention/innovation/creativity. It gave the originator 7 years. Thats it. No royalty for life nonsense No portofolio for Michael Jackson, no Beatles royalties continuing to enrich the pockets of Paul McCartney. Hey, he is a nice guy but does society want to continue its over-excessive riches for the few?

One copy of a purchased song/cd is ridiculous. For ages, one could make as many copies as they wanted so long it is for personal use. Why change it?

If one lives in a big city in Canada, there are plenty of FM stations to listen to music on--for free. But not in Gimli Manitoba, or Creston, BC. This will mean as the public is forced to turn on the old FM radios once again, the vast majority of the Canadian landscape will have to go back to the stone age--listening to AM skip.

Chaos the Stuff of Creation

Owen Abrey May I suggest Margaret Wheatly's book "Leadership and the New Science?" I came away from her thinking believing: "chaos is the stuff of creation."

The Senate and Minority Governments

What Canada witnessed here was a legitimate lever of this democracy.  It is  has come to light because we have had a minority government for 5 years. The balance of power in the senate tends to shift in favor of the governing party over time.  In the case of majorities freshly elected, it usually results in a frustration of the political agenda of the ruling party.  Since the Senate, for example, will tend to have more Liberals than Conservatives for many years after the Conservatives lets say, win the majority and visa versa..

This is the reason political parties stack the senate.  Its always been that way, and will continue to be that way until we have meaningful senate reform.


What is unique is that the current government is a minority government.  It hasn't had full control of legislation.  So a bill like this can pass the house regardless if the bill is in sync with the government agenda.  There has been near-hysteria in the house for a bit over a year as liberal senators have reached mandatory retirement, and have been replaced by Conservatives.  The Liberals have been using their majority in the senate to block, delay, and deep-six bills passed by the majority in the house for 5 years.  (To say that isn't so is intellectual dishonesty.) Now that senate majority is slipping away.


Despite the weakness of a minority government in the house, the rules still allow the government to choose senators.  In any minority government, regardless of party, the power of the senate will rise to levels not typically seen in Majorities.  This can be seen obviously by the fact that the Conservatives would have defeated the bill in the house had they the majority.  Legislation like this would never even see the senate except in minority government situation

Bill Bennet and Mr. Campbell

For 6 months I have been saying this is Campbell's opportunity to bow out gracefully--with his reputation more-or-less intact.  The problem for his posterity is the longer he drags this out the worse its going to look.  The Liberal party desperately needs renewal.  If this doesn't happen proactively, then BC will have to suffer the consequences of the reactivity.  The disaster of another NDP government--the only other alternative.

This is more a reflection of a government that has been in a minority for a long time. More common in our histories have been majorities, that in some cases have had to wait more than a decade or two to see the senate turn over so the government has control of both the parliament and the senate as did Martin and Cretien. However, what is interesting is that a government even a minority, may choose senators who are friendly to the government that can shift the balance of power in the upper house. A conservative majority in the senate is really the reason they howl.

If the Government had been in majority, what would the chances this bill would have made it past the house on 1ST READING? None at all. Considering the games that have been played the past few years on the floor of the senate, just reminds me of the saying: "What goes around, comes around."

Read more: http://www.canada.com/technology/outraged+Senate+kills+climate+change+bill/3843546/story.html#ixzz15bRjaKOR

Meh, this is merely one of the ways senates can deal with legislation.  Anyone who has any education in political science would know that this function is absolutely critical to the functioning of this democracy.
Anyone would know that after a bill is passed in parliament, it goes to the senate, where it can in fact be killed, modified, stalled, morphed at the will of the senate, before it is passed back to parliament for 2nd reading.
This is more a reflection of a government that has been in a minority for a long time.  More common in our histories have been majorities, who in some cases has to wait more than a decade or two to see the senate turn over so the government has control of parliament and the senate.  However, what is interesting is that a government is a government and therefore may choose senators who are friendly to the government--minority or not.

If the Government had been in majority, what would the chances this bill would have made it past 1ST READING?  None at all.  Considering the games that have been played the past few years on the floor of the senate, this just reminds me of the saying: "What goes around, comes around."

Actually Hugh Wood, as painful as this is, according to parliamentary law, the mission extension or new mission is within his discretion, without a vote.

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/prb0006-e.htm#legal

@sistersage: Thankyou.  Nothing like stirring people up by leading them along and deceiving them.

Clearly many posters here are deceived, not knowing the facts, the law, the House of Parliament.  The things that gall me most is that they are led by authors such as this, who ought to have credible knowledge of the truth.  Yet even then are piping a tune the children like to hear.  I read these comments quite thoroughly, and it is clear they have their public dancing to the tune like puppets on a string.

Editorial: Harper's speech on the new anti-semitism.

Thank you for this editorial.  It seems a stark contrast to the madness of the world.  Hatred drives a continuum of insanity the extremes of which reflect profound irrationality and prejudice. 

I am not a Jew.  I am a WASP.  I sit and write this on ground a white Colonel cheated from the local 1st nations band over 100 years ago.  The glaring reality of the new antisemitism  is shown by the relative passions on either topic: Land claims in Palestine, Land claims in BC.  One is argued even in this blog intensely, the other tepidly.  Some argue both--driven by the same prejudicial hatred.

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/editorial/2010/11/12/16114306.html#/comment/editorial/2010/11/12/pf-16114401.html

Canada's-Nato Commitment in Afghanistan

I am going to try to say the thing no one wants to say.  Today Nato has 150,000 troops in the war, 3,000 are Canadians.  After WWII, Canada brought home a million men.  In the battle of Vimy Ridge, Canada lost 10,000 troops before noon that day.  In Afghanistan we have lost less than 200.  Were any of the 10,000 lives any less precious?  No the lives of all our soldiers are worth the same: far more than we can properly appreciate.

If Nato had similar numbers, if Canada had a more serious commitment, like that of the 2 major wars, would this have dragged on for 9 years--longer than both world-wars together?  Instead I see the pathetic scrambling to commit as few as possible that would still allow us the political brownie points of saying we were doing our part.

It really is pathetic, but with even only 5 million men instead of 150,00.   Nato would probably have already pulled out by now, schools would be built where bare ground is now.  Infrastructure could stand without fear of being blown up.  Pakistan wouldn't dare play footsie with the Nato forces to their north.  No, instead we watch the scrabbling back of the free world, their half hearted failure being shifted onto those poor countries who didn't get out before we did.

The world would have been a different place.  And this in no way depreciates or diminishes the heart of our soldiers on the ground right now.  All I am saying is what could be done with 366 times more?

Re: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/lest-we-forget-just-10-mps-have-military-experience/article1795706/comments/

The insinuation the Minister of Defense is/was a general's lacky is so crass it raises the integrity and reputation of this rag to new lows.  Considering the quality of the military is at a high not seen since the 1950s due in part to Mr. Hillier and Mr. McKay--and not a little bit.  What possibly could the motive of the "Notebook" be?  A reversal of that current trend or just slagging at the reputation of these two men?  I suppose anything goes in politics at the hand of the chattering classes.

Unfortunately what seems to have been a good issue to raise--the utility of military experience in government--was only a ruse, a cover for this slagging piece.

@JC35: Unlike the US, Canadian Prime-ministers tend not to have had military experience.  Can one suppose from this that the problem of the disastrous deterioration of Canada's Military over the past 75 years is the lack of military experience on the hill?  If it hadn't been for McKay and Hillier I may have agreed given the trend until then.

Racism or Anti-Zionism

The problem is that the evil lies in what people think-and their motive. These are intangibles.
So if you have a prejudicial hatred to a certain group of people, the motive will engender behaviors that are inevitably unacceptable. These behaviors can be viewed on a continuum from barely detectable to the horror of holocaust. The latter of course is relatively easy to see, but much hatred can be cloaked, it can be the reason to bring up anti-zionist sentiment for example. Zionism may need to be critiqued, not so much by people who hate Jews which in turn is really *why* they are anti-zionist. The problem is how does one ascertain motive? Sometimes it is easy to see, other times it is carefully hidden behind our intellectual dishonesty.

Campbell resigns

The province was run into the ground at the hands of the NDP. It was a basket case when the Libs took over.
How quickly we forget. When the NDP were in power, we couldn't get our highways clean. Their friend in their back pocket was pocketing millions while simply refusing to do their job. The winter after the Libs got in the highways were bare in the Kootenays. The following summer, hundreds of miles of highways and 2ndary roads in profound neglect were paved.
Bureaucracy was blown out the door. Consequently civil servants served the people instead of maintaining their fiefdom, and adding more regulatory burden on us all.

No, its good he resigned, so the dust can settle and objective evaluation of the many things he did accomplish can be revealed for posterity.

The Galileo Connection

http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/01-Genesis/Text/Articles-Books/Hummel_Gen1_JASA.htm

Recent wargames with Canada's CF-18s and US F-22s and 35s, resulted in the Canadians being entirely wiped out. Not only did we not make a kill, we never even saw them.

10 years ago, the story was different. There is nothing wrong with out pilot's skills. Its what sort of plane we put them in. Even super hornets are not Gen 5. They would be toast in battle with gen 5s. To go any other way is to throw their lives away, because we were too cheap.

F-35 argument tightened up.

What a pile of poo. There is no other gen 5 plane in the world. What will compete with it? The Russians have 2 they "claim" in the same class, and that is dubious, but if they did we could not buy it anyhow. So this competitive bid nonsense is so disingenuous I can't believe Ignatieff is saying it with a straight face. Military procurement is hard to do and easy to have cost over-runs with. I don't know the helicopter modifications Canada ordered that put off delivery 5 years, but this is typical especially for competitive bids. For example, consider how quickly options add up in the price of a new car. The dealership is competing for your business with every other dealership in town, and sometimes province. So to get you to sign on the dotted line the price lure is extraordinarily low. They make their money not selling you the car, but rather on the accessories and extended warranties. It looks like Boeing patted us down by increasing the price of those choppers by more that 70%. I think a review of those costs ARE in order.

However, the f-35 is our plane, never since the Arrow have we had an opportunity like this.
Yes the Arrow program was expensive in its day. Canada would buy them, but on the global scale, we were head to head with the US for sales. This is the first supersonic plane since then that we actually had a hand in building. Over 100 Canadian companies have earned Canada 1/2 a billion dollars, compared to the 380 million of "investment".

The 14-16b number includes maintenance for 30 years for pity sake. Do you think maintenance was added to the sticker price of our CF-18s? Give me a break! Canada just ponied up for over a 1/2 billion for maintenance on those old girls until our new planes can be delivered. So lets be clear, the EXAGGERATED number--inflated by the ministry of defense to allow for cost over-runs was 8.9 billion.

However, LHM has gone on record that it thinks it will spend 12 billion dollars in Canada.
What you say? 8.9 purchase price but we get 12 back. Ah yeah there are 3000 of these planes we will be supplying parts for! We are freaking being given these planes. We are being refunded more than we are paying for them!

Just give this a whiff, that horse pucky you smell is the spin-doctors and politicians who know all of this but think the Canadian public is too stupid to do the math & catch on.
Come on Canada, give this a real good sniff. Iggy is looking down his nose at these ignorant unwashed Canadians, thinking he can get away with murder!

Will the Feds allow the BHP Potash deal to go through?

If the myth of right & left wings exists and apparently it does in some form or other, Canada's right wing rests somewhat left of center.  It exists "left" of center because they still believe in universal access to medical services, public schools, libraries, & protection.  The afore mentioned are all social services, and while the right might want to tweak some of those services, they are still going to remain as Canada's social (products of the left wing) services.

I think this deal will be stopped.  There is mounting expectation in the Canadian populous to see this quashed.  The government needs to regain traction with the popular vote.  There will be criticism from the far right no doubt.  The government doesn't like to let that faction down, but the political necessity will demand they do it.  The crux of it is, who else will the right vote for?  Certainly not the Liberals who object to lower corporate taxes, nor the NDP for similar reasons.
Therefore, the conservatives really lose nothing--but gain a big chunk of the more leftward leaning voter.  They won't win the far left in any event.  But the prize of the centre is worth the price.

@tominvictoria:  Sorry for breaking into your habitual rant, but this is a story maybe you should pay attention to.
The DND is dysfunctional on several levels, and that needs to change.  So... an investigation is being lauched to see if there are others in this predicament.  If there is a policy issue, it as got to change.

In no way demeaning this particular story and I speak no ill of the dead, I really think the minister should have met her on say remembrance  day or something.  An then there is the bribe of a medal or may be two of them.

When things get politically overcharged like what typically happens in minority governments, I don't like policy based one circumstance.  So if there are other similar stories, the apology should apply to all.  To me MOD acted u knee-jerk reaction before appropriate decisions could be made.  I am sure we could find stories like this all over Canada, will Peter be flying in to be speaking personally with every one?  Is that being "ministerial?"

The Man the Boy and A Donkey in 1000 Charactures

The Man the Boy and the Donkey.
Once upon a time there was a man and his son who owned a donkey.  The man and his son decided it was best to sell the donkey at the market.
The man and the boy led the donkey along.  Then some people laughed and said, look at those stupid people walking when they have a Donkey to ride!  So the man thought maybe they were right and put his son on the donkey.  Soon after they heard other people laughing a ridiculing the son:
"Look at that lazy boy, riding while making his father walk!"  So they thought maybe they were right, so the boy got down, the father mounted on the donkey--led by the boy.  Not too long after they encountered more people who laughed and said "Look at that big fat man riding whilst his son has to walk!"  Well that prompted a quandary.  The man and the boy scratched their head and decided the only other option left was to carry the Donkey!
Well the donkey brayed and he kicked until over the bridge he went and drowned.

On the Liberals Vow to Cancel the F-35 upon Election.

What a pile of poo.  There is no other class 5 plane in the world.  The Russians have 2 they claim in the same class, and that is dubious, but if they did we could not buy it anyhow.  So this competitive bid nonsense is so disingenuous I can't believe Ignatieff is saying it with a straight face.  Military procurement is hard to do and easy to have cost over-runs with.  I don't know the modifications Canada ordered that put off delivery 5 years, but this is typical especially for competitive bids.  For example, consider how quickly options add up in the price of a new car.  The dealership is competing for your business with every other dealership in town, and sometimes province.  So to get you to sign on the dotted line the price lure is extraordinarily low.  They make their money not selling you the car,  but rather on the accessories and extended warranties.  It looks like Boeing patted us down by increasing the price of those choppers by more that 70%.  I think a review of those costs are in order.

However, the f-35 is our plane, never since the Arrow have we had an opportunity like this.
Yes the Arrow program was expensive in its day.  Canada would buy them, but on the global scale, we are head to head with the US for sales.  This is the first supersonic plane since then that we actually had a hand in building.  Over 100 Canadian companies have earned Canada 1/2 a billion dollars, compared to the 380 million of "investment".

The 14-16b number includes maintenance for 30 years for pity sake.  Do you think maintenance was added to the sticker price of our CF-18s?  Give me a break!  Canada just ponied up for over a 1/2 billion for maintenance on those old girls until our new planes can be delivered.  So lets be clear, the EXAGGERATED number--inflated by the ministry of defense to allow for cost over-runs was 8.9 billion.

However, LHM has gone on record that it thinks it will spend 12 billion dollars in Canada.
What you say?  8.9 purchase price but we get 12 back.  Ah yeah there are 3000 of these planes we will be supplying parts for!  We are freaking being given these planes.  We are being refunded more than we are paying for them!

Just give this a whiff, that horse pucky you smell is the spin-doctors and politicians who know all of this but think the Canadian public is too stupid to do the math & catch on.
Come on Canada, give this a real good sniff.  Iggy is looking down his nose at these ignorant unwashed Canadians, thinking he can get away with murder!

On Mr. Campbell's Income Tax Cut.

Bill Bennet is our MLA and we like our politicians plains speaking-just eloquent enough to call a spade a spade.

I don't agree with the gist of this article.  2013 is a coon's age from now.  Political fares could flip before then.  I am pretty mad at the Liberals, but in this province what choice will we have?
Every NDP government has ended in disaster, with governmental departments all seized up by the ton of new regulations and restrictions and taxes--never again for this voter.

My problem is that I have a long memory.  I am still mad about the carbon taxes.  The HST kick-off was a disaster but made no impact on my cost of living.  I thought the world was intentionally moving to consumption taxes over income taxes as a means to restrict global warming.  That is what has happened.  Consumption taxes rose on a few things, maybe 1% of my budget.  It is nothing compared to the carbon taxes that gore me every time I have to fill up.  I could really applaud this if I were to read that this number didn't only apply to the highest income taxes.  If it didn't, if it were across the board a lot of poor folk could put some bread on the table.  Perhaps I am hoping too much.  But a shift in the tax-ability of the bottom of the tax roster, not only would cost less but do the people struggling in poverty a lot of good.

Banter about Peter McKay, the Widow and her Military Son's Suicide.

I am trying to imagine the one or two things I would have to give my attention to the morning after I became the Minister of Defense.  I am trying to imagine the centuries of tradition, protocol and regulation that are the Canadian Armed Forces.  The hierarchy and bureaucracy I am  sure would be straight forward.  I would probably memorize all those manuals before you know it.  Forget the military law, that is something everyone is born knowing.

And the day after long enough I would know of every injustice, error, bureaucratic snafu that ever existed from the dawn of time.   And when I knew of any of them, I would rise and take responsibility, and apologize then repair the injustice.  Then of course, every Canadian would understand and not villainize me in the Global Mail, no... I would be a god. 

Margaret Wente's article on a Retrospective of the Iraqi wars.

Well, if only to be a contrarian today, it isn't hard to find speeches by the Liberals in the lead up to the gulf war. For this group of people hard on the heels of 9/11, to have maintained their Liberalism held before 9/11 was to risk charges of treason, or worse for academics, risk their income earned by giving speeches.
___I say that giving Mr. Ignatieff the benefit of any doubt as to his political orientation in those pre-Afghanistan/Iraq war speeches. Otherwise the only definer that fits would be that he was a neo-con. And we can't have that now can we?

Auditor General Assesses Good and Bad

So it turns out the 56 billion dollar deficit was accrued in appropriate prudent fair and honest way.
Wow that is saying a lot. A dark cloud for Iggy who was hoping for dirt. That would mean the the CPCs can actually say we have delivered: Promised gst cut--Delivered -2%; Promised reduced taxes from personal income tax to corporate tax.--Delivered. Promised to manage Canada's finances with transparency and integrity--delivered... Ms Fraser made that clear.

The F-35 issue is hard to see clearly because of all the mud being thrown. I insist the purchase number is 8.9 instead of 16 because the maintenance has never been a cost in buying planes or you name it--before.

Lockheed is on the record that it will spend 12 billion in Canada.

Interpreting the after math of Ford's electoral victory.

What played out was the concept of no taxation without representation. The taxpayers wanted representation that will address what they perceive to be over-taxation. Who knows what it will look like a few years from now--pulling teeth of the unions that have a choke-hold on the city. It could/probably will get worse before it gets better.

I think slowly there is growing realization that taxation is a form of slavery. Every dollar we are taxed we earn by the sweat of our brow. Every dollar to throw an art party comes from people who had to work harder and longer for that dollar then ever before. Every dollar in the *pride parade comes from the table of families trying to survive.

This is no longer acceptable

Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/10/26/tasha-kheiriddin-rob-ford-the-real-candidate-of-inclusiveness/#ixzz13UeNWtac

On mayoralty successs and the Right Wing

Has anyone else noticed the Right understands the plans of the left: More government, more "services" More regulations, and the general idea they know what we all need.

That said despite dispersions and vehemence directed at the "Right"  Have you noticed they don't have a clue as to what the Right really is, and the absolute stench the Left has become to the population in general.  We want fiscal discipline, which has shown to not only enhance a city but also stops profligacy.  We want the left to know we have figured out that agenda to tax and tax and tax--as though there is no end to our dollars.  We know that taxation is a form of slavery which has reached the tipping point.

Torontonians only have to look over at Hamilton, where the long-est lived and elected mayor reigns.  The last I heard, they had NO debt, and 700,000,000 in the bank.  THAT'S what will get any mayor reelected ad infinitum.

The horns of a Dilemma Truth vs Justice. Conrad Black

It is unfortunately telling right and wrong can be obfuscated by the high towers of a legal system. Line upon line, brick upon brick, the legal system stretches back to the Magna Carta as its foundation. Then as we see demonstrated here, we erect perilous towers by our intellect. Judges are not to be faulted by trying to keep them erect. They have agreed after all, to play by the rules--even though the rules boiled down to an appeal granted. What would be more troubling, would be to invent new rules or set aside precedent at the whim of a judge. We can't make law to punish someone because we can't find a law to so in the first place. Instead we build them higher: more lofty with twisty staircases.
It is a pity, however, that such justice are toppling towers and failing ruins on a foundation we once called truth and integrity.

China and Sovereignty

Alethia Report Comment

October 24th 2010, 3:01pm

Zambia crisis arises out its loss of sovereignty over its resources. In Canada the real owners are the Crown. We don't actually buy the land to build our houses on we buy the rights to the surface area. The single most good part about that is that we always retain sovereignty to the land via the Crown. So for example, should China buy into the oil-sands, they will never own them. So it is with Western companies building in China. The state could take them any time without recourse. We must be very certain China doesn't mistake us for Zambia. And shame on you China rising not to the defense of the worker, but the capitalists.

H1N1 Review, the Implications of the Vaccine Strategy.

The point that is missed in all this, is that Canada has a socialized medical care for all its citizens.  A lot of us are pretty proud of it.

--The problem that arises from the first point is that not only do all Canadians have access to medicare, all Canadians pay for it. People who pay higher taxes pay more proportionally than people who don't.  Nevertheless, there is a sort of accountability citizens have to the rest of us.  This is why there are seat-belt laws.   Society pays for your stupidity.
-- If you are in a bad accident with seat belts and air bags, you stand a greater probability to survive, and to survive with less injury.  So I pay more for the person who crashes without a seat belt than I do if he has it on.
--Tobacco and Alcohol taxes are supposed to support the social costs that users inflict on the rest of us, for similar reasons.
--This brings into focus the problem of the vaccine last year.  A lot of people elected to pass, which basically is their right.  BUT, the rest of us pay if you end up in the hospital with H1N1, because you chose to believe a conspiracy theory rather than your own scientists.  Even people who were inoculated suffer if, during the time of epidemic, they required medical care other than H1N1 as all the resources were otherwise occupied.  Pity you if you had heart-attack at that time for example.

Around the idea of elitism...

Like the white race saw nothing wrong with their life in Texas or Alabama of the 1950s, so it is "elitists" cannot understand what the problem is around this word. It is true that the denotation of the word has suffered by the connotation to some extent. However oblique this might seem to you, it is indicative of an abyss opening up between the educated classes and the tradesmen, the white vs blue collar. The blue collar has borne the brunt of the economic crisis on the chin; and so has a peculiar affinity for the poor since they feel their sphere is not far from poverty.

Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/10/20/kelly-mcparland-rob-ford-versus-justin-trudeau-and-the-unions-your-choice/#ixzz131CBboDI

It is interesting the process of global realignment continues to evolve.  It is interesting that it is terrorism that has been the catalyst.  Former enemies become friends, and friends become enemies.  I would rather Russia was our friend instead of an enemy.  Why can't they be?  Sure the process will take time to build trust, but that is not in itself insurmountable.  Canadians fought shoulder to shoulder with the US in the first world war--not much more than a century after we fought against them.

  On the other hand, it is hard not to conjecture that the Dubai acton was not a more sophisticated form of Islamic extremism.  Considering the fact that Canadians use that base in the interests of Dubai, to wit, the fight over terror, it seems they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.  We have poured out blood out on the sands of Afghanistan so bring peace and stability to them, as well as other countries in the region.
 
This action is beyond being rash.  We are at war.  We will scramble successfully to reroute our flights. In any of the major world wars, this sort petulance would be seen as an act of war.  It affects our way of continuing to execute this war.  Dubai is now become another front of it.

A stab at philosophical truth

 

You might be familiar with standardizing an argument.  I am having a lot of difficulty with this passage and just thought you could offer some insight.
The paragraph is:

Either truth is absolute or relative.  If it is absolute, then a true sentence is true for all persons, at all times, at all places.  If it is relative, then a true sentence is only true for certain persons, times, and places.  But it makes no sense to claim that all truth is relative, as the following will demonstrate.  If all truth really is relative, then it may be, relative to some persons, times, or places, that the following sentence is true:  "Truth is absolute."  But if all truth is relative, then this same sentencce cannot possibley be true.
What I have to do is decide if the passage contains an argument and if it does, standardize it by picking out the premises and the conclusion.
So far this is what I have, but it doesn't feel right to me.

A)     Question C contains an argument and can be standardized as such:

i) Either truth is absolute or relative.

ii) If absolute, a true sentence is true for all persons, at all times, at all places.

iii) If relative, then a true sentence is only true for certain persons, times, or places.

iv) However, if claimed that all truth is relative, the sentence “Truth is absolute” may be relative to some persons, times, or places.  But if all truth is relative, then this same sentence cannot possibly be true.

Therefore, it makes no sense to claim that all truth is relative.

i, ii, iii, iv are what seem to be the premises and "Therefore, it makes no sense to claim that all truth is relative" seems to be the conclusion.  Does this make sense to you, or am I way off course?

Thanks so much for looking at this.  If it is not something you are familiar with...no worries!

Premises that I see:

                                      

1)      The question is phrased as a polemic.  The states are assumed to be one or the other, but not a 3^rd, 4^th or 5^th.  For example, is it possible for a state to exist where Truth could be both relative and absolute?  Why must these concepts be considered in opposition to each other?  This is the initial premise.

2)      Everything that relates to Truth, must be a true statement.  All Truth is true. , makes the assumption that Truth (big T) is equivalent in some way, or derives from truisms.     If this were not the case, there is no way to argue Truth as an absolute, because the inconsistency of Truth being absolute or being flawed and therefore out of the argument.  So Everything must relate to truth as something that is true and not false.  Falsehood and Absolute Truth are really what should be in polemic.

4)      No quarter is given for different kinds of Truth, they aren't considered.  For example, there is Historical truth and Empirical truth.  Historical truth might correctly relay a lie that some character speaks or purports to be true.  So the assumption that Truth can have no falsehoods is a problem.  Empirical truth assumes that all that is true can be identified by the 5 senses.  But there are things that are true that lie outside the empirical boundary like: I love my kids.  This statement of fact is true, but there is no satisfying extrinsic ways to assess its validity, although some have tried.

5)      There is some sort of universality of Truth implied here that makes no room for Truth that changes.  Can Truth evolve?  Consider a stop light.  It is true the light is green, but not all the time.

6)      Truth could be states, that obeys quantum laws, especially in ways like Schrodinger cat.  Schrodinger proved that two opposite states could exist at one time, and that the state collapses to one of the two upon observation.   Each state is as true as the other simultaneously.

7)      ________________________________________

Those were some problematic assumptions. 

Now the argument: .  If it is absolute, then a true sentence is true for all persons, at all times, at all places.  If it is relative, then a true sentence is only true for certain persons, times, and places.  But it makes no sense to claim that all truth is relative, as the following will demonstrate.  If all truth really is relative, then it may be, relative to some persons, times, or places, that the following sentence is true:  "Truth is absolute."  But if all truth is relative, then this same sentence cannot possibly be true.  I am not convinced that this is proven: “relative to some persons the following sentence is true: “Truth is Absolute”, is what this is stating:

It assumes that Truth Can be true to some people as relatively absolute.  In other words, how can it be that for some people truth is absolute, if by way of opening definition Absolute Truth is in polemic with  “Relative Truth”. The premise assumes that each excludes the other. So then it could not be possible for the statement Truth is Absolute in a Relative way to some person since they are mutually exclusive to each other by way of a priori.   It is excluded by the premise. 

Another logical flaw includes the idea that Truth is on some sort of continuum from Absolute to Relative, when the a priori precludes it.  If truth is Absolute, then it exists off the continuum of relativity.  If this is true, then from the onset, from the first given, this shows that we are talking about entirely different concepts, but calling them both truth.

In my opinion the argument and conclusion does not remain true to the premise, or at least the alluded premises, which see Truth: Absolute and Relative--in opposition on a polemic, or affixed upon a continuum.  One assumes knowing relative truth in the most pure way causes one to know Absolute truth, when all the evidence shows that is unsubstantial.  It puts Truth on a continuum.  A continuum refutes the opening sentence, the first a priori—from the outset.  Because a continuum conflicts with the statement Truth is either  absolute or relative.  I think Absolute truth and Relative truth are across an event horizon from each other.  Otherwise there would be something in the argument that allows Absolute truth to exist as a quasi-relative truth across a sliding scale, instead of across an event horizon:  Allowing for relativity to approach it but never arrive.

In my mind this is resolved if we understand that Truth may be Absolute.  But our perceptions of Truth will always be relative.

Israel, Canada and the Rebuff at the UN.

In the long trajectory that is the direction of Canada, a government of what ever political stripe can change its trajectory but not it's direction.  In BC, the Fraser River arrows for the coast.  Intersecting it west of Kamloops flows the crystal clear waters of the Thompson.  For a time, as the two streams flow, the clear water flows still independent of the Fraser, but after a while, there is no distinguishing the two.  The Fraser river continues on its rush to the Pacific looking the same muddy brown it was before.

So it is that parties and Prime-ministers are elected.  Each contributes its unique flow to the nation of Canada.  But we appear to the world much the same as we always have been, for the nation is of hundreds and thousands and millions of streams.

Canada has always stood for freedom & democracy.
It was that principle that was behind our support of the creation of the UN.  Just as it was for the creation of the state of Israel:  Both Democracies...

So if we are to pay for this fundamental direction so foundational to our nationhood and our reason 'detere, then we should take it with honor when that is attacked by despots and Islamists. It reminds me of the Biblical Sermon on the Mount where Jesus said "blessed are you when men shall revile you and persecute you and say all manner of evil against you..."

For Canada to suffer standing for Freedom and Democracy and do do it with such grace & dignity should make us all proud.

An excellent article by David Frum. Diplomacy and the Candian SC bid.

David Frum  October 16, 2010 – 8:10 am

Canada needs a new national sport: solo boxing. What could be more Canadian than beating yourself up?
The story of Canada’s disappointment at losing the Security Council seat took a new turn Thursday: “U.S. State Department insiders say that U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice not only didn’t campaign for Canada’s election but instructed American diplomats to not get involved in the weeks leading up to the heated contest. With no public American support, Canada lost its bid to serve.” So reported Richard Grenell, a former press officer with the U.S. mission to the UN.
Grenell is right that Susan Rice was AWOL during the Security Council elections. She was travelling in Africa, which does seem a strange thing for an UN ambassador to do at such a crucial moment.
Others have suggested that the issue is one of competence. Susan Rice has not been receiving general good reviews for her UN service. Grenell goes even further: He scourges Ambassador Rice as “wildly ineffective,” complaining (among other things) about her failure to produce tougher UN sanctions against Iran.
This last complaint seems unfair. Sanctions are negotiated at the highest levels: in Washington, Berlin, Moscow, New Delhi and Beijing, not at Turtle Bay. Anyway, the key decision moment for Canada’s hopes for a Security Council seat was not last week at the UN. It was months ago, in Europe, when the United States and Canada should have persuaded one of the other Western contenders, Germany or Portugal to stand down. That way there would have been only two Western nominees for the two open Western seats.
So if a U.S. abandonment of Canada occurred, it occurred months ago — and it involved many more people than just a single UN ambassador.
I’ve been working the phones to understand why the United States was not more active on Canada’s behalf. I don’t have an answer yet. But I do have a theory. It’s only speculation, and could be wrong, but it’s worth thinking about.
The theory starts in Latin America.
Of the five seats that open in January 2011, one belongs to the Latin American bloc.
This seat will go to Colombia. The seating of Colombia is a deserved accolade for a democracy that has successfully battled terrorism and drug gangs. Colombia’s seating also represents a diplomatic victory for the United States: Colombia is a close U.S. ally and a target of subversion from Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela.
How did the United States score this victory? Answer: with a lot of help from rising regional heavyweight, Brazil. (Brazil also helped the United States stop a Venezuelan bid for the Security Council back in 2006. The seat went instead to Guatemala.)
But when a country like Brazil offers help, it usually expects some kind of payback. Portuguese-speaking Brazil feels a special relationship with its former metropole, Portugal. And we know that Brazil campaigned hard for Portugal in the General Assembly vote.
So, let me spell out a possible solution to the case, Sherlock Holmes style:
In the early 2000s, Germany had launched a quixotic bid for a permanent Security Council seat. That bid went nowhere. But as a consolation prize the other European countries agreed to give Germany another early turn in a temporary seat — even though Germany had had a turn very recently, in 2003-2004.
Accelerating Germany’s next turn in this way threatened to displace small country Portugal, which had not had a turn since the 1990s. Portugal declined to stand down.
The United States might have tried to pressure Portugal — but didn’t, because it needed Brazil’s help with the Colombian nomination. Thus, two Western European candidacies went forward at the same time as Canada’s.
Although the United States preferred Canada’s nomination over Portugal’s, the deal with Brazil required the United States to stay neutral between Portugal and Canada both in Brussels and then at the General Assembly.
As I said, this is speculation. I can’t confirm it. But I do notice this: The U.S. government has kept awfully quiet about the suggestion that it went missing during the Security Council vote.
Not that silence proves a story true. But it makes you wonder.
Of course, as sometimes happens with amateur sleuths, it is also possible that my solution is far too complicated. It is possible that the real answer is much more blunderingly simple. The Obama administration dropped the ball, went passive, couldn’t be bothered. It was a botch, not a plan. That’s the least interesting and least satisfying explanation, but maybe in the end, the most plausible.
National Post
dfrum@frumforum.com

Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/10/16/david-frum-asking-why-america-did-not-support-canada-at-the-un/#ixzz12XiAguEE

Comment to a sensical comment in the NP

Amen Stepp, so the new bully on the playground of the UN, the 57 vote block: Organization of Islamic Conference gave Canada a black eye.  Its pretty hard to win a vote with almost a 50% handi-cap.  Canada recused itself after the 2nd ballot, graciously giving the seat to Portugal.  Canada holds its head high.  We will not cow-tow to bullies.  Canada never has, and hopefully never will.

I am ok with not being the lap dog of an organization whose purpose is the infiltration and conversion of the free world.  I am ok with standing up to the most ruthless and dispicable group of people in the world.

Thank you Canada for standing tall on this one.

Chris Selly makes some good points in his article

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/10/13/chris-selleys-full-pundit-now-the-un-cant-come-to-our-birthday-party/

Good point Mr. Selley.  We need to keep everything in perspective.  The Organization of Islamic Conference wielded 57 votes.  They voted as a block against us, and persuaded others to as well.  Its hard starting out with nearly a 50% handi-cap at the best of times.  This group of despots and tyrants does wield power in the world, but it isn't something we should congratulate ourselves for winning over.  Since their overt reason d'être is to promote Islam, its dissemination and ultimate conquest of the world, I am ok with not being its toady.