Well, from the political side, 2011 in Canada brought in a Conservative government which is chipping away at some of their top priorities. In the US, well, Mark Steyn wraps it up.
Closing down 2011
Reply
Category Archives: General
Dennis Miller at the Reagan Library
The best thing about living in Finland. They don’t get Newsweek.
Saving 20 Billion
“But until we get through these difficulties, we’ll hold back some of the money that the American taxpayers have committed to give.”
Responding to whether that figure was “some $800 million,” Daley said, “Yep.”
The New York Times, citing three unnamed senior U.S. officials, reported that altogether, “about $800 million in military aid and equipment, or over one-third of the more than $2 billion in annual American security assistance to Pakistan, could be affected.”
$2 Billion annually goes to Pakistan. I can think of a way to save $20 Billion over 10 years. I’d like to know which American taxpayers committed the money.
A Man Named Lucy
If I was named Lucy, I probably would have been mocked over and over again as a child. Of course, when I was in school, guys weren’t told to wear pink.
I think I have figured out why Lucy is a one-man, anti-word & thought crusader.
How Jean Chretien became PM.
I found this little tidbit interesting.
In his riding of Shawinigan or Saint-Maurice-Lafleche, Mr. Chretien had a tough time getting ahead of the Creditiste (damn the ADQ) and in order to make his life easier, he would make sure one of his friends would win the Conservative nomination, and then not campaign very much during the election. According to Jean, some people just liked the business they would get by having their name on the ballot and on the posters.
This strategy was not public. It was not a park-your-vote ploy in Shawinigan. It was slightly nefarious methods by one of the smartest political operatives in Canadian history.
At Fuddle Duddle.
Here, I thought he just bought off the voters. He’s actually cheaper than I thought.
A Crippled Society
ScrappleFace is a satirical blog by Scott Ott. Normally you get hilarious conservative writing. Today, in a response to a note received by an editor, he took on the media and big government in some non-satirical writing and gives a speech that should be coming from the White House.
The danger of centralized government control is not that it robs a few dollars from rich people and gives them to the poor. It’s not even that such a bureaucratic behemoth spawns the waste of billions of dollars. After all, it’s just money.
No, the threat of this system is that it strips a man of what makes him a man, and turns him away from his inner resources, or the inclination to partner with neighbors to solve problems. It humiliates him, blinds him and ultimately cripples him.
Read the full post here.
“I Can Live With Myself” – Stephen Harper
Here’s something the Liberals won’t be able to understand.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he could not live with himself if he reduced Canada’s military mission in Afghanistan to further his own political self-interest and that he’s even prepared to lose the next election if it means standing by the military.
It’s almost like our Prime Minister is willing to, get this, lose an election over something he believes is right. This is absolutely unbelievable.
I’m just not used to this idea. I’ve been living in Canada and following politics in this nation(s) much too long to comprehend the thought of a man of principle in charge.
“But Afghanistan is a unique mission. It’s neither war nor peace-keeping. It’s a security operation that involves pretty direct combat with the enemy.�
Harper said he understands the NDP’s position – that Canada should not have sent its troops to Afghanistan and should withdraw now – better than any of his political opponents because at least this party has been consistent. But he suggested he has even less time for the two other parties.
“The Liberals and the Bloc tell me: rebalance the mission. What does that mean? I mean, what the hell does that mean?�
“We’ve got guys there, they’re in the most dangerous province in the country. Yes, we’re trying to do development and humanitarian assistance and we’re doing that. But the fact of the matter is that they’ve got guys shooting at them. And they’ve got the most concentrated group of enemy combatants right there. It isn’t an option to cut down the military side of the operation. They have to do what is necessary to protect the local people and protect themselves. And nothing less.�
Harper said it would be “completely irresponsible� to reduce Canada’s military mission in Afghanistan.
“If other parties want to go to the people and take that position – ‘We’d leave them there but we’d tell them not to defend themselves’ – let them explain that to the Canadian people.â€?
Unfortunately, the media would never make them explain that. They’re too busy calling the Prime Minister “Scary.”
Blockquotes from Canada.com [via]
Principled Pluralism
When I was back at Briercrest College, I took a class called Apologetics. It basically was about how one was to defend their faith when presented with arguments from a different point of view. If Christianity is based on truth, which I believe it is, then I should be able to back it up.
I had to write a paper while I was there, I think it was even in that class, on Principled Pluralism and whether I thought it was right or wrong.
Principled Pluralism is coming from the point of view that in a pluralistic society, where there are many options on what people can believe, it is important to stand up for the right to believe what you want.
Some would use the word tolerance, although that word has taken on a different meaning in the last decade. It used to be that tolerance was allowing someone to have a belief or action and not persecuting them for it. Intolerance was persecuting one for their belief or action.
These days, intolerance also includes those who do not change their beliefs to fit into the current beliefs of society. If I was to believe something that goes against the way society is changing, my view would not be tolerated the same way as others. People may allow me the right to believe it, but I would not be given the right to speak my belief.
If you don’t agree with this, simply wear a “Homosexuality is Wrong” shirt to an NDP convention and let me know how many people tolerated you.
Do I believe in Principled Pluralism?
In a democratic country, the laws and public morality that society is required to live by is set by those who started the country and then changed by “the people” through their representatives that they voted in.
I’m in the country and I have to live by its laws. Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms is part of the Constitution in this country.
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
1. freedom of conscience and religion;
2. freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
3. freedom of peaceful assembly; and
4. freedom of association.
As you can see, principled pluralism is based on point 2, “Freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression.” As long as this remains in the constitution and the laws reflect it, not only do I have to live by it, but I can take advantage of it.
You see, I am a Christian and part of what I believe is the requirement and desire for Christians to share what they believe with others. Principled pluralism allows me to do that without fear of persecution. Of course, as a Christian I know that eventually, persecution will occur. For now, I’ll stick by principled pluralism, even with its drawbacks, which are a subject of another essay.