No More Muammar

Muammar Gaddafi is dead.

Libya's ex-leader Col Muammar Gaddafi has been killed after an assault on his birthplace of Sirte, officials say. 

Acting Prime Minister Mahmoud Jibril announced the death, and later said the colonel had been killed in a crossfire between Gaddafi loyalists and fighters from the transitional authorities. 

He confirmed that Col Gaddafi had been taken alive, but died of bullet wounds minutes before reaching hospital.

President Obama's reaction:

[Obama] appeared to distance Washington from deeper entanglement in the North African oil-producing nation at a time of economic woes at home, placing responsibility for Libya's future squarely on the shoulders of the fractious interim leadership in Tripoli. 

"This marks the end of a long and painful chapter for the people of Libya who now have the opportunity to determine their own destiny in a new and democratic Libya," Obama said in the White House Rose Garden.

That seems somewhat irresponsible; I would hope that the US would ensure Libya's new government isn't affiliated with or controlled by radical Islamists.

Obama made clear he considered Gaddafi's death a validation of his "leading from behind" strategy that had drawn criticism at home for casting the United States in a support role in the NATO air assault in Libya. Some of his Republican foes see it as an "Obama doctrine" that abdicates U.S. global leadership.

I'm no military analyst, but I would say Gaddafi's death occurred in spite of Obama's "strategy."  It likely would have happened sooner if the US would have taken more of a leading role.   

"For the Good of Mankind"

After watching coverage of the "Occupy Vancouver" protest on CBC, I am disappointed.  I'm not sure I have ever seen a more one-sided news story here in Canada.  There was not a single criticism of the movement (unless lack of focus on a specific goal is one), and every person they interviewed was either at the protest or said they wanted to go, because they supported the movement.  There wasn't a hint of controversy in the story about the radical leftist politics of the movement.  But, any mere mention of the tea party here seems to be enough to incite accusations of right-wing extremism.

The main message of the "Occupy Whatever" movement seems to be that 1% of the population (what population, I'm not sure) controlls about 40% of the wealth.  So, their solution to this "problem" is to take wealth from that 1% and redistribute it to the remaining 99%.  I don't view this disparity as a problem.  If you want wealth, capitalism allows you to get it if you put in enough effort.  That is, as long as the government gets out of the way sufficiently.  So, whatever these people are demanding, doing the opposite would likely benefit them more (as long as they were willing to put in some effort).

According to the protesters, they are good people fighting evil corporations, and they're doing it "for the good of mankind."  And, after watching another biased news story on "Occupy Vancouver" on Global News, I am glad they at least mentioned an opponent to the movement, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.  According to them, the "[BC Government Employees' Union (BCGEU)] needs to 'occupy' common sense":

• Main beneficiaries of current political system are public sector unions

• BCGEU owns major equity in large, profitable multi-national corporations

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) responded today to an e-mail sent to BCGEU members across the province on Thursday encouraging them to “come out and support Occupy Vancouver.” 

The note from BCGEU president Daryl Walker says that “Union members belong to the 99 percent who are not benefiting from the current political and economic system. That message needs to be seen and heard.” 

“Walker is dead wrong,” said Jordan Bateman, CTF BC Director. “Public sector unions are provided for very generously by taxpayers, thank-you very much, and insulated from the economic uncertainties felt by those working outside the public sector. If there’s any group benefitting from the current political system, it’s public sector unions.” 

According to number released earlier this year by Statistics Canada, the average Canadian public service employee earned $1,023.20 a week in July 2011. Meanwhile, everybody else earned an average of $777.69. More than 86% of government workers have a workplace pension plan, compared to just 25.3% of private sector workers.  

“If 99% of the population is not benefitting from the current political and economic system it’s because nearly half their incomes are taken in taxes,” said Bateman. “Those taxes are largely driven by the demands of public sector unions—they want to cut everybody else’s pay to increase their own. As the president of the BC Teachers Federation said recently, teachers want BC’s income tax cuts reversed so they can increase their own pay and benefits by $2.2 billion.”  

Further, the BCGEU is a huge investor in the very corporations Mr. Walker whinges about. Three of the companies skewered in Occupy Vancouver promotional material are Royal Bank, TD Bank and ScotiaBank.  But through their pension plan, BCGEU’s members own more than $439.7 million worth of equity in those three banks alone. 

“The union foxes are hiding in the Occupy Vancouver hen house,” said Bateman. “Unions like the BCGEU invest in some of the largest corporations in the world—the very companies Occupy Vancouver so passionately disparages.”

If you ask me, these people should not be protesting corporate greed, but rather public union and government greed.  Those are the real forces behind economic inequality.

Herman Cain Isn't Really Black

Some liberals apprently don't believe Herman Cain is really black, because he is a successful conservative.

Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain isn’t “black enough” for liberals? Should he be smoking crack and slamming and hating whites, should he not be a business success, but a welfare-dependent, whining failure, to be an “authentic black” to racist Democrats?

Black conservatives face racism from liberals, particularly black liberals:

But for black Americans the choice of political party appears predestined. It seems liberals but more specifically black liberals have carved in the ten black commandments that “thou shall never be a Republican.” These same black liberals also refuse to submit to the fact that not all blacks think alike.

With black conservatives like Congressman Allen West, Congressman Tim Scott and Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain debunking this insulting stereotype, many black liberals have resorted to racist name calling to protect the myth that Democrat policies help blacks. Cain has been target number one on their list.

Here is an example of liberal "tolerance":
 
Apparently, all members of an "oppressed minority" must think identically or else they are "self-hating" or they are not actually part of that minority.  Herman Cain has been called an "Uncle Tom" and an "oreo," among other things.  He is very successful, despite much adversity.  His success should be admired, and I would think he would be a good role model.  But no, his success apparently makes him "not black."  So, no black people are capable of being successful?  Racists.

UPDATE: I should also mention Janeane Garofalo and her belief that Herman Cain's campaign is designed to deflect accusations of racism of conservatives.

On Wednesday night, she slammed Republicans, conservatives and Tea Party enthusiasts, calling them racists. As you’ll recall, she said the following back in August (about Cain):

“[He's] in this presidential race because he deflects the racism that is inherit in the Republican party, the conservative movement, the Tea Party certainly.”

Ed Morrissey of Hot Air makes this observation on "the supremely irrelevant Janeane Garofalo" (h/t The Blaze):

 this clip encapsulates perfectly how intellectually vapid the Republicans-are-racists argument truly is.  If African-Americans don’t do well among Republicans, it’s evidence of racism, and now if theydo get support among Republicans, that’s also racism. It’s an unanswerable assertion that not only is completely circular in its logic, it’s also lunacy. Basically, Garofalo is kind of like a cult member who insists that every data point supports her religious belief, regardless of whether it contradicts with other data points that are also used in defense of groupthink. 

Occupy Canada

The Occupy [Insert Location] movement is coming to Canada.  Now, why can't the tea party movement come here?  It's not fair, dammit.  I guess Canada's conservatives are just too busy with their jobs and families (except for me).

Canadian organizers of the so-called Occupy movement are ramping up efforts to rally "against spiritual wickedness in high places" during a global day of action Saturday that now has the backing of at least a couple of major unions [unsurprisingly], and has put police and businesses on alert.

Thousands in at least 15 Canadian cities — from Vancouver to St. John's — were holding meetings Friday to complete plans for the weekend marches, sit-ins and other efforts to decry what the movement says is an uneven distribution of wealth caused by government policies favouring big business.

 So its communism they're demanding.

"I'm encouraged to see citizens rightfully stand up and take action against what are gross injustices in our economic and social structures," said CAW national president Ken Lewenza in a release Friday.

I thought that's what the tea party was for.

"It's time for people to take ownership of their streets, their economy and fight back against corporations and governments championing right-wing, neo-liberal policies that support a select few, at the expense of the majority."

I thought that's what left-wing policies did.

Canadian police units, notably in Toronto and Vancouver where the G20 protests in June 2010 and hockey riots this past June, respectively, have led to violence and arrests, have for days been planning their strategies for handling the Occupy protests. 

Police officials have been as tight-lipped about how they'll handle Saturday's mass events as the Occupy Canada organizers, who keep a low profile and let their Facebook, Twitter and other social networking efforts drive their planning.

No matter what happens, I predict there will be complaints of police brutality.  There always seem to be when left-wing protests are concerned.  However, when a large, unruly crowd is threatening the safety of people and businesses, the police should be able to do whatever they have to (with reasonable limits, of course), to contain that crowd and prevent any further escalation of violence.  If the Stanley Cup riots in Vancouver are any indication, hooligans will use any excuse to create further disorder.

Tom Caldwell, chairman and CEO of Caldwell Securities Ltd., which has offices in Toronto and New York City, also isn't exactly sure about the Occupy movement's goals.

"The medium is the protest but what is the message?" he said.

I think the goal of the movement is communism, or at least socialism.  At the very least, it is an excuse for professional protesters to protest over nothing in particular.  I see this movement basically as a manifestation of an emotion-driven desire to turn North America into a left-wing "utopia".  But, with powerful American politicians that are sympathetic to the movement, such as Barack Obama, who knows how much influence this movement will have.  Perhaps Obama will take the movement as America wanting socialism, and I believe he is delusional enough to think that.  Maybe he will enact far-left policies in an attempt to appease the participants of this movement, thinking it will gain him votes.  Or maybe he will simply use this movement as an excuse to enact far-left policies.  Fortunately the Republicans control the House of Representatives.  I wonder what creative (/sarc) ad hominems Obama, the Democrats, and other liberals will use for the Republicans in this hypothetical situation.        

Ugly Canadianism

I came across this old GayPatriot post and I was so disgusted that I had to say something.  That post quotes an article from Avocate.com from 2006 (the original source is no longer availabe).    

As a Canadian, I want to apologize. For many years, I looked down on you. I sniffed at your capital punishment, right-leaning government, and massive military. I would comfort myself with the sense that I was better than you. After all, I’m a Canadian.

But all that changed on January 23 when Canada elected a conservative government with ties to far-right organizations. Boy, was I wrong!

Our sense of superiority grew in 2000 when you elected George W. Bush. With that came talk of a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, the refusal to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol, and last, but certainly not least, the invasion of Iraq. In those six years, I have never felt happier or more proud to be Canadian. And I rubbed it in every chance I got: Whenever I would bump into one of you Americans at a cocktail party, it was attitude, attitude, attitude.

I’m sorry for that—I really am. There can be no more smug attitudes. No more sneering self-righteousness. No jokes about your fascist state. Welcome to the new Canada: Our prime minister, Stephen Harper, says he is opposed to same-sex marriage and is willing to appease his base by reopening the issue—meaning a potential rolling back of gay rights in our country. And he has promised to withdraw Canada’s support for the Kyoto Protocol. Worst of all, when Bush set out to invade Iraq, Harper was the only party leader in parliament to rise and say we should be alongside the United States in that unjust and immoral war.

I have several things to say about this appalling piece.  Firstly, not all us Canadians are like this.  In fact, most that I have met aren't.  However, there is a prevailing attitude that I have noticed among Canadians that Canadians are superior to Americans.  It's not usually hostile in nature, but it's disturbing nonetheless.  Secondly, this guy is clearly a piece of work.  It is quite common for a liberal to hold conservatism or centre-right politics as inferior, just because liberals are "enlightened" (or something).  There is no logical basis for this sense of superiority.  And this guy perfectly demonstrates their mindset.  He simply dismisses "capital punisment," a "right-wing government," and a "massive military" as things to look down upon.  His attitude is unsurprising given "enlightened" liberals' tendency to view those things as barbaric.  He doesn't bother do give any reason why those things are inferior.  They just are.  And this seems to be a typical tactic used by leftists.  After all, they are the smart, enlightened intellectuals, while conservatives are dumb, old-fashioned bible- and gun-clingers.  That is the universal and absolute truth.  No amount of facts or evidence can contradict that truth.

Of course, not all leftists are adhere to that view.  There are many reasonable ones, as I have acknowledged many times before.

But this guy shows how some liberals think.  Anything conservative is to be looked down upon, from the comfort of knowing you are better simply because you can feel "warm and fuzzy" about your liberal views; and that you are compassionate and espouse love and tolerance.  How ironic that your view of conservatives is based on misrepresentation, and that your lack of tolerance for opposing viewpoints is exactly what you purport to be opposing.  I don't know how many on the left would agree with this guy, so I can only speak to him.  But I am sick of giving liberals the benefit of the doubt.  Based on my experience alone, while there are reasonable liberals that will make an effort to tolerate conservatives, most of them won't.  In this case, it is up to the liberals to show their reasonableness.

As for his accusations of the Conservative Government's "ties to far right organizations," I have never heard anything about this.  But, I am not going to look into it because, according to this guy, the USA's Republican Party would probably be considered a "far right organization," even pre-tea party.  From what I can tell, it's just basically meaningless rhetoric attempting to dismiss conservatives by labelling them as extremists, an often used tactic.  It's the same thing with his use of "fascist," which any grade 10 social studies student should be able to tell him he is using incorrectly.  His lack of understanding of the meaning of a simple political term should discredit his whole article, but it doesn't because his obvious irrationality already does that.  

Another Example of Leftist Ugliness and Hypocrisy

Strangely, prior to yesterday, I had not heard of the "Occupy Wall Street" protests.  For the benefit of others who apparently live under metaphorical rocks, "Occupy Wall Street" is a leftist grassroots movement opposing "corporate greed" and "economic inequality."  With the rightist Tea Party movement in the spotlight for the past couple years or so, many people are comparing the two grassroots movements.  While OWS is protesting "corporate greed" and "economic inequality," the Tea Party is protesting government greed and economic inequality.  The reason I put the object of OWS in quotation marks and not the object of the Tea Party is that I believe in the Tea Party's cause, unlike that of OWS.  Corporations have every right to be greedy, so long as they are in compliance with the law.  I do not believe the government has this right, as its purpose is nothing more than to serve its constituents.  And, economic inequality, as I see it, is caused by the redistribution of wealth.

While the fundamental difference between the two movements is the political ideology that motivates them, another key difference is the method of protest.  Tea Party protests, in general, are peaceful and law-abiding (or so I hear).  OWS protests, on the other hand, are not.  Twenty-three OWS protesters were arrested yesterday in New York City for disorderly conduct, only a few days after a much larger arrest (see quotation below).  I can't remember ever hearing of anyone arrested at Tea Party protests, nor can I find any evidence in a quick Google search (I do, however, find links about anti-Tea Party protesters being arrested).  Keep in mind that the Tea Party movement is several years old, compared to the fledgeling OWS movement.  My Google search did result in me finding this fantastic article, however.  Here is an excerpt (emphasis added):  

One aspect of the Occupy Wall Street and other leftist activism that is a definitive divergence with the tea party movement is disruptive behavior.

On October 1, over 700 Occupy Wall Street protesters were arrested — mostly for disorderly conduct — during a march across the Brooklyn Bridge.  Despite two other peaceful marches across the bridge by other groups earlier that day, the Occupy Wall Street crowd couldn’t resist blocking traffic and scuffling with police. 

When not under arrest (approximately 100 other arrests occurred over the weeks of the protest), the Occupy Wall Street crowd is actually occupying the privately-owned Zuccotti Park, whose owners are working with city officials on plans to return it “to its intended purpose.” 

This rowdy attitude of the radical left is something that, by mistake or design, is grossly unreported in the media.  As the Tea Party must fend off allegations of being violent and racist, leftist protests that are unruly don’t get similar coverage. 

I’ve been active in the Tea Party movement since 2009.  As a black woman, I define the movement’s political diversity and have always been quick to defend its inclusiveness against those who would try to slur it with racist accusations.
I have had the amazing opportunity to meet thousands of freedom-loving Americans who are involved in the movement on their own time and these individuals are sincere in their efforts to reign in our government gone wild by holding our elected representatives accountable. 

As a frequent speaker at Tea Party events nationwide, I’ve never seen the same behavior as described during Occupy Wall Street’s Brooklyn Bridge demonstration.  Tea Party activists, in my experience, police themselves.  Additionally, I’ve never been to a rally in which the grounds weren’t as clean or cleaner than when the first activist arrived. 

Doing a Google search of “tea party activist” and “arrest” brings up nothing of merit.  On the first page, I found three articles about people described as tea party activists, but the arrests were unrelated to rallies. 

Another article, about the demonstrations outside the U.S. Capitol Building on the weekend of the Obamacare vote in the House, reports one man — one single person — was detained after being accused of spitting on a congressman.  But that person was immediately released, and no one has come forward to legitimize the claim and collect conservative Andrew Breitbart’s $100,000 reward for providing proof. 

Furthermore, Teamsters president Jimmy Hoffa told people waiting to see President Obama speak at a Labor Day rally that they need to “take these [Tea Party] son of a bitches out.”  And there was a January 30 rally in Rancho Mirage, California in which progressive protesters, many of whom were attending a nearby conference sponsored by Common Cause, were caught on video saying they wanted to “torture” and “hang” Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. 

Salacious allegations against the tea party will get more coverage than actual law-breaking by the left.

It is evident that leftist protests embody the negative attributes that conservative protests are wrongly accused of embodying.  Not that you would ever be able to tell by watching the news, though.  Do we have enough proof now that many leftists are hypocrites?

And, a final note: this is not meant to apply to all leftists.  Only the crazy ones.  

Alberta's New Premier

Alison Redford is the new premier of Alberta, after winning an upset election to determine the new leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, over Gary Mar.  I am disappointed in the result, as Redford promises to put "progressive" back in Progressive Conservative Party.  In other words, she will likely move the party leftward.  She also promises "change."

I haven't been paying very much attention to Alberta politics, but I didn't really think change was necessary in Alberta.  Given Alberta's relative success (relative to the other provinces) and conservative politics, the concept of "change" makes me uneasy.  Will a less conservative premier more heavily regulate the oil industry, thus weakening Alberta's economy?

Here's a chilling passage from the Edmonton Journal:

Jacquie Eales voted for Alison Redford on her way home from her 13-year-old daughter’s basketball game.
The 47-year-old Edmontonian, a liberal at heart, didn’t vote on the first ballot. In truth, she says, the Progressive Conservative leadership race wasn’t on her radar. 

Then, on the way into work one morning, she heard Redford on the radio.
“She talked about the importance of education and health care, and those are two things that are important to me,” Eales said Monday. 

“It’s unlikely that there will ever be a Liberal leader in Alberta, so I thought, if I want to make a difference in terms of education and health care, perhaps I need to buy a PC membership and vote for a candidate who might have a chance.” 

But she didn’t immediately buy a membership. That point came when a friend involved with the advocacy group Friends of Medicare sent her an email highlighting Redford’s support for public health care. “I thought, if I want to make a difference, I have to vote.”

Redford might as well be a Liberal.  The thought of a Liberal leading Alberta is frightening.  One of my favorite things about Alberta is its relatively conservative politics.  Here's an even more chilling passage (from the same article):

“I don’t think Mar did himself any favours musing about having a debate about privatizing health care,” Duffy said. “I don’t know which is worse, talking about it or trying to run away from it, but that’s the worst of both worlds.” 

He said Redford’s campaign ran on a classic public-services platform. 

“So here you’ve got Redford talking about education, reaching out to soccer moms, and then Mar starts talking about privatizing medicare,” he said.
“At that point, you’ve got a classic set up between an in touch, family-responsive candidate who wants to deliver public services, and an out-of-touch business guy. ... It’s a perfect contrast.

So, not only does Alberta now have a CINO (Conservative in Name Only) premier, but the favourite would have considered privatizing health care.  Think about what Alberta could have had!

Hopefully, Redford's premiership ends after the next election, which will apparently be soon.  While the Progressive Conservative Party has governed Alberta for about 40 years, that is because Alberta is a conservative place.  Fortunately, conservatives in Alberta have another option, the Wildrose Party, a formerly minor party, that has been making significant gains in polls, even winning one by a wide margin (in 2009).  To me, this party resembles the Tea Party movement.  It is a fiscally conservative, right-libertarian party with a social conservative branch.  With the Progressive Conservative Party moving leftward, the Wildrose Party's niche is expanding, and the Progressive Conservative dynasty in Alberta may hopefully end soon.  It is worth mentioning that the election Redford won had two parts.  Voters wrote two names on their ballots.  In the first part, only the first name on each ballot was counted.  If there was not a majority, the third place candidate's votes were given to the candidate whose name appeared on the ballots that originally went to the third place candidate.  After the first round, Gary Mar had a plurality of the votes, while Alison Redford gained a narrow majority after the second round.  What this means is that Redford did not win the election convincingly, which is good for the Wildrose Party, which will likely attract disgruntled Conservatives next election.  It is also worth mentioning that many people apparently joined the Progressive Conservative Party just to vote for Redford.  

Here are some Wildrose Party ideas/observations that I particularly like:

• Restore the role of elected MLAs by mandating that all votes in the Legislature and caucus be free and reported to the public
• Non-confidence votes would be held as separate and stand-alone votes, allowing MLAs to vote on proposed legislation based on the interests of their constituents
• Implement legislation allowing for citizen-initiated referenda and voter recall (support thresholds to instigate both processes must be sufficiently high to eliminate frivolous initiatives)
• Institute fixed dates for general elections, senate elections, budgets, legislative sessions, and Speeches from the Throne
• Establish an independent Cabinet and MLA pay and benefits review process that prevents the Premier, Cabinet, and MLAs from setting their own salaries
• Create transparency in finances and budgets by ensuring government debts and cash deficits are reported accurately and in a timely manner
• Post MLA expenses online
• Take an aggressive stance with the federal government in regards to the equalization program in order to ensure that billions more of Albertans’ hard-earned tax dollars remain in the province, working for the benefit of Albertans
• Exercise our provincial constitutional rights by demanding that the federal government not regulate our industry or property in the name of “environmental protection”
• We will dismantle Alberta Health Services and gradually decentralize the delivery of health care to locally managed and integrated hospitals, Primary Care Networks, family physicians, specialty centres, long-term care facilities and other health services
• We will reduce wait times for specialists and procedures by opening delivery of publicly paid services to any accredited private and non-profit provider
• In terms of policing, our province is facing significant challenges as it tries to deal with organized crime, gangs, child exploitation, identity theft, and white collar crime. Too often, the rights of the accused and convicted criminals seem to supersede the rights of victims.
• Protect the rights of victims by advocating for federal legislation that would see convicted criminals financially compensate the victims of their crimes without the need for costly civil trials
• Over the last 20 years, the Human Rights Commissions in Alberta have probably been the single worst offender of Rights: i.e. freedom of speech; politically correct activists have used them to punish religious and right-wing social commentators. Even when found not guilty, its expensive and time-consuming
• Restrain per capita infrastructure spending to a level consistent with the national average.
• Streamline and decentralize procedures to ensure more funding flows directly to individuals and families in need, and would phase out regional PDD boards in favour of a more localized approach to funding decision-making
• Encourage small and medium business investment and growth by ensuring Alberta is the lowest-taxed jurisdiction in North America
• End the current government’s failed strategy of picking winners and losers by handing out corporate welfare grants to hand-picked corporations
• CFIB say over-regulation costs Alberta $4B per year. Their 2010 report says Alberta and Manitoba are ranked the lowest among the provinces when it comes to reducing this burden
• According to a Fraser Institute report, a sweet gas well that should take 10 days and $1,000 to get regulatory approval takes almost three years and cost $100,000
• Actively review and reduce the unnecessary regulatory burdens that compromise the competitiveness of our key industries

There were some ideas I didn't like, and many more that I did, but I like the party's overall message.  

Perhaps the election of Alison Redford is a blessing in disguise, as one-party dynasties tend to engender corruption.  Hopefully, the Wildrose Party will continue to gain momentum and make Alberta politics more competitive.