In the News

I'm sure people in Ontario and Quebec are wondering what the hell happened over an hour ago.


But not even an earthquake can deter groups of largely upper-middle-class white yahoos and their theatrics:

Protesters covered in fake blood and oil “walked right through the earthquake” that hit downtown Toronto on Wednesday afternoon, carrying on with their march against global mining, said Sgt. Tim Burrows.

Upwards of 100 protesters, who began their march at Alexandra Park at 11 a.m., continued their walk along University Avenue near College Street just as a 5.5-magnitude earthquake shook the streets at roughly 1:45 on Wednesday afternoon.

Carrying signs that read ‘Keep the oil in the soil, and the coal in the whole,’ the protesters “walked right through the earthquake as if nothing happened,” said Sgt. Burrows, of the G8-G20 Integrated Security Unit.

Sgt. Burrows said the protest, which promised on a Facebook page to “expose the institutions most responsible for the environmental and social impacts of Canada’s extractive industries both at home and abroad,” was peaceful and was being monitored by police as it continued its way through the downtown area.

It's a good thing they are not letting a seismological event or common sense stop them from ruining life for everyone in downtown Toronto. They are a determined bunch. And selfish. And clueless. And narcissistic. And, no doubt, unwilling to roll up their sleeves and do some actual work or point fingers at real tyrants like those in China, North Korea or Cuba.


Uh-oh:

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said he would call a leadership ballot for Thursday after a challenge by his deputy Julia Gillard, backed by disgruntled government members fearing electoral defeat later this year.

Ms. Gillard, 48, would become Australia’s first female leader if she topples Mr. Rudd, but a Gillard government is expected to differ little in substance from one led by Mr. Rudd.

Mr. Rudd said on Wednesday he was confident he would win the vote but Australian media websites and analysts immediately started writing his political obituary.

Again, uh-oh (emphasis mine):

U.S. President Barack Obama fired his top Afghanistan commander on Wednesday over inflammatory comments that angered the White House and had threatened to undermine the war effort.

Calling it the “right thing for our mission in Afghanistan,” Mr. Obama relieved General Stanley McChrystal of duty and replaced him with his boss, General David Petraeus, in a bid to show his strategy would not be disrupted.

Mr. Obama had summoned Gen. McChrystal to the White House from Afghanistan to explain remarks he and his aides made in a Rolling Stone magazine article that disparaged the president and other civilian leaders.

Bull. General McChrystal made Obama look like a fool (not too hard a thing to do, actually), hence, the firing.



Some good news:

The final two accused in the “Toronto 18″ terrorism case have been found guilty by a Superior Court jury.

Asad Ansari, 25, and Steven Chand, 29, were on trial for participating in a terror cell that plotted to storm Parliament and detonate truck bombs in downtown Toronto.

Chand was also found guilty of counseling the commission of fraud for the group’s benefit.

A poll that makes little sense:

It is their prime minister’s centrepiece initiative in the upcoming G8 meetings, but most Canadians aren’t standing behind their leader on the issue, results of a poll released Wednesday suggest.

Some 56% of Canadians do not agree with Canada’s current position of not funding abortions as part of an international maternal-health initiative, the Ipsos Reid survey conducted for Canada.com found.

“It’s very close,” said John Wright, senior vice-president of the polling firm. “This is an issue that has very strong opponents, and very strong proponents.”

About nine million children under the age of five in poor countries die each year from easily treatable causes such as malaria, pneumonia and lack of nutrition, according to the United Nations. The international organization’s statistics also show that 99% of the more than 500,000 women who die each year from complications related to pregnancy and childbirth live in developing countries.

That's not what most of the comments suggest:

Why should the Canadian taxpayer pay for abortions in countries where many abort a baby because they want a boy instead of a girl? Unfortunately, we have no choice here in Canada but to pay for those who live an immoral lifestyle and use it as a means of contraception. So thank-you that is quite enough.

*

I don't know where these poll figures came from, but I am highly skeptical that the majority of Canadians are in favour of our country funding abortions in third world countries. We send an enormous amount of aid and supplies to these countries every year - not to mention doctors and volunteers. Why should our government now be under pressure to start funding abortions in these countries? I am all in favour of offering reasonable assistance to less fortunate nations, but where does it end? Why don't we instead focus our energies on putting pressure on the corrupt, dictatorial governments who run these nations to start taking better care of their population, through education, better health care and housing.

*

Too bad they can't poll un-born Canadian children, or for that matter the aborted ones ... an overwhelming majority opposed? * This whole debate is truly insane. If people want funding for abortions, or any other cause, they can donate the money themselves. On what principle does the government confiscate my earnings to pay for programs such as this?

*

Except for these morons:

I agree with A BIT OF THE TRUTH. Everything Harper does is concerned with getting more votes. He supports war in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. He supports Israel. He does things right wingers and Christian Zionists would do. Harper and I are like oil and water. We are so different in our views. But, if you say you are for war to advance the lives of the people in the Middle East, then why not spend money to advance the lives of the women in the world? If it can be proven that abortion is of some benefit to some woman somewhere then why would you oppose the idea? Based on principles, I mean. Why is one form of killing justified, while another is not?

*

Seems to me it's better to do what you can to keep the growth down than to add unwanted kids to the mix in overpopulated countries. Look at how Canadian crime statistics plummeted twenty years after abortions became widely available. I'm all for motherhood -- if the mother wants the kid.

Yeah, I know. I saw self-serving statements from selfish and clearly clueless people, too.

(sigh)