My Super Bowl Props

Posting this to see how I will do. On Monday I will score it.



Over/Under




Big Ben 250.5 Total yards
Under


Warner 250.5 Total yards
Under


Big Ben 2.5 Touchdowns
Over


Warner 2.5 Touchdowns
Under


Big Ben 1.5 Sacks
Over


Warner 2.5 Sacks
Over


Big Ben 0.5 Interceptions
Over


Warner 0.5 Interceptions
Over


Cardinals 300.5 Total Yards
Over


Steelers 300.5 Total Yards
Under


Cardinals 2.5 Field Goals
Under


Steelers 2.5 Field Goals
Over


Cardinals 2.5 Touchdowns
Over


Steelers 2.5 Touchdowns
Under


Cardinals 2.5 Turnovers (fumb lost +int)
UNDER


Steelers 1.5 Turnovers (fumb lost +int)
Over


Cardinals 0.5 Coaches Challenges
Over


Steelers 0.5 Coaches Challenges
Over


Cardinals 5.5 Punts
Under


Steelers 5.5 Punts
Over


Cardinals 3.5 Penalties
Over


Steelers 4.5 Penalties
Over


Fitzgerald 100.5 receiving yards
Over


Ward 75.5 receiving yards
Over


Boldin 50.5 receiving yards
Over


Holmes 50.5 receiving yards
Over


James 50.5 rushing yards
Over


Parker 50.5 rushing yards
Over


Hightower 35.5 rushing yards
Over


Moore 35.5 rushing yards
Over


Rackers 45.5 Longest Field Goal
Under


Reed 45.5 Longest Field Goal
Under


Pittsburg Wins game by 6.5 points
UNDER


Final Total Score 46.5 Total
Over




Which Team will win coin toss?
ARI


Which Team will have more total possession time?
ARI


Which Team will score first?
PIT


Which Team will score last?
PIT


Which Team will have the lead at half time?
ARI


Which Team will have the longest Touchdown?
ARI


Which Team will get the most penalties?
PIT


Which Team will have most total return yards (excluding kickoffs)
PIT


Which Team's Player will win MVP?
ARI


Which Team will win game?
ARI

Sometimes losing is a good thing

Like many conservatives, I was upset with the loss of John McCain in the November 4th election. My disappointment however, had more to do with my concerns regarding Barack Obama moreso than John McCain.

Sure, there were things I liked about John McCain. He pledged to clean up government and was committed to keeping America on offense in the war on terror. He didn't have an ideological blindness to getting out of Iraq the way Obama does.

However, McCain was wishy washy on fiscal Conservatism. He even admitted that he knew little about economic policy. I felt to an extent that President Bush sacrificed fiscal Conservatism too and it was frustrating. I didn't think much would change on economics from Bush if McCain got in.

The silver lining to losing the November 4th election for Republicans is the opportunity to return to what worked in the 80s' and 90s'. Ronald Reagan and the congressional Republicans of the mid-to-late 90s' succeeded because they walked and talked fiscal conservatism. They never wavered. They were not conservative just on foreign policy. They were conservative on everything. And it worked. The country was better off for it.

Unfortunately, as Republicans began to take victories for granted, they let government get bloated. They sacrificed their values rather than seizing the opportunity to continue trimming down government and educating the public about the values that shape the party. It was hard to identify with this party.

I have seen some encouraging signs this week. House Republicans' decision not to put their name on the "stimulous bill" was shades of the good past. Another was the election of Michael Steele, a good conservative and someone who will lock horns with Obama.

Losing forces you to re-invent yourself. To return to what worked before. I was getting frustrated the past four years from what I saw from Republicans. Now I'm excited for the renewal process.

Protectionism: A slippery slope in a downward economy

Anyone who takes a lesson in basic economics understands why imports exist. They exist because buying locally is too expensive or lacks the quality compared to the goods available
abroad.

Simply put, if buying locally was an efficient and cost-saving way compare to importing, companies would not import at all.

NAFTA was created in particular to allow the free flow of goods within North America. In general, the way it has worked has been that Canada shipped natural resources or initial production (steel plates for example) to the US and in return, imported finished goods. Think softwood lumber.

Now Barack Obama wants to force US companies to buy locally, effectively breaching NAFTA. This move will fail on quite a few fronts:

1. It will artificially prop up inefficient US goods without forcing them to improve their cost savings. The existence of free trade forces local producers to become more efficient so as to provide importers the incentive to buy locally instead.

2. It will trigger a protectionism on the other side. Canada will probably opt to mandate that some goods be bought locally as well that may otherwise have been imported from the United States.

The answer to America's economic ills is to force inefficient companies to become leaner in their bottom line in order to compete with imports. Those companies that cannot should go belly-up.

Protectionism is artificial and phony. It causes prices to be higher for basic goods and that is not a way to encourage increased consumer spending. My suspicion is that Obama is trying to protect unionized industry by forcing others to buy from them rather than addressing their problems head-on.

Laissez-faire will work in this downward economy. If only governments would adhere to that, everything will be fine.

The Jeopardy answer is Blagojevich

The question: What is a name that will forever be synonymous with the words: crook, cheat, scumbag, disgrace, corrupt and a fraud.

He was so bad that not a single senator in the Illinois Senate was able to bring themselves to vote nay on removal from office.

It prompts me to ask if any amount of money is worth getting caught, led away in handcuffs and being summarily removed from the top office in your state. Not only that, but getting barred from ever holding office again (a political death penalty if you will). Greasy Rod cannot even become the dog catcher of Skokie, Illinois.

And for good reason. Senate seats are not for sale. They are not to be given away for the highest bribe. Senators should be free of any external influence and being indebtted to a governor does not make them so.

Greasy Rod made a mockery out of the power granted to a governor to pick a senator in the event of resignation by another senator. He brought out the ugliest side of politics. The kind of side that honest hard-working people shun and detest about government.

The most pathetic spectable was the governor's attempts to stay in office by doing a bit of a PR circuit. He should have resigned right away for the good of his state and faced the music. He would have come out a lot more dignified. The unrepentent nature of the ex-governor has ensured that any sentence handed down will be a lot more severe than had he just acknowledged his wrong-doing.

All I can say is good riddance to bad garbage.

Starbucks falling on hard times

In falling economic times, some of the inevitable casualties are the luxuries in life. As discretionary spending grinds to a halt, consumers cut back on the extras in life. Not
even coffee is safe. Especially when you brand yourself as upscale and trendy.

The Starbucks story is a microcosm of what is happening in the overall economy. It
appears that Starbucks' extreme growth saturation strategy has finally caught up to
it. When times require restraint, luxuries take a hit.

Starbucks plans to lay off 6,700 workers and close 300 more stores.

In the short-term the move will cost the company a whopping $230 million. However, once completed, it will save the company $100 million annually. The company better hope it's a good move given those figures.

I frequent Starbucks quite a lot and can attest that at least the stores I go to are doing
relatively fine. But Starbucks is and always has been, an acquired taste. And when the
economy starts slowing down, acquired tastes get bitten.

The benefactors at Starbucks' expense are the Tim Horton's and McDonald's of the world.
When disposable income starts to tighten up, suddenly McDonald's coffee doesn't seem half
bad. You can have 3 McDonald's coffees for the price of one Starbucks coffee.

Or, if you need flavored coffee badly, even a coffee machine over time will be cheaper than Starbucks.

Bottom line. Giffen goods are in now. Starbucks and other luxuries are in danger.

"Is there value to voting Conservative anymore?"

That was the status of a long-time party activist today on Facebook after the budget of Jim Flaherty was revealed.

The budget is actually not that bad! I wanted a lot of tax cuts and infrastructure spending which are what I feel will move the country foward. Even if the economy is in a rut now, investment in roads, rail, air, etc. will be critical once things turn around. Infrastructure, particularly to rural areas, is a good thing. The budget delivered on those.

Some discretionary spending in there to tempt the opposition but whatever. All in all, i give it a B-.

I'll highlight the key points and comment

"$40 billion stimulus over the next two years including auto sector bailouts. Huge deficits in the near-term but stabilizing by 2012-13." Deficits are always bad. I hoped they could keep them to a much smaller figure if they had to go into the red. I foresee Liberal attacks on the tax cuts as reason for the deficit.

"$4 billion to spend on infrastructure projects where ground has been broken." A good step. Infrastructure always helps. If the government should spend in one place, it's vibrant transportation of goods and people.

"At its worst, the federal debt is projected to be $542.4-billion in fiscal 2012-13." That's not bad all things considered. The debt is at $492 billion now. This is a better projection than most G-8 countries.

"This budget will create or maintain 190,000 jobs." Perhaps in the infrastructure spending they're pumping in but those aren't permanent jobs.

"$200-billion to the financial markets to improve access to credit." I don't know why in Canada this has to be done. Canada didn't experience foreclosures.

"$8.3-billion for the Canadian Skills and Transition Strategy for job retraining." This could help a few folks but that seems like a lot of money for a jobs program.

"Create a Home Renovation Tax Credit that will provide up to $1,350 in tax relief for home renovations between Jan. 27, 2009, and Feb. 1, 2010. Some 4.6-million families are expected to benefit." A nice little tax credit but considering most home renovations run in five figures, I don't think it will save much.

"Tax cuts of $20-billion over five years. It proposed to bump up by $320 the basic personal amount, or the income eligible to be earned before it is taxed, to $10,320. Also, it will raise the upper limits of the first and second personal income tax brackets, to $40,726 and $81,452, respectively. Tax experts pegged the annual savings for individuals earning more than $80,000 at $317."

A very good measure here. Should help out people. I love tax cuts

I also welcome the freeze on employment insurance payroll taxes. Canadians will be able to keep more of their income and spend it in the economy.

"$2.5 billion on a Clean Energy Fund to help businesses be more green with technologies such as carbon capture and storage." Sadly, Conservatives here have bought into the climate craze though I assume it's just to appease the opposition.

"In Canada’s Economic Action Plan, we will extend the 50-per-cent straight-line accelerated CCA rate, by two years.We will also provide a temporary, 100-per cent CCA depreciation rate for eligible computer hardware and software acquired over the next two years.Our government has already provided permanent tax relief to Canadian small businesses.We increased the amount of income eligible for the small-business tax rate, from $300,000 to $400,000.In Canada’s Economic Action Plan, we will increase that amount again, from $400,000 to $500,000."

Very business-friendly moves. The CCA rate is the percentage you can deduct in taxes when you invest in your business. Those moves are intended to boost infrastructure. The increase in small business income threshhold is also welcome.

"$1 billion for a Green Infrastructure Fund to support projects such as sustainable energy."
I believe this is discretionary spending in a bad economy.



There's more stuff but I could go on forever. The speech is over an hour after all.

Holocaust denial and the pope's eyebrow-raising actions

What a dark day for the Catholic Church. Pope Benedict Ratzinger (I deliberately use his German name) re-instated into the church a bishop who emphatically denies the Holocaust. He says that at most, 300,000 Jews perished and none perished in the gas chamber.

I also hear that Pope Ratzinger plans on re-instating a Good Friday prayer calling on Jews to convert to Catholicism.

Let me be clear: I respect Catholics a great deal and I think it's a nice faith with nice traditions. But perhaps there is something to be said about the conclave way of picking a pope. Maybe it doesn't always yield the best result. Humans are fallible after all. Pope Ratzinger is proving that by the day.

Here's what I say to that Holocaust-denying bishop:

1. The Germans kept meticulous records. They took pride in the efficiency of their ethnic-cleansing machine. It's all documented if you would just read it.

2. Read the testimonies of the Nuremberg Trials, particularly the head of the Auschwitz Death Camp. Do you think he made it up?

3. Even if the number is eventually reduced to say 1 million or half a million. The Holocaust was a crime like any ethnic genocide. It was a murder of a people who simply wanted to live in peace with everybody else and should never be trivialized.

4. The Jews never wanted to milk the Holocaust. The idea of getting reparations from Germany divided Israelis and Jews everywhere. The key argument against was: can we put a price on our loved ones? It was Ben Gurion who stirred things ahead simply because the Holocaust caused a huge influx of Jews to the nascent Israeli state and the country was in dire need of funds after having fought a war of independence. I'm sick and tired of these holocaust deniers saying that we milk the holocaust for sympathy. Don't you think we would have preferred all those Jews to live through World War II? I wish I had a much bigger family instead of having lost 90% of it!


I'm sorry. This just gets me angry.

Back-to-work bill for York striking TAs.

Well it's Week 11 of the strike and finally Dalton McGuinty has decided to table legislation to get the striking TAs back to work. This move will hopefully salvage some of an already heavily-crippled undergrad and grad year at York. A strike that has jeopardized the future of 50,000
students and the reputation of Canada's 3rd largest university.

The fact that it has taken 11 weeks to table legislation is ridiculous. Work stoppages should never go beyond 4 weeks when it comes to higher education. People take out loans to pay tuitions that may never be recovered. Foreign students might find themselves tight for time to complete a degree and the loss of a semester (or a year) means less time to earn an income in the real world.

I wonder how the strikers can sleep at night. The terms offered by York were more than generous, given the current economic climate. The major impasse over the talks was York's refusal to give tenure to part-time TAs (a key demand of the strikers). Who in this current climate can offer tenure? Also, a TA is not meant to be a career. It's something you do as you complete your grad work. It's only meant to supplement your tuition and living costs.

The other people for whom I wonder about their sleep are the provincial New Democrats. They decided to have debate on the back-to-work bill rather than ram it through the house today. This should be a message to those NDP-loving students that the NDP does not have their interests at heart, only the unions'.

Obama vs. Reagan. Which approach do you prefer?

This post is dedicated to the love of my life who is a bigger Reagan fan than me (which I never thought was possible).

I will super-impose the words of both Presidents' first inaugural address.


Reagan on Government:

You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we're not bound by that same limitation? We must act today in order to preserve tomorrow. And let there be no misunderstanding: We are going to begin to act, beginning today.

The economic ills we suffer have come upon us over several decades. They will not go away in days, weeks, or months, but they will go away. They will go away because we as Americans have the capacity now, as we've had in the past, to do whatever needs to be done to preserve this last and greatest bastion of freedom.

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price.

Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it's not my intention to do away with government. It is rather to make it work--work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it.

Obama on Government:

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control - and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart - not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Odd. Market has seemed to work well until now just fine and people have done well. It's only when, as Reagan said it, when people have borrowed beyond their means that the market has collapsed. People are now feeling the short-term squeeze but not everyone. Those who work in un-levereaged industries and are un-leveraged themselves are doing alright. The market is not being unkind to EVERYONE.

There is a problem of credit in the United States. That is what needs to be addressed. The government needs to reduce debt right away. Americans need to reduce their personal debt load. Only then, will things rebound. Foreclosure relief, bigger government and corporate welfare will only increase the nation's mortgage and go into a blackhole. Sometimes bankruptcies just need to go through the pipe.

It is precisely because government tried to be all things to all people and then fail incredibly (as Reagan prophecized) that the public's trust with government has been lost. It is not government's job to meddle in daily lives. It is government's job to get out of the way of opportunity and innovation as Reagan correctly pointed out.

Reagan's way of cutting taxes and slowing the growth of government would be very effective today. Added borrowing on the government is not the way to get the US out of the rump.

The Trouble with Israel's Arab Parties

A constituency that is seldom mentioned in discussing Israel is the Arab Israeli population. It is a significantly large minority composing of pockets of population in Galilee, around the West Bank and parts of the Negev. Together, they consist of 19% of the population. This constituency has the right to vote and, at times, has had significant sway. Their decision in 1996 to vote with their feet and abstain from voting for Shimon Peres in that year’s direct Prime Ministerial election more than likely contributed to his razor-thin defeat to Benjamin Netanyahu. This abstention was in reaction to Peres’ launch of Operation Grapes of Wrath on the Palestinian population in Southern Lebanon.

More recently, Arab Israeli politicians have caused a great stir by actively speaking out against Israel’s most recent conflict. This culminated with the suspension of two Israeli Arab parties contesting the February 10 vote. Here are the parties and their actions.


Balad – A secular socialist Arab party that was once led by Azmi Beshara (pictured above). Beshara is accused of spying on Hezbollah’s behalf in relation to a 2006 trip to southern Lebanon. Israeli sources claim to have evidence that Beshara gave Hezbollah ideas on where to strike during their ferocious katyusha bombing campaign. He is currently in Syria and will be arrested upon returning to Israel.

Ra’am-Ta’al – A more conservative Arab party that tends to be the biggest vote-getter among the Arab population. The Ta’al part of this two-party merger is led by Dr. Ahmed Tibi (pictured here). Ahmed Tibi disses Israel every chance he gets and declares that the enemies of Israel are not his enemies. He refuses to characterize Hamas as a terrorist group. Tibi goes to rallies where Hamas and Hizbollah flags are flown.

Here is a youtube video of Ahmed Tibi trashing Israel. Tibi was quoted as saying that Kadima and Labor were "counting mandates as they were counting bodies in Gaza." Shame on him for accusing the Israeli government of electioneering by going to war against Hamas.

The two parties were disqualified from the election for refusing to recognize Israel's character as a Jewish democratic state. The case is now sitting in front of the Israeli supreme court.

Let me be clear: I know Israeli Arabs don't have the best conditions in Israel. They are among the poorest. But they have it pretty good. They don't have a free vote in the rest of the Middle East. They don't have the opportunity to rise up the economic ladder in other countries the way they do in Israel. In other countries, it often depends on who you know. And Christian Arabs aren't persecuted the way they are in other countries.

They have a right to complain about their second-class status in Israel. But what they cannot do, is go against the state. They agreed to stay in Israel and thus they should respect Israel. They should respect Israel's right to defend itself even if they have some connection to the Palestinians through blood or brotherhood. That is why they are not required to be IDF soldiers since Israel's prime enemies are Arab.

By respect, it means that they should regard any mission the Israeli government instructs the IDF to go on as in the interest of the general public, including its Arab population. The IDF mission in Gaza was in response to 8,000+ rockets. It was not electioneering. It was overdue.

By respect, it means that the Arab politicians should stop travelling to Syria, Lebanon and other countries that are at war with Israel except for making attempts to broker peace.

By respect, they should regard Azmi Beshara and other traitors to Israel as exactly that. Traitors.

Israeli Arabs should have choices to vote for. But those choices should only exist if they do not act against the interests of the state. It is fair to criticize Israel but not to act so advertantly against it.

Let's see what the Israeli supreme court will say.

**UPDATE** There is an Arab Center Party that seems more rational than the rest. They prefer to focus on domestic issues. Read here. Hopefully Arabs will vote for them or some of the mainstream Israeli parties.

Ray of Hope from Italy

Credit to Shirley Anne Haber for this photo that was sent to me. It was created by Italian reporter Fiamma Nirenstein. It is the main square of the Italian parliament. This particular rally was attended by Italian MPs and ministers along with others who have no direct attachment to Israel other than the fact that it is another western state.

These particular people have come to the conclusion that the fight between Israel and Hamas is not about land. It is about the West vs. the anti-West, led by Iran. Nirenstein reports of Italian MPs saying "I love Israel." A warming sight indeed.

Haber makes an important point: if the community is mobilized on Israel's behalf and frames the argument in the way that this is a fight between freedom and fascism, then the world will mobilize behind Israel. Rational people in the long-run, desire the complete destruction of Hamas. They may ask for a truce in the short-run, but in the long-run they want terrorism destroyed.

Thank goodness not all Italians are as loony as that trade union I reported on prior. See post entitled "Ghosts of 1938."

Reflections on Obama's pending inauguration

As readers of this blog may well understand, I have more than a few problems with Barack Obama as witnessed by his speeches during the campaign. It's safe to say that I hope Obama the President sounds radically different from Obama the candidate. Believe it or not, I am giving him a chance to prove me wrong.

Obama needs to reach out to people like me and to listen to real conservatives, not the George Wills of the world. He needs to reach out to Sean Hannity and not take smug swipes at him by calling his train the Obama Express. He will be after all, the president of Sean Hannity no less than he will be the president of anyone who voted for him.

That being said, I am excited that from this point forward, race will not be an issue in American presidential campaigns. Any future black president will not be a special thing because Obama will be the first. He/she will be judged on their merits and what they say. I give Barack Obama credit for making this happen by being elected.

It is sad in a way that Tuesday's inauguration is not just another inauguration. Sad in that people put added focus on the way someone looks. I understand why that is. Black people have had a tough struggle and as recently as 40 years ago, Obama's parents couldn't get married in most states. There are dark chapters in America's history and this is one chapter being closed. It's a welcome thing but what I have maintained in my long-time opposition to Obama is that one should not break the barrier at all costs. There are wonderful black people that I would put in the White House before Barack Obama: Alan Keyes, J.C. Watts, Michael Steele, Lynn Swann. And if he fits on the list, I would say Bobby Jindal trumps 'em all.

Let me tell you one ethnicity that will have a hard time making it to the White House: jewish people. A jewish person will always be criticized as being buddy-buddy with Israel and that combined with anti-semitism clustered in the population will prevent a Jewish person from being elected President. That is not just in America. That is in virtually every country but Israel. Truly there is a long way to go in the struggle for an ethnic-blind world.

President Bush's final years as they have related to the economy have left a sour taste in many peoples' mouths. That combined with the economic downturn has set the bar high for any incoming president. John McCain may count himself lucky for not being elected president during such a tumultuous time. What it means is that Obama will be tested to see if the rhetoric matches the ability to produce. The traditional window of testing is the first 100 days of a presidency. Here are the tests:

• Israeli-Palestinian issue. Where will he stand? Will he try to be like Clinton and get them to talk?
• The economy. Lots of pressure on that bailout plan. Results have to happen quick or people will grow impatient.
• Healthcare. Obama promised to reform it. Probably will get pushed towards the latter stage of his first 4 years at the helm.
• Environment. Will Obama trade off the economy with eco-fascist planning? The people that his incoming environment secretary hangs out with endorse shrinking the American economy in favor of the environment. Doesn't look promising.
• Iran and other rogue nations. Will his diplomatic plans work or blow up in his face?
• Bin Laden. His ugly head is always lurking
• Iraq. When to withdraw and what will the pricetag be?
• Guantanamo Bay. What will he do with the prisoners once that is closed?

There is tremendous opportunity for this guy given the goodwill he's riding into the White House with. But goodwill can turn sour in a heartbeat. Enough talk. Time to walk.

The Obama Honeymoon

January 20th is approaching fast. The flags have been placed on the US Capitol. The celebrities have been dispatched. And very shortly, President-elect will embark on a whistle-stop train ride that will culminate with the hyphen and word "elect" being removed from his title.

Rather than symbolizing the beginning of a media honeymoon, we have been in one since probably last spring. January 20th will just be another day in the continuing fixation of networks and print media with Barack Obama. The question is: how long will this honeymoon last? When will the tough questions roll in?

This incoming president has a lot on his plate already. His judgment will be tested quite a bit. It's up to Americans to challenge him when they will feel at odds with him. That is the media's job too. To give the President of the United States a free pass is like giving him a crown.

An opposition is a critical part of a democratic system. It serves as a reminder that a democracy is a competition of ideas and that no ideas have unanimity over others. Obama's ideas are wrong on many things. He deserves to be challenged.

The media until now save for Fox News has handed Obama a crown and made him King of the United States. They have let down the very democratic system that has allowed them to function and thrive in. It's time for them to serve the American public by voicing dissent when it is meritted. To acknowledge that King Obama is not always right.

The implication of giving Obama a crown now can be critical. There is a $350 billion package to be allocated. There is a war in the Middle East. He is planning on closing Guantanamo without regard to the consequences and the same goes for the War in Iraq. Where is the critical analysis? I know the president gets a honeymoon for the first 100 days but perhaps in this situation, critical thinking and analysis on the media's part is seriously needed. Enough giving Obama a free pass.

The Greatest Obstacle to Peace in the Middle East

There is something I have noticed about Arab countries and groups like Hamas. It is a major ego drop for them to surrender. They will never surrender. Only ceasefires.

And herein lies the obstacle to peace. The agitators keep going because they never have a sense of finality. If you keep handing them ceasefires, the war is technically still on. When war exists, there is no peace. Understand that dear world.

Well Hamas, we don't need a ceasefire. We need you to drop your weapons and come out with your hands up. Hand over all your rockets. Seal up all your tunnels. Give us back Gilad Shalit.

This campaign needs to continue. Your unconditional ceasefire and a dollar won't buy a cup of coffee. We've seen in the past what it's worth. You're just stalling for Iran. Well Israelis have had enough. It's time for you the radicals to give up and hopefully there are a few normal folks on your side who are ready to talk peace.

Much progress has been made. Siad Siam was killed. The great mastermind behind the Izzedine al Qassam brigades. The IDF is closing in on other leaders. Hamas you have no room to hide in the Gaza Strip. Did you think they could fire indiscriminantly forever?

Rush Limbaugh is right: only when you are defeated will peace come to the Middle East. Well it's time to man up and admit defeat. You cause your people suffering and you'll never defeat Israel. So you might as well just wake up and smell the hummus. Your terrorizing days are numbered.

John Tory finally gets someone to step down

John Tory. Embattled leader of the opposition

While the world has been busy in the Israel/Palestine fight, Ontario Progressive Conservative leader John Tory was busy finalizing the terms of surrender for one of his MPPs. Laurie Scott, a Peterborough-area MPP has agreed to step down so the leader could run in a by-election and finally return to the Ontario legislature.

It is now in the lap of Premier Dalton McGuinty (Liberal) to call a by-election for Scott's riding. If successful, it will mark Tory's return to the legislature for the first time since he was defeated in the October 2007 election to Kathleen Wynne, one of McGuinty's most cherished cabinet ministers in the riding of Don Valley West.

Let's get something straight: the fact that it's taken 15 months for someone to step down suggests lack of faith in Mr. Tory's leadership within the 25-member caucus. Everybody knows how important it is for a leader to sit in the Ontario legislature. To criticize the premier and take him to task. Why then, did it take 15 months for one of them to step down and only after she was offered a lucrative deal as the party's next provincial campaign chair?

Laurie Scott: The lone volunteer to step down

The next election is in October 2011. I hope the Ontario PC Party gets confidence in their leader and FAST!! Or else McGuinty will sleep-walk through the next election the way he did the last one.

Queen's Park opposition benches. Will Tory be back there?

Hey Uber-Left. Look at who you are defending

I don't need to add comment. Video speaks for itself

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0wJXf2nt4Y

Ghosts of 1938...

Are all around us!

Jewish leaders in Rome today expressed outrage over a trades union proposal to "identify and boycott" Jewish-owned shops in the Italian capital amid fears of a resurgence of anti-Semitism linked to Israeli actions in Gaza.

Jewish leaders said the proposal, put forward by Giancarlo Desiderati, leader of the Flaica-Uniti-Cub union, which represents 8,000 shop assistants in Rome, was reminiscent of the anti-Semitic racial laws adopted 70 years ago by the Fascist dictatorship of Benito Mussolini in imitation of Nazi Germany, under which only "Aryan" shops were allowed to trade.

Asked if he was aware of the comparison, Mr Desiderati said: "We know we will have everyone against us, but we cannot pass over in silence what is happening in Gaza".

He said his union had already urged its members to boycott Israeli products, and boycotting Jewish-owned or Jewish-run stores was a logical next step.

He said he and his supporters were drawing up a list of Jewish shops, "though it might be better to publish a list of streets in which a majority of the shops are Jewish and ask people to avoid those streets when shopping".

-----

Here in Toronto, a trade union (CUPE) is calling for a boycott of Israeli academics. Soon they will make it all Jewish academics who support Israel. How long before Jewish students have to wear yellow stars so the teachers know who to fail and who to pass? Am I being an alarmist? After the Holocaust, it is our duty as Jews to snuff out any type of anti-semitism long before it spreads. In that case, I'd rather be an alarmist than a passive observer.

What is more striking is how this reflects Arab persecution of Jews in 1948. Consider what an Egyptian delegate told the United Nations on November 14, 1947:

A million Jews live in peace in Egypt [and other Muslim countries] and enjoy all rights of citizenship. They have no desire to emigrate to Palestine. However, if a Jewish State were established, nobody could prevent disorders. Riots would break out in Palestine, would spread through all the Arab states and might lead to a war between two races.

What happened? 850,000 Jews in Arab countries who had no desire to leave their countries found themselves forced out, their lands and valuables confiscated. It starts small and then one day it gets really vicious really fast.

Case in point, everytime that the Jewish State defends itself, Jews around the world are liable to become victims. The mere mention of proposals to boycott Jewish shops in Italy and boycott Jewish academics in Toronto despite the fact that they have little support, is troubling. It starts small.

There is a french proverb that roughly translates to: The more things change, the more they stay the same. Oh how true it is. Particularly when it comes to the Jews.

To postpone or not to postpone?

<- Israeli election ballots. You get an envelope and you place your party's ballot in the envelope. Then you put the envelope in the voting box. Blanks exist if you wish to register no choice.


A big debate going on these days is to whether or not postpone the Israeli elections. As it stands, the Israeli elections are scheduled for February 10th which is exactly a month from now. Typically in the past, Israeli parties have had over two months to campaign and TV advertising should have started by now. As of right now, no advertising has begun and the parties are on a campaign halt that began at the start of the conflict.

One might think that this is a highly secondary issue given the implications of the military campaign. I would beg to differ. Democracies thrive on elections which are properly carried out. This means a campaign period where all parties are fully going out and campaigning for votes and the voters render a fair judgment.

The argument against postponing the vote has been made by Benjamin Netanyahu. The cynic says that he is doing this because he is in the lead and if it holds, will be entrusted with forming the next government. However, Netanyahu makes a valid point. The only precedent for delaying the vote came in 1973 when the Yom Kippur War broke out and pushed the election all the way to New Year's Eve. Netanyahu claims now that if the elections are postponed, it will send the wrong message to the Arabs. I'm iffy on that rationale.

While I want the Likud Party to win the election, I want an election period that gives all the parties ample time to present their case. The domination of news coverage on the war on Hamas has taken away all opportunity to do so.





The current election date favors Likud (13 seats right now), Kadima (26) and Labor (19) and to an extent the middle-ranged parties like Shas (10) and Yisrael Beitenu (12). A postponement in the election requires the support of 80 MKs. Those parties among them currently hold 80 MKs so it will be a tall order to change the election date.





The current polls have Likud at 31, Kadima at 27 and Labor at 16. The other two are pretty much at the same range as the outgoing Knesset.





In my opinion, it is not a propaganda victory for Hamas if the elections are postponed. They are battered and bruised. Israel will be signalling that it put politics aside to deal with the conflict full square. It will be saying that it put aside the distraction of an election to focus on its own security. The current Knesset was elected in 2006 and it had until 2010 to call an election. There is nothing wrong with postponing now in the name of a better democratic exercise down the line.

The anti-Israel hysteria

Pilar Rahola, a Spanish-Catalan columnist in a Barcelona newspaper La Vanguardia writes a brilliant column on anti-Israel hatred around the world which has the same title as this posting. The column was picked up by the ultra-left wing Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz in its online edition. The link can be found here.

A paragraph that jumped at me was the opening paragraph:

I understand that you want to wipe us off the map, just don't expect us to help you attain that goal. The fact that this old sentiment - the gist of a line uttered by a caustic Golda Meir to the Palestinian leadership - is so relevant these days, gives us a sense of the scope of the tragedy the Holy Land has been suffering through for so many decades.

Exactly Ms. Rahola. You captured it so well. While the world left is a willing accomplice in the drive to wipe Israel off the map, it cannot be expected that Israel will go along with them and allow it to happen. To not go after the fundamentalists who desire her destruction is nothing short of surrender to the eventual fate that the radicals and their left-wing pawns desire.

Moving on, she writes:

Those who go into the streets claim to do so in favor of the freedom of Palestine. Well, where have they been all these years, as the fundamentalist phenomena that oppressed the Palestinians were on the rise? Does Hamas have anything to do with freedom, or rather, doesn't it have everything to do with Islamism of a fascist tendency? Is freedom defended by training children to commit suicide attacks and by enslaving women? Is freedom defended by Iran, which supports Hamas financially? Does freedom belong to the terrorists of Hezbollah?

This is exactly it. The uber-left doesn't care about the average Palestinian. It doesn't care about establishing a state called Palestine where Palestinians will be able to build lives and live free of any persecution. They are prepared to see Israel destroyed even at the expense of a radical sharia state rising in its place. A state that will plot along with its radical friends in Iran, Saudi Arabia and al Qaeda about the next place to strike. The next country to turn into an Islamo-fascist entity.

Case in point, where were the demonstrations when Hamas came to power? Where was the expression of disappointment from the uber-left? Hamas is the antithesis of left-wing free-loving values like gay marriage, promiscuity (sp), pro-choice etc etc. If these people care about the Palestinian people and the spread of so-called left-wing social values to these people, they will applaud the destruction of Hamas. They don't. They stand in solidarity with them. Why? Because they care more about Israel's destruction.

The next paragraph hammers the point further:

Those who protest in the streets also say they do so out of solidarity. Well, solidarity with whom? With Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, who has been less critical of the incursion than any European carrying a sign? With the Palestinians who do not agree with having the financial aid sent to their people being used to build armies and prepare bomb attacks? Do they wonder what happens to these funds? Does solidarity with the Palestinians mean defending terrorism and excusing Hamas' aggressions? Is peace defended by boosting Palestinian leaders who do not believe in it?

When was the last time that the uber-left demanded a serious audit of the Palestinians and how they have stiffled the peace process? If anyone remembers, the suicide attacks only escalated after Oslo was signed in 1993, which was intended to do the REVERSE. A true and honest left winger should take grievance with both sides for intellectual honesty. The Palestinians have received billions and when Hamas captured Gaza, they got much of that money. What have they done with that money? Built tunnels and made bombs. How did that contribute to ending violence in the Middle East? How can you honestly defend that uber-lefties?

The line about Mahmoud Abbas is also interesting. He did sound off at the beginning of the conflict but that's because he had to. Since then, not a peep. He would love to get the Hamas albatross off his neck. Thankfully, it appears that those Palestinians in the West Bank are smartening up and not joining those in Gaza in "resistance." They know as Gandhi knew that the path to statehood is paved in peace not violence.

I am a pro-Palestinian in a sense that I want the Palestinians to live side by side with the Israelis in a state that embraces life for its citizens and respects all religions (and atheists) within its borders. I think that will serve its interests best. The uber-left should embrace those values too and question anyone on both sides who will work to impede the progress of such a state coming to fruition. They will find a willing accomplice in me if this is the mission they'll embrace. But if the goal is simply to call for Israel's destruction, they will fall on deaf ears.

It is in their interests of the uber-left to advance this cause because the Hamas they stand in solidarity with will take away their freedoms if they ever had the power. Better to stop it when Hamas won't have that power than when they will because by then, it will be too late.

Calling all Reaganites. Danger! Big Government Ahead of You!

O Ronald, where are you when we need you? You oh wise one who said that government isn't the answer to the problem, government is the problem.

Now America has a President-elect (he's not even President yet and already I want impeachment) who says that government will need to bail out everything under the sun. Tons of businesses are lining up to eat of the public trough. Even the porn industry and the abortion clinics. These are truly testing times.

The President-elect says that to not allow government to save American jobs will cause many others to be lost. Rubbish. The economy always fixes itself.

Think of the consequences of government mortgaging a further trillion dollars a year every year. Can mortgage undo mortgage? Just because it's the government borrowing doesn't mean it has unlimited resources to do so. How much of America's budget goes to debt servicing? I'm willing to bet it's around 20% or higher before the Obama plan will kick in. Think of the further consequences of government centrally planning the economy. How can bureaucrats run companies like AIG? Governments don't concern themselves with profits and efficiencies. That's why the market allocates resources. The market knows what's cheap and what's expensive. It adapts to peoples' affordability and demands. Command economy was tried in the Soviet Union. It didn't work there. And Ronald Reagan knew that.

Government bailouts are simply attempts at a command economy. It won't be a short-term fix. It will be a long-term nightmare. I say let companies be bankrupt. New ones will rise up. If some people need to be unemployed, they will find new work. There's always plenty of work to go around. The American economy is diverse and it's vibrant. To not allow it to fix itself will cause further damage than the massive bailouts are meant to fix.

Reaganites it's time to stop the tide of big government coming down the pipes. Obama and the Democrats want to spook everyone into thinking that only government aid will save jobs and the economy itself. Last time big bailouts took place, it was the New Deal and that hurt America in the long run. Stop them while you can. Harp on the ability of American entrepreneurship and ingenuity. Stop the flow of big government.

The Gipper is watching and he doesn't like what he sees.

Trying to make a mockery out of Canada's refugee system

I think it's nice that Canada projects itself as a haven for political refugees. Canada loves projecting a reputation as a place where the politically persecuted can run. America does this as well and I commend them for doing so. But there is a class of people who since the Vietnam War, have abused Canada's policy on refugees: US war disserters.

US war refugees to Canada is something that has existed since 1776. In 1776, the first flow of the United Empire Loyalists who would later be the backbone of Canadian confederation fled the infant American nation out of desire to live under the British Crown and the Church of England. Fast forwarding to the recent era, American Vietnam War disserters fled to Canada and the socialist Pierre Trudeau gave them assylum.

This practice started a troubling precedent which thankfully has begun reversing itself. A recent decision by the Canada Refugee Board concluded that Kimberly Rivera, who disserted the US Army out of opposition to the Iraq War, will have to part with her family and return to the States. She will likely face jailtime for disserting army orders, a felony in the States.

Here's a rather biased article about it.

If you don't have time to read, basically Ms. Rivera, her husband and two kids moved to Canada from Texas to the Toronto area and appealed to stay as political refugees.

A few points come to mind:

1. If you join the army, you don't get to pick and choose which war you fight. The war that the Commander-in-Chief sends you to is the war you fight.

2. The army in the States is voluntary. If you didn't want to fight in war, why the hell did you join the army in the first place?

3. When you join the army, you sign a contract. You have to live by that contract. If you desert a mission, you can put your co-soldiers at risk. You swear an oath not only to your country but to your company and your friends. Ms. Rivera let all 3 down.

4. Army desertion is not grounds for refugee status ever. You signed a contract to serve the army and your country in all capacities demanded of you. You weren't forced to do anything. Refugee status is reserved for people who are persecuted for speaking out or on the basis of ethnic background. Breach of contract doesn't fit the bill. Sorry.

Kudos on Canada for not letting this one slide and reversing a long ugly trend.

Ask yourself: What does Israel have to gain by attacking an innocent school?

Perhaps it wasn't so innocent!



Israel shells near UN school, killing at least 30



By IBRAHIM BARZAK and STEVE WEIZMAN, Associated Press Writers



The Israeli army said its soldiers came under fire from militants hiding in the school and responded. It accused Gaza's Hamas rulers of "cynically" using civilians as human shields. Residents confirmed the account, saying militants were seen staging attacks from the area.The army said two Hamas militants — Imad Abu Askar and Hasan Abu Askar — were among the dead.Two neighborhood residents confirmed the Israeli account, saying a group of militants fired mortars from a street near the school, then fled into a crowd of people in the streets. Israel then opened fire.The residents, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they feared for their safety, said the Abu Askar brothers were known low-level Hamas militants.



The link to the article can be found here. The top is an excerpt from it.



But of course, the drive by media in the world is content with simply stating that Israel hit a school and killed a bunch of innocents. Shame on them.

Now my question for Hamas is: were there any IDF soldiers in this kindergarten? It's just one of many that's been bombed over the past 8 years. This one in my hometown of Ashdod.

Ask yourself: who benefits from Palestinians who are non-Hamas affilliates being killed? Who loses? You know the answer and now you know why many innocents have died in this conflict.

As Alan Dershowitz put it: Hamas is committing a triple war crime by firing rockets, hiding in cities and using kids as human shields.

**UPDATE*** Charles Krauthammer wrote on this very issue. Worth a look.

The world doesn't begin again on January 20

There is a silence these days that is truly deafening. It is the silence of Barack Obama.

Where does he stand on the Israel/Gaza conflict?

I know that he gives a standard excuse: It is President Bush's show until January 20th and there is only one president at a time. Fair. I agree. But that doesn't mean that President-elect Obama cannot register an opinion. The conflict is escalating. The world and Israel want to know where US policy will be in 15 days. The sooner they know, the better decisions they can make. Israel may disagree with what you have to say but they need to hear what you have to say. You will be the voice of the US government in 15 days and this conflict may go beyond your inauguration.

Mr. Obama, as you take your latest smoke break, please ponder a statement and then make it! You have made statements on the economy. You are making moves on an economic stimulous package (which I doubt will work but that's another story). But there is another issue that merits your two cents: The global war on terror. You can respect President Bush's remaining 15 days and still make a statement. Bottom line, the world deserves to hear what you have to say and the sooner, the better. Surely you have something to say on this issue...

Or do you?

How will Israel win this operation?

As an Israeli ex-pat, I have a unique edge over some in that I understand hebrew and I can watch the media from there. Watching Israeli media, you tend to get a closer perspective of what is going on. You get a greater feel of the direct players in the conflict. Moreover, the media tends to ask the questions I often raise and that is: how will Israel win this operation? The answer has critical implications to its survival as a state.

In regards to this particular operation against Hamas, the reporters on Channel 2 news are already lowering expectations in answering that question. They're saying that the IDF will probably not stop all rockets. They say that is not the idea of this operation. The idea is to severely reduce rocket capability and render Hamas a severe blow. On that count, they say that Israel has already won. I agree.

If this is the point of the operation and the objective for victory, I say it is smart. In 2006, Israel said off the bat that its goal was to destroy Hizbollah altogether. What that did in effect was set the bar high for victory and Hizbollah's bar very low. All Hizbollah had to do to win was survive. And they did survive, getting an effective propaganda victory in the process. Israel came away with a lot more questions than answers. The IDF came away a defeated and spent force. While Hizbollah suffered severe blows and the operation was not entirely ineffective, none of this meant anything in the grand scheme due to the PR victory the terrorist group had won.

The success these days of a military operation is highly dependent on the question: how will victory be defined? In World War II, the answer was: destroy the Nazi regime completely and it happened so WWII was a success. When it comes to the Palestinians, the bar has to be set a bit low since terrorist elements are so deeply ingrained in Palestinian society. If you want to completely obliterate them, you have to destroy entire cities. Not even Israelis have the stomach for that. Sadly though, one day it may come to this. But this is not the day.

By setting the bar for victory low enough that it is realistic and high enough that it renders results, this operation has a high chance of success and meaning. Now if Hamas will be completely destroyed or close to, the operation will be a resounding success, "far exceeding expectations."

I can tell you from a further examination of Israeli media that Hamas is running scared. They prepared for a ground offensive but did not expect one. They interpreted Israel's lengthy decision not to retaliate to Qassams as weakness and thought military action from Israel would never come. Indeed, this operation was a long time coming. The cities, kibbutzim and agricultural settlements around the Gaza Strip have suffered for a long time.

Hamas interpreted Israel's inaction as weakness. What they didn't know was that Israel prepared this operation for approximately six months. We are now seeing the results of that preparation as the operation has been highly effective thus far. Hamas has been caught completely off-guard and the city of Gaza is being cut off. IDF engineers are destroying tunnels and infantry are taking out rocket launchers. In the meantime, the Israeli government is anticipating fresh talks that will accompany the new reality once the operation will go deeper into this month.

It is my opinion that this operation has already been a resounding success. Anything from now is a bonus and the IDF should keep going. While I feel for civilian life in Gaza, I know that the IDF is meticulous and careful (hence ground troops) and will work to limit the losses. I am optimistic that once the operation is complete, that Hamas will never be the same in a way that is good for the world and bad for them.