How Many Hero Highways Do We Need?

Today, the mayor of Canada’s largest city is renaming parts of a major highway to honor fallen Canadian soldiers – their bodies are brought back home on these parts of the road.

Toronto Mayor David Miller will officially rename parts of the Don Valley Parkway and some local connecting side streets the “Route of Heroes.”

Previously, the province of Ontario renamed a section of Highway 401 from Trenton to the Don Valley Parkway the “Highway of Heroes.”

Both are part of the route the Canadian flag-draped caskets containing the bodies of Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan take, to the coroner’s office, before being released to their families for burial.

The sacrifices men and women make for their country at times of war should be honored, respected, and as many a war memorial says “never forgotten.”
However, Canada is not at war.

SO, why are so many bodies traveling down Canadian roads – enough to prompt petty politicians to use the highways as a promotional vehicle for their own slimy images, by cutting ribbons and making declarations about heroic routes?

As of today, 147 Canadian Forces personal have been killed since their first deployment to Afghanistan in 2002 – just over the weekend another solider had died, which was not even two-weeks after the last solider was killed in the line of duty.

Yet, again – we aren’t at war.

Originally, when then-American President George W. Bush announced his shock and awe bomb attack, in response to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the United Nations Security Council didn’t agree.

The UN wanted to find a peaceful solution first, and barring that, a planned and well-thought out approach to using military muscle.

But in keeping with his “you are either with us, or you are with the terrorists,” narrow-minded approach, President Bush went ahead and destroyed most of the infrastructure of Afghanistan and Iraq, all under the guise of getting their alleged ring leader – Bin Ladden.

Whatever happened to Bin Ladden? We never hear about him, other than the occasional poorly recorded audio or video of him ranting like a crazed lunatic.
You’d probably go crazy too if you had a redneck American president making threatening statements about having your head on a platter.

Not that Bin Ladden wasn’t crazy before all this – he may have been – we’ll never know.

President Bush failed in his attempts to nail the blame squarely on Bin Ladden, so he went after Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, and eventually did get his head on a platter – sort of. Hussein was hung quite publicly for the world to see on YouTube – probably the first world leader to be executed live, on the Internet.

Regardless of whether or not Bin Ladden, Saddam Hussein, or anyone else the Americans have labeled “terrorists” – Canada really has no part in their so-called “war on terror.”

Yes, we are allies of the States, and should support them in peace and in war.

But in typically Canadian fashion, our politicians have sat directly in the middle of the fence on the issue and that is what is killing our soldiers.

Canada isn’t officially at war, and being the backbone of the United Nations peace keeping forces for so long, we have a reputation of supporting the UN at all costs.

Yet the UN hasn’t stepped into the American’s so-called “war on terror” because they never supported the poorly planned vengeful attacks by their redneck leader, President Bush.

So our government sends thousands of Canadian soldiers to bolster up the Americans war efforts, with little planning – because the Canadian politicians don’t want to alienate the UN – and we end up with a never-ending parade of flag-draped caskets traveling our renamed highways.

Maybe our politicians should spend more time planning military strategies and tactics, instead of how to creatively rename a highway to get a photo op.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Fallen soldiers honoured with 'Route of Heros' (ctv.ca)
• Toronto to designate Don Valley Parkway as 'Route of Heroes' (nationalpost.com)
• 'I'd do it again' President Bush tells Michigan crowd about waterboarding KSM Inc. and company (chicagoraysrants.com)
• George Bush admits US waterboarded 9/11 mastermind (guardian.co.uk)
• Canada's mission in Congo (thestar.com)
• Obama Supposedly Stands With Israel, But Will Our Pro-Palestinian Press? (newsbusters.org)
• Military can't staff all missions (thestar.com)

Haiti’s In Our Hearts, While Iraq is Just a Blur

Over a dozen people, representing countries across the globe met in Montreal, Canada yesterday to discuss a long-term redevelopment plan for earthquake ravaged Haiti.

Almost two-weeks after the earthquake measuring 7.3 destroyed much of the country, killing an estimated 200,000 people, Haiti’s prime minister met with these representatives from various countries, and charitable organizations to plan relief efforts.

Experts are warning it could take at least ten years to re-build Haiti. Interestingly enough, that’s about the same amount of time estimate to re-build Iraq.
However, the civil unrest in Iraq has been an on-going war for several years – and is still in a state of chaos – yet the international community hasn’t met to bring about calm to the Iraqi cause.

Political favoritism must have quite the pull over Haiti versus Iraq. Granted, Haiti’s fiasco took the world by surprise, as many natural disasters do, while the war in Iraq was caused by an American leader no longer in office – George W. Bush -- over control of the rich oil resources in the Middle East.

Iraq is an American problem, but the American war machine, along with all the different factions and wars among the Iraqi people, has destroyed so much of the country, it will take more than just the American’s to repair and rebuild the country.

Yet no other country has offered aid to Iraq, nor has any – not even the United Nations – attempted to bring about peace.

And there lies the real problem, because Iraq can’t be re-built until peace has been reached. There’s no point in re-building a bridge, if that bridge will be blown up shortly after being built.

The Americans and their allies in the war effort – such as the British – can’t be part of the negotiation team to bring about peace. You can’t have one side in a war trying to act as unbiased negotiator – which is partly why Iraq is still a war zone.

The Americans want to have their cake and eat it too – they want to put a leader of their choice in charge of the country, and have the country’s ruler answer to America’s wishes. Though America is the country which attacked Iraq in the first place, so that just wouldn’t be fair.

The United Nations and many other countries have stayed out of the American-Iraq war, because they never agreed to America’s initial reasons for starting it in the first place – which were later proved to be false. Iraq never did have weapons of mass destruction – despite former U.S. President George W. Bush’s evidence put forward by his administration. Later is was revealed that the evidence was false – made up, a direct lie.

Iraq is a messy war, and sadly, unlike Haiti, the world’s leaders have turned a blind eye away from the conflict in Iraq, letting the American’s essentially do as they want – which isn’t in either their own, Iraq’s or the world’s best interests.

Years ago, experts estimated once the war stopped in Iraq, it would take at least a decade to re-build the infrastructure and restore dignity to the impoverished war battered people. That’s supposing other countries come to the aid of Iraq – like they are for Haiti.

But as the world’s attention focuses on Haiti, the sounds of death and disease continue to ring louder and louder in Iraq.

Both Haiti and Iraq need international support, but so far, it looks like Haiti has lucked out and won the hearts and minds of the people of the planet, as it has become “trendy” to donate to Haiti, as celebrities in Canada and the States held separate, back-to-back telethons for Haiti.

The world moves and shakes with the mammoth movements of the United States of America – but just because America does something, doesn’t always make it just or right.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Ex-UK Foreign Secretary defends Iraq war decision (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Tony Blair's Iraq War Wounds (time.com)
• Aide: No Blair/Bush Iraq War Pact In 2002 (news.sky.com)
• Mitchell Bard: An Open Letter to the President: It's Time for Change, Not Spending Freezes (huffingtonpost.com)

Flying Naked – Full Body Scanners Come to Canada

Canada’s federal Transportation Minister John Baird held a press conference yesterday, where he announced the installation of 44 clothing-penetrating, full body scanners at 11 Canadian airports within the next two-months.

These scanners create a three-dimensional image of a person’s naked body, allowing airport security officers to see you in your birthday suit.

Though not all passengers will be seen sans clothes. Considered an alternative to a physical search, Government officials say these devices will only be used on passengers 18-years-old and older, that security feels merit a secondary screening.

These full body scanners were already being tested in Kelowna, British Columbia, off Canada’s west-coast, and will now be in use at airports in Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa and in Vancouver.

At a cost of $250,000 CDN a pop, this is no small investment for the Canadian government, but since the Christmas Day attack aboard a Northwest Airlines flight bound for Detroit, the Canadian government is following the lead of the American government and ramping up airport security.

Or is the Canadian government just doing what our American big brother wants us to do?

American authorities want Canada, and all other countries around the world, to do quite a bit to keep America safe.

Using clothing-penetrating full body scanners raises numerous privacy concerns – essentially it allows complete strangers to take and store digital images of you completely naked. Though Canada’s Privacy Commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart says she approved the scanners only on the condition that the security officer viewing these naked full body images be in a separate room, and never actually see the passenger being screened. She also demanded that the digital image would have to be deleted once the passenger leaves the airport.

However, there are no guarantees that the federal Privacy Commissioner’s conditions will always be followed. Once a digital image is created, it can be copied, moved and stored pretty much anywhere. Just because it is deleted off the originating machine which created it, doesn’t mean it is gone for good.

When these clothing-penetrating full body scanners were first announced in the U.S., one of the immediate concerns was naked images of celebrities “suddenly” being found online for sale on places such as eBay.

And you don’t have to be famous to end up naked on eBay – anyone could fall victim to this.

So far, this hasn’t happened, but then these devices are relatively new, just starting to make their way into American and Canadian airports.

One of the less discussed, but just as personally intrusive requests the American government is placing on all countries is the sharing of passenger information.
The American government has sent formal requests to countries which have airlines flying planes across American airspace, requesting personal passenger information -- even if those passengers will never land at an American airport.
This personal information includes full legal names, citizenship, birth date, and destination.

There hasn’t been any indication of what action – if any – American authorities would take having this information. They could advise or warn other countries and/or airlines of possible persons of interest. Or a more drastic action would be to ban specific planes from flying through American airspace if American authorities don’t like one or more of the passengers or crew. And American authorities have been vague with just how long they would keep this information, and for what purposes.

So far, Canadian and many European countries have refused to provide this information for their passengers – it’s been a year since the Americans made the request. But with increased security measures being taken worldwide because of the recent Christmas Day terror incident, the American government could begin demanding this information, restricting air travel through American airspace to airlines which comply.

This would create chaos at airports around the world, as flights were delayed or canceled completely because of the new American airspace restrictions.

And even with all these new security measures in place, we still will never be completely safe. As soon as a security measure is taken, you can almost guarantee someone, somewhere around the world is working on ways to bypass it.

The only real way to prevent terrorism is to stop it in its tracks. George W. Bush coined the phrase the “war on terror,” and that in a literal sense is what it is – a war.

Although former U.S. President Bush’s “war” was questionable – he and his team falsified documents to justify attacking Iraq, claiming Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (which he didn’t) and he sent troops to Afghanistan to “get Bin Laden,” but he never did, nor has anyone else.

The only real way to prevent terrorism is to win the war. Adding security at airports only challenges the terrorists to go further, and incites them to try harder. To win the war, we have to capture and imprison those who recruit, train and motivate people to do terrorist acts, and we have to capture and imprison those who have been recruited, trained and motivated to do these acts.

Until then, clothing-penetrating full body scanners and the sharing of personal passenger information may slow the terrorists down, but it will not stop them.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Canada likely to keep tight security at airports: experts (ctv.ca)
• Travellers face 'virtual' strip search (thestar.com)
• Heightened airport security to extend into new year (nationalpost.com)
• Ottawa ordered airline scanners months ago: Baird (ctv.ca)
• Two Failed Airplane Plots, Two Reactions (outsidethebeltway.com)
• Reflections on the War on Terror (jordansdaily.blogspot.com)
• America's Second Vietnam Continues (jordansdaily.blogspot.com)

Nobel Peace Prize Awarded to Obama Questionable

American President Barack Obama has won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, less than a year into his presidential mandate.

Granted, President Obama has some innovative ideas, was the first black person to ever lead the States, and has inspired greatness in others the world over.

But President Obama hasn’t been in office long enough to garner success – or failure – in implementing those

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

innovative ideas, so the Norwegian-based Nobel Peace Prize Committee must be smoking some pretty good stuff to have given him the honor.

And there is more to that honor than just a piece of paper with his name on it – the Nobel Peace Prize comes with a medal, a diploma and a nice chunk of coin -- $1.5USD million to be exact.

Image via Wikipedia

As of this writing, President Obama hasn’t said what he intends to do with the prize money, which could prove quite the challenge in light of what the Nobel Peace Prize represents.

The founder of the Nobel Peace Prize, Alfred Nobel, described the whole thing nicely in his last will and testament, saying the award should go to whoever: “shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congress.”

President Obama is leading a country involved in two wars – Afghanistan and Iraq. And a third war is potentially brewing between America and North Korea over the North Korean government’s constant threat of developing and testing nuclear missiles.

Whenever the American leader has gone abroad on his worldly trips, he has talked about peace, and opening up relations between nations – especially between his nation and others around the globe. Though this is a given, you don’t go into someone’s home, push them up against a wall holding a knife to their neck and telling them how things are going to shake down.

Well, maybe you would do that, if you were President George W. Bush . . . but seriously, when a country’s leader goes to another nation, their first order of business is always to maintain or foster good relations with the hosting nati

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

on.
That’s just good politics.

Though it is even more important in President Obama’s international politics, because his predecessor managed to alienate, offend, and create large rifts between America and other nations.

And speaking of rifts between nations, although President Obama didn’t instigate the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq – he hasn’t exactly gone out of his way to immediately attempt a peaceful resolution to either of these war zones either.

Why is it then, that he won the Nobel Peace Prize?

The prize committee claims President Obama’s extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy between nations, as the reason.

However, has President Obama really accomplished this?

He hasn’t ended any wars. He did close down the American military prison in Guantanamo Bay, which was known for its inhumane treatment of inmates – but that hardly counts as strengthening international diplomacy between nations.

President Obama hasn’t brought peace to the Middle East – though truthfully, both sides in that long battle are so diametrically opposed to each other philosophically, socially, spiritually, politically and economically, there will never be peace in that region of the world.

Instead, President Obama continues to send troops to Afghanistan and Iraq to police those nations, instead of sending in diplomats and working to end the violence while bringing about peace.

President Obama has clearly threatened North Korea with possible military action if they continue to develop and test nuclear weapons.

And for a man supposedly so peaceful, he’s got his own army protectin

g him from the dangerous world in which we live. His motorcade consists not only of an alternative duplicate of him and his armored limo (nicknamed “the beast”), but high tech armored vehicles, which block cell phone signals in the area as he passes. When he came to Canada, they had snipers on rooftops all along his route from the airport to Parliament Hill in Ottawa. They even ordered people whose high-rise apartments and condos draped the route, not to go out on their balconies, or else they would be shot – even if all they wanted to do was to sneak a peek at the American president.

Surely a man of peace should have nothing to fear, and not need the protection of an armed motorcade?

Though that in of itself may be the real reason the Nobel Peace Prize Committee bestowed such an honor on this man.

Being the first black American president, and being as outspoken and radically different from past American presidents puts President Obama at a greater risk of life and limb than his predecessors.

Perhaps the Nobel Peace Prize Committee wanted to give President Obama the award before any attempts were made on the president’s life?

Although the American leader talks about peace, he hasn’t done anything to justify such a prestigious award. And that taints the reputation of the award, the prize committee which decides who receives the award, and far worse – lessens the chances that future world leaders will really work towards peace.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Will the Nobel Prize Help Obama Make Peace? (time.com)
• Nobel Prize To Obama Defended (VIDEO) (huffingtonpost.com)
• Barack Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize (nytimes.com)
• Obama: 'I'm Surprised By Nobel Prize' (news.sky.com)
• Obama's Prize (meganmcardle.theatlantic.com)
• Nobel peace prize: A call to action (guardian.co.uk)
• "Breaking: President Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize" and related posts (my.barackobama.com)
• "Taliban Attack Pakistan Pentagon -- Take Several Hostages (Video)" and related posts (gatewaypundit.blogspot.com)

A Visit to the White House – What a Nice Distraction

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper took a joy ride south of the border last Wed. – or at least that’s probably how it seemed to him.

He met with American President Barack Obama for an hour-long meeting in the White House’s Oval Office. The two leaders discussed the economy, just ahead of the G20 Summit in Pittsburgh starting today and running through the weekend.

They also discussed each country’s roles in the mission to Afghanistan. Canada has had soldiers in the battle-whipped country for over eight-years, but there are plans to pull all Canadian Forces troops out in 2010.

President Obama on the other hand is pushing for more American soldiers to be sent to Afghanistan this year and next year.

Canadian Soldiers should never have gone to Afghanistan in the first place – and will most likely end up in another place they should never be sent – Iraq in 2010 or 2011.

Afghanistan and Iraq are strictly American conflicts, begun by then-American President George W. Bush. Bush, the sly scoundrel he is, used the intense emotions stirred in his citizens by the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001 to launch attacks on these two relatively innocent countries.

President Bush originally launched air strikes in Afghanistan in what he called his “shock and awe” military attack, to get Bin Ladden and those responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on American soil.

Almost a decade later, Bin Ladden (who boldly boasts of his success in his involvement of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, but no one anywhere has actually provided proof of his involvement) is still running free, occasionally popping up to in grainy videos to taunt the Americans.

As the hunt for Bin Ladden dragged on, the American political machine needed a new scapegoat to distract the public’s attention from their failing mission in Afghanistan (the goal was to get Bin Ladden).

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

That’s when President Bush and the rest of the executive branch of the White House launched their smear campaign against Saddam Hussein and Iraq.

They claimed Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and urged the United Nations (UN) to take actions against Iraq. Despite all the doctored images – which looked real at the time but have since been proved tampered with – the UN didn’t budge and would not support an outright attack against Iraq.

The UN did begin sanctions against Iraq, and sent over their own inspectors, to look for these weapons of mass destruction.

None were ever found, and the UN was satisfied Iraq and its leader were in the clear.

But trigger-happy American President Bush still launched an attack against Saddam Hussein, and in the process destroyed all the infrastructure of the tiny Middle Eastern country in the process.

Canadian soldiers are dying in great numbers in Afghanistan, as American soldiers are dying also in great numbers in Iraq.

But both these missions were unnecessary, and mismanaged from the get-go. American President Bush didn’t really care about bring those responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks to justice, he just used that event to go after the countries in the Middle East with the richest oil reserves, to secure oil for his country, and his former colleagues in the oil industry from where he originally came.

Image via Wikipedia

Now America’s current leader, President Obama has to deal with the massive cost, lost lives, and lack of any signs of real victory in two wars. He’s also struggling with his push to launch universal, government-funded healthcare across all 50 States, similar to our Canadian healthcare system.

Here on his home turf, the Canada’s top politician is being made to jump over massive hurdles, just to do his job. Some of the heat is due in part because he’s only got a minority government, the other part is due to the childish antics of the opposition parties.

Prime Minister Harper is always facing threats of election calls for his head, by the Bloc, the Liberals, the New Democratic Party, or a combination of them. Currently, the Liberal Party is threatening to call a non-confidence vote to end the Prime Minister’s rule, and lead Canadians into yet another federal election – has it even been a year since the last election?

With the intense pressures both the current American and Canadian leaders are facing, their meeting must have been a nice distraction from the horrors of their worlds. Let’s just hope that distraction was short lived, and they can both get back to the business of running their respective countries.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Canada To Avoid Immediate Election (huffingtonpost.com)
• Harper to meet with Obama at White House (ctv.ca)
• Bin Laden calls Obama 'powerless' (msnbc.msn.com)
• Canadian PM Harper Says He Won't Extend Afghan Mission (huffingtonpost.com)
• Osama Bin Laden releases new audio tape (netnewsdaily.com)
• New York remembering 9/11 victims (ctv.ca)
• Bin Laden tape mocks 'powerless' Barack Obama (telegraph.co.uk)
• G-20, G8, G-Whiz Does Anyone Get Anything Done? (jordansdaily.blogspot.com)

What Politicians and General Motors Have In Common

Aside from Canada, the States and other countries owning a large portion of ailing automaker General Motors (GM), there are other similarities which make you wonder if the auto giant really will dig itself out of this global depression.

GM announced last week that it is ready to leave bankruptcy protection and enter the world of selling cars once again. Fritz Henderson, the company’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO) says the company is sleeker and more customer-friendly.

Having borrowed $50 billion in government loans, it better be something more than it once was.

Henderson also said the company would be more receptive to its customer’s needs and wants when it comes to designing and building new models, and that these new vehicles would be launched faster.

Image by Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.com via Flickr

Sounds a lot like the never-changing world of politics. During election campaigns, politicians always make promises which may – or more often than not – may not actually happen. Politicians always talk about listening more to their constituents, and acting faster on those requests.

Guess when government money bails you out, you become more politician-ish?

Though, if GM was really paying attention to their customers, they probably wouldn’t have ended up filing for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in the States in the first place. One of the golden rules to running any successful business is to ensure you are meeting the needs of those who will pay for your products and services.
Failing that, you might as well close up shop, because you are ignoring the people that will put bread on your table.

Henderson says that going forward, the company’s top priorities will be customers, cars and culture. Sounds like an election promise, and we all know how far those go in the real world.

As gas prices continued to soar uncontrollably due largely in part to oil industry greed, GM continued to build and sell gas hoarding machines, which their customers weren’t buying, because they couldn’t afford all that gas.

But, in the 1990’s GM came out with the world’s first fully electric car – the EV1. It was capable of traveling on average about 160KM on a single charge – more than enough for most day-to-day use. It took a full eight-hours to c

Image via Wikipedia

harge the batteries, but then again, unless you are driving non-stop 24/7, you just charge it up while you are sleeping.

GM not only canceled the EV1 project, they destroyed it – actually hunting down their own loyal customers and repossessing the cars at the end of their leases, without giving their customers the option to buy or extend their lease. The reclaimed cars were crushed like tin cans, except for a handful which were allowed to be put on display in vehicle museums – sans any functioning engines. GM didn’t want the legacy of their success to show, claiming the vehicles were dismal failures and no one was willing to buy them.

Most of the EV1 owners were willing to buy them, they held massive protests, begging and pleading with GM to allow them to either lease of buy their cars at the end of their lease.

But due to pressure from the former Texas oil tycoon turned president, George W. Bush, and the strong oil lobby groups, GM killed the electric car because these groups saw this successful electric car as a death sentence to their monopoly over the world’s transportation systems.

Though if GM were smart and really had intentions of listening to their customers, they should have fought back. Sure, they would have been going after the American government and the mighty power of the oil industry, but they aren’t exactly a small player either – they were the world’s largest company.

Had GM kept the EV1, today, they probably would have a whole product line of electric cars, even better than their first attempts. They may even be the only car company in the world producing completely electric vehicles, at a time when oil prices continue to stay high, and consumers look towards other ways to travel, to save fuel costs.

So, when the CEO of GM says he’s planning on listening to his customers, and design vehicles which cater to those very same customers, he’s chirping from uneven ground.

Related articles by Zemanta

• GM bankruptcy plan approved (money.cnn.com)
• GM's 'Reinvention' Starts With $25M Battery Lab (wired.com)
• General Motors Ready To Emerge From Bankruptcy (blogs.thecarconnection.com)
• Auto parts maker Lear files for Chapter 11 (financialpost.com)
• Toyota Prius goes mainstream (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• GM wins approval to sell most assets to U.S. Treasury (windsorstar.com)
• Taxpayers Gamble on General Motors (usnews.com)