Elliot

This morning at the office we were informed that a pregnant friend of ours lost her baby on Sunday. Baby girl Elliot was full term, her due date just a week from now. Only two days prior, on Friday, mom got a check up and everything was going well. Her water broke and she and her husband went to the hospital only to find the baby had died sometime between the check up and Sunday. We shed tears for her and her family, and today everything is tainted with the sombre reminder that childbearing, even in modern times, can be so precarious and uncertain.

What would $611 billion buy?

"If the Bush administration succeeds in its latest request for funding for the war in Iraq, the total cost would rise to $611.5 billion."

It's hard to get perspective on how much money that really is...especially for Canadians who's Federal Government has a yearly budget of about $209 billion versus the American's $2,700 billion. In fact, Canada's entire budget is smaller than the yearly deficit incurred in the States over the past several years.

Rest assured the IntraWebs have provided perspective. Here is Boston.com's take on the war costs.

One of my favs:

More than a year's worth of Medicare benefits for everyone

In fiscal 2008, Medicare benefits will total $454 billion, according to a Heritage Foundation summary. The $611 billion in war costs is 17 times the amount vetoed by the president for a $35 billion health benefit program for poor children.

Because the veto is that much more appalling in this context isn't it?

and:

A real war on poverty

According to World Bank estimates, $54 billion a year would eliminate starvation and malnutrition globally by 2015, while $30 billion would provide a year of primary education for every child on earth.

At the upper range of those estimates, the $611 billion cost of the war could have fed and educated the world's poor for seven years.

Frogs v. Bears

Comedian Mitch Hedberg has a bit about the differences between frogs and bears. This has nothing to do with what is to come, but the title seemed appropriate for some reason.

Not long ago I was discussing the different spins or perspectives news agencies apply to their stories. I have begun to read the news on both CBC.ca and canada.com, the latter of which is a collection of the top stories from reporters and newspapers across the country, and have noticed some interesting variations.

Today Harper announced a $105-million-over-5-years aid package for African children. First I'll link you to the CBC's account the PM's trip to Tanzania here. This was, incidentally, on the same day that a report was released saying that child poverty rates in Canada have remained basically unchanged over two decades.

Okay, so this first article seems pretty benign, uninteresting really.

Now check the article from the Ottawa Citizen on canada.com here.

It's much more interesting, with critique related to the visit and a little bit of a mocking tone don't you think? "Stephen Harper made a high-profile aid announcement and paid a photogenic visit to schoolchildren", "a yard filled with hundreds of singing, flag waving children awaited, for a 20-minute photo-op" and leaves out any Harper quotes about the aid package (like CBC's "Canada has the lead role.") and treats the whole thing as secondary to his supporting of a large mining company who might be doing nasty things to it's employees.

In my opinion, the canada.com article is far better in that it is more skeptical - which is exactly the kind of attitude I want reporters to adopt when approaching political fanfare.

I also like this from the canada.com version; "Harper told a joint press conference...that he wasn't in the habit of telling visiting countries how to conduct their internal affairs." Which he likes to bust out whenever he tries to deflect the spotlight from his support of things that his constituents don't support. However we are all very aware that part of being the leader of a country, particularly one of the leading nations, means constantly telling countries, visiting or otherwise, how to conduct their internal affairs.

Harper does it all the time.

Did he not join the Commonwealth motion that put a time-out on Pakistan for General Pervez Musharraf's dirty deeds? "Representatives from nine Commonwealth countries, including Canada, voted unanimously to suspend Pakistan "from councils of the Commonwealth pending restoration of democracy and rule of law in the country," said Secretary-General Don McKinnon." Why yes he did.

CBC's Political Bytes

If you know anything about John Baird, the punchline rings so very true.

Environment Minister John Baird may have to refrain from one of his favourite activities for a few weeks — speaking in the House of Commons.

The bombastic Baird revels in sparring with the opposition during question period, but his enthusiasm on Wednesday led him to break a cardinal rule of parliament: He referred directly to some individuals who had come to watch him from the visitors' gallery in the House of Commons.

That kind of behaviour is certainly not a crime anywhere else in the country, but in the House they take these things seriously: Only the Speaker is allowed to refer to anyone in the gallery.

Baird himself apologized after QP, chalking it up to a "rookie mistake." But the apology was met with cries of "fair is fair" from the opposition.

Three different opposition MPs pointed out that they had made similar "mistakes" early in their careers — and all had been banned from speaking in the House for 30 days as punishment.

Speaker Peter Milliken has said he will review the tapes of the incident before making a decision.

But Liberal House Leader Ralph Goodale is encouraging Milliken to treat the minister with the same severity as other MPs, adding "We should also consider the beneficial effect that action would have in reducing greenhouse gases."

Long Overdue

Finally, there is real discussion about installing turnstiles or gates in our SkyTrain stations. Finally. We've only been asking for this since 1986.

When In Rome

Just read this story about the only Canadian on death row in the States whom the Conservatives have decided to stop fighting for. They say it's because it would weaken their tough stance on crime. Opponents say that it's a tacit endorsement of captial punishment (which is against the Canadian way) and that all citizens deserve a reprise from that form of punishment.

"Smith's case has caused an uproar in Canada because the Conservative government's surprise decision last week not to seek clemency for the condemned Canadian reversed long-standing foreign policy"

The prisoner, Ronald Smith, said,

"The whole idea in Canada has been to try and rehabilitate prisoners if possible," Smith said in a prison meeting room. "Why shouldn't I have the opportunity, just because I came down to the United States and killed somebody? What difference does it make? If anybody else deserves an opportunity, then I should as well - I'm a Canadian citizen."

I agree with the Conservative's decision, but not their reason. I believe that if you enter another country you are to abide by and respect their rules and laws. You can not expect to leave Canada but still be blanketed under our justice system. The murder is not being contested so this is not a case of false imprisonment, this is about whether you should suffer the consequences of your actions based on citizenship or geography. I go with geography. I mean, it is rather un-Canadian to export and force our way on others anyway. Aren't you a lot more careful about the law when you go to America? I'm certainly cognizant of these differences, and if you're not, well...guess you end up like Smith.

Hypocrisy Shout Out

I like how the States gets off on telling other countries that they can't do what the US does because they're not "good" or "God's favoured people" or "blind believers in American Democracy" or whatever.

You can't have nuclear weapons! Why do we have them? Oh, because we can be trusted, and you can't.

We always support the rule of law! Unless of course, we don't like your law.

Talking about removing the President of the US is treason! We only remove leaders of countries we like to bully.


Now, I'm upset as any human should be about what President Gen. Pervez Musharraf is doing in Pakistan. Today I wondered if I would risk what would be risked to go and help the protesters if I lived closer to their country. But I'm still going to jump on a comment like this:

"You can't be the president and the head of the military at the same time," Bush said Wednesday, describing to reporters his phone conversation with Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf.

Hold the phone.

From Wikipedia on the Presdient of the United Stats of America:

"Perhaps the most important of all presidential powers is command of the armed forces as commander-in-chief.

...To carry out this duty, he is given control of the four million employees of the vast executive branch, including one million active duty personnel in the military.

...While the power to declare war is constitutionally vested in Congress, the president commands and directs the military and is responsible for planning military strategy.

Sure we can, but Pakistan? No, they can't do that. Obviously.

Miss Poledance Australia 2006

Because this is just beautiful. It really is. I swear!