Sound advice

If I lived in the United States, I would probably have a different perspective on the US election. As it stands, I am less than thrilled with Obama, who seems hell-bent on intensifying combat in Afghanistan, and perhaps supports its expansion into Pakistan. McCain, for his part, hasn't contradicted such a strategy on anything other than a public-relations basis; he won't say it's wrong, but he doesn't think Obama should talk about it. If I lived in the United States, I might find some reason to believe that Obama wasn't going to turn even more of the federal government's functions over to private stakeholders.

Since I don't live in the United States, though, I think the advice of Hasan Zaidi, writing in Dawn, is particularly wise:

. . . The point is this: it really does not matter to us which party is in power in the US. American interests — or at least the perception of American interests — is what drives American policy towards Pakistan, or anywhere else in the world. We would do well to remember that it was under Bill Clinton that American cruise missiles hit Afghanistan for the first time, and a most crippling economic embargo was imposed on Iraq that reportedly led to the death of hundreds of thousands of children. The differences between the Republicans and Democrats are limited to their domestic arena, and at best to the style of international diplomacy. Yes, Obama being quite possibly the first black president does send a good message to the world about America. Yes, his early schooling in Muslim lands may give him a better understanding of cultures other than American.

But to believe that his ethnicity, his parentage or his party affiliations are going to fundamentally alter real American geopolitical interests with regards to places such as Russia, China, the Middle East or Central Asia is to live in a make-believe world. It’s time Pakistan’s media woke up, and as Americans are fond of saying, ‘smelled the coffee’.

Comparisons with Apartheid

As I have said here before, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not so significant for its magnitude, but rather for the scale of the public relations fraud that has been committed in North America by those who, openly or secretly, support zionism. We thus have the bizarre spectacle here of watching certain people accuse the Muslim world of waging a religious war against non-Muslim nations while simultaneously supporting the creation of a state primarily for European Jews in the heart of the Muslim world, with little more than the Bible as an excuse.

The thuggish tactics of the occupiers against the occupied, though well documented in situ, rarely make it to these shores. The rare occasions on which the occupied successfully lash out with their homemade weapons are each given their own media circus.

Here in Canada, opposition to this bizarre and mendacious narrative has faced difficulty getting off the ground. It is difficult to get your message out when 149 of the country's newspapers, and one of its private national broadcasters were recently owned by a supporter of Likud Canada, who passed the company to his kids.

One great hope is Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East. Well-organized, and representing a broad cross-section of Canadians, this group has already put on some phenomenal events. The next one, with South African human rights lawyer John Dugard, promises to be no different.

If you're in one of the 4 cities where Mr. Dugard will be presenting, I highly recommend attending.

Conversation with a Muslim South of the Border

Based on a true story.

". . .So what else is new?"

"Not much. I might be coming down there sometime soon."

"Oh really. In my neck of the woods?"

"Yeah. I'll come and survey potential targe- - er, I mean, visit."

"That's not funny!"

"I'm laughing."

"You're an idiot. Echelon's listening."

"Well, all I can say is: 'Jihad, bomb, Sheikh bin Laden, Satan, fertilizer, ammonium nitrate, death to America!'"

"Shut up!"

"Now Echelon's listening!"

"You don't know how things are down here."

"Canada's not that different."

"It's different enough. We have Echelon down here. We have warrantless wiretaps. I don't have citizenship!"

"Relax. They aren't going to come after you just for keywords."

"They've come after people for less."

"Listen, if things have already gotten that bad - to the point where you have to watch what you say over the phone - then it's too late. They're coming for us anyways. They're coming for us anyways, and the only question we have to ask is whether we want to live these last days as free men, or whether we want to live them as cowards, waiting for them to come for us. -- I don't think things have gotten that bad, though."

"That's easy for you to say from Canada."

"Maybe. Maybe not."

Pleasing people

Ibne-Abbas (may God be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of God (peace and blessings upon him) said: He who makes God angry for [the purpose of] pleasing people, God becomes angry and makes those people . . . angry with him. And he who pleases God by making people angry, God is pleased with him and makes those people pleased with him . . . so much so that He makes him virtuous in the eyes of those people who were angry and his words and deeds become adorned in their eyes.

(Tabarani, Majma-'uz-Zawaid)

Shorter Robert Spencer

Another one for the Paranoid Delusions file.

Article: A change of tactics: opting for the stealth jihad

During my latest speech exposing the vast plot to impose a Muslim theocracy over America, agents of jihad did not boorishly disrupt the event, proving just how devious they have become.

The CMAJ agrees. . .

Even a recent editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal agrees; Stephen Harper hates Canada.

Listeriosis is the least of it

Stephen Harper's hatred of Canada has, up to now, been manifested in small ways - his appeals to patriotism to fund a war that is against the country's interests, his gutting of arts funding, his studied avoidance of health care issues, his Bush Playbook political strategies, etc, etc. The changes in public health policy are an anomaly, in that they make Canada even less civilized than the United States, even though mostly, he has been going for par.

The listeriosis epidemic is a timely reminder that the Harper government has reversed much of the progress that previous governments made on governing for public health. Following the 2003 SARS epidemic and subsequent recommendations of the National Advisory Committee on SARS and Public Health,⁷ the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) was created and given its own minister in government — a direct line to the prime minister. But in 2006, among Prime Minister Stephen Harper's first acts was to eliminate the PHAC minister and public health's seat at the Cabinet table. His government also left the chief medical officer of health within the ranks of the civil service, working under the minister of health. In so doing, it left our country without a national independent voice to speak out on public health issues, including providing visible leadership during this crisis.

I don't think that Harper has the power to undo all the virtues of this country. If, however, he gets back into office - even with a minority - he will have an opportunity to do far more damage than he already has.

For all you strategic voters out there

This site gives riding-by-riding information on how to beat your local ReformaTory candidate.

http://www.voteforenvironment.ca/

I tend to vote with my heart, but if you are worried enough about a Konservative majority, given that STEPHEN HARPER HATES CANADA, it's very valuable information.

As I've said before, high voter turnout is not necessarily a good thing. If you haven't been following the election, and aren't aware of the histories of the parties or their current platforms, please, don't vote.