Peacekeepers or not?

Sigh - It is past time that Canadians - as a people - give up the comfortable notion that we are a 'Nation of Peacekeepers' that was untrue before and is not true now. In fact I believe that this belief was fostered by various political parties as justification for reduced military spending. We cannot return to the blue beret days of previous times, sorry folks that time is gone. We need a fully equipped fighting force that will meet aggression with brutal violence and friendship with an open hand and ready comfort and support. Our armed forces cannot be a half effort. I've stated my support for this mission on Globe and Mail boards previously and I reiterate it again. Young men and women from Canada have died and will no doubt continue to die in this conflict but in the end - a decade or more from now. We just might have a safe, sane, stable country in Afghanistan and it will be because Canada and other countries did what was required. If we expect to have an international voice then we must have a real international presence and for good or ill that means we must have a military force capable of being active around the world.

Posted as comment to Globe and Mail 31 Mar 06

Afghan man faces death for turning to Christianity

Posted in response to 'Afghan man faces death for turning to Christianity'
by TIM ALBONE Globe and Mail website - 21 Mar 06

Are we looking for an excuse to come home, because every time I turn around it seems like we are...I felt that we needed to go in and 'take steps' against the Taliban prior to 9/11 and I still feel that that was the right decision. This is an educational and cultural problem, it is not and won't be a 'quick fix'! Canada is a small minority in the world, our culture is very mixed, with a tradition (maybe survival skill) of tolerance, for different languages, races, religions and lifestyles. It's taken us 50+ years to get to the point of allowing same sex marriage - that would have been just as unthinkable at the beginning of our parents lives as the Afghan judge thinks this is now. I think that Mr. Murphy (above) is correct, Afghanistan is very much in a different 'time' than we are. They need to grow, to become part of the rest of the world - their own way. It will probably be the children of the children in school right now who really finish that process. Maybe there will still be a Canadian presence there then, maybe not, but if we can be of help I would hope we would be - it's up to the Afghanis, all of them, as a people, to say 'thanks, you can go home now, we've got it from here...'

Male vs. Female in Parliament

Yesterday was international women's day and once again I kept hearing (in a couple of radio pieces) that women should make up half of the members of the House. The general argument given supporting this position is that the house should be representative of the people of Canada so it should be 50% (or 52% if you are being accurate) female. This would appear to be very reasonable, and in fact I can't really argue with the sentiment.

I can, however, lay out a position against the particular argument, that the house should be representative of all of the people it represents. The problem with the argument becomes apparent if you take it a few steps further - if 52% of Canada is female then the house should be 52% female. If (for example) 20% of the Canadian population is Native Canadian then the house should be 20% Native Canadian. That would be 20% of the males and 20% of the females we just added. This also seems reasonable and I'm sure the natives would be happier and better off if it were true. Now, what happens to the 10% of homosexual males in Canada? Do you take the 50% of the house that are male and then designate x number of seats to be occupied by gay men? What happens to the 10% who are black, the 10% who are Asian, the 30% under the age of 30 the 40% over the age of 50, the % who are disabled etc.

At some point in that chain you may have said to yourself that I was just being silly or even ridiculous, and in fact I am. This is a logical argument, I have taken what is on it's face is reasonable and extended it, rationally, to a ridiculous conclusion. The Latin term is Reductio ad absurdum. What this means is that if the argument results in something absurd when taken to it's reasonable conclusion then the entire argument, all of it, is absurd. So, while I don't disagree with what was intentioned - they need to find a better way of justifying it, what they're saying just doesn't work.

I'm open to someone pointing out where I'm wrong on this, but frankly I don't think I am.

Sigh...

Want to be an Ambassador?

Microsoft has opened the Microsoft Home Ambassadors program - Find out more at:

P.S. Canadians Only for this one!