I recently flew south from Toronto to Florida via Newark New Jersey and I am confused as to our Government’s strategy regarding security against terrorism. I traveled extensively during my career going back to the mid 70’s and spanning those years I have seen many changes in the security measures before and after 9/11 that make no sense at all. Now obviously some do and in particular the “no passenger no bags” policy is the most common sense change made during the 70’s. Metal detectors are another reasonable measure that is effective in preventing weapons getting on board a plane. However there are many other rules, regulations and procedures that make no sense at all and if eliminated could speed up the process without sacrificing security. First of all is the insane amount of paperwork required when purchasing a ticket. Why do they need all of the information at the point of sale? Why do the name on the ticket and the name on your ID (passport) need to be identical and if not you won’t be allowed on the plane? What danger do you represent if you spelled your middle name incorrectly. Why do you have to provide your name, address and destination address? Why do you have to fill out a customs check sheet indicating (almost always answered no) what you aren’t bringing into the country? A person could submit incorrect information (lie) on these sheets and no one would ever know or care and yet tons of paperwork is generated and time wasted every day capturing this data. Then you hit the scanning station and besides the metal detector you have to put your bags on a belt to be x-rayed and viewed to be sure you are not bringing anything dangerous on board. Along with your carryon bags you must also have your coat, sweater and shoes viewed on the x-ray screen. If you have liquid in your bags over 4 oz (?) it is immediately confiscated. These last two checks were brought on because of failed attempts by would be terrorists who used these tactics. It seems that most of our so-called security improvements are driven by the terrorists and their various methods that hopefully we learn about because of failure (unlike 9/11). On this particular trip after I had just passed through the metal detector and got my shoes back I had to walk 30 yards or so and then round a corner. Lo and behold there were 6 more security personnel and several tables whereby they proceeded to search my bag again and test me for gun powder. How they suspected I could have obtained something illicit in that short 30 yards I have no idea. They do this idiotic search in Toronto and yet once I landed in Newark I could walk around inside the gated area with several stores and restaurants that sell gadgets and use utensils including knives but no check when you get on the plane to leave NJ. Nor do they match ID with the boarding pass so I could switch with anyone and head on to a new destination without anyone knowing. The problem with almost all of our security system
is that it is reactive instead of proactive. If we followed a proven security system model like the Israeli’s use I’m sure we could be more efficient and ten times safer. But the people that make these rules never have to ride on commercial airways in economy so they will never understand the problems of us “everyday folks”. Perhaps we should insist that all politicians be prohibited from using military transport and first class seating on commercial airlines. Bet you it wouldn’t take long before some common sense laws saw the light of day.

Both of these skills require a person to have many of the same attributes such as the ability to communicate ideas clearly, the ability to sell these same ideas to other people and the ability to shepherd these ideas into actionable tasks. However there are many areas where the roles differ and sometimes people get confused as to why political leaders don't always follow the actions of Corporate leaders when confronting issues or implementing policies. You see Corporate leaders have one large advantage over political leaders and that is the fact that they have the power to terminate a person's employment whereas a politician cannot. At the most they can influence your job positively or negatively but rarely can they apply capital punishment to those that don't fall in line. Therefore a political leader has to be able to influence the emotions of his audience and to garner their trust if he/ she is to be successful with their agenda. To get your attention and your vote they must stimulate your passion by raising issues nearest and dearest to your heart. For instance to most people the issue of security for them and their families is always uppermost in their minds so attacking crime and punishment or the lack thereof is always a winner in politics. Taxation in all its forms has always been a negative aspect in our society regardless of your political persuasion so this subject can always raise the hair on someone's neck. Once the politician has tapped the emotions they must now garner trust. A past history with examples of "doing what you say you will do" is a powerful tool that will help convince people to get on your side. If you don't have that then kissing babies, trotting out your family for photo ops and general schmoozing will help get people comfortable with you and your political ideology. Back to the Corporate leader who will find it helpful to garner trust but not a necessary thing required to push through his/her agenda. Both of them can mislead people with vague statements, exaggerations and downright lies to facilitate their agenda so they are Bobbsey twins in this area for sure. So let's look at the results side of the board whereby both leaders have successfully pushed their agendas into actions using their own techniques and now must view the fruit of their labors. The Corporate Leader must be successful or he will face a boot out of his job for failing to satisfy his shareholders. So even though he started with more power and an easier route to implementing his policies and programs he faces capital punishment if he fails. The politician on the other hand finds herself in a very different position if she fails. She may have lied or mislead people to get herself elected and her programs implemented but what is to be done? The job is secure until the next election and by then most will have forgotten the untruths and the failure. In fact with good political spin doctors today they can turn failure into victory through the media (particularly if you are Liberal) and voila' you are ready for another run for the golden ring. So if you are searching for truth and integrity in leadership let me tell you it is very very rare. The last leader in my opinion that held these values was Ronald Reagan. He was truly a unique man and a honest politician ( which is almost an oxymoron) that has not been matched for the years before or since. Sarah Palin has the base talent to be another Reagan but the question remains, does she have the strength and confidence that are required to withstand the pressures that come with "principled" political leadership? It would definitely be something to see.

The sad fact of the matter is that to win a war you must be emotionally connected with the desired outcome if you are ever to achieve victory. In World War 1 and World War II each of the western world countries had a vested interest in winning the conflict because losing would bring them face to face with Fascism, Communism and Nazism. Today however the enemy is not defined only the methodology and the definition of winning has not been articulated only the victories en route have been pointed out. The problem with not having a leader (USA president) who will define the simple things like "who we are fighting" and "what it will take to win" is that our will to win and stay free becomes diminished and we become weak in the face of challenge and the possibility of defeat and subservience grows exponentially. If you look at history the major wars won by the free world have been won on the battlefield with force ( bombs etc) not negotiations with weaker nations. But those that would appease rather than annihilate our enemies tend to give away more and more of our sovereignty until we allow these nasty and ignorant powers some sense of integrity which in turn gives them reign to kill and destroy their own citizens. The United States has never dictated to any Nation anything other than a belief and a policy of respecting human rights. Certainly they want to protect their interests which is a prerequisite of their politicians as it is with any other Country of the World. But those on the left want our Countries to stay out of other nations politics. In other words if certain nations choose to kill and torture their people it is not our business to intercede. Either you are free and want others to be free or you don't, it's that simple. It is a fact that the USA and Canada have systems of government that allow free speech and the free expression of political will. Certainly this can happen in every nation if allowed to grow in a systemic fashion. But instead we are seeing the US government travel in the opposite direction. It seems like the terrorists have found that fear drives people to find protection in government which turns them into robots following the whims of politicians as they break our will and secede to the militants in adjusting our lifestyle in the way they have dictated. Unless we stand up and boot these wimpish politicians from office we will undoubtedly lose this battle with the terrorists regardless of the impending doom they seem to espouse. Perhaps we can have a cup of tea with the tense terrorists and persuade them to like us. Do ya think?

Because the Liberal minded folks don't like to admit that personal accountability and self control are qualities of character they have to develop an illness or phobia to explain away bad behaviour. In Tiger's case it is sex "addiction". If this be the case then I think they better start building clinics all over the world to treat male sex addiction beginning with 13 year olds entering into puberty all the way up to the mid 40's where the hormones began to quiet down and return to more of a balanced stream traveling through the male brain. In order to procreate and maintain the species nature has wired men in such a way that "sex" is at the top of their needs list from day 1. This of course created major problems back in the day of the caveman where men just walked up and grabbed a female, took her home and released some sexual tension. The women of the day decided that this wasn't going to work well if they ended up conceiving a child. Who would take care of them during dangerous times and provide food needed daily to survive? A male of course. So let's create the family scenario, which dictates an ownership factor and an access to unlimited sexual gratification without a battle. Since those days we have become more sophisticated but the basic tenets remain. If you are a normal young male in today's society your main preoccupation is searching out attractive females and getting laid. Who they are and where they come from is all secondary to "Will they respond positively to your needs?" For regular Joes this has always been a hit and miss quest as most women have a different view of arbitrary sex with strangers and won't couple with anyone just because they have the right fitting parts. But consider the possibility of being a major sports celebrity, having a billion dollars in the bank, young, in good health, reasonably good looking and with a group of people ready and willing to do whatever you may ask. As a male would you make use of these obvious advantages to satisfy your sexual appetite? Of course you would and so did Tiger. No harm no foul and I challenge any real male to admit otherwise. However, when you get to the point in your life when you feel the need to nest and raise a family then you adopt a new set of rules that are well defined and you enter into this pact with eyes wide open. This is when self control and personal responsibility enter into a males life. It doesn't mean you have to give up sex but rather limit it to one person, your spouse. Once you make this choice and then continue to romp around scoring with strange women all over the world as if nothing has changed, then this behaviour speaks greatly to your lack of character not to an illness, phobia or an addiction. So let's get real and call Tiger what he really is and that is a "wimp". He is shallow of character and instead of standing up like a man and admitting his faults he chooses to take the "addiction" route in an attempt to garner some sympathy for his actions. This may work with the female of the species but every male will be chuckling under his breath about this sorry excuse for an alpha male.

The elite Liberal brain trust truly believe that the masses of people, ie regular Janes & Joes, in the middle class are incapable of taking care of themselves. The hard line Union bosses and Socialists also have no doubt that their followers are stupid and must be protected from themselves. I can give you example after example of laws and rules that are passed to prevent we minions from making decisions that are not seen as proper by the almighty Liberals that sit in Government. For instance the pension laws and the Life Income Retirement Account are set up to prevent individuals from accessing their own money regardless of their choice in the matter. If your retirement money is in a pension fund you have access only to the predetermined payment calculated when you retired. You cannot get your hands on any more of it regardless of the situation. In fact after you and your spouse die your family will see nothing of the money that is left as it goes directly back into the fund. With the LIRA the Government had much the same rules until recently when it changed and now allows the owners of the money to remove up to 50% of the lump sum in the fund. It also (after tax) allows your family to receive the balance on your demise. These rules were put in place to keep people from their own money in case they may blow it on vacations, and travel after their retirement thus eliminating their nest egg. They assume nobody has the commonsense to manage their own finances during this time of life not considering of course you have managed to get yourself to this point without bankrupting your family. This is an arrogant and condescending attitude but it is the Liberal mindset. Look at our Food Protection Agency that was set up to inspect and insure that the food mass distributed across the Country was safe to consume. Considering some of the food poisoning catastrophes over the past several years they haven’t done a stellar job but they don’t stop there. Now these gurus want to tell us what we can and can’t eat. Based on the latest scientific craze about this particular food or that trans fat they want to enact laws banning these goods.Providing information to the Public isn’t good enough because once again they feel we are incapable of making good decisions for ourselves. Therefore these same people that told us no to eat butter years ago are actually banning foods.
The last example is Health Care where Liberals feel that the problem with Health Care in the USA is the spiralling cost which prohibits lower income people from attaining insurance. So rather than attacking the cost through the free market system by lifting the State by State ban on insurance Companies and allow them to compete across the Country they choose to control the system because they can make better decisions for the regular folk and drive costs down that way. Or to look at “tort reform” and discontinue these “lottery type” malpractice suit awards which have driven Doctor's insurance costs out into space. No no, mustn’t upset the lawyers.
All of the above are just a few of the ways these “well meaning people" want to run our lives but I for one am sick of “the pat on the head and the tsk tsk you don’t understand, this is for your own good” demeaning type answers. Maybe most people don’t mind being led around by the hand but look out because these people are not your friends, you see you are not smart enough.

Let me say that I sympathize with the terrible situation in Haiti and I believe we, around the world need to do whatever is necessary to help them through this catastrophic period. After saying that however, where do the politicians get the right to arbitrarily decide to send millions to Haiti beyond what our Government has set aside for foreign aid. This statement was made during the fundraising event for the embattled island the other night “The Government will match any funds that are raised for Haiti through this charitable venture.” It turned out to be around 9 million dollars and my question is “What gives you the right?” to do this. People are giving out of the goodness of their hearts which is what charity is all about. The world’s governments are also providing financial help as well assistance “on the ground” and these acts are a cultural norm in the western nations (primarily USA and Canada). So why does some politician who feels charitable or who wants to score points feel they have the right to dish out taxpayer money on their own accord. Did they ever think that maybe just, maybe some citizens of Canada don’t want to give any more money away? Did it ever occur to these elitist snobs that what they want to do may not coincide with what other taxpayers would like to do? And yet people do not seem to care about these reckless spenders who throw our money around like planting grass seed. Now this morning just after dedicating millions and millions of dollars to Haiti I read a column in the newspaper that suggest that we need to raise taxes in order to balance the books. This is the only solution in his mind that makes any sense. WHAT ABOUT CUTTING SPENDING!!!!!! I believe there is so much wasteful spending in every level of Government that if we were to eliminate just 50% of this waste we could balance the books in one year. The problem of course is that there are too many sacred cows in the current welfare state system and if any of their funding was cut the loud and constant squealing noise would scare the politicians to death. As we move closer and closer toward the Nanny State in both the USA and Canada (who is much farther down the road) the balance between those that pay tax and those that don’t is shifting toward 50%-50%. Once those that receive from the Government become the majority we will be lost because we will never be able to elect any fiscal conservatives to bring our finances under control. Based on the recent elections in Massachusetts it appears that the Americans are waking up to this fact and don’t like what they see happening to their Country. I wish we could get Canadians as fired up on this subject but at the moment there is no leader to carry the standard into battle. I keep looking but the only candidates appear to be in the west so it may take a awhile to bring their message here. Ahh Mr. Harper we had such dreams.............................

The recent elections in Massachusetts once again brought out the infamous left “destruction by lies” tactics as they tried to demean the right wing candidate Scott Brown. One of the lies had to do with a Bill he voted for which allows a hospital which, may not prefer to complete an abortion to transfer a patient wanting an abortion to another hospital that will as long as everyone including the patient concurs. Seems simple enough but the attack ad that was put up by the loons on the left read as follows, “ Brown voted to for a bill that would turn away 15 year rape victims from hospital doors”. A stretch to say the least but with even a hint of a connection they build a lie to smear someone. Unfortunately these negative ads (lies) do work if given enough time but in this case it was too little too late. Another good example of the Left and their love of the “LIE” is the recent “fessing” up of John Edwards who finally agreed to accept the title of father for the little girl he begat with a campaign consultant while he was running for VP during the 2004 presidential elections. These people truly believe that the ends justify the means so lying, to them is just another tool in their bag of tricks. The entire left wing platoon in the White House chose to continually lie throughout the campaign about how they, if elected, would govern from the center and usher in a new era of “transparency” in Government. Once in power they dropped all pretences and moved to the far left by spending their way into an oblivion of debt, exercising socialistic control over GM and the Banks through large financial injections of cash and finally the passing of the so-called stimulus package that hasn’t really accomplished anything at all. They have rammed a Health Care Bill, which nobody wants, through Congress by way of secret partisan sessions. No one truly understands what’s in the Bill because the development of it has not been transparent as was promised.
It doesn’t seem to matter whether it is in their private lives or professional lives these folks have no sense of honour. In fact they usually look on this transgression as a strength as opposed to a weakness because the development of a good sustainable lie requires intellect and to most of these elitists being seen as “smart” is more important than being honourable. Years ago before our society shifted so far to the left a man’s honour and integrity were of utmost importance and any attempt to demean or damage these would be met with serious consequences. Today, honour and integrity are tossed out the window in pursuit of power and personal gain. Sadly, the only place where these old traditions and attributes can be found in the political spectrum are far right of center.

I was listening to Walter Williams, a distinguished professor, talk about taxation for entitlement programs. He was talking to a woman who couldn’t understand his position on this issue so he tried to explain by asking her several questions. First he asked her if she was confronted on the street by a man with a gun in his hand and told to hand over all of the money she had (which was $200). Would she consider this theft? She answered yes. Then he said that the man took the $200 and gave it to some people on the street that he felt needed the money. Would she still consider his act theft? She said most definitely! Well how about if 200 people agreed with this guy’s actions would she still consider it theft? She said yes of course. So he said let’s say that 300,000 people agreed with the guy would you change your mind? She said no she wouldn’t. The reason you won’t change your mind, he said, is because of the act this guy committed to get the money not what his actions were afterwards. Well that is exactly what the government does when it takes money from you to give to other people that have not earned it. It doesn’t matter how many people agree or disagree with it the act is still theft. There are no provisions in the Constitution of the United States or in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada to allow this to happen and yet the Liberals and Socialists continue to perpetrate this fraud on its citizens year after year. Certainly it is agreed that some taxation for infrastructure, roads and basic laws to maintain a legal and open society is necessary. But it is ludicrous to think that there is a requirement set forth by our founding fathers that the redistribution of wealth by way of taking from those that earn and giving to those that do not. If the people that want to give to those they feel need help that is fine, but it should be an individual choice not a mandate supported by a threat of incarceration. It would seem to me that a sharp lawyer could make a case before the Supreme Court of either Country that taxation for the purposes of taking from one is pure unadulterated theft if its sole purpose is to give it to someone else. In fact I would submit that if all of the monies given to charities and half of the money doled out in foreign aid were to be directed to our now bloated entitlement programs there would be no need to tax people who have earned their wages and have a right to keep them. If you believe in this simple logic the left will immediately call you heartless, racist, etc . Then they will say that if we don’t give these people a minimum amount to survive they will have to rob and steal to get money to live. In other words we, the government will steal the money from you on behalf of these people so it can be done in a civilized manner. It really is this simple. Through history wherever this logic has prevailed in its purest sense the governments who follow the template inherently fail without exception. In fact China, a country that was floundering 20 years ago has embarked on a new philosophy by allowing some capitalistic ideals within their boundaries and has reaped the wealth and prosperity that inevitably follows. Burn or erase this document immediately after it’s read to make sure the IRS Internal Robbery Service doesn’t get its hands on it.

I never thought I’d see the day I’d agree with the NDP on any kind of military situation but here it is “Let’s pull out the troops NOW! We went there on a mission to kill the terrorists and make our Country safer. We joined our decade’s long ally the United States to rid the world of these scumbags that kill children and innocents in the name of religion. Noble cause and the right thing to do but somewhere along the line the USA has lost its will to wage war with victory as the objective. Our Military although efficient is not large enough to wage this war alone and if we are to support an army that doesn’t want to win then what is the point. Why get our personnel killed over there fighting a losing cause? The Liberals in power in the US are dithering fools that care nothing for the military and would sacrifice them at a moment’s notice if there were political points to be scored. They took 3 months to make a decision on extra troops and then decided while approving them they would only provide 75% of the requested amount. This is ludicrous! Our boys and girls have been holding the fort in Afghanistan while the USA military dealt with a major task in Iraq which, by the way, they have completed successfully regardless of the left ceding victory to the terrorists over a year ago when Bush announced the surge. Does nobody remember these things? Harper has to act like a leader and stand up to these loony leftists and start withdrawing troops if they refuse to plan and execute actions that will lead to victory. I am sick of seeing our troops get killed by roadside bombs when we have the military might to blast these bad guys to smithereens. I know I know we have to worry about the collateral damage. Should we I ask? We are fighting a war to win and in the long run if successful, it will save a multitude of lives and provide a better way of living for the entire population. Look at Germany and Japan who had their nations totally obliterated and over the years rebuilt themselves into free and democratic Country’s with successful economies and higher standards of living. But we are subscribing to the conventional wisdom that this war is unwinnable because of the tribal component of the Country. I concede it is a different war but we and certainly the USA have the military and political brains to figure this out. So why do you ask isn’t it happening? My answer is simple. There are no wartime leaders in the western world as politics and political correctness have trumped Security and the Military. The people now in political office throughout the western world are pacifists and the type of people that believe we must never be the aggressor regardless of provocation. Ronald Reagan was the last great Leader of the Western World and I’m afraid there is no one of his ilk on the horizon. So once again because of the facts as I’ve lain out above I am calling on you Mr. Harper, to bring our troops home.

Mibba March 17th, 2009
Simply ask anyone on the street and they will tell you that recycling is essential for the environment, that we are running out of landfill space, recycling saves money, and that recycling creates a feeling of accomplishment. Sometimes, it isn’t a good idea to completely trust people with everything that they tell you.
One of the most used arguments is that recycling is essential for the planet’s survival, and that since it saves resources, it is vital to the prosperity of the people of the Earth. However, recycling, for the most part and on the contrary, doesn’t save resources, it uses them. We must realize that recycling itself is a manufacturing process. It uses resources. For example, consider paper: this is the cornerstone of the recycling movement. Paper is one of the many products that people always agree is a good thing to recycle. But do they know how paper is recycled? First, there is a truck. This truck takes the paper and transports it. But by doing so it creates gasses that pollute the environment. This transported paper is then put into another truck, and taken to the recycling center. This place again uses resources and creates real polluting smoke. More paper still is put into another truck and shipped to a paper mill.
This paper is then de-inked and bleached. This process leaves by-products that leave behind a scum-like chemical sludge that again is difficult to remove and dispose of correctly. Then this new paper pulp that is created is put into machines that give out even more polluting substances. So the only way to really save paper and protect the environment is to read the same print material over and over again, day after day after day. People think that we need to recycle paper. This isn’t true. One of the main arguments of this branch of recycling is that we are running out of trees. In America, there is three times the amount of trees as there was in 1920. Also, most of the trees that we use for paper come from tree farms using what is called virgin pulp. Want more trees? Then we must waste more paper. The idea is same with potato chips. People eat potato chips so we grow potatoes to make potato chips; virgin potato chips.
Recycling plastics creates fleece. Industry uses this to create bags, clothes, new bottles and so on. But the truth is that better quality and less expensive variations of these things can be made if we start straight from the beginning.
But there is a good side to all of this. There are many benefits to recycling aluminum cans. This recycling is good because there is real money in aluminum. People are already going through other people’s trash looking for cans. By recycling cans you can save enough energy to run the television for 3 hours. 95% less energy is used to turn old cans into new ones and cans are recyclable indefinitely.
Another thing that recycling advocates always claim is that we are running out of landfill space. The former EPA Administrator, Jay Winston Porter wrote something called An Agenda for Action. In it he said, “We’re running out of places to dispose our trash”, “one third of the nation’s landfills will be full within the next few years,” “if we wait the problem will get worse”, and “recycling is absolutely vital”. A landfill that is just 35 miles on each side and 200 feet high will contain about 1000 years worth of trash at the present rate of disposal. The risks of disaster a modern day landfill right now, according to EPA data, extremely low. These landfills have to comply with strict government regulations.
They have to be away from groundwater, they have to be protected from earthquakes, and they have to have a layer of impermeable clay at least 3 feet deep underneath them. The Puente Hills Landfill has about 7-8 layers of clay, gravel, and pipe systems all with protecting groundwater in mind. Once everything is buried, it will be covered over and something else will be built on it, for example a golf course or a community center or a park. The methane that is created when organic products decompose is collected and used to create energy for homes. The Puente Hills Landfill produces enough methane gas to power 60,000 homes with electricity for at least the next 30 years.
“It saves money” is something that recycling advocates say. It costs some local governments about $50 a ton to just dump it into a landfill. It takes the same government about $150 a ton to recycle. It takes triple the amount of money to recycle than to dump it into a landfill. Besides, according to the New York Department of Sanitation, 40% of what people recycle ultimately ends up in the same landfill.
The only argument left is that recycling feels good and there have been studies about this. It is a psychological thing: people feel good when they recycle. Feeling good is a good enough reason to do most anything. But if you want to feel good while doing something stupid, then maybe crystal meth or heroin could be good for you.
“Recycling may be the most wasteful activity in modern America, a waste of time and money, a waste of human and natural resources” (New York Times). We are told since elementary school that recycling is great and because of this misinformation, people love to recycle. If we take our facts from myth, it is very likely that we will make wrong decisions. Recycling things (other than cans) can be good. People wear hand-me-downs, salvage parts from one thing and use it in another, burn used paper for heat, and turn old shirts into rags. These practices are good, but the moment recycling becomes obsessive and we think that we must recycle everything, that’s when recycling becomes harmful.