Kinda Cool

I was just flipping through the pages of the June 5th edition of the Western Standard Magazine...

And on Page 7, on the Publisher's Page (the publisher being Ezra Levant), there's a picture from Ezra Levant's recent trip to Ottawa when he was meeting with the Prime Minister in what appears to be the Prime Minister's Office.

In the picture, to their left, is a plaque with a big Khanda on it.

For those of you who don't know, the Khanda is essentially the symbol of the Sikhs, comparable to the cross for Christians or the Star of David for Jews.

I'll try to see if I can scan the picture and upload it onto here.

A Significant Number of American Conservatives are Idiots

I very much hesitate to refer to people who list immigration as their "number one concern" as racists or even xenophobes. There are strong reasons to protect a country's borders, there are strong reasons to regulate immigration, but some of the reaction down south can only be described as idiotic and irrational when it comes to the immigration issue.

So many people in America get upset when Bush utters the phrase that there are some jobs "Americans won't do", but what in the world is it about that phrase that gets them all upset? Isn't unemployment below 5%? In what way has immigration, even illegal immigration, hurt the American economy?

The fear-mongering about there being threats to America's identity is also insane. Hispanics in America are in no way comparable to Muslims in Europe. The people who make that argument are such fools. On the economic level, the American economy is so much more flexible than Europe's and on the social level, the people coming in are largely devout Catholics who largely have no problem integrating into American society. But instead, some people point to a tiny tiny fraction of Mexican radicals who talk about taking back the southern United States and making it a part of Mexico again.

Immigration should be a rational and practical issue - it shouldn't be so emotional and heated. Some conservatives are actually calling for Bush's impeachment over this issue. These are the same conservatives who happily voted for Bush 2 years ago even though they knew his view on immigration policy was the same as it is now (it may even be slightly less "liberal" now.) His views on spending are the same now as well. And yet, some conservatives down south are abandoning Bush essentially in response to his dropping poll numbers and the negative media coverage. For people who complain about a liberal media, they're essentially playing right into what the left and the media would want - conservatives abandoning Bush as well, in addition to independents and Democrats. What else would explain it? They voted for him before and his views haven't changed, so what exactly is their problem? They're overexxagerating and over-hyping one issue (immigration) and for what? They know that Bush won't change his mind - they're only weakening his ability to pursue progress on other domestic and foreign matters.

Feel the same way

I just encountered a post I made more than 3 years ago, on a Sikh Message Board, supporting America's actions in Iraq.

More than 3 years later, I still feel the same way (even stronger, actually.)

Author: Japnaam Singh
Date: 03-28-03 12:11

Vaaheguroo jee kaa Khaalsaa, Vaaheguroo jee kee Fateh!

Obviously both sides are not perfect, and have done many unrighteous things in the past, but for the following 3 reasons I think it would be best to support the United States.

1) Hope: Saddam Hussein runs Iraq very much the same way Joseph Stalin ran the Soviet Union, dissenting opinions are not allowed at all. Dissidents who have left Iraq have come with many stories about how Saddam has killed any person who he suspected of being unloyal, etc. Plus, we (Most Sikhs who are out of the Punjab) are very lucky that we live in democracies, we have the right to religion, speech, and many other things. All of these rights are greatly infringed upon in Iraq. If one of the Middle Eastern countries is made into a democracy, this will surely cause other nations to follow suit. More nations with democracies will ultimately lead to more stable governments, and more freedom for the people.

2) Humanitarian: The people of Iraq are starving. Partly because of sanctions, but also due to the fact Saddam Hussein obviously does not care about the welfare of the Iraqi people. If Saddam wanted he could still easily prevent starvation and disease in his country if he directed funds towards those issues, however he is obviously more interested in lavish palaces and his military.

3) Safety: A terrorist network by itself has killed 3,000 people, if the means were available they would have had no problems killing 30,000 or even 300,000. When a terrorist network gets links with a terrorist state bad things will happen. The terrorist network will have many more resources and ways to inflict casualties on western democracies and their interests. Saddam Hussein has admitted links to Palistinean terror organizations (Who hate America) and suspected links to other terrorist organizations which hate America even more.

War in itself is not a good thing, it will cause destruction, death and many other bad things.

However, it is definitely in the long-term interests of the Iraqi people and the people of the world to change the regime of Saddam Hussein and implement reforms in Iraqi Society.

Vaaheguroo jee kaa Khaalsaa, Vaaheguroo jee kee Fateh!

A Sham

I was a bit disappointed earlier this week, not because I expected much from the advertised Air India inquiry, but because in the end, it delivered nothing substantial.

The inquiry's terms of reference are very empty and there's an obvious and understandable reason for why that is (I'll get to this later). Still, the fact that the government was as short sighted as it was in drafting the terms of reference is a disappointment.

The terms do not include the investigation into the bombing itself in any meaningful way, nor does it include the behavior of the prosecution. Things such as whether the authorities followed all leads, whether they should have been looking elsewhere when thinking of suspects - all of that will almost certainly not be addressed now.

Around when the government was first sworn in, the Justice Minister said that the inquiry was likely going to focus mainly on the investigation and the prosecution, but because of the backlash from the victim's families, this will no longer happen. Now of course the government should have consulted primarily with the victim's families, but consultation should not have been exclusive to them. The victim's families were naturally close with both the RCMP investigators and also with the prosecution team and so it should be no surprise that they're being shielded from the inquiry's scope; but they shouldn't be. Just because the victim's families believe that the investigators and prosecutors conducted themselves properly does not make it so. The government should have been wiser (and braver) enough to include investigative and prosecutorial mistakes in the inquiry's terms as well.

Instead, the inquiry will focus largely on issues that have already resolved themselves to a large extent. RCMP and CSIS matters, assessing the threat of "Sikh terrorism" (which is dead anyway), and so on are matters that really don't need an inquiry. Even the more substantive question of terrorist financing (did the Air India tragedy really require much financing? No.) and trials might be important questions, but the government does not need an inquiry in order to set policy directions for those matters.

So all in all, a disappointment. A whitewash.