Self-Interest: Surgeons and Ministers

Three excerpts from a well-written article from the Times of London:

"In the emergency room of Al Shifa hospital in Gaza City, Dr Raed al-Arayni was entering his 12th day of nonstop work and was preparing for yet another operation when his worst nightmare came true.

The bloodied little boy being carried into the room by a neighbour was screaming at him. “Baba, baba [daddy, daddy],” the child cried."

---

'“Israel has acted, is acting and will act only according to its considerations, the security needs of its citizens and its right to self-defence,” Tzipi Livni, the foreign minister and the ruling Kadima party’s candidate for prime minister, said on Friday.'

---

And perhaps, what the purpose of all this is:

"Likud is still leading the race with an expected 32 seats and Kadima is likely to win 27 or so seats, but the centre-left block is closing fast."

On Killing and Guilt

I cannot look a child in the eye and tell them that down the street, or even next door, a murderer lives and I am going to kill him but in doing so I might kill the child. I cannot say this to the child's mother or father.

But if I allow someone else to take this risk, am I not guilty in some way?

Beyond what the murderer deserves or the need to stop the person, this child's life would be taken as a calculated risk, but a risk that was accepted. By accepting the risk, one accepts the responsibility for it.

We have to move on in our own lives but we are party to the actions of the leaders we elect. When Harper says he accepts the risk that a child will be killed in order to murder a murderer, then he accepts it on my behalf. I am guilty as a Canadian in the child's death.

I cannot support this. As a Liberal, I do not like Mr. Ignatieff, as the party leader, accepting the risks of manslaughter in Israel and Gaza on my behalf. I am now guilty in the killing of humans.

Are inactive shareholders not responsible for the demise of a company? Maybe not but they lose their shirts.

Liberals Kill 40 At School

Is there any question that fighting should be stopped through international intervention if necessary:

"A single Israeli strike kills at least 40 at a school, the third involving UN-run schools on the same day."

Here.

Another few days is unacceptable. We are guilty already and worse if we continue just standby. It's time for leadership, Mr. Ignatieff, at the least from you; we can expect nothing from our Prime Minister.

To continue with some moral leadership...

"UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called it "totally unacceptable" that Israeli bombardments would strike near four UN facilities - three schools and a health centre - where Palestinians had sought refuge in Gaza.

Some 15,000 Palestinians have packed the UN's 23 Gaza schools because their homes were destroyed or to flee the violence. The UN provided the Israeli military with GPS co-ordinates for all of them."

Senator David Smith: A Coward?

The title is just meant to be provocative. I would however like to hear Senator Smith and MP Anita Neville, of the "Liberal Parliamentarians for Israel", to comment on the disgusting behaviour of the Israeli goverment. To object as a caucus to Harper's decision to not intervene in cases of Canadians sentenced to death in other countries, but to stay mum about the arbitrary (let's be honest) and immoral killings of the people locked into the concentration camp that is the Gaza Strip, is cowardly. Senator Smith, stand up for the Jewish people in Canada, and demonstrate how the government has abandoned morality.

ONLINE Vote: T-Minus...?

Dear IT-inclined bloggers,

How long would it take the Liberal Party to set up a robust online leadership vote? Given that it took me about 10 minutes to set up an online poll, I cannot imagine it is really that hard to do. Maybe one problem is compiling all the national membership lists, as was suppose to be done after the last convention. Perhaps the Executive would be against this because it would show how little important work they had done!

There seems to be a possible excuse to go against OMOV as the motion for this system did not pass at the convention with the required 2/3 majority to change the party constitution. Fine. But there should be a process of popular expression for any non-convention selected leader. A non-binding online one member, one vote is perfectly legitimate for that purpose.

For worried Iggy fans, I dare say he'd probably win anyway; it would just be important for the membership to express what direction they wanted Iggy to go in, as he seems to be rather non-committal on issues right now. Maybe even combine the vote with a referendum on a publicized terms of agreement on NDP-Liberal coalition - well, that might not work as a good tactic against Harper.

Humour

Edmonton MP Linda Duncan to bring down Harper!

The perfect icon to move a motion of no confidence in Mr. Harper's dictatorship is NDP MP Linda Duncan. She represents a crack in Harper's Alberta firewall, dispells the smokescreen of "western alienation" and represents a change in Canadian politics.

Conservatives Would Hold Balance of Power, Not Bloc

If the Conservatives found themselves in opposition then the balance of power would be with them not the Bloc. Indeed, if they chose to never support the government then this power would be with the Bloc. Thus, the conclusion is that if the Conservatives could not help make Parliament work then they would be destabilizing the government and allowing the Bloc to play their "nasty" cards on controversial issues.