A decade ago I had my first real exposure to direct media bias when a local reporter and her cameraman came to interview me regarding the industry I was a part of.

Still riding the enthusiasm that comes stems from being a fresh new business owner, my eyes were opened when, upon entering my tanning studio and peering into an unoccupied room at a tanning bed - and before introductions were even made – the alleged reporter turned to her sidekick and said with an air of snobby disgust: “It looks like a coffin.”

In spite of my efforts to convince the interviewer of our responsible methods and above board policies, the resulting television news segment was the expected hatchet job, with my few seconds of an out-of-context sound bite countering minutes of anti-tanning ‘experts’.


Oilsands: Satanic?

This incident came to mind after learning of the upcoming feature story on the Alberta oilsands/tarsands industry in National Geographic magazine. Complete with what has been described as ‘stark’ photos of tailing ponds, made famous by the discovery of about 500 dead ducks that caused every leftwing granola eaters head to explode, the article itself is said to contain the fair and balanced description of the scene – smoke stacks and mills chugging away – as ‘dark’ and, I’m not kidding here, ‘satanic’.

The article goes further by showing life around the industry’s hub city, Fort McMurray, and the impact it is having on everything from business to rental prices to crime. And don’t forget those damn Satanic churches on every corner.

Actually, there are some important ingredients in the article. It highlights some vital facts, such as the truth that Alberta’s commitment to reducing carbon emissions is more encompassing than that of the U.S. government. Premier Ed Stelmach was interviewed for the article, and apparently was able to outline the province’s environmental plans, including the much-anticipated ‘carbon capture’ process.

But from the early tidbits, it looks like just another tarnished, slanted anti-oilsands piece that will be used by special interest groups such as Greenpeace and other leftist groups as propaganda.

After successfully selling the ‘Dirty Oil’ tainted Bill of Goods to the general public, they now have this new weapon to use. N.G. is as old as dirt, and like only a few select magazines such as Reader’s Digest, is considered a standard for those who read.

While the industry itself is beginning to fight back with their own public relations spin, it falls on those whose responsibility it is – like Premier Stelmach – to fight the negative and damaging propaganda being put out by international media avenues, such as National Geographic.

Failing that, someone or some other group must step up – and quickly – to defend the interests of Alberta.

In a time of economic uncertainty and war, intentionally creating a public backlash based on falsehoods and misinformation is the last thing we need, especially when it comes to an abundant source of oil located in a free and democratic nation, far away from the control of religious radicals or dictators.

God help us if it falls under the control of the enviroNazis.


Alberta government information on Oil Sands: http://oilsands.alberta.ca/

For the gambling fan, here’s the line:


Odds that the Obama stimulus package will fix the economic problems: 50 to 1
It’s not all bad, but spending the way out of a hole was already tried – and failed – in the 1930’s. If Obama had gone the other way and introduced a Reagan-like paper, the odds would be more in his favor.

Odds that Obama will go protectionist, NAFTA be damned: even.
He has hinted his love of a ‘buy American’ policy that could contravene trade agreements, but his office has assured Canadian P.M. Harper that NAFTA is safe. Could go either way. More will be known after their meeting on February 19th.

Odds that Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper will finally win a majority: 500,000 to 1.
Not as long as francophone Quebecers can vote.

Odds of a terrorist attack on American soil during the Obama presidency: 12 to 1.
….and getting more even every day. Mixing dangerous policy cocktails such as reasserting American resolve in Afghanistan with the possible soft handling and release of known terrorists with the closure of Gitmo could make Obama appear – and act – weak on the War on Terror.

Odds of seeing a fair and unbiased Ann Coulter interview on MSNBC: 750,000 to 1.
Can’t see it happening in my lifetime.

Odds of a Joe Biden blooper sound bite in any given interview: 3 to 2.
They can say what they want about Dan Quayle, but this guy is a walking embarrassment.

Odds that the Cold War will restart in Obama’s first term: 10 to 1.
Vlad Putin has become more than a little scary, but Russia has taken a bit of a softer tone towards America since Obama’s election win. However, the odds will change significantly by Obama’s possible second term.

Odds that America will fall for the environmentalist smear campaign and turn its back on their safest non-domestic oil and natural gas source (the Alberta oilsands): Ten billion to one.
American’s aren’t stupid.

Odds that the War on Terror will end in Afghanistan: zero.
It’s just a matter of choosing the next target.

Odds of Al Gore's Armageddon timeline being accurate: zero.
Does anyone see this guy as anything but a freakin' nutjob by now?

Odds of Michael Moore making a factually accurate film: zero.
See 'Al Gore' above.

As with any mind-numbing fad that defies logic with its seemingly endless shelf life, there are signs that the inevitable is finally starting to happen with the apparent formation of cracks in the fuzzy and warm Obamamania craze.

Building throughout the election campaign, the tizzy grew to epic-sized proportions as did the unrealistic expectations of the new President.

From the ‘swept-up on the street’ folks to the mass medias willingness to sacrifice every last shred of journalistic integrity and responsibility to the concept of fairness by presenting the most openly biased coverage possibly in American history, the ‘Change’ whitewash became prevalent.

Selectively forgotten (ignored) were some vital facts, such as:

• Obama came with very little experience,
• He rose though the corrupt Chicago political machine,
• His citizenship has been a lingering question,
• So has his religion (his name is Hussein, for God’s sake),
• He gave good speech, but couldn’t answer specific questions on policy,
• Some Americans would vote for a pylon instead of a Republican after Bush.
  
  

Now, it looks like the Teflon is starting to wear down. Issues like a possible move towards protectionism and the threat that posses to international trade agreements like NAFTA, and his closure of Guantanamo Bay have made conservatives shout "We told you so.”

But it’s his own kind – some Democrat voters, anti-war morons, and other various leftwing nuts – who are providing the real entertainment lately. While still chanting their prObama slogans and arguing the case for Barack in public, one by one they are getting that look. You know the look it seems every teenage boy has? That vacant, speechless look like he was just hit in the back of the head with a shovel? That look.

The hits are starting to pile up, none more so than with President Obama’s first real test (and his baby), the stimulus package. The more it is scrutinized, the lower the public support.

It is in his defense of the package that we see another bad sign. When asked about the accusation that the proposal was nothing more than a spending bill, he laughed and agreed. Chuckling his way into massive debt doesn’t make good copy for a nation desperate for fiscal leadership.

The impression Americans (with the obvious exception of Chris Matthews) are starting to get is quite different than the one they had been sold. One can’t help but feel that when the words aren’t scripted and practiced in front of the mirror, when Obama has to ad lib or play it off the cuff, he is lost. His demeanor changes, the smooth style disappears and is replaced by a dismissive attitude.

The rise of Obama was partially propelled by the anti-Bush wave. To many Americans, the election was as much or more a verdict on the Bush presidency than it was a vote for the Obama plan. Obama can’t rely on that being a factor any longer.

Every president endures the shedding of the formulated campaign image when assuming office. It is when the new leader is without that armor, when he and his policies are exposed for all to see, that we learn of the true direction of the nation and the true nature of the man.

Some are starting to question what they see.

It’s like a cold you can’t shake.

The federal Conservative government, for all their achievements such as winning back to back (minority) elections and success in redefining the political landscape of Canada – for the first time in decades, it’s not shameful to publicly admit to being a conservative anymore – still seem to be suffering from the nastiest of political viruses: Self-inflicted Stupiditis.

It could be argued with much merit that the Tories are under an unfairly focused microscope given the overly leftwing national media. It’s just accepted fact that a stumble by a Liberal, while perhaps given the same initial coverage that a Conservative would receive, is more quickly forgiven and the situation forgotten (buried) than if the elected official in question happened to be a Tory.

However, there seems to be a troubling pattern developing here.

After years of watching the rightwing parties compete to see how many feet they could fit in their collective mouths, that habit seemed to all but disappear over the past little while.

The election that brought the Harper Conservatives to their first minority went fairly Stupiditis-free, save for a few of the usual bonehead statements.


Prime Minister Stephen Harper

It was while the fresh new faces were all in their places that the first sign of the Harper-era brain cramps occurred. When Finance Minister Jim Flaherty did a complete reversal of an earlier commitment (aka: breaking their promise) on the matter of taxing Income Trusts, they lost a chunk of credibility. Still, they were fairly new and we were still put off of the alternative Liberals and their open wound of corruption allegations.

While enjoying high polling numbers going into this past autumns election, Harper and his candidates were looking at achieving something that hadn’t happened since the Mulroney years of the 1980’s: the return of a majority Conservative government.

It would have been the conclusion of an amazing story; a party split in two for more than a decade coming together as a strong team, growing step by step from fractured into strong majority. The culmination of a vision shared by many, none more so than leader Stephen Harper himself, who grew tired and frustrated by years of dominant, corrupt Liberal rule.

Then they go and piss off the French artsy-fartsies in Quebec. In a surprise to no one, the province who makes a habit of taking autonomous labels of ‘nation in a nation’ and federally-mandated handouts turned its back on the Harper when the Tories proposed cuts to arts funding.

The artists, being unemployed of course, had nothing better to do with their time so they rallied day and night against Harper. They filled blogs and radio talk shows with sob stories of starving artists and their plight with big, bad, rightwing Harper.

“Harper’s killing our culture!”

As silly as it sounds, it cost Harper the province, and losing Quebec meant losing the dream of a majority. Another foot in the mouth, another blown opportunity.

Which brings us to the present and the just-passed federal budget. Harper painted himself into a corner with his proposal in the fall to end funding to federal parties. That mistake is perhaps the biggest example of the Stupiditis sickness the Tories suffer.

A dumb move whose ripples have caused the change of Liberal leader from a hapless maladroit to someone who has an actual intellect, it has allowed for Michael Ignatieff to assume command of the Liberals. Already we are seeing the leftwing spin machine in high gear. From the CBC to national papers, the Ignatieff image is being groomed.


Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff

Not an easy task, mind you. Despite the glowing description in a recent NY Times article (for the life of me, I really don’t know who that writer is talking about), the truth is much different. Think of a mix between John Kerry and Herman Munster, minus the jovial demeanor.

Fighting for survival against a (potentially) resurgent Liberal party and a wave of leftwing love courtesy of that other virus that many Canadians have had for the past few months – Obamaitis – the Harper government pushed through their version of a ‘stimulus package’ via the national budget.

Buying into the belief that we need to spend our way out, the Conservatives presented a spending-spree work of art that would make any socialist giggle with glee. Fiscal conservatives, meanwhile, are wondering where their party went. Gone is any semblance of restraint, lost is the concept of fiscal responsibility.

We now find ourselves in that darkest of places – into deficit with a growing debt. Fiscal conservatives are feeling abandoned.

It’s unlikely that Harper has suddenly changed spots. More likely, he knew he faced another possible election and, unlike the recent one, he would have to fight a worthy opponent in a climate of economic doom. Not the best scenario.

Sadly, one that could have been avoided.

Oh, to be a fly on the wall on February 19th.

U.S. President Barack Obama will follow custom and make his first official international trip as American leader to Canada to meet with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Harper and Dubya Bush enjoyed a friendship born out of conservative commonality and a shared determination in the War on Terror. With Obama and his Hope and Change Tour ’09, Canadians are seeing at once a continuing ally in Afghanistan and a new potential adversary in the economic arena.

Both governments have been pushing high-spending, debt-building ‘stimulus packages’ that aim to make our problems disappear (I swear just heard someone cough ‘bullshit’), much to the chagrin of conservatives, Canadian and American alike.

Sadly, on that they agree.

It is the seeming move towards protectionism as a means to shelter the American economy that has Canadians of all political stripes worried. With references to a possible major ‘Buy American’ course of action running rampant, rightwing Canucks like myself are telling anyone who will listen that any change to our trade agreements will not only have a negative impact on both countries, but could also be illegal.

Put directly, the 1988 Canadian – U.S. Free Trade Agreement, which later included Mexico and morphed into the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has been, in spite of a few bumps, a boon for all involved.


Mulroney, Reagan: Good friends

A brainchild of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and President Ronald Reagan, main purpose of the Free Trade Agreement was to:

• facilitate conditions of fair competition within the free-trade area established by the Agreement;
  
• liberalize significantly conditions for investment within that free-trade area;
  
• establish effective procedures for the joint administration of the Agreement and the resolution of disputes;
  
• lay the foundation for further bilateral and multilateral cooperation to expand and enhance the benefits of the Agreement;
  
• eliminate barriers to trade in goods and services between Canada and the United States.

Years after its implementation, NAFTA has proven to be an overall success. What is being overlooked is that the deal could actually be used as one a pillar by which to build the solution to the current financial problems.

Instead of continuing with the paranoia of the day that has led to the faulty belief in things like stimulus packages and endless printing of new money, instead of building walls around the American economy and shutting out stable and trustworthy partners, Obama should see the tools he has at his disposal.

If Bush could be blamed for isolating America on foreign policy, anti-NAFTA protectionism would make Obama just as guilty economically.

I’m sure P.M. Harper will tell the President as such on the 19th.