printed Monday, November 5, 2007:

Examining the SaskParty platform, I find many references to "Enterprise
Saskatchewan," apparently some sort of business leader think-tank. Anywhere I
look for a clear statement on Crowns, natural resource extraction or worker's
rights, I find only "Enterprise Saskatchewan will review... and make
recommendations to remove barriers." So, since the SaskParty will not, if
elected, make its own decisions, but will leave things in the hands of an
unelected conclave of special interests, I thought I should find out more about
"Enterprise Saskatchewan." A friend directed me to Brad Wall's
online paper, "The Promise of Saskatchewan" in which he explains what this
think-tank is, only to find that the paper has been removed some time in the
last week. Why, at this stage in his campaign, does Wall want to hide
information about the single most important part of his party's platform?

----

printed October, 2007:

I am very confused as to why there are so many newspaper articles and politicians
touting the alleged benefits of nuclear power. This is a technology that most
of the advanced world is moving away from. Between the short lifespan of a
nuclear facility, the problem of waste storage, and the expense involved in
keeping a plant safe, not to mention the building costs, most countries are
finding that the costs far outweigh the benefits of any power surplus that
results. France, one of the only western countries still expanding its nuclear
sector has run up over thirty billion dollars debt subsidising the industry.
Why would a province abundant in wind and sun throw money away on a costly,
risky, and unnecessary technology like nuclear power? And who could be advising
Brad Wall that this is a good idea? Seems fishy to me.
-----

printed June, 2007:

I don't know where Atchinson and Lorje are getting their crime stats (Some
Neighbourhoods Spark Fear, SP May 26) regarding the relative safety of
Saskatoon. According to StatsCanada, in 2005, Saskatoon was only behind
Edmonton and Regina in its rate of homicide. For assaults and break-ins,
Saskatoon is almost each year in the top two. And that's not counting the police
assaults and fights that go unreported. Saskatchewan itself regularly
has the highest crime rate per capita of any province. Perhaps the point that
the west side gets a bad rap has some truth, I haven't been able to find
neighbourhood-specific stats on that. But as far as Canadian cities go,
Saskatoon is one of the least safe.

-----

printed October, 2006:

Harper's rhetorical contention that Ignatieff is "anti-Israel" is as
shallow and ignorant as Bush's claim that anyone who opposes American foreign
policy supports terror. They both paint a picture of good guys vs. bad guys
instead of looking at the actions of parties involved. To clarify:
"terrorism" is the use or threat of violence against civilians to achieve
political aims. Almost all states and many non-state actors have used it at
one time or another (Hiroshima and 9/11 are both examples). Although there is
evidence that Hezbollah has been involved in acts of terror, the kidnapping of
Israeli soldiers, with the demand that Israel release Palestinian women and
children from its prisons, is not such an act. Why? Because soldiers are a
military target. On the other hand, Israel's response of bombing Lebanese
civilians would seem to count as an act of terror. This is a distinction which
must be recognised by anyone who wishes to adhere to a fair, objective analysis
of armed conflict. Similarly, the issue of what constitutes a "war crime"
must be approached with attention to the act. It is irrelevant whether the
actor is an ally of ours or our neighbours. To suggest that Israel has
committed war crimes in its recent assault on Lebanon has nothing to do with
being "anti-Israel" and everything to do with trying to promote a fair,
objective and consistent application of internationally recognised rules of
engagement in the analysis of a conflict. There is no rule of law if we are
only prepared to accuse some of crimes and not others.