Merry Christmas!

I know, I know, it's not Christmas yet.

However, Christmas holidays are about to begin for me, and that means I will be returning home to the land of dial-up internet *shudder* I love my family very much, and I love being home with them even more, but they have yet to hop onto the "newfangled high speed internet train you city folks seem to like so much." I refuse to use dial-up; the wait drives me crazy.

So, this is the last post until I am back at school on January 5, 2009. I hope you will all start checking the blog again at that time.

As much as I wish it wouldn't, I know life and legal issues will be in the news over the next few weeks, so I invite you to check out lifesitenews.com daily for the latest happenings all over the world.

God Bless you all and have a holy and blessed Christmas season (and remaining Advent season too), and I will speak to you again in the new year.

My Mind is Still Reeling

I woke up this morning to an e-mail laying out the practice of a London, ON Catholic hospital perform "early induction" abortions, and I just had to post it right away.

Early induction is used when a child in utero is determined to have a severe disability of some kind. The doctor induces labor at 21 weeks (when even a healthy child would have a very hard time surviving) and the child is allowed to die when it is born.

This is eugenics.

And there is credible evidence that it is occurring at at least 1 Catholic hospital.

This procedure goes directly against Catholic teachings on life, but Fr. Michael Prieur, the chief bio-ethicist at the hospital (and also a professor of Moral and Sacramental Theology at St. Peter's Seminary) claims the action is actually pro-life. Fr. Prieur stated that it's been going on at the hospital for 20 years. When asked, the Bishop of London refused to comment.

Obviously, unless I have all the details, I don't want to condemn anyone, but the evidence that Lifesite news has collected is very damning. Several people I respect, including Jim Hughes of Campaign Life Coalition, and Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, have spoken out against this. Don't take my word for it. Read the special report here.

If it's true, something needs to be done now to save the lives of children. I am asking all of you to take the time (I know it's busy right now) to write a letter to the Bishop of London, and the Cardinal Prefect for Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith (in Rome) asking them to investigate this allegation, and expressing your horror at the action if it proves to be true.

Also, please tell everyone you about this, and ask them to write a letter as well. (Snail mail tends to get more response than then e-mail, but do whatever you have time for)

Addresses:

Bishop Ronald Fabbro
Diocese of London
1070 Waterloo Street, London, Ontario N6A 3Y2
Phone: 519-433-0658 Fax: 519-433-0011
E-mail: info@rcec.london.on.ca

His Eminence William Cardinal Levada, S.T.D.
Cardinal Prefect Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith
Piazza del S. Uffizio 11
00193 Rome
Italy
email: cdf@cfaith.va
011 39 06 6988 3357
011-39-0696100596 FAX

Sadly, while I don't approve, I expect this from a secular hospital. I DO NOT expect it from a Catholic Hospital. I guess this just proves there are bad apples everywhere. When Catholic priests are practicing eugenics, and their Bishops have "no comment at this time" we are in trouble.

Mother Mary, pray for us, and pray for Fr. Prieur.

Just For Fun

I've noticed that the tone of this blog has been rather depressing for the last little while. Also, I'm in the middle of finals right now, so I thought we could all use something to lighten the mood. This link is to a clip from The Daily Show with John Stewart from Monday, December 8. It's his take on the recent Parliamentary Crisis and I think it's absolutely hilarious.

Trust me; it will make you laugh so hard you cry.

Enjoy!

(As for me, it's back to studying… only 3 more finals to go! Enough procrastination!)

Fighting for the lives of our children

As many of you know, I first became interested in researching euthanasia and assisted suicide as a result of my Disability and the Law class; specifically the paper I wrote on the Groningen Protocol in the Netherlands that allows doctors to euthanize infants because of their disability. At the time, the Netherlands was the only country to allow the euthanization of children.

There is now disturbing news from Scotland that they want to join in the fun by allowing children the right to choose assisted suicide. Read the story here. Obviously they are not targeting directly, but the MSP (equivalent to a Canadian MP) proposing the assisted suicide legislation feels that since we allow children (at 12 years of age) in family law a say in which parent they want to live with after a divorce, children should also be allowed to choose assisted suicide.

What?

Yeah, that analogy made no sense to me either.

And, she goes further; since children with capacity who are under 12 are allowed a say in which parent they live with, we should extend the right to assisted suicide to those younger than 12 as well, if they are mentally competent to make that decision.

The bill begins by allowing terminally ill people the right to assisted suicide, but it goes farther by saying that "Assisted suicide would also be possible for patients who unexpectedly became incapacitated to an "intolerable" degree, or who simply find their life "intolerable" - although the latter case would require the doctor to seek a second opinion from another health professional."

Wait a minute.

You mean the terminally ill don't have to get a second opinion? As soon as they say "kill me" (with a mandatory 15 day cooling down period, but we've seen how well that's worked in other countries) they can die? No, no, no! Studies prove there is a link between depression and requesting/committing suicide. EVERYONE who requests suicide should not just get another medical opinion, but also psychiatric help to see if a) they are depressed and b) help them with their depression. Anything else is laziness on the part of medical professionals.

Scotland is a beautiful country (ranks at #1 for me) with a proud history and deserves much better than this from its politicians. (Much like every other country that has or is contemplating assisted suicide) The people of Scotland are wonderful, generous people who have bravely fought off evil doers in the past. I hope and pray there are still some brave souls in that country who will fight this new evil with the same courage that their ancestors fought off every invading force from the Romans to the British.

And I will leave you with a thought, from the Declaration of Abroath signed in 1320, which acted as a Declaration of Independence for the Scottish people in their fight against the British. It states "It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom -- for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself." Yes my friends, that is what we are still fighting for; the freedom to live our lives.

Thanks for your signatures!

About six weeks ago I blogged about the petition by C-FAM to have the UN interpret the Declaration of Human Rights as protecting unborn children from abortion. Lifesite news reports that they are presenting that petition tomorrow with 330,000 signatures. They think they will be presenting far more signatures than the pro-choice group who is hoping to enshrine abortion as a human right.

I want to thank everyone who signed the petition and who passed it onto others. This is what happens when we speak out. I truly believe that those who oppose abortion on demand are the majority, but far too often we are a silent majority. Petitions' like this are an easy way for us all to get involved in the protection of life. Keep your eyes out for opportunities and keep praying!

God Bless.

Montana Becomes 3rd State to Legalize Assisted Suicide

Very bad news out of Montana this weekend- courtesy of an activist judge, Montana became the 3^rd state and the 6^th jurisdiction to legalize assisted suicide. Unlike Washington and Oregon however, Montana's legalization was done, not by the elected legislature (or the American equivalent) but by a judge deciding to reinterpret the law.

While my understanding of the American jurisprudential chain is limited at best, it is certain that this case will be appealed. Already there are groups preparing amicus briefs to start the appeal. I have been unable to find a copy of the decision to read for myself, but the decision was made by District Court Judge Dorothy McCarter. (As far as I understand the American legal system, the District Court is similar to our Federal Court Trial Division; they answer questions based on federal statutes.)

The action was brought on behalf of Richard Baxter, a terminally ill 75- year old man, 4 physicians and Compassion and Choices (formerly the Hemlock society). The ruling held that any mentally competent terminally ill residents of Montana have a right to "die with dignity." This includes the right to "obtain a prescription for a lethal dose of medication that the patient may take on his own if and when he decides to terminate his life."

Baxter actually compared himself to pets. "I've just watched people suffer so badly when they died, and it goes on every day. You can just see it in their eyes: 'Why am I having to go through this terrible part of my life, when we do it for animals? We put them out of their misery. I just feel if we can do it for animals, we can do it for human beings."

Obviously this man is suffering, but helping him to kill himself is not the answer. He says he is unbearable pain, but that is no reason to kill him. Instead of killing someone, let's try helping them; giving them good palliative care. Why are there 4 doctors fighting to help him kill himself instead of trying to treat him?

Today is the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. Lets ask Mary to intercede for this world, because the news every week seems to be bleaker and bleaker.

UPDATE: (Tues 1:20pm) Richard Baxter died of leukemia before learning that the court had found in his favour See story here

Abandoned Children

In our backwards society, people create embryos in Petri dishes for many reasons. One reason is a misguided effort to have children- parents who are unable to conceive naturally turn to In Vitro Fertilization. In this process, several children are conceived by uniting the egg and sperm. Some of those embryos are then implanted in the mother's womb, in the hope that one will implant and be carried to term. Make no mistake, conception is occurring in this process. I could speak about the fact that several embryos might implant and then the mother undergoes selective reduction abortion so she only carries one child to term, but I want to reflect on another part of the in vitro process- the extra embryos that are created and then frozen and stored in case the parents want to make use of them.

These embryos are children; but they are left in suspended animation, sometimes for years, while their parents decide what to do with them. Today, a report came out showing that the parents of these children are torn with what to do with the remaining embryos. In the survey of 1000 parents, 20% of the respondents indicated they were likely to keep their children frozen "forever." Other options for "disposal" (such a clinical term for ending a life) include donating the embryos to research, thawing them and then destroying, reproductive donation, implanting in the mother at an infertile time and a ritual disposal ceremony. One of the most horrific lines (to me) from the report is this "others [embryos are] cultured in a lab dish to let it flourish for a few moments before death."

This is one of the reasons the Catholic Church disapproves of in vitro- children are killed in the process; IVF is not a moral option for procreation. In the United States alone, almost half a million children are currently frozen as unwanted embryos. Many of these children will never have a chance at life, and some of them will be destroyed by their parents because they are no longer wanted. I don't understand how anyone can go through the IVF process knowing that some of their children will die. I wonder how many people who chose IVF actually understand what it means. I wonder how many people realize they are creating children- not potential children- but children, completely genetically different from the parents, that they will then kill, or leave suspended forever.

I have never been in the position of being unable to bear children, but should I ever face that, I think I would recognize how incredible selfish the IVF process is. With so many children who need loving homes, why can't parents just adopt? I know the adoption process is long and expensive, but then, so is IVF, and there is no moral issue with adoption.

One option that has been developed to deal with leftover embryos is a snowflake adoption. Through this, parents of embryonic children can donate their embryos to infertile couples who adopt them- the embryos are implanted into the adoptive mother who carries the child to term; giving life to a child who would either have been destroyed, donated to science or left frozen indefinitely. The embryos used in this process are known as "snowflakes"

The law in this area has yet to really catch up to the technology. In the few instances where it has dealt with embryonic adoption, it tends to look at it through human tissue laws, or property law because the law does not recognize these embryos as children. In my quick search of Canadian law, I found no cases dealing with snowflake children.

The Church has not articulated a clear position on this. The understanding that the three competing views are all founded on is that the creation of these embryos was immoral because it separated the sexual act from reproduction. They diverge based on what should be done with them:

1. The embryos should never have been created. Implanting them in an adoptive mother results in treating them like property (they are bought and sold on the open market) and further separates sex from reproduction. Leaving them frozen violates their inherent human dignity, so they should be destroyed and left to God's infinite mercy.
   
2. Implanting the embryo's further separates sex from reproduction, but destroying them keeps is murder and cannot be countenanced; therefore they should be left frozen until they die naturally from deterioration or disaster.
   
3. Destroying them and leaving them frozen both violate their human dignity, so they should be available for adoption.
   

Until the church takes a clear position on the issue, it is open to every Catholic to come to their own conclusion on the basis of due consideration. I personally think a snowflake adoption is the correct way to go. The families who adopt these children are giving them a chance at life, and I don't think there can be anything more beautiful than that. I do however detest the buying and selling of these children- they are humans and should be treated with all the respect and dignity that implies. I worry that the law (in areas where this has been dealt with) treats the embryos as property that can be bought and sold, and even disposed of in a will. Until our society comes to recognize the value of life, this problem will continue, and we will have increasing numbers of children left frozen.

May God have mercy on the souls of all involved in the evil practice of IVF and bless abundantly those who adopt these abandoned children.

Royalty I approve of

I want to commend Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg on his stand against euthanasia. His country is trying to follow the example of its neighbors Belgium and the Netherlands by legalizing euthanasia. The Grand Duke has the constitutional power to veto laws, and he has pledged to use his veto to prevent the law from coming into force. The veto has not been used since 1912.

To get around this, the Luxembourg Parliament is going to strip him of his veto power, which will render him a complete figurehead. While they may have the power to do this, the Grand Duke is following his conscience, and will not allow himself to be complicit in the murder of his people. This is a very principle stand, and I applaud him and ask that God bless him abundantly, and I pray that this stand will change the hearts and minds of his people so they withdraw their support for euthanasia.

Thank-you Grand Duke for demonstrating the courage of convictions we all need to have in this fight. It might cost us our jobs, or our prestige, but what does that matter compared to saving lives? We cannot be silent. God Bless!

UPDATE (Fri 12:07pm): While I doubt the Grand Duke has facebook, there is a facebook group supporting his actions. Please join it at http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=37870554817

Do no harm

With the success of I-1000 on the Washington state ballot, two states have now legalized assisted suicide, but both of those states recognize doctor assisted suicide. In these systems a doctor either prescribes a lethal dose of medication, or helps to administer the medication. This fact chills me almost more than the whole concept of euthanasia and assisted suicide in general, because I believe it irreparably damages the doctor's relationship with their patients.

The Hippocratic Oath, which pre-dates the birth of Christ, tells doctors and physicians to "do no harm." The oath says "I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect." So, any doctor who prescribes assisted suicide is violating that oath, or, as is more common, they are simply not taking the oath in the first place. But this worries me, because it seems we are taking a step back to the dark ages; the pre-Hippocrates times. Hippocrates created the oath in recognition of the fact that going to a doctor was dangerous business- you had to hope you paid the doctor more to heal you than you enemy paid him to kill you. Hippocrates didn't like this- he thought people should be free to seek treatment and know that the physician ministering to them would do everything he could to help them. Thus, the Hippocratic Oath- an oath taken by doctors for over 2000 years was born. It was created so people could feel safe visiting a doctor.

Physician assisted suicide threatens this, because you don't know that your doctor will actually work in your best interest. You don't know that he or she won't give you a deadly drug, or make subtle and not so subtle suggestions that you take it. You don't know that your doctor won't have spoken to your children or caregivers and have been convinced by them that you are "better off dead." If doctors continue to administer lethal prescriptions, patients cannot trust their doctors.

For this reason, it is so important that everyone talk with their doctors; just like you would a lawyer. Find out where they stand on palliative care and assisted suicide, or other medical ethical questions, and make sure they know you position as well. Communication is key, and if your doctor doesn't have the same pro-life values as you do, it is time to find another doctor. Another thing you should ask is if they took the Hippocratic Oath; increasingly medical schools are not requiring grads to take the Oath.

It's a scary world when we can't trust the people who are supposed to heal us to actually do no harm.

Ahhh Secularism

I ran across a very interesting article in the paper the other day, and I find myself very amused by it. Not the topic of the article at all; that I find beautiful, but the fact that it is news at all. It's a short article about a man and women who shared their first kiss ever at the altar last Saturday. The couple both teach abstinence in the Chicago Public School System.

I did some searches on the article, and on many news websites, the article is posted in the "News of the Weird" section. Really? Has our society gone so far down the path of secularism that a couple who saves physical intimacy for marriage is viewed as "weird"?

I know the idea of not kissing before marriage may seem a trifle "out there" but it's more common (at least in Catholic relationships) than you might think. Without trying hard, I can think of three couples who've married in the last few years who shared their first kiss at the altar. I think it's beautiful. It's all part of the idea of courtship. Courtship is the idea of getting to know someone with marriage in mind. It begins with the understanding that sex is something special and sacred that should be shared only between a married couple. I can't speak for the couple in the article, but I can say that the courtship model is one that all Catholic's should follow in searching for a spouse. It saves a lot of the hurt and pain the current dating model produces.

I just wish that the secular world could see the beauty in the Catholic teachings on sex and marriage. They are there to keep everyone happy and healthy, in mind, body and soul. If the world could see that, women wouldn't be degraded through pornography, and children wouldn't be viewed as a punishment. But that perfect world is a long ways away. However, as long as there are couples out there who live their faith, we will do ok. And if it has to end up in the "News of the Weird" at least people are hearing that people do live the counter-cultural life we are called to. Congrats Mr. and Mrs. Fabien! Many prayers for your long and happy marriage!

Children, Children, Children

Reading the title of this post, you would be forgiven for thinking that it was going to have something to do with children; maybe some family law, or Church teachings on family. Well, it doesn't. It has everything to do with the childish antics coming out of Ottawa over the last few days. Last Wednesday, when the trash talk started, I laughed it off, and thought it was just more parliamentary BS; or a trial balloon that, once floated, would quickly be shot down. Apparently I was wrong. I am no longer laughing; instead I dread checking any one of my news sources, and everything I read sends a sharp chill down my spine.

For those who aren't aware, or who haven't managed to follow the convoluted stuff coming from Ottawa, here is a brief rundown, followed by my opinion on it all.

THE FACTS

Prime Minister Harper (duly elected on Oct 14, 2008) announced he was considering cutting taxpayer money to political parties because of the economic crisis. (In 2003, then PM Jean Chretien announced each party would get $1.95 for every vote they received.) This cut was to be a largely symbolic gesture of belt tightening. Essentially, if PM Harper was going to ask Canadians to tighten their belts because of the economic crisis, he felt the politicians in Ottawa should do no less. (It's the whole leading by example thing that we all seem to have become unfamiliar with- sorry, I will try to stop editorializing in the recitation of the facts).

The leaders of the other 3 political parties quickly announced this was a partisan policy by PM Harper and was only being suggested because it would hurt them far more than it could hurt the Conservatives. (The Conservatives stand to lose about $10 million, the Liberals about $7.7 million, the NDP and the BQ about $3.3 million and the Greens about $1.7 million- not exact numbers.) However, in terms of money fundraised by each party, that would be about 2/3 of the other parties financial support.

On Thursday, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty delivered his economic update. In it, he proposed to cut the funding to political parties, prevent civil servants from striking for 1 year, and several other matters, all ostensibly geared to help keep Canada's economy afloat in the current world economic turmoil.

Even before Minister Flaherty had finished his economic update, the opposition parties were talking about a coalition government if they voted down the economic update. Their reason is that they have lost confidence in PM Harper to govern as the country needs during this economic crisis. Currently, PM Harper's Conservatives are 12 seats shy of having a majority in Parliament. That means that if the Libs, NDP and BQ get together, they can vote down any measure Harper proposes. As of a few minutes ago, Stephane Dion sent word to the Governor General that the three parties were prepared to govern if the Conservative government falls. The only other option is to have another federal election, 6 weeks after the last, at a cost of about $300 million.

EDITORIALIZING

That is a very short rendition of the facts, and leaves out a lot of details, but that's because I want to do what I do best- offer my opinion on it all.

The Economy

Ostensibly this whole constitutional crisis is about the current economic climate. (I don't believe that for a second, but, let's assume that's true.) There is no denying that economies all over the world are in trouble- you only have to look at the stock markets and the price of oil. Before I go any further, I want to make it clear that I am not an economist, nor have I ever taken a post secondary class on economics. But, correct me if I'm wrong, this whole crisis started because people were spending more than they had. People were living off of credit- buying homes they couldn't afford to make payments on, using the equity in their homes to purchase cars and RV's they couldn't afford, borrowing against lines of credit and racking up credit card debt like there was no tomorrow. Well, tomorrow has arrived, and the post-easy credit hangover has set in.

And yet, what is the approach of the Coalition of 3? Well, to spend more of course. Huh?

That's right, spend more money- stimulate the economy.

What? I'm sorry, but if I personally am living beyond my means, how is getting into more debt going to solve the problem? Isn't that what caused the problem in the first place? And, I know that we are talking about a whole economy here, not just one person, but I think the same principle still makes sense here. Are there going to be people who lose their homes and jobs? Yes, that's what happens in an economic downturn. Does it suck for those people? Yes, it does. I would really appreciate it if someone could explain to me how pouring billions into the Big 3 automakers will solve that problem. Sure, it will let those people retain their jobs for awhile, and allow them to continue paying their mortgages for awhile, but it doesn't fix the problem- it's a band aid solution. Unless the automakers (or whatever industry we are talking about) determines why people are no longer buying their products and makes the appropriate changes, they will continue to lose money. At the end of the day, pouring money in without huge restructuring and changes to business plans won't do anything, except delay the inevitable for a few more years, when the industry will again come hat in hand asking for more money, because, shocking! The last handout is gone and nothing has changed.

The right approach, in my view is to not give any money to a business that is failing. I don't approve of handouts. And I think that's where the Conservative government is coming from. We don't solve problems by spending more, we solve problems by tightening our belts and giving up cable and the annual Caribbean vacation until the crisis is over. Unfortunately, that policy isn't going to gain them any votes in a country that has decided that handouts are just business as usual.

Politics as Usual

But like I said, I don't think anything actually going on in Ottawa right now has anything to do with the economy. I think all 4 (yes all 4) political parties are trying to use the economy as an excuse to further their own agenda. That agenda, as always, is to get more votes. For the Liberals and the Conservatives, it's about getting a majority government. Interestingly, it is the NDP and BQ who are best poised to further their agenda's right now- both major parties lack a majority, so they have to make deals with the other parties to accomplish anything. Essentially, the NDP and BQ are in a position to blackmail- i.e. we won't support you unless you do x.

When Chretien brought in the $1.95/vote in 2003, I didn't like it. I think that if you want to be a political party, you should have to support yourself- if people like your ideas, they will help you to fund your political ambitions; if they don't like them, then there is no reason that you should exist. And I think that if the government is going to ask us all to tighten our belts, they should do the same, so cutting the subsidies doesn't bother me in the least. (Although if they really want to show themselves willing to tighten up, they should all accept a pay cut, but we all know that will never happen.)

It also offends me that the other parties would even attempt to form a coalition government, or threaten to bring down the house in the middle of an economic crisis. On Oct 14, Canadians elected a minority government. That means the will of the people is that everyone gets along for the good of the country. The problem with that is there is a fundamental disagreement about what the good of the country is. The Liberals, NDP and to some extent the BQ think that we need to spend our way out of an economic crisis. The conservatives think that belt tightening and tax cuts are the way to ride it out. So, the problem is that they will never agree, and I don't think that they will be able to govern effectively- every money bill is going to be a confidence motion and as long as we have a minority government, we are going to talk about an election constantly. I don't want another election- I think it will return the same results.

But I also don't want a coalition government- that offends democracy. The people of Canada voted the parliamentary make up that we have right now, and that needs to be respected by those in power. If the BQ, NDP and Libs form a coalition, they are ignoring the will of Canadians- in essence they are denying democracy. And yes, I know the constitution allows for this, but only if the coalition can provide stable governance. If we look at the Italian example, it should be clear that coalitions almost never work, and never last more than a year.

Assuming this coalition doesn't go anywhere (and I don't think it will) for the next 2 years, we are going to play an elaborate game of chicken every time PM Harper wants to do something. And, if the Libs don't blink first, we will go to the polls. Tactically, I think if the Liberals were smart, they'd go along with what Harper wants- phrase it in terms of trying to work for the best interests of the country, so they can deny they agreed with his policies when the time comes- for about 2 years. At that point they will have a new leader (likely Ignatieff) and money back in the party coffers to fight an election. Also, this is not going to be a short economic downturn, so 2 years from now, no matter what Harper does, we will likely be in a worse economic situation then we are now. The Libs can say they let Harper try to do it his way, but his way doesn't work, and I think that platform would win them a majority (unfortunately). But they don't seem to want to do that.

So that's my long winded opinion on what I think of the mess in Ottawa. Bottom line is that given the makeup of the constitution, the composition of Parliament and the ideological underpinnings of the parties in Ottawa, we can't expect anything different. And Canadians will suffer for it- either we will spend $300 million on an election every 6 months for the next few years (like Italy does) or we will spend billions on bailouts that don't work and will just artificially pro-long the crisis. (I recommend you read some of the new articles being written on the Great Depression- academics on both sides of the spectrum say that FDR's new deal actually prolonged the depression.

Honestly, I would like to see Harper given a chance- he is an economist by trade- something none of the other parties can boast of, and I think if we give him 4 or 5 years, he can turn this around before it becomes a major depression (remember the stock markets didn't return to 1929 levels until 1954), but I don't think that will happen. Instead of doing what is best for Canadians, the politico's in Ottawa will do what is best for them.

At the end of the day, Canadians will lose, and will lose big.

God help us all.

UPDATE: (5:33 pm Monday) Apparently we can blame the antics in Ottawa for today's Toronto Stock Market loss, and the continuing slide of the loonie. Investors don't see a country that is preparing for bloodless coup d'etat as a good investment option. If that doesn't prove that the Ottawa politoco's don't care about anything but their own self advancement, I don't know what does. Don't say you are trying to save the economy when you are actually forcing it to drop faster! Argh!

UPDATE: (10:14 pm Monday) A rally across Canada for democracy has been scheduled for this Saturday. Most major centers have a rally planned. If you have the time, please plan on attending it. We need to show the coalition of 3 that Canadians won't stand for this outrage. Details can be found at RallyforCanada.com. If you are on Facebook, an event has been set up here. Everyone needs to contact their MP to express their opinion, and don't hesitate to contact Mr. Harper, Mr. Dion, Mr. Layton, Mr. Duceppe and the Governor General. All to often Canadians are silent. We need to speak now.