The pen is really mightier than the sword, as you have proven here….

Actually there is a winner(s) and they are the share holders of companies that manufacture arms. There is not a better place in the world to test new weapons than on the battle field. The longer the war plays out the more the weapons can be tweaked and improved to produce a deadlier effect. The longer the war the higher the sales figures. Lobbyist can pad their pockets, politicians can receive campaign funds and the circle continues (in theory anyway)

I have the deepest respect for our men and women of the forces and I care deeply about their families, Moms and Dad’s, Grandparents, children and all other people who are related to them. They are the heroes for stepping up. Now it is time for our government to step up and care as deeply for our troops. Pull out of a war that is not ours, bring them home and reunite them with their loved ones. Put an end to all of the worry, sleepless nights, panic attacks, mental health problems, and other issues that plague people who are connected to this war in anyway.

If the war machine needs another idea then lets insist that hundred’s of thousands of more troops are sent in to Afghanistan. A proper tactic (in my non-military mind) would be to seal off all of the borders while still being stationed inside the Afghanistan border. Once that is done bring in a couple hundred thousand more troops and have them seek out the true enemy. This may sound childish and foolish (maybe not?) but it is the only way that war will be won, if it can be.

Oh yes, then we will have to import millions of military families (similar to what we did in Germany after WW11 - sorry that I made the comparison) and have them spend the rest of their natural lives as an occupying force that will never move back to Canada!

I just caught the end of your show today, where you were claiming that golf is not a sport and that it does not produce enough “Huff and Puff” to keep kids active. First off, I would ask you to define a sport. I looked it up. Here is what Oxford says “* noun 1) - an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others. 2) - informal a person who behaves in a good or specified way in response to teasing, defeat, etc. 3) - success or pleasure derived from an activity such as hunting. 4) - dated entertainment; fun. 5) - chiefly Austral./NZ a friendly form of address, especially between unacquainted men. 6) - Biology an animal or plant showing abnormal or striking variation from the parent type as a result of spontaneous mutation”. (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/sport?view=uk)

Now, According to the first definition, no one can argue that golf requires a certain amount of skill, and that those involved compete against others. You however seem to be questioning the amount of physical exertion involved. I think you should check some stats on that. To walk an average round of golf (18 holes) takes about 4.5 hours According to a calories burned calculator, available online, (http://www.healthstatus.com/cgi-bin/calc/calculator.cgi) a person of my weight (200-210lbs) would burn 2,608 calories. Lets make some comparisons….Ice Hockey, average ice time 1.5 hours, calories burned 1,153….Basketball, 1 Hour, calories burned 1,046. No would argue that hockey and basketball are sports but they burn much fewer calories than a round of golf. Lower impact activities preformed for an extended period of time can burn just as many calories as shorter periods of higher impact sports (your “Huff and Puff”).

You commented on taking a cart and drinking on course. Well the kids playing golf can not drink. Sure adults drink and take carts, but these people are playing the game socially, not necessarily for physically activity. I ask you how many pick-up hockey teams have beer in the dressing room after the game or stop by a bar for a few after. What’s the difference? When it comes down to it, any physical activity is better than sitting in front of a TV or computer.

Keep up the good work AK.

When the ancient Romans fought wars, they always feared the inevitable release of thousands of armed and dispossessed from military service. In addition to fueling political needs back home, they extended countless campaigns in Africa, Gaul and ancient England with that goal in mind.

Now, political leaders fear the loss of the relatively easy purse strings that democratic nations usually offer up during wartime. The current government of Canada has bought into the fiction that this war can only be won by increasing the Canadian footprint, and so a plan of action has been dogmatically embraced regardless of what the actual consequences might be.

We are pursuing a goal that is so remote and requires so many attached commitments that the relatively laudable goal of the war against the Taliban has actually become secondary. No one can now point to a concrete goal, yet we still debate extending the mission instead of rediscovering it

Good post, good show, keep it up.