Don't get me wrong: I'm not against tarring and feathering those AIG guys who helped destroy the world economy with their financial manoeuvres, and then received million-dollar bonuses to undo their own handiwork.

But focusing just on them is like just going after the crude thugs who unleashed dogs on Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, without noticing that their actions were the product of a climate of lawlessness and vengeance fostered by the White House.

Similarly, for several decades now, the financial and corporate elite has championed an unbridled capitalism, and pressed for the removal of crucial regulations needed to protect the public. It has also championed an ethos of greed that justified extraordinary compensation, and very low tax burdens, for those at the top.

"This is a vision of a nation in which we're all in it together -- in which burdens are shared broadly, rather than simply inflicted upon a small minority."

More visionary socialist stuff from Barack Obama? Well, not quite.

In fact, the line is from conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks. And, in case it isn't obvious, the "small minority" whose burden he is urging everyone to share is: the rich.

Yes, we should all stop focusing so much on ourselves, and think more about the plight of billionaires.

The beaming face of Barack Obama -- whether surveying adoring fans on Parliament Hill or bestowing on Ottawa shopgirls an experience they can dine out on for the rest of their lives -- was oddly reminiscent of Hugh Hefner's line about feeling like a kid in the world's biggest candy store.

Ottawa may seem more like Canadian Tire than a candy store, but one could well imagine Obama thinking: And they pay me for doing this?

It's probably a while still before we see bank CEOs on street corners selling the homeless news.

But reports last week of bank presidents cutting their own pay were somewhat eye-catching. (For a little perspective: Rick Waugh of Bank of Nova Scotia will take home $7.5 million this year -- after his cut.)

Still, the pay cuts suggest that even inside the most well-fortified Bay Street towers there are jitters that the people down below may start questioning how the economic pie is divided and why they are getting such a small -- and shrinking -- slice.

Let's imagine, for a moment, how different the public debate would be today if it had been unions that had caused the current economic turmoil.

In other words, try to imagine a scenario in which union leaders -- not financial managers -- were the ones whose reckless behaviour had driven a number of Wall Street firms into bankruptcy and in the process triggered a worldwide recession.

Needless to say, it's hard to imagine a labour leader being appointed to oversee a bailout of unions the way former Goldman Sachs CEO Henry Paulson was put in charge of supervising the $700 billion bailout of his former Wall Street colleagues.

I recall a little tale told by a U.S. general to illustrate the importance of oil.

Speaking to a military gathering at the Canadian Forces College in Toronto in January 2006, Lt.-Gen. Thomas Metz described how a man operating a chainsaw with a mere pint of gasoline could cut a great deal of wood in very little time.

By comparison, that same man could eat a large breakfast the next morning and head out to cut wood - using only a hand saw. The general noted that the man could spend the whole day cutting wood with the hand saw and end up with nothing but a tiny fraction of his previous day's efforts with the chainsaw.

The general's message was clear: Oil is what powers the modern world.

On Israel's 60th anniversary last April, Prime Minister Stephen Harper promised Canada's "unshakable" support for Israel.

At the time, this struck me as odd. It would be understandable for a prime minister to offer Canada's "unshakable" support for principles - democracy, the rule of law, human rights, etc. But for a country? A country is led by a government, and a government is always fallible. Why would Canada promise its unqualified support for any country?

Such unqualified support is particularly problematic when the country is locked in a bitter struggle with millions of people whose land it has held under military occupation for more than forty years.

Speaking on CBC Radio's Sunday Edition on the weekend, an Israeli commentator described the situation Israel faces as "agonizing."

This seems apt, given the horrific recent developments in Gaza. But Yossi Klein Halevi wasn't referring to the results of Israel's military assault - including Red Cross reports of Palestinian children found starving next to the corpses of their mothers. Rather, he was referring to the harsh criticism Israel is receiving from around the world.

For Halevi, the issue boils down to terrorism. With Hamas rockets falling on Israel, what alternative does Israel have but to strike back?

As a child, Michael Ignatieff probably wouldn't have sounded unreasonable saying he wanted to be prime minister when he grew up.

The newly crowned Liberal leader has always had some impressive trappings: good looks, noble lineage, verbal dexterity, an air of gravitas and an impressive CV of teaching human rights at Harvard.

His self-imposed, decades-long exile from his native land might pose a problem in some countries. But here, where our elite instills in us a sense of inferiority to great powers like the U.S. and Britain, Ignatieff has been forgiven for finding Canada a little confining.

Still, there are some problems.