She, along with French photojournalist Remi Ochlik and a Syrian blogger, was killed in Homs. Below is her last TV report. Warning: contains graphic scenes.

This is a subject that is sure to get your blood boiling. It certainly had that effect on mine. When you support Canada’s troops, you want to make sure you treat them right when they get injured on the job.

The Veterans Ombudsman released a report this week about how the government deals with disability benefits owed our veterans when they get hurt doing the work we ask them to do. The report found that in most cases, letters sent to soldiers applying for disability benefits were “vague, unclear, or not understandable”. Worse, some of them did not include a reason for why benefits were denied.

“Veterans have a right to know why and how decisions are made”, said Guy Parent, Canada’s Veterans Ombudsman. “These letters concern monetary entitlements that have a direct impact on Veterans’ quality of life.”

No kidding! It’s bad enough to be injured on the job, we don’t have to make veterans jump through endless and unwarranted bureaucratic hoops. I’m not saying the department should agree with all disability requests – I’m sure there are some that should legitimately be denied or reduced. But when that happens it is imperative to give our veterans a clear reason why, along with information about how they can appeal that decision in a format that’s understandable to normal human beings. Like, say, plain English.

When he caught wind of that report, Veterans Affairs Minister Steven Blaney said he wanted to act swiftly. As well he should; that problem was first highlighted by the auditor general way back in 1998. Swiftly is what we need.

Yesterday morning he announced a red tape reduction initiative, along with simplified information about benefits our veterans are entitled to. “Veterans are going to see a significant difference in the quality of information provided and in the timeliness of service,” the minister said.

We’ll make sure sure he means it. The least we can do.

My friend Richard Marceau (yes, I have a former Bloc MP as a friend), discusses his excellent book with Michael Coren.

So far in the race for the Republican presidential nomination I’ve been mostly uninspired. Now I’m positively depressed. The race has become a two-way match between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, and I’m reduced to being grateful that at least we’re not having to pretend we should take Newt Gingrich seriously.

Mitt Romney is the ultimate minivan candidate. Nobody wants him. Nobody likes him. Everybody tries to resist him – as long as they can. They consider different models, they take a few for a spin. But you know, there is a reason why you see so many minivans on the roads. It’s because in the end, people talk themselves into buying one because it’s the most practical and sensible purchase at the moment. The least worst of all possible options, and the only one we can afford right now. But, ew.

That’s why I still think Mitt Romney has a good chance to win the nomination – unless the GOP base decides to revolt and force some kind of brokered convention. I’d be delighted to see Chris Christie jump into the race, even at the last minute… But barring that, if the contest is between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, the minivan will most likely win. Why? Two reasons: God and guns.

Both candidates are men of faith. But only Rick Santorum wears his religion on his sleeve. The other day he said that Barack Obama’s policies were motivated by a theology that’s not based on the Bible. On Monday his spokesperson explained the candidate was referring to the president’s “radical Islamic policies,” before saying she hadn’t really meant to say that. Riiiiight.

And the second reason, of course, is the nastiness of some of his ads. I’m not a prude when it comes to political ads – I like a vigorous debate. But showing a Mitt Romney look-alike literally firing mud out of a machine gun – in an ad complaining about Romney’s negative ads – goes several steps too far. Is Santorum trying to depict his rival as a mad shooter? Really?

I never thought I’d say this, but can we please go back to uninspiring?

We show our faces when we debate legislation. We also don’t threaten politicians.

Am I the only one thinking this ad will play against Santorum?

You know, it’s one thing when radical leftists and environmentalists nag you about your gas consumption or how much hot water you’re using. It’s quite anoter when self-described reasonable centrists and – worse – right-wingers do it.

We are used to NDPers and Green Party types nagging us about car-free days and days when we’re not supposed to shop, and general exhortations that we shiver quietly in the dark while munching on alfalfa crisps. Those of us in Ontario are also used to Dalton McGuinty nagging us about smoking and smart meters and how hot the water in our water tanks can be. In Ottawa they’re about to ban smoking in outdoors parks and patios.

We are used to this sort of stuff coming from the usual nit-picking suspects. But when people who describe themselves as right-wingy start bugging us about our private behaviour it just gets to be too much. The new, supposedly somewhat non-left-wing party in Quebec, the Coalition for the future of Quebec (which has merged with the Action Democratique party), just announced that their environmental platform would contain measures to reduce Quebecers’ dependence on cars, and measures that would encourage Quebecers to limit themselves to one car per family.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t know any family that has more cars than it needs. Oh, I know some rich people like to collect cars. And I’m sure there are weirdos out there who would rather live in their mother’s basement than give up their expensive wheels. But normal families? Do you know many who just casually buy cars they don’t need?

Me neither. People drive cars because they have to. Because they have healthy active kids. Because they shop at Costco to save money. Because where they live transit is not convenient. I was once young and unattached, living the carefree life in downtown Montreal. I didn’t have a car, because I didn’t need one. I saved tons of money. This doesn’t work so well if you have three kids and live outside of St-Hyacinthe.

And besides, who cares how many cars Quebec families have? It sure isn’t politician’s business, especially not right-wing ones. Leave the nagging to left-wingers, OK?

Listen, I understand and – to some extent – sympathize with his argument. He’s right that President Obama’s agenda is not biblical. And in many circles (especially evangelicals), that sort of talk is extremely popular. But in the wider American society, it’s liable to turn people off more than anything, because most people (I believe) would rather keep their religion somewhat separate from their politics. That kind of talk isn’t going to win him the nomination.

COLUMBUS, OHIO – Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum challenged President Barack Obama’s Christian beliefs on Saturday, saying White House policies were motivated by a “different theology.”

A devout Roman Catholic who has risen to the top of Republican polls in recent days, Santorum said the Obama administration had failed to prevent gas prices rising and was using “political science” in the debate about climate change.

Obama’s agenda is “not about you. It’s not about your quality of life. It’s not about your jobs. It’s about some phony ideal. Some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible. A different theology,” Santorum told supporters of the conservative Tea Party movement at a Columbus hotel.

Given how strongly pro-gay-rights folks criticized the government over this, I’m assuming they’re planning a big party to celebrate Mr. Harper, right?

OTTAWA — Justice Minister Rob Nicholson came to the aid of gay couples Friday by introducing amendments to the Civil Marriage Act that will allow non-residents to end their unhappy unions.

“Recently it came to light that there was an anomaly in our civil marriage laws,” Nicholson said. “We are fixing the anomaly in the law.”