Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Johnathon McCoy. 10 years old. Out of the mouths of babes.. watch and be inspired.
I can't possibly follow this up, other than to say, Johnathan, "Well done. You have done your country and the world proud."
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Perhaps my initial impressions were correct.. Ignatieff may be a Conservative Mole
Stephen Harper could not have scripted it any better himself.
From almost the moment Michael Ignatieff returned to Canada to seek his crown, virtually everything he has done appears calculated to bring about his party's downfall. From his ill-fated on and off again threats of revoking "probation", to his complaints of deficit spending which he demanded, to his complete absence of any commentary of substance, and now, to his complete screw-up of interfering in the nomination process in Outremont, it appears Michael Ignatieff is a Conservative mole, placed within the Liberal Party of Canada to assure their downfall.
Too bizarre to even conceive of?
I think not.
Consider my post made in November of 2008, when I supported Ignatieff's bid for Liberal leadership, ostensibly because he appeared to be a closet Conservative, speaking out against allowing Human Rights to be used as a tool to remove fundamental freedoms like Free Speech.
Consider his unabashed support of George W. Bush, including his advocating indeterminate detention and "coercive interrogation techniques".
Consider his refusal to move against the government when they were, perhaps, in their most weakened position shortly after proroguing parliament.
Consider his decision to "bring down" the government over some benign and broadly supported legislation to create a stimulus int he economy by subsidizing home renovations.
Consider his almost pathological refusal to provide anything of substance to suggest anything positive his party might do if they were elected.
Consider his condemnation of previous Liberal governments, admitting, "..the Liberals have tried to win votes in Toronto by blowing off Alberta and bashing the oil sands."
Consider his decision to interfere with the nomination process in Outremont, only to change his mind, infuriating his party lieutenant, Denis Coderre, to such extent that Coderre resigned yesterday, result in this headline in today's news:
Very well done Michael, your mission is almost complete.
From almost the moment Michael Ignatieff returned to Canada to seek his crown, virtually everything he has done appears calculated to bring about his party's downfall. From his ill-fated on and off again threats of revoking "probation", to his complaints of deficit spending which he demanded, to his complete absence of any commentary of substance, and now, to his complete screw-up of interfering in the nomination process in Outremont, it appears Michael Ignatieff is a Conservative mole, placed within the Liberal Party of Canada to assure their downfall.
Too bizarre to even conceive of?
I think not.
Consider my post made in November of 2008, when I supported Ignatieff's bid for Liberal leadership, ostensibly because he appeared to be a closet Conservative, speaking out against allowing Human Rights to be used as a tool to remove fundamental freedoms like Free Speech.
Consider his unabashed support of George W. Bush, including his advocating indeterminate detention and "coercive interrogation techniques".
Consider his refusal to move against the government when they were, perhaps, in their most weakened position shortly after proroguing parliament.
Consider his decision to "bring down" the government over some benign and broadly supported legislation to create a stimulus int he economy by subsidizing home renovations.
Consider his almost pathological refusal to provide anything of substance to suggest anything positive his party might do if they were elected.
Consider his condemnation of previous Liberal governments, admitting, "..the Liberals have tried to win votes in Toronto by blowing off Alberta and bashing the oil sands."
Consider his decision to interfere with the nomination process in Outremont, only to change his mind, infuriating his party lieutenant, Denis Coderre, to such extent that Coderre resigned yesterday, result in this headline in today's news:
"Liberals scramble to quash anti-leader talk"
Very well done Michael, your mission is almost complete.
Changing Gears - A Tragic Father's Story.. and some advice.
Today we read about a father from the U.S., who shared joint custody of his children with his Japanese wife. Notwithstanding concerns on the part of the father that the mother would not return to the U.S. if the mother were permitted to travel with the children to Japan, in a monumental moment of arrogance and stupidity, the Presiding Judge, Jim Martin in Franklin, Tennessee, permitted the mother to take the two children, aged 6 and 8, back to Japan for a summer holiday.
What happened? Yes, the mother refused to return. Worse, when the father went to Japan to try and bring his children home, after obtaining a sole custody order in the U.S., he was arrested for child abduction in Japan.
The fundamental problem? What Judge Martin either was ignorant of, or didn't care about, Japan is not a signatory to what is called the "1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction". This is a treaty where all signatories agree that the law of the place the children had their most clear connection applies to make decisions regarding their custody. All of these countries have committed that if a child is abducted from their place of residence, they will defer to the Orders of that jurisdiction regarding child custody, except in cases where there is demonstrated risk of harm to the child.
Japan? Not a signatory.
A list of countries that are signatories is here: Hague Signatories
Based upon previous history, it appears highly unlikely that the American government will be successful in seeking return of the children based upon previous cases, so, a little advice.
If you are separated from the parent of your children, be careful to review the countries who are signatories to the convention. If they are originally from any country NOT on that list, be very careful about allowing them to take the children outside of Canada or the U.S. - even to other convention countries, as travel plans can be easily changed en route.
Make sure your lawyer, and any Judge hearing your case, is made very aware of the fact that the other parent's country is NOT a Hague Signatory, and, in general, my advice would be to NEVER agree to your children being removed from your own country where the other party has significant family ties in a non-signatory country.
Perhaps if the message is sent clear and loud to countries like Japan that their nationals living outside of Japan will NEVER be permitted to visit Japan with their children, perhaps they will reconsider their decision not to commit to the Hague convention.
You may be surprised to know that the convention countries include China, Chile, Sri Lanka, Turkey, Zimbabwe, and Venezuela.. countries NOT signing the convention include Iran, Afghanistan, Somalia, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and, obviously, Japan.
Nice company Japan. Way to go.
The nation of Japan should be duly shamed by this story, and, sadly, my advise to all parents of Japanese-Canadian children? NEVER allow your children to visit family in Japan. At least not until their government gets their head out of their ass and signs on to the convention.
What happened? Yes, the mother refused to return. Worse, when the father went to Japan to try and bring his children home, after obtaining a sole custody order in the U.S., he was arrested for child abduction in Japan.
The fundamental problem? What Judge Martin either was ignorant of, or didn't care about, Japan is not a signatory to what is called the "1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction". This is a treaty where all signatories agree that the law of the place the children had their most clear connection applies to make decisions regarding their custody. All of these countries have committed that if a child is abducted from their place of residence, they will defer to the Orders of that jurisdiction regarding child custody, except in cases where there is demonstrated risk of harm to the child.
Japan? Not a signatory.
A list of countries that are signatories is here: Hague Signatories
Based upon previous history, it appears highly unlikely that the American government will be successful in seeking return of the children based upon previous cases, so, a little advice.
If you are separated from the parent of your children, be careful to review the countries who are signatories to the convention. If they are originally from any country NOT on that list, be very careful about allowing them to take the children outside of Canada or the U.S. - even to other convention countries, as travel plans can be easily changed en route.
Make sure your lawyer, and any Judge hearing your case, is made very aware of the fact that the other parent's country is NOT a Hague Signatory, and, in general, my advice would be to NEVER agree to your children being removed from your own country where the other party has significant family ties in a non-signatory country.
Perhaps if the message is sent clear and loud to countries like Japan that their nationals living outside of Japan will NEVER be permitted to visit Japan with their children, perhaps they will reconsider their decision not to commit to the Hague convention.
You may be surprised to know that the convention countries include China, Chile, Sri Lanka, Turkey, Zimbabwe, and Venezuela.. countries NOT signing the convention include Iran, Afghanistan, Somalia, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and, obviously, Japan.
Nice company Japan. Way to go.
The nation of Japan should be duly shamed by this story, and, sadly, my advise to all parents of Japanese-Canadian children? NEVER allow your children to visit family in Japan. At least not until their government gets their head out of their ass and signs on to the convention.
Monday, September 28, 2009
The Current Conversation Between the Canadian Public, and Michael Ignatieff (with his "Brilliant Tactician")
Michrran Kinsatief: Stephen Harper caused the global recession.
Canadian Public: What?
Michrran Kinsatief: You heard me, Stephen Harper caused the global recession.
Canadian Public: Uh.. don't you think you're over-stating your case there a little, I mean, what did he have to do with the fall of AIG and the mortgage crisis in the U.S.?
Michrran Kinsatief: Well, I taught at Harvard, for goodness sake, so, don't you think I should know better than a bunch of herbivorian boyscouts? And I have lived in the U.S. - it's not like I've been in Canada for any period of time, so, I would think I would know a little about the world. Did I mention that my family comes from Russian aristocracy?
Canadian Public: Uh, no I don't believe you.
Michrran Kinsatieff: It's true, look it up! My family were Russian aristocrats..
Canadian Public: No,no, no.. I mean, I don't believe you that Stephen Harper caused the global recession.
Michrran Kinsatief: It's true. Because I say so. And he's driven up the deficit when he said he wouldn't!
Canadian Public: You told him to run it up, or you'd bring down the government.
Michrran Kinsatief: He's consorting with socialists and separatists!
Canadian Public: You're party did the same thing..
Michrran Kinsatief: He's appointing all his party supporters to the Senate and to the Courts!
Canadian Public: You're party did the same thing.
Michrran Kinsatief: He's refusing to create a Universal daycare program?
Canadian Public: Didn't you just complain about the deficit?
Michrran Kinsatief: What? What does that have to do with daycare?
Canadian Public: Well, how much is Universal daycare going to cost?
Michrran Kinsatief: Oh, only about 10 billion dollars.. a pittance, really.
Canadian Public: How much will it really cost?
Michrran Kinsatieff: I just told you!
Canadian Public: Yeah, and your party told us gun control would cost $119 million,and then you spent $1 BILLION. Pardon us if we're a little skeptical.
Michrran Kinsatieff: Trust us.
Canadian Public: No.
Michrran Kinsatieff: Why?
Canadian Public: Oh, I don't know, maybe it has something to do with the money your party defrauded from us in the Sponsorship fiasco, and, I've heard another appointee of your previous leader just got charged with taking even more taxpayer dollars.
Michrran Kinsatieff: Did I mention Stephan Harper caused the global recession?
Canadian Public: Yes.. oh, by the way, now that the recession seems to be ending, is Stephen Harper also responsible for that?
Michrran Kinsatieff: No. That's just global forces at work. Nothing to do with Harper. By the way, he's against abortion, don't you know.
Canadian Public: Whatever, so we're tired of hearing your complaints.. how about something positive. What will you do for Canada if YOU are Prime Minister?
Michrran Kinsatieff: Did I mention Harper is refusing to help terrorists come back to Canada?
Canadian Public: Stop avoiding the question.. what are YOU going to do?
Michrran Kinsatieff: Well.. I told you I went to Harvard.
Canadian Public: WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO?!?
Michrran Kinsatieff: I'm going to support the establishment of the G20?
Canadian Public: Harper already did that. He actually announced the next meeting already arranged to take place in Canada.
Michrran Kinsatieff: Did I tell you Harper is a Christian?
Canadian Public: So?
Michrran Kinsatieff: So - ask him about Darwin and evolution.
Canadian Public: Uh.. No. Tell me about your plans.
Michrran Kinsatieff: Well, I plan on moving into 24 Sussex Drive, I plan on having lots of cool parties with important people. I plan on getting lots of pictures of me with Barack Obama (that I don't have to pay for).. I plan on writing another book about how great being PM is..
Canadian Public: NO. What are you going to do for us?
Michrran Kinsatieff: Who are you again?
Canadian Public: Your electorate, the people of Canada?
Michrran Kinsatieff: Oh. What was the question again?
Canadian Public: Never mind.
Canadian Public: What?
Michrran Kinsatief: You heard me, Stephen Harper caused the global recession.
Canadian Public: Uh.. don't you think you're over-stating your case there a little, I mean, what did he have to do with the fall of AIG and the mortgage crisis in the U.S.?
Michrran Kinsatief: Well, I taught at Harvard, for goodness sake, so, don't you think I should know better than a bunch of herbivorian boyscouts? And I have lived in the U.S. - it's not like I've been in Canada for any period of time, so, I would think I would know a little about the world. Did I mention that my family comes from Russian aristocracy?
Canadian Public: Uh, no I don't believe you.
Michrran Kinsatieff: It's true, look it up! My family were Russian aristocrats..
Canadian Public: No,no, no.. I mean, I don't believe you that Stephen Harper caused the global recession.
Michrran Kinsatief: It's true. Because I say so. And he's driven up the deficit when he said he wouldn't!
Canadian Public: You told him to run it up, or you'd bring down the government.
Michrran Kinsatief: He's consorting with socialists and separatists!
Canadian Public: You're party did the same thing..
Michrran Kinsatief: He's appointing all his party supporters to the Senate and to the Courts!
Canadian Public: You're party did the same thing.
Michrran Kinsatief: He's refusing to create a Universal daycare program?
Canadian Public: Didn't you just complain about the deficit?
Michrran Kinsatief: What? What does that have to do with daycare?
Canadian Public: Well, how much is Universal daycare going to cost?
Michrran Kinsatief: Oh, only about 10 billion dollars.. a pittance, really.
Canadian Public: How much will it really cost?
Michrran Kinsatieff: I just told you!
Canadian Public: Yeah, and your party told us gun control would cost $119 million,and then you spent $1 BILLION. Pardon us if we're a little skeptical.
Michrran Kinsatieff: Trust us.
Canadian Public: No.
Michrran Kinsatieff: Why?
Canadian Public: Oh, I don't know, maybe it has something to do with the money your party defrauded from us in the Sponsorship fiasco, and, I've heard another appointee of your previous leader just got charged with taking even more taxpayer dollars.
Michrran Kinsatieff: Did I mention Stephan Harper caused the global recession?
Canadian Public: Yes.. oh, by the way, now that the recession seems to be ending, is Stephen Harper also responsible for that?
Michrran Kinsatieff: No. That's just global forces at work. Nothing to do with Harper. By the way, he's against abortion, don't you know.
Canadian Public: Whatever, so we're tired of hearing your complaints.. how about something positive. What will you do for Canada if YOU are Prime Minister?
Michrran Kinsatieff: Did I mention Harper is refusing to help terrorists come back to Canada?
Canadian Public: Stop avoiding the question.. what are YOU going to do?
Michrran Kinsatieff: Well.. I told you I went to Harvard.
Canadian Public: WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO?!?
Michrran Kinsatieff: I'm going to support the establishment of the G20?
Canadian Public: Harper already did that. He actually announced the next meeting already arranged to take place in Canada.
Michrran Kinsatieff: Did I tell you Harper is a Christian?
Canadian Public: So?
Michrran Kinsatieff: So - ask him about Darwin and evolution.
Canadian Public: Uh.. No. Tell me about your plans.
Michrran Kinsatieff: Well, I plan on moving into 24 Sussex Drive, I plan on having lots of cool parties with important people. I plan on getting lots of pictures of me with Barack Obama (that I don't have to pay for).. I plan on writing another book about how great being PM is..
Canadian Public: NO. What are you going to do for us?
Michrran Kinsatieff: Who are you again?
Canadian Public: Your electorate, the people of Canada?
Michrran Kinsatieff: Oh. What was the question again?
Canadian Public: Never mind.
So, Liberal Denis Coderre appears to have had enough Ignatieff..
Well.
It appears Michael Ignatieff is now having even more difficulty. Funny what happens when your political aspirations are built on a house of cards, based upon a complete absence of principle.
According to CTV News, Denis Coderre is expected to step down Monday as Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff's Quebec lieutenant, CTV News has learned, over a disagreement about the political comeback of one of the Quebec MP's main rivals.
As reported in CTV News:
While the article is certainly heart-warming for anyone who (like me) has become tired of Michael's disingenuine charade, my favorite part of the article was the comment post by Adele Hay:
Like you, Adele, I was once a Liberal. Those days, like Michael's, are done.
It appears Michael Ignatieff is now having even more difficulty. Funny what happens when your political aspirations are built on a house of cards, based upon a complete absence of principle.
According to CTV News, Denis Coderre is expected to step down Monday as Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff's Quebec lieutenant, CTV News has learned, over a disagreement about the political comeback of one of the Quebec MP's main rivals.
As reported in CTV News:
The rift between Ignatieff and Coderre broke open last week over who each thinks the Liberal candidate should be in the Montreal riding of Outremont.
Former justice minister Martin Cauchon, who left politics in 2004, has signaled his intention to return to Parliament Hill and reclaim the riding he held for 11 years.
However, Ignatieff announced last Monday that he would appoint businesswoman Nathalie Le Prohon as the Liberal candidate in Outremont.
The decision seemed to end Cauchon's hopes of a political comeback, but Coderre announced later in the week that another riding would be offered to Cauchon.
By the end of the week, Ignatieff had reversed his own decision about Outremont to allow for an open nomination contest in the riding.
While the article is certainly heart-warming for anyone who (like me) has become tired of Michael's disingenuine charade, my favorite part of the article was the comment post by Adele Hay:
Liberal Ignatieff was given a riding by Paul Martin. Martha Hall Findlay and Gerard Kennedy were given Toronto ridings by Stephan Dion. These big stars are all so good but can only win in Toronto or a couple of ridings in Quebec. What happened to community people who are passionate about their communities and understand them and wanting to do more? The Liberal Party I believe would of retired in the USA if he had any money, Bob Rae is a left over from the NDP. The Liberal Party is just not a credible organization anymore I do NOT recognize my own party. I am warming up to PM Harper more all the time as he is mainstream and the world luvs him, he is good for Canada.
Like you, Adele, I was once a Liberal. Those days, like Michael's, are done.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
What Came First - Mindless Media or Mindless Public?
Ok.
So I'm still watching CNN (you'd think I'd have something more interesting to do on a Sunday morning).
After CNN went to some lengths to defend themselves against Obama's tirade about the 24 hour media being devoid of substance and big on simple, angry, confrontation, well, they followed it up with a lengthy interview with Joy Behar. Seeking her input as to current events, including, oh, John Edwards love child, Glenn Beck moving to Fox News (he's frequently ridiculous, and is a former alcoholic and drug addict, so that is why he's so offensive didn't you know?). Oh now they're asking her about whether or not conservative women have more orgasms than liberal women. Mostly, they just are doing a promo for her new television show, not surprisingly called, "The Joy Behar Show" on CNN's sister network, "Headline News".
This is what apparently passes for "News" on "The most trusted name in news."
For those of you who don't know who Joy Behar is, well:
I know. I didn't know who they hell she was either.
Well, she's on television already 5 days per week, on "The View".
I know, I've never watched it either.
"The View", according to it's ABC website "features ABC News correspondent Barbara Walters -- who appears on average three days a week – moderator Whoopi Goldberg, comedian Joy Behar, actress/comedian Sherri Shepherd and designer and former “Survivor: The Australian Outback” participant Elisabeth Hasselbeck."
Yes. Joy Behar is an "actress/comedian".
This is news. An interview with a mindless moron, and a show featuring a mindless moron.
But. The question, fairly, is whether the public is becoming stupider BECAUSE of what they're being fed by the media (as Obama suggests) or whether the media is becoming stupider to adapt to the demand of the public.
I suggest its the latter.
The broad public doesn't want and won't tolerate media that is serious and difficult, and, well, not "entertaining". There is plenty of information on the internet regarding the President's health care program, regarding climate change, regarding all of the issues of our day - but the public, by and large, evidences a level of understanding that doesn't even approach that of media bozo's like Joy Behar and, yes, Glen Beck.
We exercise our voting franchise like we decide on our fast food. Not based upon any researched effort on determining what the nutritional value is, but based upon the packaging of the commercial and the way it "feels" when we eat it.
Welcome to the McDonald's world. To the world of McAnswers to our serious problems.
And if you don't like it - well, why are you watching Nancy Grace, Bill O'Rielly, Glen Beck,and, yes, Joy Behar?
So I'm still watching CNN (you'd think I'd have something more interesting to do on a Sunday morning).
After CNN went to some lengths to defend themselves against Obama's tirade about the 24 hour media being devoid of substance and big on simple, angry, confrontation, well, they followed it up with a lengthy interview with Joy Behar. Seeking her input as to current events, including, oh, John Edwards love child, Glenn Beck moving to Fox News (he's frequently ridiculous, and is a former alcoholic and drug addict, so that is why he's so offensive didn't you know?). Oh now they're asking her about whether or not conservative women have more orgasms than liberal women. Mostly, they just are doing a promo for her new television show, not surprisingly called, "The Joy Behar Show" on CNN's sister network, "Headline News".
This is what apparently passes for "News" on "The most trusted name in news."
For those of you who don't know who Joy Behar is, well:
I know. I didn't know who they hell she was either.
Well, she's on television already 5 days per week, on "The View".
I know, I've never watched it either.
"The View", according to it's ABC website "features ABC News correspondent Barbara Walters -- who appears on average three days a week – moderator Whoopi Goldberg, comedian Joy Behar, actress/comedian Sherri Shepherd and designer and former “Survivor: The Australian Outback” participant Elisabeth Hasselbeck."
Yes. Joy Behar is an "actress/comedian".
This is news. An interview with a mindless moron, and a show featuring a mindless moron.
But. The question, fairly, is whether the public is becoming stupider BECAUSE of what they're being fed by the media (as Obama suggests) or whether the media is becoming stupider to adapt to the demand of the public.
I suggest its the latter.
The broad public doesn't want and won't tolerate media that is serious and difficult, and, well, not "entertaining". There is plenty of information on the internet regarding the President's health care program, regarding climate change, regarding all of the issues of our day - but the public, by and large, evidences a level of understanding that doesn't even approach that of media bozo's like Joy Behar and, yes, Glen Beck.
We exercise our voting franchise like we decide on our fast food. Not based upon any researched effort on determining what the nutritional value is, but based upon the packaging of the commercial and the way it "feels" when we eat it.
Welcome to the McDonald's world. To the world of McAnswers to our serious problems.
And if you don't like it - well, why are you watching Nancy Grace, Bill O'Rielly, Glen Beck,and, yes, Joy Behar?
Obama Upset with the Media.. and I say, "Those who live by the sword.."
So.
I'm watching CNN this morning, and see Barack Obama is upset about the media. That they over-simplify, that they're overly negative, that the media is not doing it's "job" in bringing information to the people.
Is anyone else stating the obvious?
That the significant success of Obama's election was also based upon a simplified and negative media.
Now - let's make sure we're not over-stating the case. The American public had many reasons to not vote for the Republicans after the myriad of errors on the part of George W. Bush over two years in office. Even as a Conservative, I would not presume to suggest that the media were responsible for McCain's loss.
However - the "Campaign of Hope" was a typical 21st century media endeavor, big on hype, low on substance. The speeches of Barack Obama owed more to Nancy Grace than they did to Walter Cronkite.
So, uh, Mr. Obama - spare us the indignation. You took advantage of a superficial media in a manner never seen before in U.S. politics, you had every significant media presence outside of Fox News eating from your hand - to the point that people like John Stewart started to embarrass themselves with the overt public campaign to idolize you and demonize Bush.
So, forget getting your face on Letterman and every other possible news program, and just go to work. Nobody said selling health care or dealing with Afghanistan was going to be easy, so stop with the whining. It doesn't become you.
I'm watching CNN this morning, and see Barack Obama is upset about the media. That they over-simplify, that they're overly negative, that the media is not doing it's "job" in bringing information to the people.
Is anyone else stating the obvious?
That the significant success of Obama's election was also based upon a simplified and negative media.
Now - let's make sure we're not over-stating the case. The American public had many reasons to not vote for the Republicans after the myriad of errors on the part of George W. Bush over two years in office. Even as a Conservative, I would not presume to suggest that the media were responsible for McCain's loss.
However - the "Campaign of Hope" was a typical 21st century media endeavor, big on hype, low on substance. The speeches of Barack Obama owed more to Nancy Grace than they did to Walter Cronkite.
So, uh, Mr. Obama - spare us the indignation. You took advantage of a superficial media in a manner never seen before in U.S. politics, you had every significant media presence outside of Fox News eating from your hand - to the point that people like John Stewart started to embarrass themselves with the overt public campaign to idolize you and demonize Bush.
So, forget getting your face on Letterman and every other possible news program, and just go to work. Nobody said selling health care or dealing with Afghanistan was going to be easy, so stop with the whining. It doesn't become you.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Random Potpourri on the Net
...Stephen Harper stands as "a sterling example of principled leadership" for boycotting UN General Assembly and supporting Israel.
...Odd little cabal of Liberal protesters demand that Harper listen to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad explain why he's really a good guy, instead of visiting and supporting a successful Canadian business. See photo below:
...Warren Kinsella acknoweldges anti-semitism on "Liblogs" and withdraws his blog from their site.
Kind of makes you scratch your head and go, "hmmmmm".
...Odd little cabal of Liberal protesters demand that Harper listen to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad explain why he's really a good guy, instead of visiting and supporting a successful Canadian business. See photo below:
...Warren Kinsella acknoweldges anti-semitism on "Liblogs" and withdraws his blog from their site.
Kind of makes you scratch your head and go, "hmmmmm".
Surprise, surprise.. an appointee of Jean Chretien is charged with defrauding the taxpayer..
Well.
Color me shocked.
While Michael Ignatieff of late is getting all indignant about the relative share of stimulus money going to Liberal strongholds, a Liberal appointee has been charged criminally with defrauding the Canadian taxpayer.
Lise Thibault, Quebec's former lieutenant-governor was hit with six criminal charges yesterday, including fraud, forgery and breach of trust for allegedly misusing funds while in office.
In 1997 Thibault was appointed Lieutenant-governor of the Province of Quebec, on the advice of Jean Chretien. In case you were wondering whether she was one of those pure and non-partisan appointments that the Liberals are so fond of making, rest assured, she paid her dues as a former Provincial and Federal Liberal Candidate prior to receiving her keys to the tax-payer cookie jar from Jean Chretien.
Isn't that special?
You know, Michael Ignatieff, perhaps the reason that Liberal supporters aren't getting more Federal money is that they have already helped themselves. Maybe, you, in your huge glass house of liberal patronage and pork-barreling should stop throwing rocks in desperation at the Conservatives for allegedly directing stimulus money to Conservative ridings. Perhaps you should shut your mouth long enough to let the process run it's course and then judge it once it's been more fully rolled out.
The gall, the temerity, of a party full of lying and stealing greaseballs to try and make political hay out of the current stimulus program - particularly after voting against the home renovation funding program, is sickening.
This blog has tried to be somewhat leery of being a partisan cheer leader for the Conservatives, however, my sickness in watching Michael Ignatieff makes it almost impossible not to be partisan. There is not even the pretence of understanding or remorse for just how badly his party let this country down by stealing from the taxpayer in the Sponsorship scandal, and now, we see, that the full extent of Liberal malfeasance still hasn't been disclosed.
God help us should he ever become the Prime Minister of this Country.
Color me shocked.
While Michael Ignatieff of late is getting all indignant about the relative share of stimulus money going to Liberal strongholds, a Liberal appointee has been charged criminally with defrauding the Canadian taxpayer.
Lise Thibault, Quebec's former lieutenant-governor was hit with six criminal charges yesterday, including fraud, forgery and breach of trust for allegedly misusing funds while in office.
In 1997 Thibault was appointed Lieutenant-governor of the Province of Quebec, on the advice of Jean Chretien. In case you were wondering whether she was one of those pure and non-partisan appointments that the Liberals are so fond of making, rest assured, she paid her dues as a former Provincial and Federal Liberal Candidate prior to receiving her keys to the tax-payer cookie jar from Jean Chretien.
Isn't that special?
You know, Michael Ignatieff, perhaps the reason that Liberal supporters aren't getting more Federal money is that they have already helped themselves. Maybe, you, in your huge glass house of liberal patronage and pork-barreling should stop throwing rocks in desperation at the Conservatives for allegedly directing stimulus money to Conservative ridings. Perhaps you should shut your mouth long enough to let the process run it's course and then judge it once it's been more fully rolled out.
The gall, the temerity, of a party full of lying and stealing greaseballs to try and make political hay out of the current stimulus program - particularly after voting against the home renovation funding program, is sickening.
This blog has tried to be somewhat leery of being a partisan cheer leader for the Conservatives, however, my sickness in watching Michael Ignatieff makes it almost impossible not to be partisan. There is not even the pretence of understanding or remorse for just how badly his party let this country down by stealing from the taxpayer in the Sponsorship scandal, and now, we see, that the full extent of Liberal malfeasance still hasn't been disclosed.
God help us should he ever become the Prime Minister of this Country.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Can you smell the fear?
If you can hold your nose long enough, go have a quick peek at Kinsella's blog. The so-called James Carville of the Liberal election machine.
Can you smell the fear?
We don't need no steenking polls.. this blog tells you everything you need. They have no plan, no ideas, the best they can do is trumpet a demonstration of 14 Liberals complaining because Harper wasn't at the U.N. to listen to Muammar Gaddafi and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - receiving a heartfelt thank-you from Binyamin Netanyahu for he, and others, doing just that. Refusing to take part in what has become the biggest international joke since Chamberlains policy of Nazi appeazement.
Oh. And he has a great picture of Davey Snot.
Brilliant, just brilliant.
Can you smell the fear?
We don't need no steenking polls.. this blog tells you everything you need. They have no plan, no ideas, the best they can do is trumpet a demonstration of 14 Liberals complaining because Harper wasn't at the U.N. to listen to Muammar Gaddafi and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - receiving a heartfelt thank-you from Binyamin Netanyahu for he, and others, doing just that. Refusing to take part in what has become the biggest international joke since Chamberlains policy of Nazi appeazement.
Oh. And he has a great picture of Davey Snot.
Brilliant, just brilliant.
Addendum..
Following my last post, I see the Libs have a new press release on their site. Seeking to ban "politicized advertising".
That's fine, the press is doing a good enough job showing the Prime Minister as a true statesman, with pictures like this:
Apparently, however, Michel will have to keep paying for his own photo ops with the American President.. like this:
(Oh. BTW. The picture of Harper and Obama was taken with the announcement of Canada as the first site of the new G20 replacing the G8. If you recall that was ONE of the four things the Liberals proposed, that they could DO BETTER. Guess not.)
That's fine, the press is doing a good enough job showing the Prime Minister as a true statesman, with pictures like this:
Apparently, however, Michel will have to keep paying for his own photo ops with the American President.. like this:
(Oh. BTW. The picture of Harper and Obama was taken with the announcement of Canada as the first site of the new G20 replacing the G8. If you recall that was ONE of the four things the Liberals proposed, that they could DO BETTER. Guess not.)
Ingatieff.. is that all you've got? Even Liberals are backing up Stephen Harper
I'm generally loath to suggest anyone look at the Liberal Party of Canada's website, but this morning, I'll make an exception. Before you go have a look, put this question in your mind: What do the Liberals want to do for Canada?
Ok. Now go look here.
Are you back? Ok.. what did you see? Nothing but partisan complaints, four separate articles on one subject. Nothing else. They have put all of eggs in the basket of their alleged "smoking gun" created by Gerard Kennedy, bolstered by a desperate effort on the part of unelected PC candidate Gordon Landon doing his best to look like a Liberal in the Liberal stronghold of Markham-Union.
Gordon Landon? He's trying to get elected in Markham, a massive Liberal stronghold in the GTA. As a Conservative, he has about as much chance of getting elected there as a Liberal does in Medicine Hat, Alberta. His only hope, his desperate hope, is that he can convince his riding that he's not really a Conservative. Nice try Gordon.
Why don't we chat with some actually elected Liberals? Provincial Liberals who have no interest, particularly, in supporting the Conservative Party. In the Star today, we see this interesting commentary:
Even David Miller is shaking John Baird's hands these days, happy to have turned around their initially failed stimulus funding bid.
This is all you have Michael?
This is what you are resting the hopes of your ascent to the throne upon? Please tell me you have something more, Michael. Particularly when every single adult Canadian more than recalls the massive Liberal pork handed out, year, after year, after year, after year, after year....
It wasn't that long ago that poor John Turner looked into the lights of the cameras, stammering to the Canadian public, defenceless against the attacks of Bryan Mulroney questioning the massive number of plumb government appointments made by his party preceding Pierre Trudeau's stepping down as PM.
In case you don't recall the specifics, upon realizing his party would face defeat in the next election, Trudeau appointed 200 Liberals to well-paying patronage positions, including Senators, judges, and executives on various governmental and crown corporation boards, widely seen as a way to offer "plum jobs" to loyal party members. Upon being handed the reins, Turner appointed 70 more.
Did they learn their lesson? Hardly. Upon returning to power, the Liberals under Jean Chretien embarked upon an effort to dole out taxpayer dollars to their friends in an affair that will continue in infamy, through the Adscam affair.
So. Michael Ignatieff and the Liberal Party of Canada.. as you seek to suggest you hold the political high ground in this Country, please. Show the Canadian public the respect of not insulting their intelligence, or their memories.
Bring us something new. Tell us what you will do differently.
*crickets chirping*
Ok. Now go look here.
Are you back? Ok.. what did you see? Nothing but partisan complaints, four separate articles on one subject. Nothing else. They have put all of eggs in the basket of their alleged "smoking gun" created by Gerard Kennedy, bolstered by a desperate effort on the part of unelected PC candidate Gordon Landon doing his best to look like a Liberal in the Liberal stronghold of Markham-Union.
Gordon Landon? He's trying to get elected in Markham, a massive Liberal stronghold in the GTA. As a Conservative, he has about as much chance of getting elected there as a Liberal does in Medicine Hat, Alberta. His only hope, his desperate hope, is that he can convince his riding that he's not really a Conservative. Nice try Gordon.
Why don't we chat with some actually elected Liberals? Provincial Liberals who have no interest, particularly, in supporting the Conservative Party. In the Star today, we see this interesting commentary:
Ignatieff's partisan strategy did not enjoy a lot of support yesterday at Queen's Park, where 25 Liberal MPPs share ridings with Conservative MPs.
"I'm telling you, I get a lot more from my Conservative seatmate than I got from the Liberal MP who had the seat before," said one unhappy Liberal MPP.
Another Liberal MPP whose riding is held by the Tories federally also felt McGuinty and Harper have worked well together to ensure the infrastructure largesse is spread around fairly. "These are not just `Conservative' ridings, they are `Liberal' ridings, too," the MPP fumed.
Even David Miller is shaking John Baird's hands these days, happy to have turned around their initially failed stimulus funding bid.
This is all you have Michael?
This is what you are resting the hopes of your ascent to the throne upon? Please tell me you have something more, Michael. Particularly when every single adult Canadian more than recalls the massive Liberal pork handed out, year, after year, after year, after year, after year....
It wasn't that long ago that poor John Turner looked into the lights of the cameras, stammering to the Canadian public, defenceless against the attacks of Bryan Mulroney questioning the massive number of plumb government appointments made by his party preceding Pierre Trudeau's stepping down as PM.
In case you don't recall the specifics, upon realizing his party would face defeat in the next election, Trudeau appointed 200 Liberals to well-paying patronage positions, including Senators, judges, and executives on various governmental and crown corporation boards, widely seen as a way to offer "plum jobs" to loyal party members. Upon being handed the reins, Turner appointed 70 more.
Did they learn their lesson? Hardly. Upon returning to power, the Liberals under Jean Chretien embarked upon an effort to dole out taxpayer dollars to their friends in an affair that will continue in infamy, through the Adscam affair.
So. Michael Ignatieff and the Liberal Party of Canada.. as you seek to suggest you hold the political high ground in this Country, please. Show the Canadian public the respect of not insulting their intelligence, or their memories.
Bring us something new. Tell us what you will do differently.
*crickets chirping*
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Polygamy Charges Dismissed in Bountiful
So - the Courts in B.C. have thrown out he Polygamy charges against the members of the Bountiful church according to today's National Post.
While the reasons are different.. told you so.
While the reasons are different.. told you so.
Uneven Stimulus Funding? Maybe Liberals have to do more than just put their hand out..
Having given credit to Big City Liberal yesterday for a decent post regarding the difficulties inherent in the stimulus spending project, today, he returns to his more partisan roots, and complains that, among other things, the Conservative ridings are getting more of the stimulus money.
My comment, well, perhaps Conservatives are just better business people. That would hardly be a stretch of the imagination, would it - as I point out to BCL, witness David Miller's ham-fisted effort at buying streetcars with stimulus money.
Beyond that, it might also be that Liberals just aren't all that used to being forced to account for what their spending their money on. It wasn't all that long ago that government money was flowing like wine from Jean Chretien and his friends in the Province of Quebec.. but we all know how that ended.
On a smaller scale, we also saw how the "revitalisation" of Digby Wharf went - transferring the property for $1.00 and handing over another $3 million to Ralston MacDonnell (good pal of Jean Chretien) didn't work out so well for Canadians either, as I discussed on this blog some months ago.
You want some stimulus money, Liberal ridings? Well, stop just putting your hand out expecting the government to just give it to you for no reason (yes, I know you aren't used to that, but, well, there's a new Sheriff in town, and his name isn't "Jean Chretien".)
My comment, well, perhaps Conservatives are just better business people. That would hardly be a stretch of the imagination, would it - as I point out to BCL, witness David Miller's ham-fisted effort at buying streetcars with stimulus money.
Beyond that, it might also be that Liberals just aren't all that used to being forced to account for what their spending their money on. It wasn't all that long ago that government money was flowing like wine from Jean Chretien and his friends in the Province of Quebec.. but we all know how that ended.
On a smaller scale, we also saw how the "revitalisation" of Digby Wharf went - transferring the property for $1.00 and handing over another $3 million to Ralston MacDonnell (good pal of Jean Chretien) didn't work out so well for Canadians either, as I discussed on this blog some months ago.
You want some stimulus money, Liberal ridings? Well, stop just putting your hand out expecting the government to just give it to you for no reason (yes, I know you aren't used to that, but, well, there's a new Sheriff in town, and his name isn't "Jean Chretien".)
G20 Conference - Take a Good Look at Pittsburgh
So - the G20 Conference in on, and the usual suspects are sure to infect it, demonstrators who like to betray the immaturity of their ilk by seeking to foment violence and destruction to, somehow, illustrate how evil the civil attendees of the conference are.
I can't help but regard these demonstrators as present-day Barbarians who seek to "save" the world from what they see as the modern-day Romans, the economic consortium of the G20.
In some respects, the metaphor may be apt, insofar as things like peace, order, and pursuit of science and art all depend upon strongly functioning economies. No doubt, if these mindless hordes had their way, they would bring about a return to the dark ages. I suppose the point being that everyone should be as sad and pathetic as they are.
In that vein, Canada may want to pay particular attention to Pittsburgh, the city, beyond the confines of the conference itself.
The City of Pittsburgh, in some significant respects, offers both warning and encouragement over what Canada and, for me, Alberta, may look forward to.
If you have the time, I highly recommend Mike Madson's blog on the revitalization of Pittsburgh, both the reality and the myths, as an excellent discussion on the economic and cultural rebirth of Pittsburgh, in Pitsblog here.
Pittsburgh, as most people know, was the heart of the American industrial machine throughout the early 20th century. America was built on steel, and that steel came from Pittsburgh. However, the decline of the steel industry, which could have been foreseen, but wasn't, resulted in a serious decline for the City, a decline which only now is being turned around in a revitalization which is capturing headlines recently with the commencement of the G20 conference in Pittsburgh.
In an interesting mix of private philanthropy, government support, and citizen initiative, Pittsburgh has transformed from a one-trick pony, to a broadly based, and growing, economy, including significant emphasis on medical research and other high-tech business. It has, at the same time, moved from a smoky, industrial city that was often referred to as "hell with the lid off", to the 10th cleanest city in the world.
Canada, and Alberta in particular, could learn much. We are still an economy that relies upon development of basic resources for revenue, and like Pittsburgh, if we are not careful, there will be an awakening one day should demand for resources experience a massive change. For political and environmental reasons, the world and the U.S. in particular, is seeking to look to renewable domestic sources of energy in particular, and putting too many eggs in that basket is a recipe for disaster, just as the Pittsburgh reliance upon the steel industry almost decimated that city.
So, here's hoping that while our politicians are looking at the G20, they back up a little and take a good look at the City surrounding the conference. They might learn something.
Oh. And the cleanest city in the world according to Forbes?
Calgary, Alberta.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Stimulus Spending.. Sorry Canada, There's No McAnswers For You Today!
So. Occasionally I'm asked by other Conservatives why I support Liberal blogs by posting them on my site as "Blogs Worth Reading". Well, in general, I find that if you surround yourself with people who agree with you, you run the risk of becoming a naked emperor exposing your shortcomings. In other words, through understanding (if not agreeing) with criticism, you can more realistically assess the validity of your own thought processes.
Beyond that, occasionally, you see something that is truly well thought out. Such is the case today, actually, on Big City Liberal, reviewing recent information relative to Stimulus Spending in the U.S. that is probably applicable in Canada.
Review his well stated post here.
The point, essentially, is that the reality is that even if you assume stimulus spending is a good idea, there are built in economic and manpower impediments that probably work against any real immediate implementation of that spending.
That then leads to my own thoughts, working from that premise - based upon the information in the Big City Liberal post.
The problem is, really, we live in the McDonald Fast Food culture, where the electorate expects to drive up to the Government window and obtain "McAnswers" to whatever the current societal problem is.
If any politician, Liberal, Conservative, Democrat or Republican, held back and explained that there was not going to be a quick fix, no doubt the result:
a) Opposition parties would immediately use the truth as a basis to suggest that the government was ineffectual or unwilling to answer the needs of Canadians; and
b) The public, waiting at the fast-food window, would hardly spend a moment to listen to the complex response from government that realistic immediate stimulus spending is impossible.. and would instead, jump on the opposition bandwagon, demanding immediate, ineffectual responses to make them feel better.
Such is the current political reality, which, really sucks from either side of the political spectrum.
And Kudos to BCL making the point without piling on any Liberal spin, while complaints abound right now that the Conservatives are being slow in rolling out spending.
Beyond that, occasionally, you see something that is truly well thought out. Such is the case today, actually, on Big City Liberal, reviewing recent information relative to Stimulus Spending in the U.S. that is probably applicable in Canada.
Review his well stated post here.
The point, essentially, is that the reality is that even if you assume stimulus spending is a good idea, there are built in economic and manpower impediments that probably work against any real immediate implementation of that spending.
That then leads to my own thoughts, working from that premise - based upon the information in the Big City Liberal post.
The problem is, really, we live in the McDonald Fast Food culture, where the electorate expects to drive up to the Government window and obtain "McAnswers" to whatever the current societal problem is.
If any politician, Liberal, Conservative, Democrat or Republican, held back and explained that there was not going to be a quick fix, no doubt the result:
a) Opposition parties would immediately use the truth as a basis to suggest that the government was ineffectual or unwilling to answer the needs of Canadians; and
b) The public, waiting at the fast-food window, would hardly spend a moment to listen to the complex response from government that realistic immediate stimulus spending is impossible.. and would instead, jump on the opposition bandwagon, demanding immediate, ineffectual responses to make them feel better.
Such is the current political reality, which, really sucks from either side of the political spectrum.
And Kudos to BCL making the point without piling on any Liberal spin, while complaints abound right now that the Conservatives are being slow in rolling out spending.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
What's Wrong With This Picture?
Ok.. let's start with this:
A 21 year old (can you say able-bodied?) waste of space, Christopher Thomas Guthrie, with a history of “violence, randomly approaching people and trying to take their property”, approaches a 58 year old man who was carrying groceries, and when he refused to give Guthrie 50 cents, Guthrie punched Greg Foran in the face, causing him to fall, sustaining fatal head injuries.
The result? Justice Bruce Fraser accepted a joint submission and directed a 3 year sentence. Three years for attacking and killing a senior carrying his groceries.
Let's move on now to the next story:
Another apparent 20-something (can you say able-bodied again) waste of space, Geraldine Beardy, attends upon a convenience store and decides to steal property from the 61 year old owner or operator. Well, it appears he decided not to just allow the theft to occur, and responded by stopping her, striking her with some object in the chest - presumeably some sort of club. Well, she leaves, and makes no complaint for two days nor seeks any medical attention for two days, and then, three days after that, she apparently dies.
The result? The 61 year old operator of the shop is charged with aggravated assault.
Seems to me, following up on story number one, when you are approached by a worthless loser who is seeking to steal from you, you have a reasonable basis to believe that your life is in danger.
Clearly.
So - when you are 61 years old, and seeking to protect your property, or property under your care, from theft, you should be entitled to smack the loser once or twice with a weapon (61 year olds shouldn't be expected to repel a criminal with their own physical power alone) to prevent the continued commission of the offence.
Welcome to the new liberal construct of how society should be operated. A slap on the wrist for violent pan-handlers who kill seniors carrying their groceries, and the full weight of the criminal process being used against another senior seeking to protect themselves from a similar act.
Nice.
A 21 year old (can you say able-bodied?) waste of space, Christopher Thomas Guthrie, with a history of “violence, randomly approaching people and trying to take their property”, approaches a 58 year old man who was carrying groceries, and when he refused to give Guthrie 50 cents, Guthrie punched Greg Foran in the face, causing him to fall, sustaining fatal head injuries.
The result? Justice Bruce Fraser accepted a joint submission and directed a 3 year sentence. Three years for attacking and killing a senior carrying his groceries.
Let's move on now to the next story:
Another apparent 20-something (can you say able-bodied again) waste of space, Geraldine Beardy, attends upon a convenience store and decides to steal property from the 61 year old owner or operator. Well, it appears he decided not to just allow the theft to occur, and responded by stopping her, striking her with some object in the chest - presumeably some sort of club. Well, she leaves, and makes no complaint for two days nor seeks any medical attention for two days, and then, three days after that, she apparently dies.
The result? The 61 year old operator of the shop is charged with aggravated assault.
Seems to me, following up on story number one, when you are approached by a worthless loser who is seeking to steal from you, you have a reasonable basis to believe that your life is in danger.
Clearly.
So - when you are 61 years old, and seeking to protect your property, or property under your care, from theft, you should be entitled to smack the loser once or twice with a weapon (61 year olds shouldn't be expected to repel a criminal with their own physical power alone) to prevent the continued commission of the offence.
Welcome to the new liberal construct of how society should be operated. A slap on the wrist for violent pan-handlers who kill seniors carrying their groceries, and the full weight of the criminal process being used against another senior seeking to protect themselves from a similar act.
Nice.
Oh. My. God. He didn't just say that.. no he di'int.
Ok. Michael, stop already. It was bad enough already, now (with thanks to Albertaardvark) we see Michael, in public, telling former Liberal Justice Minister, Martin Cauchon, that he can't seek the nomination in the Quebec riding of Outremont. As reported on CBC yesterday, Michael said this:
So much said in one sentence, and none of it good. Let me translate for those of you who don't speak "stupid":
a) We have no faith that a woman can compete in today's society for a seat simply based upon their own merit. Women are weaker and not as capable, so, we need to be careful in finding "safe" seats where EVEN A WOMAN has a chance of succeeding;
b) Martin, I know you were the former Minister of Justice, but let's be honest. Former Liberal MP's, and even Cabinet Ministers really have nothing of value to offer our party. Even though we have NO WOMAN currently willing to run in Outremont, apparently a weak and incapable (see above) nobody has more to offer Canada than the past Liberal Minister of Justice.
Huh.
Hey Warren, I think you can stop with your hunt for the "little source weasel" for the Hill Times story you were so worried about yesterday. The real killer of your party has exposed himself on national news. And don't worry about taking a chainsaw to his modest political ambitions. He's already doing it to himself.
"I told him that we have been soliciting female candidates and we not only intend to have women candidates, we want them where they can win."
So much said in one sentence, and none of it good. Let me translate for those of you who don't speak "stupid":
a) We have no faith that a woman can compete in today's society for a seat simply based upon their own merit. Women are weaker and not as capable, so, we need to be careful in finding "safe" seats where EVEN A WOMAN has a chance of succeeding;
b) Martin, I know you were the former Minister of Justice, but let's be honest. Former Liberal MP's, and even Cabinet Ministers really have nothing of value to offer our party. Even though we have NO WOMAN currently willing to run in Outremont, apparently a weak and incapable (see above) nobody has more to offer Canada than the past Liberal Minister of Justice.
Huh.
Hey Warren, I think you can stop with your hunt for the "little source weasel" for the Hill Times story you were so worried about yesterday. The real killer of your party has exposed himself on national news. And don't worry about taking a chainsaw to his modest political ambitions. He's already doing it to himself.
Michael, your shortcomings are showing..
Following up on yesterday's post, being somewhat philosphical, one ponders for a moment how thankful we, as Conservatives, should be that Michael Ignatieff is not getting better counsel in his bid to become King of Canada.
If he displayed a modicum of principle, Iggy could have been a formidable leader for the Libs.. but he caught the Liberal disease being a ravenous hunger for power, NOW.
Not that I'm looking for new work, but if Michael asked me to give him some advice, I would have told him:
a) Be patient. Understand that Canadians have no stomach for an election, and develop some sound policy that the broad centre can get behind. Use your opposition pulpit not to make hollow threats that just betray your weakness when you can't follow through, but to make lucid commentary on improving government policy. Show yourself to be a statesman, not some side-show barker yelling at Canadians to "step right up" so you can guess their weight;
b) Acknowledge the humanity of yourself and your party. Realize there are some ugly skeletons in the Liberal closet, from betraying Canadians with the utterly failed gun control concept, to adscam, to seeking to carbon tax us deeper into recession. Admit that you've been away, and will spend some time getting to know Canadians again. Stop pretending that you've always been here, admit you haven't and ask Canadians to overlook that. (On this point, they probably won't overlook your demeaning commentary about Canada as a "herbivorian boyscout", but a timely "mea culpa" goes a long way);
c) Distance yourself from kool-aid drinking ghosts of Liberals past. The electorate are not nearly as stupid as some of your close advisors suggest. In other words, it is difficult to establish credibility when, one day, you criticize the Prime Minister for putting a gag on his troops, and then, the next day, when your troops are restless, your close confidant threatens to "take a chainsaw to their political ambitions, however modest they may be." As grownup people know, there is a time to think something, but not say it. Allowing yourself to be identified with a half-cocked aged former punk rocker is no way to attain the throne you so clearly covet;
d) Re-think Ken Dryden's foolish proposal for universal daycare. If you are hell-bent on some social engineering, how about a proposal that does something real and tangeable for children, as opposed to finding a way to expand our civil service. How about universal school breakfast and lunch programs. Assuring every child in school gets at least two decent meals per day. Allows the kids to learn with some food in their belly, and sends them the message that they are valued by the broader society. I'm thinking for the price of a sandwich, a glass of milk and an apple, you'll get more bang for your buck that hiring a bunch of left-leaning Hillary Clintonities with Orwellian ideas of teaching our pre-schoolers their views of the "proper" society.
So - there you have it Michael, four pieces of advice that you won't take and none of the entourage around you will give you. Expect them to just keep telling you that your robes are magnificent, even as you walk, naked, into the next election.
If he displayed a modicum of principle, Iggy could have been a formidable leader for the Libs.. but he caught the Liberal disease being a ravenous hunger for power, NOW.
Not that I'm looking for new work, but if Michael asked me to give him some advice, I would have told him:
a) Be patient. Understand that Canadians have no stomach for an election, and develop some sound policy that the broad centre can get behind. Use your opposition pulpit not to make hollow threats that just betray your weakness when you can't follow through, but to make lucid commentary on improving government policy. Show yourself to be a statesman, not some side-show barker yelling at Canadians to "step right up" so you can guess their weight;
b) Acknowledge the humanity of yourself and your party. Realize there are some ugly skeletons in the Liberal closet, from betraying Canadians with the utterly failed gun control concept, to adscam, to seeking to carbon tax us deeper into recession. Admit that you've been away, and will spend some time getting to know Canadians again. Stop pretending that you've always been here, admit you haven't and ask Canadians to overlook that. (On this point, they probably won't overlook your demeaning commentary about Canada as a "herbivorian boyscout", but a timely "mea culpa" goes a long way);
c) Distance yourself from kool-aid drinking ghosts of Liberals past. The electorate are not nearly as stupid as some of your close advisors suggest. In other words, it is difficult to establish credibility when, one day, you criticize the Prime Minister for putting a gag on his troops, and then, the next day, when your troops are restless, your close confidant threatens to "take a chainsaw to their political ambitions, however modest they may be." As grownup people know, there is a time to think something, but not say it. Allowing yourself to be identified with a half-cocked aged former punk rocker is no way to attain the throne you so clearly covet;
d) Re-think Ken Dryden's foolish proposal for universal daycare. If you are hell-bent on some social engineering, how about a proposal that does something real and tangeable for children, as opposed to finding a way to expand our civil service. How about universal school breakfast and lunch programs. Assuring every child in school gets at least two decent meals per day. Allows the kids to learn with some food in their belly, and sends them the message that they are valued by the broader society. I'm thinking for the price of a sandwich, a glass of milk and an apple, you'll get more bang for your buck that hiring a bunch of left-leaning Hillary Clintonities with Orwellian ideas of teaching our pre-schoolers their views of the "proper" society.
So - there you have it Michael, four pieces of advice that you won't take and none of the entourage around you will give you. Expect them to just keep telling you that your robes are magnificent, even as you walk, naked, into the next election.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Trouble in Liberal-land..
Today's Hill Times headline:
And the response of the hard-core Ignatieffites?
Are these the same Liberals who complain bitterly when Harper seeks to maintain party solidarity by discouraging internal criticism? Imagine the fireworks if Stephen Harper or one of his trusted advisers publicly stated that they were going to "chainsaw the ambitions of the source weasel" of someone who disagreed with their policy (or complete lack thereof in the case of Michael Ignatieff).
You remember Warren Kinsella, don't you? He's the one who explained in his blog how the Prime Minister has failed Canada. Well, the news isn't getting better for Mr. Kinsella and his big brother, Michael Ignatieff:
Well.
I will give Warren Kinsella credit for his foresight though, a scant three months ago he was calling on his leader to force an immediate election, predicting that:
Well. You hit the nail on the head with that one, Warren.
And we're getting stronger.
Ignatieff has 'put absolutely nothing on the table,' say Liberal insiders
'We're looking at a massacre' in next election if Grit Leader Michael Ignatieff doesn't put anything substantive on the table.
And the response of the hard-core Ignatieffites?
"Hi, I'm Warren. I'm not nice. I intend to find out who you are, little Hill Times source weasel, and I intend to take a chainsaw to your political ambitions, however modest they may be."
Are these the same Liberals who complain bitterly when Harper seeks to maintain party solidarity by discouraging internal criticism? Imagine the fireworks if Stephen Harper or one of his trusted advisers publicly stated that they were going to "chainsaw the ambitions of the source weasel" of someone who disagreed with their policy (or complete lack thereof in the case of Michael Ignatieff).
You remember Warren Kinsella, don't you? He's the one who explained in his blog how the Prime Minister has failed Canada. Well, the news isn't getting better for Mr. Kinsella and his big brother, Michael Ignatieff:
The latest Nanos Economic Monitor tracking indicates that an increasing number of Canadians think the economy will strengthen in the next six months. With perceptions on the future direction of the economy being a leading indicator, the current mood is a clear signal that for the first time in almost two years, Canadians are bullish on the future.
The Nanos tracking of the economic mood shows that Canadians are two and one half more times to think that the economy will strengthen as opposed to weaken in the next six months. The current level of forward optimism is the highest since the fall of 2007, prior to the economic downturn. Of note every region of the country is more optimistic on the economic front compared to the last quarter.
Well.
I will give Warren Kinsella credit for his foresight though, a scant three months ago he was calling on his leader to force an immediate election, predicting that:
In a few months - due to a economy rebounding, mainly - they (the Conservatives) could be strong.
Well. You hit the nail on the head with that one, Warren.
And we're getting stronger.
Afghanistan and the liberal war construct
Norman Spector, in his blog on the Globe and Mail site today remarks on the disclosure of U.S. General Stanley A. McChrystal's report to President Obama, stating "Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) -- while Afghan security capacity matures -- risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible."
Spector (former chief of staff to Bryan Mulroney) is coy with his blog, neither directly supporting nor opposing the position of McChrystal - and his only commentary regarding our own leadership is his suggestion that there is a "conspiracy of silence" on the part of both Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff.
Why is that?
Well, one need only look to the vapid, but probably somewhat representative commentary appended to his blog, including:
No doubt, politicians being more concerned with acquiring and holding power, struggle mightily between doing what is right and doing what the electorate want. And as we, in Canada know, the "electorate" really means the Province of Quebec and the Greater Toronto area.. whose appetite for the hard decisions in fighting a war is well represented in the aforesaid piece of drivel from "neocynic".
First of all, a little distinction between Vietnam and Iraq/Afghanistan.. Terrorists attacked our neighbor and killed thousands of innocent people, and have done likewise all over the world in the cause of their "holy war".
I have opined before, and do again, as to what the Second World War would have looked like in the light of current liberal constructs. Can you imagine the allied forces even considering the dropping of a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or bombing Dresden in today's world?
Not likely - most probably we would have had some ham-fisted effort, similar to what we see in Afghanistan and Iraq, where we say we are at "war", while tying one hand behind the backs of our soldiers demanding that we have zero tolerance for civilian casualties, and that enemy combatants, like Omar Khadr, obtain full rights of due process after they kill our soldiers.
This is the world we live in today.. and I daresay it is likely that millions more Jews, Romani, homosexuals, and disabled would have continued to be murdered by the Hitler, not to mention the continued murder of ethnic Chinese (23 million) by Hirohito and Tojo if we left the war in the hands of people like Jack Layton and mushy left of the Liberal party represented by the likes of Bob Rae.
Here's the unfortunate reality - sometimes a nation and a people, including their civilians, need to be crushed to succeed in opposing tyranny and genocide.
Tell me, Mr. Layton, if you were to stroll through Helmand province, which of the Afghani citizens you met on the streets would you say were "civilians" and which would you say were either Taliban soldiers, or citizens directly supporting the Taliban effort to kill western soldiers? Do you think they wear convenient little badges with smiley faces of Osama Bin Laden?
The Taliban can hold out as long as their few but committed fanatics can hide amongst the civilian population with impunity, and as long as within that civilian population the fear of Taliban retribution exceeds the hope of peace or, unfortunately, the fear of western retaliation.
If you are a shop-keeper in Helmand province, and you know of Taliban soldiers in your area, would you support a western force who you are told will eventually leave, as the soviets did, or would you support a Taliban force who, you are told, will be there long after the westerners are gone? This was the same reality in Germany and Japan in WWII. The unfortunate reality is that not only was it necessary to kill the head of the snake, but it was necessary to demonstrate, unequivocally, to the people that the snake would not grow another head and if it did, the consequences would be severe.
This is not a school-yard "fair fight" according to the Marquess of Queensberry rules. This is war. And in war, people die so that more lives may be saved.
Even Michael Ignatieff knows this - hence his tome, "The Lesser Evil", though it's highly unlikely that he'll admit that now, as he seeks the hearts and minds of the Province of Quebec and the GTA, and the reality is that even if Stephen Harper wanted to chart a more realistic course in Afghanistan, he certainly can't accomplish anything without U.S. support - which is very unlikely under Obama.
The stupid thing is, if Conservatives were truly as self-interested as is suggested, we could just sit back and let the Islamic Extremists do their business. Left unchecked, they may eventually acquire control of mid-eastern oil interests, however, with Canada having a massive store of oil, ultimately, the economic interests of our resource economy would thrive in such a world - and, truly, if we are really that self-interested, who cares about atrocities committed across the ocean?
I mean - do we truly believe that the Islamic fundamentalists could ever really take up the cause of converting North America to their brand of psycho-religion? Hardly. And, at the end of the day, if Israel ultimately fell without the support of the western military machine, that would affect my day-to-day life how? If we allow Islamic extremists to kill homosexuals and women and Jews and Christians and other "infidels" abroad, and, left to their local games, they then decided to leave us alone in our cozy little homes across the ocean - wouldn't that really be more in keeping with our own self-interest?
Likely, as the "War in Washington" continues the result will be a somewhat ignominious failure and pull-out of Afghanistan and Iraq, with the result, to quote Emperor Ignatieff, being an amplified message beyond that sent to terrorists in 1993 in Somalia. As Ignatieff wrote regarding the "mistake" of the cut-and-run of Clinton in 1993:
If even Ignatieff believes that the relatively small failure in Somalia emboldened bin Laden and his ilk, imagine the message sent by a whimpering retreat from Afghanistan and Iraq.
Indeed, the message will be, "Terrorism works".
That's the message Jack Layton, and NOW, Michael Ignatieff, are intent on sending today.
Spector (former chief of staff to Bryan Mulroney) is coy with his blog, neither directly supporting nor opposing the position of McChrystal - and his only commentary regarding our own leadership is his suggestion that there is a "conspiracy of silence" on the part of both Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff.
Why is that?
Well, one need only look to the vapid, but probably somewhat representative commentary appended to his blog, including:
Neocynic 9/21/2009 9:56:47 AM
LBJ once complained that the only advice he got from the generals over Vietnam was "Bomb, bomb, bomb." What has changed? McChrystal is an Army assassin whose troops tortured in Iraq. What more does anyone really expect from this career killer than "More, more, more."?
No doubt, politicians being more concerned with acquiring and holding power, struggle mightily between doing what is right and doing what the electorate want. And as we, in Canada know, the "electorate" really means the Province of Quebec and the Greater Toronto area.. whose appetite for the hard decisions in fighting a war is well represented in the aforesaid piece of drivel from "neocynic".
First of all, a little distinction between Vietnam and Iraq/Afghanistan.. Terrorists attacked our neighbor and killed thousands of innocent people, and have done likewise all over the world in the cause of their "holy war".
I have opined before, and do again, as to what the Second World War would have looked like in the light of current liberal constructs. Can you imagine the allied forces even considering the dropping of a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or bombing Dresden in today's world?
Not likely - most probably we would have had some ham-fisted effort, similar to what we see in Afghanistan and Iraq, where we say we are at "war", while tying one hand behind the backs of our soldiers demanding that we have zero tolerance for civilian casualties, and that enemy combatants, like Omar Khadr, obtain full rights of due process after they kill our soldiers.
This is the world we live in today.. and I daresay it is likely that millions more Jews, Romani, homosexuals, and disabled would have continued to be murdered by the Hitler, not to mention the continued murder of ethnic Chinese (23 million) by Hirohito and Tojo if we left the war in the hands of people like Jack Layton and mushy left of the Liberal party represented by the likes of Bob Rae.
Here's the unfortunate reality - sometimes a nation and a people, including their civilians, need to be crushed to succeed in opposing tyranny and genocide.
Tell me, Mr. Layton, if you were to stroll through Helmand province, which of the Afghani citizens you met on the streets would you say were "civilians" and which would you say were either Taliban soldiers, or citizens directly supporting the Taliban effort to kill western soldiers? Do you think they wear convenient little badges with smiley faces of Osama Bin Laden?
The Taliban can hold out as long as their few but committed fanatics can hide amongst the civilian population with impunity, and as long as within that civilian population the fear of Taliban retribution exceeds the hope of peace or, unfortunately, the fear of western retaliation.
If you are a shop-keeper in Helmand province, and you know of Taliban soldiers in your area, would you support a western force who you are told will eventually leave, as the soviets did, or would you support a Taliban force who, you are told, will be there long after the westerners are gone? This was the same reality in Germany and Japan in WWII. The unfortunate reality is that not only was it necessary to kill the head of the snake, but it was necessary to demonstrate, unequivocally, to the people that the snake would not grow another head and if it did, the consequences would be severe.
This is not a school-yard "fair fight" according to the Marquess of Queensberry rules. This is war. And in war, people die so that more lives may be saved.
Even Michael Ignatieff knows this - hence his tome, "The Lesser Evil", though it's highly unlikely that he'll admit that now, as he seeks the hearts and minds of the Province of Quebec and the GTA, and the reality is that even if Stephen Harper wanted to chart a more realistic course in Afghanistan, he certainly can't accomplish anything without U.S. support - which is very unlikely under Obama.
The stupid thing is, if Conservatives were truly as self-interested as is suggested, we could just sit back and let the Islamic Extremists do their business. Left unchecked, they may eventually acquire control of mid-eastern oil interests, however, with Canada having a massive store of oil, ultimately, the economic interests of our resource economy would thrive in such a world - and, truly, if we are really that self-interested, who cares about atrocities committed across the ocean?
I mean - do we truly believe that the Islamic fundamentalists could ever really take up the cause of converting North America to their brand of psycho-religion? Hardly. And, at the end of the day, if Israel ultimately fell without the support of the western military machine, that would affect my day-to-day life how? If we allow Islamic extremists to kill homosexuals and women and Jews and Christians and other "infidels" abroad, and, left to their local games, they then decided to leave us alone in our cozy little homes across the ocean - wouldn't that really be more in keeping with our own self-interest?
Likely, as the "War in Washington" continues the result will be a somewhat ignominious failure and pull-out of Afghanistan and Iraq, with the result, to quote Emperor Ignatieff, being an amplified message beyond that sent to terrorists in 1993 in Somalia. As Ignatieff wrote regarding the "mistake" of the cut-and-run of Clinton in 1993:
By cutting and running after the botched intervention in Somalia in 1993, for instance, Clinton might have led Osama bin Laden to believe that Americans lacked the stomach for a fight. Ten years later, we may still be paying the price for that mistake.
If even Ignatieff believes that the relatively small failure in Somalia emboldened bin Laden and his ilk, imagine the message sent by a whimpering retreat from Afghanistan and Iraq.
Indeed, the message will be, "Terrorism works".
That's the message Jack Layton, and NOW, Michael Ignatieff, are intent on sending today.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Tommy Flanagan.. ghost writer for Michael Ignatieff and Warren Kinsella
Dogmatism
[From Greek dogma: belief, opinion, tenet, doctrine, decree.]
(general) An approach to ideas that emphasizes rigid adherence to doctrine over rational and enlightened inquiry.
This, if we are not careful, may sometimes define Conservative political thought. There are those who support the Conservatives who rely upon dogma to found their political beliefs..however, in my experience, most Conservatives, in fact, are pragmatic rationalists. Fundamentally, they believe tax dollars are best spent by the tax-payer before it gets into government hands, that less government control is better than more, that decreasing the need for personal responsibility of our citizens, in fact, increases the likelihood of irresponsible personal behavior.
These are broad fundamental beliefs, tempered by the reality that we all owe a duty to support those citizens who are truly unable to fend for themselves, that the wealthy should assist in supporting a broad health-care program for the less wealthy, that education is an investment in our future well-being and as such, should be supported by all of us - not only those of us who seek to be educated or have children seeking education.
Curiously, however, on the broad continuum of rigidity of thought, "dogma" is not the refuge of the hard right or left, it is the refuge of the unthinking of both camps.
Then, as we move down this continuum, at the opposite extreme, we find Canadian Liberals. This is a mind-set which is of ultimate malleability. There is no fundamental tenet or principal that cannot be bent, or, in fact, disposed of for the sake of acquiring political power.
Look - if you will, at two of the most glaring examples of true Liberal moral ambiguity in action. Michael Ignatieff and his current toadie, Warren Kinsella. There is no better example of the complete lack of principle and conviction than the words of Warren Kinsella himself, as he attacks, yes, his current Canadian Idol, Michael Ignatieff.
In a wonderfully ironic and poignant post today, Albertaardark reminds us why being a Liberal is such a sticky business. Because, unfortunately, when you are completely devoid of any principles, what you say today will probably turn out to be an incredible embarrassment tomorrow.
Read the Aardvark's great post here.
The moral of this story. Either you can't believe a word Warren Kinsella says, or you can't believe a word of what Michael Ignatieff says. Or both.
How to now deal with anything you hear from Michael or Warren?? .. well, at the end of whatever pontification they are spouting, you add the smarmy John Lovitz character, Tommy Flannigan, the pathological liar saying..
"Yeah.. that's the ticket."
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Health Care.. from both sides of the border.
I just spent some time visiting my brother who lives in the U.S., and has his own private physiotherapy clinic. He works closely with doctors, with health insurers, and has a unique insight into the health care system in the U.S., and sitting down over a few beers has given me a bit of an eye-opener I have to say.
First, in response to the greasy bullshit coming from Republicans in the U.S.
The current health care system is screwed.
My brother has a University education, including a degree from Vanderbilt and a Masters from Washington University in St. Louise - one of the best medical schools in the U.S. He is an entrepreneur, operating a business in St. Petersburg, Florida for several years and now moving to Orting, Washington and starting a new business there over this past year. New Business equals, no immediate health care insurance. Owning his own home and making more than $24,000.00 per year, equals no Medicaid. Being only 43 years old equals no medicare. Add it up, and it equals, every penny of health care coverage comes out of his wallet.
He and his wife own their own home, have done very well for themselves as small business owners - and in his past, he has maintained a very healthy lifestyle - being a former Team Canada baseball member, and NCAA Division I athlete, and is hardly the stereotype of the "needy welfare class" often portrayed as the beneficiary of U.S. health care reform.
But, here's the thing.
This last year, shortly after he started his new business, he no longer was the beneficiary of an employer-provided health care plan. And, during that time, he developed a blood clot in his leg. Because of the cost, he couldn't afford to do a recommended MRI to determine the extent of the clot. The medication prescribed cost him $500 to $600 per month. Worse, due to the nature of the medication, most pharmacists refused to sell him the medication unless it was taken while under hospital supervision, which he couldn't afford.
And he now can't get insurance, because of his pre-existing condition. If his clot doesn't resolve and creates a situation where he requires any stay in hospital, it could wipe his family out. The welfare of he and his family is hanging on a thread, depending upon the resolution of his illness - which, thankfully, appears on the way to a positive outcome.
This is the reality of the current system which, according to loudmouth, lying, fatheads like Rush Limbaugh, "works fine". Well, it doesn't. Health care decisions are made every day in the U.S., not based upon best recommended treatment, but based upon financial considerations.
Should we feel all smug and superior in Canada?
Hardly.
See - here's the deal. My brother earns about $100 to $200 per visit from his patients. He works in the U.S., because he can't properly support his family in Canada with what physiotherapists earn here. He has lived in this country and while he lauds the reality that health care is essentially free, he also is aware that the quality of health care in this country is seriously below U.S. standards. Availability of access to specialists and proper treatment technology is seriously behind U.S. standards. He would prefer to be broke and alive, than to leave an estate to his children.
Doctors in the U.S. earn significantly more money than they do in Canada, and, no surprise, with the exception of those doctors who staff medical research facilities at our Universities, we are, in fact, experiencing the very real results of a two-tiered health-care system decried by our NDP friends. Where the best and the brightest tend to work in the U.S.
Where we can't find a family physician, because, in some cases, after going to medical school and borrowing money to build or buy into a clinic, they may make little more than a grade school teacher. Working double the hours.
I was explaining to my brother and his wife the opening of the Copeman Health Care Centre in Calgary - where you pay $3,000.00 per year for access to their team of doctors, dietitians, kinesiologists.. assuring high quality and timely access for all health care needs.
Their opinion? They would think they died and went to heaven if they could access that kind of clinic for less than $300 per month. In the U.S., the average cost for employer-sponsored health care is approximately $13,000.00 per year for a family of four. Over $1,000.00 per month.
So - what do we make of this?
Well, the extremists on both sides of the discussion are screwing us all over. Health care is a burgeoning expense that needs to be revised in a significant way on both sides of the border. If things don't improve in Canada, physician shortages and timely access to needed health care is going to only get worse, and that will cost lives. South of the border, well, the problem is just as obvious.
We have to stop the polarizing bullshit where the U.S. demonizes Canada's system, to allow the insurance lobby to maintain their large piece of the health care pie - and in Canada, we need to stop the demonization of anything that suggests we, **shudder**, PAY FOR some of our health care.
We need to start looking, not at the U.S., but at Greece, and Japan, and Germany.. and craft a system where not only is PROFIT not the only operative factor in the system, but where patient responsibility is also demanded.
Otherwise, the time bomb will just keeping ticking.
First, in response to the greasy bullshit coming from Republicans in the U.S.
The current health care system is screwed.
My brother has a University education, including a degree from Vanderbilt and a Masters from Washington University in St. Louise - one of the best medical schools in the U.S. He is an entrepreneur, operating a business in St. Petersburg, Florida for several years and now moving to Orting, Washington and starting a new business there over this past year. New Business equals, no immediate health care insurance. Owning his own home and making more than $24,000.00 per year, equals no Medicaid. Being only 43 years old equals no medicare. Add it up, and it equals, every penny of health care coverage comes out of his wallet.
He and his wife own their own home, have done very well for themselves as small business owners - and in his past, he has maintained a very healthy lifestyle - being a former Team Canada baseball member, and NCAA Division I athlete, and is hardly the stereotype of the "needy welfare class" often portrayed as the beneficiary of U.S. health care reform.
But, here's the thing.
This last year, shortly after he started his new business, he no longer was the beneficiary of an employer-provided health care plan. And, during that time, he developed a blood clot in his leg. Because of the cost, he couldn't afford to do a recommended MRI to determine the extent of the clot. The medication prescribed cost him $500 to $600 per month. Worse, due to the nature of the medication, most pharmacists refused to sell him the medication unless it was taken while under hospital supervision, which he couldn't afford.
And he now can't get insurance, because of his pre-existing condition. If his clot doesn't resolve and creates a situation where he requires any stay in hospital, it could wipe his family out. The welfare of he and his family is hanging on a thread, depending upon the resolution of his illness - which, thankfully, appears on the way to a positive outcome.
This is the reality of the current system which, according to loudmouth, lying, fatheads like Rush Limbaugh, "works fine". Well, it doesn't. Health care decisions are made every day in the U.S., not based upon best recommended treatment, but based upon financial considerations.
Should we feel all smug and superior in Canada?
Hardly.
See - here's the deal. My brother earns about $100 to $200 per visit from his patients. He works in the U.S., because he can't properly support his family in Canada with what physiotherapists earn here. He has lived in this country and while he lauds the reality that health care is essentially free, he also is aware that the quality of health care in this country is seriously below U.S. standards. Availability of access to specialists and proper treatment technology is seriously behind U.S. standards. He would prefer to be broke and alive, than to leave an estate to his children.
Doctors in the U.S. earn significantly more money than they do in Canada, and, no surprise, with the exception of those doctors who staff medical research facilities at our Universities, we are, in fact, experiencing the very real results of a two-tiered health-care system decried by our NDP friends. Where the best and the brightest tend to work in the U.S.
Where we can't find a family physician, because, in some cases, after going to medical school and borrowing money to build or buy into a clinic, they may make little more than a grade school teacher. Working double the hours.
I was explaining to my brother and his wife the opening of the Copeman Health Care Centre in Calgary - where you pay $3,000.00 per year for access to their team of doctors, dietitians, kinesiologists.. assuring high quality and timely access for all health care needs.
Their opinion? They would think they died and went to heaven if they could access that kind of clinic for less than $300 per month. In the U.S., the average cost for employer-sponsored health care is approximately $13,000.00 per year for a family of four. Over $1,000.00 per month.
So - what do we make of this?
Well, the extremists on both sides of the discussion are screwing us all over. Health care is a burgeoning expense that needs to be revised in a significant way on both sides of the border. If things don't improve in Canada, physician shortages and timely access to needed health care is going to only get worse, and that will cost lives. South of the border, well, the problem is just as obvious.
We have to stop the polarizing bullshit where the U.S. demonizes Canada's system, to allow the insurance lobby to maintain their large piece of the health care pie - and in Canada, we need to stop the demonization of anything that suggests we, **shudder**, PAY FOR some of our health care.
We need to start looking, not at the U.S., but at Greece, and Japan, and Germany.. and craft a system where not only is PROFIT not the only operative factor in the system, but where patient responsibility is also demanded.
Otherwise, the time bomb will just keeping ticking.
Uh.. Isn't this what got us into this mess?
Ok. So, I'm on holidays. Road trip from Lethbridge to Seattle and back.
And I'm enjoying my new satellite radio, however, on the trip up to British Columbia yesterday, I'm listening to the same radio ad over and over. Some business assisting people to get government ordered loans.
Apparently the U.S. government has ordered banks to fund loan applications, regardless of credit history. Must be enough "government ordered loans" to make ongoing XM Radio ads a worthwhile exercise, just for the commission on arranging the loans by itself. One wonders just how many millions (billions) are being loaned to make these ads worthwhile.
Not being an American, I guess I can' get into this gravy train, however, isn't giving loans to people who can't pay them back how we got started in this mess in the first place?
And I'm enjoying my new satellite radio, however, on the trip up to British Columbia yesterday, I'm listening to the same radio ad over and over. Some business assisting people to get government ordered loans.
Apparently the U.S. government has ordered banks to fund loan applications, regardless of credit history. Must be enough "government ordered loans" to make ongoing XM Radio ads a worthwhile exercise, just for the commission on arranging the loans by itself. One wonders just how many millions (billions) are being loaned to make these ads worthwhile.
Not being an American, I guess I can' get into this gravy train, however, isn't giving loans to people who can't pay them back how we got started in this mess in the first place?
Thursday, September 10, 2009
The Liberal Ethos: "It's Not My Money"
Why is it so easy to create a gun control program that you promise will cost $119 million, and then go ahead and spend $1 BILLION to implement it, at an ongoing cost of $83 million per year, for a program that doesn't work?
Why is it so easy to give $100 to $250 million to your friends and cohorts under the guise of supporting "Canadian Unity" in Quebec, only to be caught with your collected hands in the cookie jar in the adscam fiasco?
Why is it that the same Prime Minister can sell Digby Wharf for $1.00, throw in another $3 million to sweeten the prize, only to have the project abandoned a few years later, with no accountability for the funds advanced by the man in control, Ralston MacDonnell.. who, surprise, now turns up as a fund raiser for, yes, Michael Ignatieff.
Why is it so easy to propose a $10 to $15 billion expenditure of your tax dollars to fund a national daycare program, a program which would provide daycare to people who do not work, who may be wealthy, who may have otherwise thought twice about the obligation created upon a parent to bring a child into the world?
Why is it so easy to propose an election that will cost Canadians $300 million, and which will, almost without doubt, return us another minority government?
Well the answer is easy, really, it's all about the Liberal ethos.
"It's not my money."
It's easy to spend other people's money on worthless projects or to feather your supporters nests.
When, and if, we go to the polls this fall, let all Canadians look down at the ballot and beside every Liberal politician's name, you should picture their party motto:
Why is it so easy to give $100 to $250 million to your friends and cohorts under the guise of supporting "Canadian Unity" in Quebec, only to be caught with your collected hands in the cookie jar in the adscam fiasco?
Why is it that the same Prime Minister can sell Digby Wharf for $1.00, throw in another $3 million to sweeten the prize, only to have the project abandoned a few years later, with no accountability for the funds advanced by the man in control, Ralston MacDonnell.. who, surprise, now turns up as a fund raiser for, yes, Michael Ignatieff.
Why is it so easy to propose a $10 to $15 billion expenditure of your tax dollars to fund a national daycare program, a program which would provide daycare to people who do not work, who may be wealthy, who may have otherwise thought twice about the obligation created upon a parent to bring a child into the world?
Why is it so easy to propose an election that will cost Canadians $300 million, and which will, almost without doubt, return us another minority government?
Well the answer is easy, really, it's all about the Liberal ethos.
"It's not my money."
It's easy to spend other people's money on worthless projects or to feather your supporters nests.
When, and if, we go to the polls this fall, let all Canadians look down at the ballot and beside every Liberal politician's name, you should picture their party motto:
It's not my money.
Poll Season is in full swing..
Well.. it appears that with Michael's ill-fated announcement of revoking his "probation" of the Conservative Party, the "Poll Season" is among us. Today's CBC report suggests that the Conservatives are increasing the spread between themselves and the Liberals, and that the Liberals are losing ground in Ontario and Quebec.
While this may sound re-assuring to Conservatives, recall that just a week ago, the polls suggested there was a dead-heat.. and right now, one might question the polls and their validity, especially when Canadians, as a whole, are probably feeling that the welfare of the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party are quite secondary to their own welfare right now.
While signs suggest the recession is slowing and perhaps coming to and end, the result of the global financial meltdown continue to be felt all over Canada, and it strikes me that the personal welfare of the electorate seems a little more significant than going to another election that seems fated to return another minority government and continued uncertainty to the Country.
And this, as I've posted before, is where Ignatieff's move is perhaps the biggest blunder since Dion hitched his ride to the carbon tax wagon.
Ignatieff's great failing is his disdain for the average guy. It has been his greatest Achilles heal since he was a young man, telling his little brother to hide his relationship with him from their classmates, because his brother didn't measure up to Michael's grandiose self-image, even at their young ages while attending Upper Canada College. As Michael explained to his younger brother Andrew, "if you ever see me on the school grounds, you're not to talk to me. You're not to recognize that I'm your brother. You don't exist as far as I'm concerned. Do I make myself clear?'"
This is the true Michael Ignatieff, and he hasn't changed since.
As Michael acknowledged in a Globe and Mail interview last April,
"I think there are people who would say I've been very ruthless in my life. I am someone who has worried greatly about the price my ruthlessness has inflicted on others. I have worried about that. I do worry about that.
"I don't want to litter the slopes with bodies. There may be people who I've left behind who feel that I was ruthless, and if they feel that, then all I can say is — I wouldn't apologize — all I could say is, I don't want to hurt people."
Read that again. "I wouldn't apologize."
Seriously, Michael?
Think about Ignatieff for a few moments. He is absent from this Country for most of his life, he comes back to be our "savior", and after being anointed as leader of the Liberal party - at a time when their should be a profound humility and re-evaluation by a party suffering it's second worst election showing ever, Michael stands up with all the false-pride one might expect of him and puts the Conservatives "on probation".
Really Michael? The arrogance is almost breathtaking.
And then, when he sees his dreams - his life-long aspiration of being "King of Canada" slipping away, he proposes bringing down the government. He proposes putting Canada through another pointless election. While he speaks of establishing a government to help Canadians in need, his actions speak just the opposite.
He doesn't care about anyone but himself.
And whatever the polls say today, I'm hoping that when the only real poll that counts, gets counted, Canadians will respond appropriately. And maybe, just maybe, we will not suffer through continued minority government instability.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Michael Ignatieff's Take on "We Can Do Better"
In reviewing Ignatieff's recent speech to caucus, culminating in the slogan "We Can Do Better", I offer the following commentary:
Michael: "We’re working against opponents who make politics personal—who distort and deny the truth and put partisan gain ahead of the national interest."
Michael - you have made extremely clear and broad statements in support of President Bush's policy in favor of aggressive action against terrorism. You have stated, unequivocally, that you "didn't lose sleep" over Israeli bombings of civilians, you advocated indefinite detention for terrorist suspects, of the employment of coercive interrogation techniques, of the use of the "lesser evil" to coin your own phrase to combat terrorism. Your own government, stood by and did nothing to seek repatriation of Omar Khadr, but former Liberal Minister Irwin Kotler now assists in filing documents NOW demanding the government take action, using the alleged commitment of the Conservatives to follow the same course of action initiated by your party while in power as a reason to bring down the government.
Is any of this "distorted or untrue"? Is not the typical Liberal double-speak on Khadr and your own about-face on dealing with terrorism the real example of putting "partisan gain" ahead of national interest?
Do you ever mean anything that you say?
Michael: "We’re working against a government that’s ready to sacrifice national unity to stay in power."
Uh, Michael, I seem to recall a certain formal agreement of coalition with the separatist Bloc Quebecois not so long ago on the part of the Liberal Party of Canada. Ignoring for the moment that this government is supported, overwhelmingly by every province west of Ottawa, and that deposing this government spits in the face, and continues the alienation of Western Canada that you ADMIT has been a Liberal tactic for many years.. do you not feel that actively committing to a course of action with the separatists to simply gain the throne to appease your ego is not, perhaps, the true "sacrifice of national unity" for partisan gain?
Michael goes on to make the same complaints he and his party have been making since the last election (Stephen Harper didn't see the recession coming - uh, Michael, tell us about the millions you made in short-selling pre-recession when you, and only you, foresaw the melt-down of the American investment industry).. that Stephen Harper doesn't care about alleged terrorists who use our country as a base of convenience.. blah, blah, blah.
What Michael doesn't say, anywhere, is anything of substance.
Here are the only talking points of actual Liberal changes proposed:
a) Support increasing the G8 to the G20, and expanding government contributions towards that exercise to create a permanent secretariate for same in Canada;
b) Bring forward legislation to require the government to support alleged terrorists, to provide them safe passage back to Canada, without conditions. A Canadian Passport will, under Liberal proposals, REQUIRE the Canadian government to provide support and assistance, regardless of the allegation against the citizen. In other words, if you mastermind the bombing of the World Trade Centre, you will be assured of full support of the Canadian government in defending yourself and in seeking return to Canada (keep in mind Michael's own support of "indefinite detention" of alleged terrorists until it wasn't popular anymore);
c) Institute government controlled early child care for EVERY Canadian child, regardless of a parent's income, and regardless of what might otherwise be the parents' preference for style and type of child care, at a cost of somewhere between $10 billion and $15 billion;
d) The Liberal government will be "investing more, not less, in research and innovation.We can invest in our environment—and invent the clean energy technologies".. without a word of where that added money will come from. (See the already added $15 billion referred to above, and note the massive hypocritical complaints about the current deficit. Michael: How much more tax and where are the cuts going to come from?)
This is it.
That's the whole shebang.
This is how they can "Do Better". By offering virtually nothing, other than spending MORE money, while complaining about the current deficit. By assuring that we have a safe haven for "made in Canada terrorists". By increasing the amount we pay to international lobby efforts. By spending more on "research and innovation" - which sounds great, but, uh, into what and where and, again, with what money?
Michael.
Will say anything you want to hear, so he can be elected.
Will push the Canadian public into an election they neither need nor want, to serve no one's needs but his own.
The wrong time. The wrong party. And, definitely, the wrong leader.
Michael: "We’re working against opponents who make politics personal—who distort and deny the truth and put partisan gain ahead of the national interest."
Michael - you have made extremely clear and broad statements in support of President Bush's policy in favor of aggressive action against terrorism. You have stated, unequivocally, that you "didn't lose sleep" over Israeli bombings of civilians, you advocated indefinite detention for terrorist suspects, of the employment of coercive interrogation techniques, of the use of the "lesser evil" to coin your own phrase to combat terrorism. Your own government, stood by and did nothing to seek repatriation of Omar Khadr, but former Liberal Minister Irwin Kotler now assists in filing documents NOW demanding the government take action, using the alleged commitment of the Conservatives to follow the same course of action initiated by your party while in power as a reason to bring down the government.
Is any of this "distorted or untrue"? Is not the typical Liberal double-speak on Khadr and your own about-face on dealing with terrorism the real example of putting "partisan gain" ahead of national interest?
Do you ever mean anything that you say?
Michael: "We’re working against a government that’s ready to sacrifice national unity to stay in power."
Uh, Michael, I seem to recall a certain formal agreement of coalition with the separatist Bloc Quebecois not so long ago on the part of the Liberal Party of Canada. Ignoring for the moment that this government is supported, overwhelmingly by every province west of Ottawa, and that deposing this government spits in the face, and continues the alienation of Western Canada that you ADMIT has been a Liberal tactic for many years.. do you not feel that actively committing to a course of action with the separatists to simply gain the throne to appease your ego is not, perhaps, the true "sacrifice of national unity" for partisan gain?
Michael goes on to make the same complaints he and his party have been making since the last election (Stephen Harper didn't see the recession coming - uh, Michael, tell us about the millions you made in short-selling pre-recession when you, and only you, foresaw the melt-down of the American investment industry).. that Stephen Harper doesn't care about alleged terrorists who use our country as a base of convenience.. blah, blah, blah.
What Michael doesn't say, anywhere, is anything of substance.
Here are the only talking points of actual Liberal changes proposed:
a) Support increasing the G8 to the G20, and expanding government contributions towards that exercise to create a permanent secretariate for same in Canada;
b) Bring forward legislation to require the government to support alleged terrorists, to provide them safe passage back to Canada, without conditions. A Canadian Passport will, under Liberal proposals, REQUIRE the Canadian government to provide support and assistance, regardless of the allegation against the citizen. In other words, if you mastermind the bombing of the World Trade Centre, you will be assured of full support of the Canadian government in defending yourself and in seeking return to Canada (keep in mind Michael's own support of "indefinite detention" of alleged terrorists until it wasn't popular anymore);
c) Institute government controlled early child care for EVERY Canadian child, regardless of a parent's income, and regardless of what might otherwise be the parents' preference for style and type of child care, at a cost of somewhere between $10 billion and $15 billion;
d) The Liberal government will be "investing more, not less, in research and innovation.We can invest in our environment—and invent the clean energy technologies".. without a word of where that added money will come from. (See the already added $15 billion referred to above, and note the massive hypocritical complaints about the current deficit. Michael: How much more tax and where are the cuts going to come from?)
This is it.
That's the whole shebang.
This is how they can "Do Better". By offering virtually nothing, other than spending MORE money, while complaining about the current deficit. By assuring that we have a safe haven for "made in Canada terrorists". By increasing the amount we pay to international lobby efforts. By spending more on "research and innovation" - which sounds great, but, uh, into what and where and, again, with what money?
Michael.
Will say anything you want to hear, so he can be elected.
Will push the Canadian public into an election they neither need nor want, to serve no one's needs but his own.
The wrong time. The wrong party. And, definitely, the wrong leader.
More kid slapping..
In a story strangely related to my last post, apparently President Barack Obama is presenting a live speech September 8 to all U.S. school children, to “call for a shared responsibility and commitment on the part of students, parents and educators to ensure that every child in every school receives the best education possible so they can compete in the global economy for good jobs and live rewarding and productive lives as American citizens.”
Not that the message is asking them to raise their hands against the capitalist agressors or anything that extreme, but the notion of the head of state, during a deeply political moment in American history demanding free access to every school child in the U.S. is more reminiscent of Kim Jong-il than Thomas Jefferson.
Just one more example of the arrogant and, in many respects, dangerous attitude of the "progressive" movement that children cannot be left to be raised and instructed by their parents or even their local teachers, but, rather, are to be moulded by their "village".. err.. the state.. according to the vision of the state.
And if you think this attitude is limited to American politics, you are wrong.
Michael Ignatieff recently confirmed that the Liberal Party of Canada is committed to the development of a National Daycare Program, and their working paper is not at all subtle about their intent, which is to:
"funding a universal early childhood service for children one to six years … governed by public agencies."
Translation?
1. The Liberal Government wants to create a government-controlled childcare program for children from one to six years of age, assuring that ALL children in Canada are raised by the Liberal "village" and assuring that ALL children are raised with "proper" ideas of what is right and wrong.
2. The Liberal Government wants to, while we're just climing out of recession, spend an additional $10 billion to fund this program, according to a 1986 government paper. Add another $3 billion or so for present value, and because it's government, might as well round it at $15 billion dollars (remember the Liberal estimates of the cost of the Gun Registry?)
3. This is not aimed at those who are working single parents.. but, will pay for daycare for EVERYONE. Your local dentist, and lawyer, will also have their daycare paid for. Sure, why not? We can't have the "village" raise our children unless ALL of the children are in the camps.. err.. daycares.
Think about the foregoing for a moment.
$15 billion.
That amounts to approximately $1,685.00 for every household in Canada. This money will come from somewhere. The Liberals won't tell you, but it's either going to come from higher taxes, or reduced government spending in other areas - clearly. Likely, after moaning about the current deficit, the government will, a la Paul Martin, download more on the province, most likely by reduced government spending in health care. Voila, balanced federal budget. If you progressives out their think I'm wrong, I'm happy to hear where the cuts are otherwise coming from. Clearly the Liberals have no intention of cuts to "essential" services, like, oh, arts funding.
Uh. Thanks Michael, but I think we've had enough strangers slapping our children according to THEIR dictates of how to parent. At least the guy in Georgia didn't send us a bill.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Well your honor, I had just read a book telling me I have a certain responsibility..
According to reports on CNN yesterday, after a mother refused to quiet her crying child, 61 year old Roger Stephens told her, "If you don't shut that baby up, I'll shut her up for you." When the mother ignored his request, he apparently proceeded to slap the 2 year old child.
When asked to defend his actions in Court, Stephens pulled out a worn and well-read copy of Hillary Clinton's book, "It Takes a Village", and read the following:
"Children exist in the world as well as in the family. From the moment they are born, they depend on a host of other "grown-ups" -- grandparents, neighbors, teachers, ministers, employers, political leaders, and untold others who touch their lives directly and indirectly. Adults police their streets, monitor the quality of their food, air, and water, produce the programs that appear on their televisions, run the businesses that employ their parents, and write the laws that protect them. Each of us plays a part in every child's life: It takes a village to raise a child."
Continuing, Stephens commented, "Your honour, why is it that only liberals seem to feel entitled to impose their views of child-rearing on others."
"Point taken, Mr. Stephens," responded the presiding Judge, as he immediately dismissed the charges and directed an order of costs against the mother for failure to raise her child in accordance with the standards of her Gwinnet County village.
Michael still not buried..
Sorry, but after watching the 100th report on the upcoming Michel Jackson funeral on the "World News leader" CNN, it appears that the child molester hasn't been buried or cremated yet.
Apparently there is some stringent California environmental legislation about disposing of plastics or some such thing..
Apparently there is some stringent California environmental legislation about disposing of plastics or some such thing..
Ezra Vindicated: Let the Thought Control Heads Start Exploding!
In an amazing, and wonderfully unexpected surprise today, the Canadian Human Rights tribunal issued a decision which ruled that the hate speech provisions in it's own legislation is unconstitutional.
As reported in the Calgary Herald today:
Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn are vindicated, by, of all things, a Liberal tribunal appointment.
I am, this day, proud of our Country for stemming the tide of fascist thought control, of a tribunal that understood (when our Courts apparently didn't) that "free speech" was not just an "American concept", to quote Canadian Human Rights Commission (HRC) investigator Dean Steacy.
An examination of the case provides a glimpse into what could fairly be called KGB or Gestapo-like efforts which, ultimately were found to be inappropriate in a free and democratic society.
Good on Ezra, Good on Mark, and a special non-partisan thank-you to the efforts of Athanasios D. Hadjis, tribunal member who wrote the decision.
As reported in the Calgary Herald today:
..a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruled Canada's administrative hate-speech law--Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act --was as unconstitutional as its critics had always claimed. The Canadian Human Rights Commission was no longer the "remedial, preventive and conciliatory" institution it was set up to be, wrote tribunalist Athanasios D. Hadjis, but had become "aggressive," and "penal in nature," with the power to levy crippling fines -- as much as $30,000.
Therefore, he concluded in the case against webmaster Marc Lemire, Section 13 was inconsistent with the free-speech guarantees in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
It was a complete rout of Canada's most repellent purveyors of political correctness, and from an unlikely source --a member of the tribunal appointed not by the Tories, but by Liberals in the Jean Chretien days.
Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn are vindicated, by, of all things, a Liberal tribunal appointment.
I am, this day, proud of our Country for stemming the tide of fascist thought control, of a tribunal that understood (when our Courts apparently didn't) that "free speech" was not just an "American concept", to quote Canadian Human Rights Commission (HRC) investigator Dean Steacy.
An examination of the case provides a glimpse into what could fairly be called KGB or Gestapo-like efforts which, ultimately were found to be inappropriate in a free and democratic society.
Good on Ezra, Good on Mark, and a special non-partisan thank-you to the efforts of Athanasios D. Hadjis, tribunal member who wrote the decision.
It's not the Media.. It's Just Certain Morons in the Media
Globe and Mail article Sunday.
This monumental admission of, if not abject stupidity, at least a grotesque lack of understanding about Grade 1 Math Concepts on the part of Tim Naumetz, writer in the Globe, under the heading, "Harper cabinet unleashes flood of patronage"
A little experiment for all you readers.
Take 111 Jelly Beans. Tell your 5 year old child, tell them you will split the beans with them. Give them 20. Keep 91 for yourself. Then, complain and ask them why they got all the jelly beans.
I'll bet your 5 year old has a better grasp of the reality of that situation than Tim Naumetz.
Unlike some of my fellow Conservatives, I'm not blaming the media. This isn't "the media". It's one mindless buffoon inflicting his ignorance on the Canadian public in our broadest Canadian news source.
Apparently, according to this lackey of the Liberal left, support of the Government of the day should EXCLUDE you from consideration for any appointment. Perhaps someone might mention that to, oh, Jean Chretien and his fellow adscam weasels.
My two cents? Complaining about a "liberal bias" in the press is defeatist - rather, we should look to examine particular writers and put their own specific examples of gross ignorance and bias on the spot.
Here's some math Tim will understand. Michael + Ignatieff = Anything and Nothing.
This monumental admission of, if not abject stupidity, at least a grotesque lack of understanding about Grade 1 Math Concepts on the part of Tim Naumetz, writer in the Globe, under the heading, "Harper cabinet unleashes flood of patronage"
Weeks before Stephen Harper named some of his closest Tory friends to the Senate, his cabinet quietly approved a flood of appointments to federal boards that also rewarded party faithful.
At least 20 of the 111 appointments made Aug. 4 went to identifiable federal and provincial Conservative donors and supporters.
A little experiment for all you readers.
Take 111 Jelly Beans. Tell your 5 year old child, tell them you will split the beans with them. Give them 20. Keep 91 for yourself. Then, complain and ask them why they got all the jelly beans.
I'll bet your 5 year old has a better grasp of the reality of that situation than Tim Naumetz.
Unlike some of my fellow Conservatives, I'm not blaming the media. This isn't "the media". It's one mindless buffoon inflicting his ignorance on the Canadian public in our broadest Canadian news source.
Apparently, according to this lackey of the Liberal left, support of the Government of the day should EXCLUDE you from consideration for any appointment. Perhaps someone might mention that to, oh, Jean Chretien and his fellow adscam weasels.
My two cents? Complaining about a "liberal bias" in the press is defeatist - rather, we should look to examine particular writers and put their own specific examples of gross ignorance and bias on the spot.
Here's some math Tim will understand. Michael + Ignatieff = Anything and Nothing.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Curious Commentary..
This morning I'm reading about Ignatieff's gauntlet being thrown down to force another election, on CTV.ca, here. The usual stuff, Liberalspeak about the "need" to bring down the government, etc., etc.
But - while perusing the commentary, I noticed some interesting things. At least in my experience, it has been that the commentary on national news pages in the past has seemed very oriented towards the left side of the spectrum which, I suppose, would make sense when we consider population demographics in Canada.
However - I noted this morning a clear message of discontent with the Liberal effort to gain the throne for their leader. (Note the first number represents posters agreeing, the second number are those disagreeing)
Michael.. read that last post just one last time before you fade into obscurity.
"Ignatieff you are making a big mistake."
But - while perusing the commentary, I noticed some interesting things. At least in my experience, it has been that the commentary on national news pages in the past has seemed very oriented towards the left side of the spectrum which, I suppose, would make sense when we consider population demographics in Canada.
However - I noted this morning a clear message of discontent with the Liberal effort to gain the throne for their leader. (Note the first number represents posters agreeing, the second number are those disagreeing)
Shaun MacEachern 256 166
For the most part I'm ambivalent towards politics for they are all truly just shades of the same colour of paint.
But, to go out and waste another 200 Million on another election ( how many in the last 10 years? ) is a selfish waste of self gratification on the Liberals behalf.
I promise you this, I will NOT be voting Liberal if they do this.
Shaun
Anderson D 249 73
You and Iggy will be punished Rae.
I am a centrist and give kudos or shots to both sides. This is wrong and you will pay.
Greg in Cambridge 244 65
Did he say "it's his job" to make us spend another $300 Million and force an unwanted Election at this time?
I say that's irresponsible and he should be fired and made to stand accountable for his "actions".
No one wants another Election now.
Better dead than Red I say.
JR of Toronto 169 46
Politicians should focus on taking the economy out of recession, creating jobs for Canadians, and helping those who have been adversely affected by the global financial crisis.
Any party that contemplates on forcing an election during this unstable economic environment is being selfish and opportunistic.
Jason from ON 172 46
If Ignatieff does trigger an election then it will be the third disaster for the Liberals in recent years (first: defeat of Paul Martin; second: larger defeat of Dion). I can't see why any political leader would dare risk coming off as an opportunist right now, right as our economy seems to be getting back on track.
If this happens I'll vote for the Conservatives and will never consider voting for any of the opposition parties so long as their current leaders remain in charge.
Ignatieff you are making a big mistake.
Michael.. read that last post just one last time before you fade into obscurity.
"Ignatieff you are making a big mistake."
Prior post Qualification
Every once in a while, it is encumbant upon a blogger to qualify a prior post when circumstances suggest the post was incorrect or perhaps misinformed.
Yesterday, in poking fun at the Liberal party being proud of having no principals, I referenced former Ontario Attorney General, Michael Bryant, as being able to avoid responsibility for the fatal collission with a cyclist because he didn't promise not to run them over.
As facts come out, however, it appears that the cyclist was from Alberta, and had 61arrest warrants for fraud in Alberta. He was apparently in contact with police and had been drinking prior to the accident. The current information then suggests that after another confrontation with Bryant, the cyclist, Darcy Alan Sheppard, apparently grabbed onto Bryant's car and refused to let go, while Bryant tried to drive away with his wife.
So. In response to these facts, I'm willing to at this point, give Bryant the benefit of the doubt, and say to Bryant and Ontario, "thank-you for creating the sort of Province which encourages losers like Sheppard to leave Alberta and infect their crazy on the GTA. Without people like you and Mr. McGuinty, there would be no place for the shiftless crazies to congregate.. so, a big thank-you from this Albertan.
Oh. By the way. Apparently while Sheppard was committing fraud and refusing to attend Court in Alberta, he had time to father four children with his Ontario girlfriend.
Impressive.
Yesterday, in poking fun at the Liberal party being proud of having no principals, I referenced former Ontario Attorney General, Michael Bryant, as being able to avoid responsibility for the fatal collission with a cyclist because he didn't promise not to run them over.
As facts come out, however, it appears that the cyclist was from Alberta, and had 61arrest warrants for fraud in Alberta. He was apparently in contact with police and had been drinking prior to the accident. The current information then suggests that after another confrontation with Bryant, the cyclist, Darcy Alan Sheppard, apparently grabbed onto Bryant's car and refused to let go, while Bryant tried to drive away with his wife.
So. In response to these facts, I'm willing to at this point, give Bryant the benefit of the doubt, and say to Bryant and Ontario, "thank-you for creating the sort of Province which encourages losers like Sheppard to leave Alberta and infect their crazy on the GTA. Without people like you and Mr. McGuinty, there would be no place for the shiftless crazies to congregate.. so, a big thank-you from this Albertan.
Oh. By the way. Apparently while Sheppard was committing fraud and refusing to attend Court in Alberta, he had time to father four children with his Ontario girlfriend.
Impressive.
The Libs are Clearly Desperate
Interesting post this morning by Big City Liberal, here.
Seems the Liberals are seeking to court the Green Voters. Think about that for a moment if you will - the one leader, other than Elizabeth May, who actually advocated a green tax, and when he lost, the party threw him under the bus.
Now they want green voters to support them.
For those who don't understand Liberal election-speak, here's a translation of BCL's post:
In fairness, there is one part of the post that didn't need any translation:
Seems the Liberals are seeking to court the Green Voters. Think about that for a moment if you will - the one leader, other than Elizabeth May, who actually advocated a green tax, and when he lost, the party threw him under the bus.
Now they want green voters to support them.
For those who don't understand Liberal election-speak, here's a translation of BCL's post:
(Translation)
Uh, Green Party members.
Take it from the Liberals. It's all about power. I know that last election we hitched our horses to the "green" movement, to try and take votes away from YOU, however, that didn't work, now did it?
Trust us. Us, of the malleable moral compass, can assure you that you won't win any seats on the "green" platform, so, give up your principals in the hopes of gaining power. That's what it's really about.
I mean.. look at our leader. Yes, he wrote books telling us that we had to suspend rights of terrorists, incarcerate them indefinitely, use coercive interrogation techniques - but he realized he couldn't be Prime Minister if he didn't abandon THOSE principals..
So - jump on the Liberal bandwagon. We'll go where ever the wind takes us.
In fairness, there is one part of the post that didn't need any translation:
"Principles are lovely in the abstract."
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Michael.. pull the trigger.
So Michael Ignatieff is gathering with his Liberal caucus to determine whether or not he should force an election.. as he says, he's been keeping the Conservatives on "life support" for 10 months.
Well Michael.. I know what you're thinking. "Are the Conservatives ahead five points, or only four?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as the last leader of your party brought the Liberals to their second worst election defeat in history, and seeing as another pathetic showing will blow your head clean off the election landscape for good, you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky?
Well, do ya, punk?
"But.. he never promised not to run over cyclists."
Ok. So the stars have aligned this morning.
Following up on my last post, I see in the Star today that good Liberal and former Ontario AG, Michael Bryant, was arrested today after he allegedly struck and killed a cyclist last night.
Not to worry, however, according to his lawyer, he never promised not to run over cyclists, so it's expected he will receive a free pass.
Following up on my last post, I see in the Star today that good Liberal and former Ontario AG, Michael Bryant, was arrested today after he allegedly struck and killed a cyclist last night.
Not to worry, however, according to his lawyer, he never promised not to run over cyclists, so it's expected he will receive a free pass.
Current Liberal Badge of Pride - "We Never Promised to do better."
You know.. I am not in agreement with Stephen Harper's recent Senate appointments, I have blogged about it, and have been abused by other Conservatives about taking that position..
However, that being said, the Liberal Party has no cause to be proud of their record or to be suggesting some sort of moral superiority on this point.
The best Liberal bloggers come up with is, "Yes, we also constantly filled the Senate with good Liberal political hacks, but we never said we wouldn't."
Really?
Is that some badge of pride to append to Liberal lapels? That it's ok to be unprincipaled as long as you promise nothing better?
This, apparently, is as good as it gets in Liberalland - the current Liberal mantra, "We're not any worse."
However, that being said, the Liberal Party has no cause to be proud of their record or to be suggesting some sort of moral superiority on this point.
The best Liberal bloggers come up with is, "Yes, we also constantly filled the Senate with good Liberal political hacks, but we never said we wouldn't."
Really?
Is that some badge of pride to append to Liberal lapels? That it's ok to be unprincipaled as long as you promise nothing better?
This, apparently, is as good as it gets in Liberalland - the current Liberal mantra, "We're not any worse."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)