Reported today in the Globe and Mail:
Hospital discovers second apparent case of mistaken mastectomy.
So.
Fresh off of the debacle of the waste of $1 Billion in the now infamous "eHealth scandal" where the Liberal government of Ontario basically threw away a billion dollars in health care funds, we now see that controls in health care under the "kinder, gentler" Liberal government of Dalton McGuinty is just as pathetic.
Kind of makes me feel glad I'm in Alberta.
Again.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Looking at Politics from the Original Position..
Self-interest.
If there is an illness infecting politics today, it is self-interest.
Of course, us in the blog world always see self-interest being the illness of the "other guy", however, it's a fair question to ask all of us, from all ends of the political spectrum.
I read an interesting concept the other day, attributed to American Philospher, John Rawls, referred to as the "Original Position" and while I am simplifiying it in the extreme, the basic concept is this:
In other words, each of us often sees changes from our own perspective. But, if you could imagine that you might be someone quite different, would that change your persective of change?
While you may, today, be an affluent white male, would you see society differently if you were aboriginal? Or handicapped? Too often we, on the right, talk about concepts like "individual responsibility", which comes easy to us if we were fortunate enough to be born into affluence or even modest comfort. Would that feel differently if we were born into a broken home on one of Canada's Indian Reserves?
Now - loss of perspective, clearly, is not the purview only of the affluent or the upper middle class. Those on the other end, the social activists, the advocates for the poor, for the environment should also ask themselves, "If I had one million dollars, how much cost, how much tax, how much government interference would I put up with, and still choose to take the risk of losing my investment and placing my savings into a business and take on the obligation of hiring full-time employees, as opposed to simply putting that money in a bank and spending it on my own needs - and in the bargain, effectively taking away employment for those in need of a job?"
It's an easy concept to talk about, more difficult to practice - for as much as we can "pretend" to be someone we're not, our own biases and preconceptions will still invade our own analysis - however, I might suggest even an imperfect effort to "walk in someone else's shoes" is a worthwhile endeavor that in this time of polarized politics, we could all do a little more of.
Certainly, the answers to our political questions are complex, and are not able to be solved simply by applying the "Original Position" principal, but, still, it wouldn't hurt all of us to be cognisant that our political beliefs, like our religions, are often formed on the basis of what we were born into, and deserve a greater degree of introspection that we often give them.
Just sayin'
If there is an illness infecting politics today, it is self-interest.
Of course, us in the blog world always see self-interest being the illness of the "other guy", however, it's a fair question to ask all of us, from all ends of the political spectrum.
I read an interesting concept the other day, attributed to American Philospher, John Rawls, referred to as the "Original Position" and while I am simplifiying it in the extreme, the basic concept is this:
When you look at the changes you feel society should make, try and step back and ask yourself, "If I didn't know what part I would play in society, how would I design it?"
In other words, each of us often sees changes from our own perspective. But, if you could imagine that you might be someone quite different, would that change your persective of change?
While you may, today, be an affluent white male, would you see society differently if you were aboriginal? Or handicapped? Too often we, on the right, talk about concepts like "individual responsibility", which comes easy to us if we were fortunate enough to be born into affluence or even modest comfort. Would that feel differently if we were born into a broken home on one of Canada's Indian Reserves?
Now - loss of perspective, clearly, is not the purview only of the affluent or the upper middle class. Those on the other end, the social activists, the advocates for the poor, for the environment should also ask themselves, "If I had one million dollars, how much cost, how much tax, how much government interference would I put up with, and still choose to take the risk of losing my investment and placing my savings into a business and take on the obligation of hiring full-time employees, as opposed to simply putting that money in a bank and spending it on my own needs - and in the bargain, effectively taking away employment for those in need of a job?"
It's an easy concept to talk about, more difficult to practice - for as much as we can "pretend" to be someone we're not, our own biases and preconceptions will still invade our own analysis - however, I might suggest even an imperfect effort to "walk in someone else's shoes" is a worthwhile endeavor that in this time of polarized politics, we could all do a little more of.
Certainly, the answers to our political questions are complex, and are not able to be solved simply by applying the "Original Position" principal, but, still, it wouldn't hurt all of us to be cognisant that our political beliefs, like our religions, are often formed on the basis of what we were born into, and deserve a greater degree of introspection that we often give them.
Just sayin'
Monday, February 22, 2010
No Participation Ribbons THESE Olympics, Canada..
"Your best!?"
Some are suggesting that our media is being "hard" on our athletes for not rising to expectations.
I say, good on them.
Finally.
When Charles Hamelin managed a less-than-impressive 4th place in the 1000m short track speed skating - when he is the reigning world record holder at that distance - they should say, "What the hell?"
Because, at the end of the day at the Olympics they don't hand out participation ribbons. They award medals. And the medals are for accomplishment. For winning.
As Vince Lombardi pointed out,
"Winning is not a sometime thing; it's an all the time thing. You don't win once in a while; you don't do things right once in a while; you do them right all the time. Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing."
To celebrate losing, is to celebrate mediocrity. The reality of life, contrary to the suggestions of my esteemed Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Louise Charron, is about accomplishment.
Not good effort.
Not good intentions.
But actually doing the job we set out to do - and if we celebrate anything less than victory, well, we diminish the effort and sacrifice of those who are triumphant.
As Sean Connery replied in "The Rock" when Nicolas Cage said "I'll do my best":
Your "best"?!
Losers always whine about "their best".
Winners go home and fuck the prom queen.
Liberal MP Michelle Simson: The Problem with the Prorogue.. it wasn't long enough.
It's true.
Just when you think that opposition MP's have wrung out every drop they could out of the "Prorogue" issue, well, they've squeezed just one more.
You see, the prorogue isn't long enough.
According to Liberal MP Michelle Simson, the cancellation of the March break, in response to the lengthened break resulting from the prorogue, and, no doubt, the incessant whining of opposition MP's, is also inappropriate.
Yes - while the Liberals want Parliament back at work, they don't want to work, apparently, in March. You see, that is when the paralympics are, and, no doubt, every red-blooded MP needs time off to attend that event.
So. Now, NOT taking a break is an offense to Canadians, or at least a snub to paralympians.
Well, in order to appease Ms. Simson, it is probably best that we continue to suspend Parliament until October. I mean, while the Paralympics are done March 21, the Sugarbush Maple Syrup Festival continues for the balance of the month, and we don't want to snub maple syrup producers, do we?
And then of course, it's Easter and we can't be snubbing Catholics.
And following the Easter week, during the following week to April 15, of course, is the Toronto Silen Film Festival.. far be it from the federal government to snub, well, I guess silent or deaf people.
Then, we have Earth Week commencing April 19, so, we can't be offending, well, earthlings.
And we can't be working the last week of April, which is National Immunization Awareness week.. that would certainly snub, uh.. people who have been immunized.
First week of May is National Compost Awareness week.. so that's out, obviously, as is the following week, which is National Road Safety week, but once we get by the National Tour du Canada, which runs from June to September, we should be able to get a little bit of work done before the next Christmas break.
Of course, really, the only national event that should be of interest during that time period for Michelle and her fellow Liberals is probably the Schizophrenia Walk of Hope on May 16, because, clealry, the Liberals just seem to be of two minds about pretty much everything.
Michelle, stand for something, much?
Just when you think that opposition MP's have wrung out every drop they could out of the "Prorogue" issue, well, they've squeezed just one more.
You see, the prorogue isn't long enough.
According to Liberal MP Michelle Simson, the cancellation of the March break, in response to the lengthened break resulting from the prorogue, and, no doubt, the incessant whining of opposition MP's, is also inappropriate.
Yes - while the Liberals want Parliament back at work, they don't want to work, apparently, in March. You see, that is when the paralympics are, and, no doubt, every red-blooded MP needs time off to attend that event.
So. Now, NOT taking a break is an offense to Canadians, or at least a snub to paralympians.
Well, in order to appease Ms. Simson, it is probably best that we continue to suspend Parliament until October. I mean, while the Paralympics are done March 21, the Sugarbush Maple Syrup Festival continues for the balance of the month, and we don't want to snub maple syrup producers, do we?
And then of course, it's Easter and we can't be snubbing Catholics.
And following the Easter week, during the following week to April 15, of course, is the Toronto Silen Film Festival.. far be it from the federal government to snub, well, I guess silent or deaf people.
Then, we have Earth Week commencing April 19, so, we can't be offending, well, earthlings.
And we can't be working the last week of April, which is National Immunization Awareness week.. that would certainly snub, uh.. people who have been immunized.
First week of May is National Compost Awareness week.. so that's out, obviously, as is the following week, which is National Road Safety week, but once we get by the National Tour du Canada, which runs from June to September, we should be able to get a little bit of work done before the next Christmas break.
Of course, really, the only national event that should be of interest during that time period for Michelle and her fellow Liberals is probably the Schizophrenia Walk of Hope on May 16, because, clealry, the Liberals just seem to be of two minds about pretty much everything.
Michelle, stand for something, much?
Friday, February 19, 2010
Joe Stack.. was he crazy?
Yesterday, February 18, 2010, at approximately 10:00am, disgruntled software engineer, Joe Stack, piloted his Piper Cherokee into the Federal IRS office in Austin, Texas, killing himself and two other people in the building.
Now, before some laud Stack's efforts as some sort of anti-IRS hero, keep in mind that the two people killed were, like Stack, middle-aged civil servants just doing their job, hardly responsible or even able to steer IRS policy and legislation.
Reading reports, the media has variously referred to a posting on Stack's website as "rambling", as a "manifesto".. and have suggested that Stack was simply insane.
I don't know. And that's the scary thing. His writing in my mind strikes me as actually quite lucid. So, if we have intelligent, lucid people willing to engage in a terrorist act out of frustration over the disconnect with government, isn't it perhaps about time we started to take seriously the growing sense that the "us" and "them" are not conservatives and liberals, but citizens and their own government?
For your own consideration and thoughts, Stack's posting shortly before his death is posted on the National Post here.
While I would hardly suggest Stack is a hero for taking the lives and seriously injuring other innocents, his frustration and his lack of faith in a government of the people and for the people are worth more consideration than just being written off as a "rambling manifesto".
Now, before some laud Stack's efforts as some sort of anti-IRS hero, keep in mind that the two people killed were, like Stack, middle-aged civil servants just doing their job, hardly responsible or even able to steer IRS policy and legislation.
Reading reports, the media has variously referred to a posting on Stack's website as "rambling", as a "manifesto".. and have suggested that Stack was simply insane.
I don't know. And that's the scary thing. His writing in my mind strikes me as actually quite lucid. So, if we have intelligent, lucid people willing to engage in a terrorist act out of frustration over the disconnect with government, isn't it perhaps about time we started to take seriously the growing sense that the "us" and "them" are not conservatives and liberals, but citizens and their own government?
For your own consideration and thoughts, Stack's posting shortly before his death is posted on the National Post here.
While I would hardly suggest Stack is a hero for taking the lives and seriously injuring other innocents, his frustration and his lack of faith in a government of the people and for the people are worth more consideration than just being written off as a "rambling manifesto".
Development of the "Thinking Conservative"
Well.
I've often referred to the concept of "Thinking Conservatives", usually in the context of my perception of some who seek to treat "conservatism" as an excuse for discarding reason in favor of:
a) fundamental religious zeal; orThe first subset of conservatives are usually fundamental Christians and fail to see that "freedom of religion" not only allows them the right of their beliefs, but it also obligates them not to impose their beliefs upon others (most obviously in the debate regarding abortion and homosexuality).
b) revisionest views of historical reality.
The second subset of conservatives are the proponents of the "good old days" when men were men, and women were best seen but not heard. When showing compassion and taking societal responsibility for the treatment of aboriginals in our early history was unheard of. When racism was not only not a concern, but, in fact, was encouraged as a way to retain white dominance of the fruits of our collective resources.
I suggest these "conservatives" are a poison to the true cause of conservatism, because, essentially, their view of the world and their society is immature, and they are just as clearly an enemy to conservatism as the most radical liberal progressive that we seem to oppose.
Why?
Because at their core, they seek to serve up to society the same poison that the most radical progressive liberals also seek to serve up. Just from a different bowl.
What they seek to serve us is unthinking and unquestioning acceptance of their views of the world, and, fundamentally, what they seek to take away from us is our freedom to make our own decisions regarding what is best for ourselves and our families.
While I'm no great expert on philosophy, I have been intrigued by something suggested by Immanuel Kant, an 18th century German Philosopher, who wrote at length about man's march towards "enlightment". His fundamental message was that for mankind to progress, to effectively, "mature", we need to learn to move forward neither thoughtlessly accepting everything "authorities" tell us, nor thoughtlessly rejecting it.
Think about that for a moment as relates to the issue of global warming.
We have a need to accept the right and the responsibility to apply our own reason to that which we are told.
The hard right and the hard left wish us to ignore this responsibility, in the hope that they can force us into blind subservience to "their view" of the way things should be.
Thus, I suppose, the name of my blog.
I think our job, as conservatives, as participants in democracy, is to search for liberty. Not just search, but demand liberty. Not "liberty" in the sense of some childish view of "libertarianism" which posits some sort of anarchy where we do what we want and accept no obligation to help our neighbor - but liberty in the sense of the right and the responsibility to be accountable for the wellbeing of ourselves and our family, and to guard not only OUR right to do so, but to respect and in fact protect the right of our neighbor to have that same right.. even when their view of how to raise their family and chart their course might look a little different from our own.
So.
Fellow conservatives.
My question for you:
Are you up to the challenge?
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Fat Old Guys Unite! - More "Wisdom" from the Supreme Court of Canada
Yours truly.. before my dream was stolen by "the man"
In a recent symposium on women in the legal profession, Supreme Court of Canada Justice Louise Charron suggests that the business of law is treating women unfairly because it is focused on "profit".
Seriously.
Keep in mind, Justice Charron has an intimate understanding of the realities of the business of law, having worked in private practice for three (3) years since she became a lawyer in 1977. So I'm sure she understands the full scope of risk and rewards in a capitalist enterprise.
But, hey, let's not be too hard on her. I think her notion of an egalitarian society has some merit.
Really.
Take my own aspirations for example.
I have always had a dream of being the first line center for the Toronto Maple Leafs. However, due to family commitments, I was not able to put in the hundreds of hours demanded to develop what the NHL refers to as "skills" and to maintain what they suggest is a required level of "fitness".
What the hell.
I think that it is completely unfair that a 47 year old, somewhat overweight lawyer with marginal hockey skills should be denied his dreams because the Toronto Maple Leafs and the NHL put a misguided priority on "profit" and "winning". Just another excuse to keep the fat man down, I say.
To paraphrase Justice Charron,
"The ‘priority of profit’ represents a significant barrier to institutional change in the professional hockey environment. Many hockey teams are so focused on profit that they may be unable to appreciate the value of apparently ‘competing’ priorities like shorter hours, flexible work schedules or pro bono ticket sales.So.
Hockey players who value non-monetary goods, including family, social time or community endeavours, may feel that they simply cannot or do not wish to compete in the money-driven world of the NHL.”
Called to action with Justice Charron's comments in mind, I'm calling for an immediate Parliamentary Inquiry into the lack of fat, middle-aged men (and women) playing in the National Hockey League. To suggest that fans would prefer to pay to watch high caliber players is simply another excuse to perpetuate the "ice ceiling" that has kept so many others like me from realizing on their dreams.
I mean, it's not like I could do any worse than the current Leaf crew, is it?
Global Warming.. Climate Change.. and what we "know".
Well.
John Cross, author of Dawg's Blawg, just made my day.
While wandering over to see the goings-on at Big City Liberal, after reading his blog continuing to try and ignore the clearly inappropriate actions and commentary of Dr. Phil Jones in betraying any effort at scientific objectivity in the "climategate" scandal, one commentator, "Prairie Kid", commented that attacking the "hacker" who discovered Jones' shenanigans (yeah, I said it, "shenanigans") was shooting the messenger.. then pointing out that,in any event:
Maybe not enough time, it turns out.
As pointed out in his interview with BBC February 13, 2010, Dr. Phil Jones acknowledges, in fact, that since 1995, there has been no statistically significant change in global temperatures. He further points out that, in fact, since 2002, there has been a marginal decrease in global temperatures (-.12C).
Now, in fairness to Dr. Jones, his answers to the questions put to him appear to be honest, and direct for the most part, and my point in poking fun at John Cross, is to state the obvious. So often in the discussion and debate over climate change, we hear ridiculous comments like, "The Debate is Over". Suggesting we have perfect knowledge regarding both the past and the future and that those who have questions or concerns aren't worthy of consideration.
And, in one fell swoop, we see that this sort of arrogance can quickly backfire.
Now. Before my fellow conservatives get too excited about suggesting that, in fact, from their own perspective "The Debate is Over", be warned.
Science is imperfect, but it's the best source we have to regulate our behavior to prevent us from harming ourselves. A little more open-minded consideration is needed from all corners. The suggestions of Al Gore and David Suzuki have clearly been over-stated. The world is not in immenent danger of global catastrophe. However, that doesn't mean we should ignore the science suggesting that some change is occuring.
Read the interview of Dr. Jones with an open mind. Some warming appears to be evident. Not massive warming, but some warming - and it is difficult to reconcile that without reference to man-made contribution to warming.
So, perhaps we don't need to cripple our economy by some new incarnation of Stephan Dion's "green shift", but that hardly means we should do nothing.
If we're honest, none of us "knows" as much as we sometimes suggest we do.
John Cross, author of Dawg's Blawg, just made my day.
While wandering over to see the goings-on at Big City Liberal, after reading his blog continuing to try and ignore the clearly inappropriate actions and commentary of Dr. Phil Jones in betraying any effort at scientific objectivity in the "climategate" scandal, one commentator, "Prairie Kid", commented that attacking the "hacker" who discovered Jones' shenanigans (yeah, I said it, "shenanigans") was shooting the messenger.. then pointing out that,in any event:
Phil Jones has said that there has been NO warming for the last 15 years.True to form, coming to Phil Jones' aid, John Cross, of "Dawg's Blawg", immediately went on the attack:
Prairie Kid - what I find unbelievable is that you think that Dr. Jones claimed that there has been no warming for the last 15 years.Here is the really amusing part. If you go have a peek at John's profile, he is an engineer by trade, and his wife thinks he spends "far too much time looking at the issue of global warming."
Regards,
John
Maybe not enough time, it turns out.
As pointed out in his interview with BBC February 13, 2010, Dr. Phil Jones acknowledges, in fact, that since 1995, there has been no statistically significant change in global temperatures. He further points out that, in fact, since 2002, there has been a marginal decrease in global temperatures (-.12C).
Now, in fairness to Dr. Jones, his answers to the questions put to him appear to be honest, and direct for the most part, and my point in poking fun at John Cross, is to state the obvious. So often in the discussion and debate over climate change, we hear ridiculous comments like, "The Debate is Over". Suggesting we have perfect knowledge regarding both the past and the future and that those who have questions or concerns aren't worthy of consideration.
And, in one fell swoop, we see that this sort of arrogance can quickly backfire.
Now. Before my fellow conservatives get too excited about suggesting that, in fact, from their own perspective "The Debate is Over", be warned.
Science is imperfect, but it's the best source we have to regulate our behavior to prevent us from harming ourselves. A little more open-minded consideration is needed from all corners. The suggestions of Al Gore and David Suzuki have clearly been over-stated. The world is not in immenent danger of global catastrophe. However, that doesn't mean we should ignore the science suggesting that some change is occuring.
Read the interview of Dr. Jones with an open mind. Some warming appears to be evident. Not massive warming, but some warming - and it is difficult to reconcile that without reference to man-made contribution to warming.
So, perhaps we don't need to cripple our economy by some new incarnation of Stephan Dion's "green shift", but that hardly means we should do nothing.
If we're honest, none of us "knows" as much as we sometimes suggest we do.
Small change.. big message from Minister Flaherty
The difference between Canadian Conservatives, and their, frankly, stupider counterparts south of the border was exemplified again yesterday as the Conservative Minister of Finance, Jim Flaherty, announced that the government was no longer going to heavily back high-ratio mortgages for investors, and that borrowers are going to have to show greater ability to handle mortgage rate changes before the government will back their mortgages.
Currently, the government of Canada is heavily involved in helping home buyers secure mortgage financing for their home purchases. Major banks, typically, will not loan more than 75% of the value of a home being purchased - and for a $360,000.00 home, that would mean a downpayment of $80,000.00. Out of reach of most first time home buyers. So, the government, through it's Canada and Mortgage Housing Program, provides guarantees to the banks if they will loan up to 95% of the house value - in the case of the $360,000.00 home, reducing the downpayment to $18,000.00.
However - yesterday, the government announced two significant changes.
Firstly, they will no longer back up loans to persons buying homes as investments with less than 20% downpayment. The government, essentially, has said, "we aren't in the business of subsizing business purchases."
Secondly, the government will require greater assurance that borrowers will be able to cover their mortgage in the event that rates change, showing an ability to handle mortgage payments for a five-year fixed rate mortgage (currently about 1% higher than the lowest available rates).
In the U.S., the complete laissez-faire policy of allowing anyone to obtain a mortgage who could eak out payments on the current lowest rate, later lead to wide spread defaults when those rates changed - bringing the U.S. financial system to it's knees.
In Canada, our modestly regulated banking industry (credit to both Conservative and Liberal governments) has shown both our housing industry and our banking industry to be stronger, more stable, and less likely to result in the melt-down of the "every man for himself" attidue south of the border.
Good move, Minister Flaherty.
This is what "Conservatism" should mean - modest, but prudent change over time.
Currently, the government of Canada is heavily involved in helping home buyers secure mortgage financing for their home purchases. Major banks, typically, will not loan more than 75% of the value of a home being purchased - and for a $360,000.00 home, that would mean a downpayment of $80,000.00. Out of reach of most first time home buyers. So, the government, through it's Canada and Mortgage Housing Program, provides guarantees to the banks if they will loan up to 95% of the house value - in the case of the $360,000.00 home, reducing the downpayment to $18,000.00.
However - yesterday, the government announced two significant changes.
Firstly, they will no longer back up loans to persons buying homes as investments with less than 20% downpayment. The government, essentially, has said, "we aren't in the business of subsizing business purchases."
Secondly, the government will require greater assurance that borrowers will be able to cover their mortgage in the event that rates change, showing an ability to handle mortgage payments for a five-year fixed rate mortgage (currently about 1% higher than the lowest available rates).
In the U.S., the complete laissez-faire policy of allowing anyone to obtain a mortgage who could eak out payments on the current lowest rate, later lead to wide spread defaults when those rates changed - bringing the U.S. financial system to it's knees.
In Canada, our modestly regulated banking industry (credit to both Conservative and Liberal governments) has shown both our housing industry and our banking industry to be stronger, more stable, and less likely to result in the melt-down of the "every man for himself" attidue south of the border.
Good move, Minister Flaherty.
This is what "Conservatism" should mean - modest, but prudent change over time.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Taking some cues from the left-side.. citizen action at work.
Give 'em credit, the leftish side of the political spectrum has been much better about organizing citizen action to basically threaten businesses they don't like into submission on whatever popular point they feel like making from time to time.
Well, now, we see the Toronto Dominion Bank is coming out all "liberally" in opposition to our current government.
Which is fine.
But, so too is our decision not to deal with them.
So.
Getting on the "anti-TD" bandwagon, my two cents says, stop all dealings with TD.
Now.
I thought "Classless" Society meant something else.. my bad..
Class - Jennifer Heil
Jennifer Heil, started skiing when she was two years old, growing up originally in Spruce Grove, Alberta. Since the age of two, Jennifer worked on her skills, giving hundreds upon hundreds of hours of her personal life towards her skills as a freestyle mogul skier, overcoming injuries, participating in her first Olympics at 18 years of age. In 2006, she won a gold medal at Turin, and this week, earned a silver medal in Vancouver.
In addition to devoting most of her young life to the development of her skills as a world champion mogul skier, in her spare time, Jennifer manages to attend the Management Studies program at McGill University, and also gives time to the Charities, Right to Plan and Because I'm A Girl.
Right to Play is a charity that seeks "To improve the lives of children in some of the most disadvantaged areas of the world by using the power of sport and play for development, health and peace", reaching out to children all over the world - including children in war torn Palestinian communities.
Because I'm a Girl is a charity seeking to empower young girls all over the world - their theory being that "The best results happen when people living in poverty use their own ideas, talents and energy to make lives better for themselves and their communities. Plan supports children and youth to get involved and help make their communities a better, safer place for them, their friends and families."
Pretty busy woman.
Now. On to Classless.
Classless - Willow Violet Louise Riley
Saving the poor.. one vodka slammer at a time..
Saving the poor.. one vodka slammer at a time..
Arrested as part of the Olympic protests, for assaulting a police officer, was this lovely peace of work, Willow Violet Louise Riley. What is her background? Well, we don't really know - the only public information is, apparently, on her lovely MySpace page, which, because it really exposes her as the poser that she is, I linked to here.
While we don't know much about her, and her pals, I'm guessing her bio is something like:
I stopped trying to compete with other kids in athletics, because, well, that's work, and I would rather criticize than create. So, my fellow losers and I make fun of athletes, and as we "mature" (word used very loosely) we "protest" against things like the Olympics because, well, they sort of magnify the useless pieces of work that we truly are.
I mean, stand me next to Jennifer Heil, and, you get my drift.
Of course, to give myself a thin (very thin) veneer of mattering, I'll join my friends in an "anti-poverty" rally, though, really, the bottom line is that those dirty capitalists that I despise, do more for the poor and impoverished in a day than I'll probably do in my lifetime. I mean, actually volunterring to help the disadvantaged in a positive way is, well, just so much like work.
Oh, and when no one wants to pay attention to this little charade, well, me and my pals will through some mailboxes through windows and assault police officers in some childish tantrum to further exemplify why, really, no one SHOULD pay any attention to us."
I guess THAT's what they mean about creating a classless society.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Danielle Smith. Credit Where Credit is Due
I gave Danielle Smith's "alternative budget" a bit of a hard time yesterday, and, although some of her supporters were little rankled about it, looking at their complaints, I noticed a continuing absense of substace in response.
As Ted Morton calls them, "The New Suspects" complain, still, about how the current government is't "conservative" enough, apparently, of the opinion that if a bad idea is "conservative" that makes it a good idea.
I will give Danielle Smith credit, however, for one thing she said during her interview with Stephen Taylor, posted in Wednesday's blog. During her interview, she aptly commented that "Alberta needs to become a grown up".
I like that comment.
And I am not being facetious - it is comment which is as important as it is simple.
The tendency towards the easy answer, the tendency towards looking to government for the answer to all of our own stupid mistakes has got to stop.
As alluded to yesterday, the problem of addiction to heroin, or anything else for that matter, is NOT my problem, and I shouldn't have to pay for it. If heroin addicts don't want to die from AIDS or hepatitis, or overdose - the answer is really quite simple. Don't use it. Don't start using it. And if you do, and you become an addict and die -well, you brought it on yourself. No one "accidentaly" shoots up. I will shed no tears for any of you.
Too many Canadians work their whole lives honorably and honestly, pay their taxes, take care of their homes and their families, and get completely ignored by our government who is busy tending to the small minority of screw-ups who just don't want to "grow up".
So. For that comment, Danielle Smith, I say, "Thank-you". And while I still think that you are a very long way off from having a real "plan" for Albertans, your comment is worth repeating.
"Grow up Alberta. Grow up Canada."
As Ted Morton calls them, "The New Suspects" complain, still, about how the current government is't "conservative" enough, apparently, of the opinion that if a bad idea is "conservative" that makes it a good idea.
I will give Danielle Smith credit, however, for one thing she said during her interview with Stephen Taylor, posted in Wednesday's blog. During her interview, she aptly commented that "Alberta needs to become a grown up".
I like that comment.
And I am not being facetious - it is comment which is as important as it is simple.
The tendency towards the easy answer, the tendency towards looking to government for the answer to all of our own stupid mistakes has got to stop.
As alluded to yesterday, the problem of addiction to heroin, or anything else for that matter, is NOT my problem, and I shouldn't have to pay for it. If heroin addicts don't want to die from AIDS or hepatitis, or overdose - the answer is really quite simple. Don't use it. Don't start using it. And if you do, and you become an addict and die -well, you brought it on yourself. No one "accidentaly" shoots up. I will shed no tears for any of you.
Too many Canadians work their whole lives honorably and honestly, pay their taxes, take care of their homes and their families, and get completely ignored by our government who is busy tending to the small minority of screw-ups who just don't want to "grow up".
So. For that comment, Danielle Smith, I say, "Thank-you". And while I still think that you are a very long way off from having a real "plan" for Albertans, your comment is worth repeating.
"Grow up Alberta. Grow up Canada."
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Wild Rose Budget - Something to Actually Think About.
Well, a come-uppance is in order, apparently, for my suggestions that the Wild Rose Alliance is nothing but complaining without any suggested alternatives. We now see the WRA has put forth further suggested budget reductions here: http://www.wildrosealliance.ca/balanced-budget-initiative .
Here's a breakdown of their suggested changes to the current budget, with my own thoughts in response:
Spread the $20.1 billion capital budget over 4.5 years rather than three years. This yields a budgetary savings of nearly $2.79 billion in 2010 alone.
- assuming that the cost of construction and the cost of carrying charges (interest) do not increase during that time period. A risky, and, frankly, naive assumption. Construction costs are now probably at the lowest they are going to be, and spreading the capital cost for another 1.5 years will certainly reduce today's cost, but will likely, in the long run, create much higher costs. This also ignores the issue of whether or not our ability to service the needs of the Province can be postponed simply for economic reasons - see the bridge collapse in Minnessota for a reason to be cautious over ignoring capital improvement. (Final comment - this isn't actually savings anyway, just deferral)
Increase Health and Education operational spending in line with inflation plus population growth (3.5%) rather than the astounding Budget 2010 increases of 13.7% (Health) and 4.6% (Education). This would yield $1.33 billion in savings for 2010 and still provide significant investments in these two areas.
- again, on paper, this seems like a sensible enough solution, but again, the simple view belies some very real issues not considered in this suggestion. As reported in Senate Finance Committee report, "THE DEMOGRAPHIC TIME BOMB: MITIGATING THE EFFECTS OF DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE IN CANADA":
With the exception of increased fertility rates during the post-World War II baby boom, a declining fertility rate and rising life expectancy have been reflected in Canada’s demography. The number of people aged 65 and older is expected to increase from 3.9 million in 2000 to approximately 7.8 million in 2026, reaching almost 9.4 million by 2051. The fastest-growing segment of the older population will be those aged more than 80, a group that will nearly double in size between 2000 and 2026, and quadruple in size between 2000 and 2051. The proportion of elderly persons was 8% in 1971 and is 13% currently. By 2031, about 25% of Canadians will be aged 65 or older.
So, the simplistic views that we can control consumption by simply having regard to gross population changes and rates of inflation are incredibly naive as well. Clearly, the demands on health care are going to increase, so the Wild Rose plan will of necessity result in worsening health care for Albertans, in the asbence of other efforts to improve efficiency, to reduce need, or fundamentally change the current delivery model. All of which may be considered, but aren't currently a part of the Wild Rose alternative budget.
Delay the Green TRIP mass transit initiative until economic conditions improve for savings totalling $70 million.
See point 1 above. Saving on capital investment by postponing expenditure will likely simply result in a higher overall cost. Now, perhaps it could be debated as to whether or not the initiative is needed in general, however, assuming the initiative will proceed, most economists suggest putting off capital expenditures during times of low labor and construction costs is a "penny wise, pound foolish" effort. Should the government engage in that sort of effort, it is likely that, when times improve and construction costs are much higher, the complaint at that point will be "Why didn't you do this when it was much less expensive." (See complaints two to three years ago regarding school construction, etc., and again, is a deferral, not a savings)
Cancel the wasteful and unproven $2 billion Carbon Capture and Storage experiment saving Albertans $100 million this year.
Again, alarmingly naive. I'm not certain if Carbon Capture and Storage is the answer. However, clearly, if we want to fully realize on the potential of our oilsands projects, we need to take some positive steps to respond to the growing global demand for reduced carbon emissions. Even if we may disagree on the whole premise, to ignore the demands of trading partners (U.S.A.) creates the risk of trade restrictions and sanctions that will seriously impair our financial stability. We do not live on an island. I would, however, be open to consider what other options are being suggested by the Wild Rose Alliance to deal with this issue - besides putting a head in the sand.
Eliminate Alberta's Venture Capital Fund. Government should not be allocating funds to private business ventures. This would return $100 million to the balance sheet in 2010.
I'm not seriously opposed to the idea that government is not necessarily the best source of prudent business investment, however, clearly, there is a need to help broaden our economic base and diversify our economy. Because our our latent disadvantages (no seaport, lack of proximity to major markets) clearly, we need to consider ways of inducing new investment in Alberta. The lowest taxes in Canada is one area in which we can do it, but maintaining an inexpensive and high quality health care system for investors and employees (see above) is also important, as is the availability of a well-educated work force (see above as well). Clearly, just waiting for investment to happen is not going to inspire new techonology in Alberta, and so, while I'm not, personally, opposed to the suggested action above, I would be interested to know the alternative plan.
Cut corporate subsidies for product commercialization. The government has no business being in business. This would save Albertans an additional $110 million in Budget 2010.
Really, this is the same issue as above. Currently, the Alberta government has been seeking to assist in the broadening of "value added" production of agricultural products in particular. Again, I wouldn't be opposed to letting the free market have a greater hand in business, however, I would ask if the Wild Rose Party would ignore any effort to diversify our economy, and if not, what they would replace this sort of effort with, and what THAT cost would be.
Terminate the Alberta Livestock and Meat Agency. Marketing beef is a role for private farmers, agricultural marketing organizations and private business, not the Government of Alberta. This correction will save roughly $50 million in 2010.
See above two points. Do we give up on seeking to expand markets, or do we have a different plan?
Reduce the size of cabinet from 23 to 16 by combining, among others, Infrastructure with Transportation, Treasury Board with Finance and Enterprise, and Municipal Affairs with Housing and Urban Affairs. This will save Albertans approximately $44 million.
Not opposed. Savings would, however, be marginal, and would be offset, no doubt, by increased administration in the new expanded portfolios to take into account the expanded responsibilities.
End the direct subsidization of horse racing, saving $25 million per year.
Not opposed.
Through retirement and natural attrition, increase the Government's worker to manager ratio from 4:1 to 12:1 (the ratio in the private sector is about 25:1). This will save Albertans approximately $35 million this year alone.
Not opposed - but I'm curious as to where the Wild Rose party obtains figures that they numbers can be accomplished solely through attrition in the time frame suggested. Otherwise, savings would have to be offset by severance costs.
Cut the Government's communications (public affairs) budget in half saving $7 million.
Not opposed, but what would the costs of severance be to offset the savings.
Significantly reduce spending in the Premier's Office and end Alberta's wasteful 'rebranding initiative' and save $7 million this year alone.
What does this really mean - what are the particular costs we're talking about? I'm not about to have my Premier flying coach on Westjet, and driving a Hyundai to first ministers' meetings. I have no problem, however, with the suggestion that the "rebranding effort" was a waste of money - a cost of about $11.3 million per year for three years.
So. From what I can see, if we give up on doing ANYTHING to diversify our economy and do NOTHING to respond to trading partner demands regarding carbon emissions, the legitimate savings would look something like:
CO2 Capture - $100 million;
Abandoning Economic Diversification - $260 million;
Further reduction in workforce - $42 million;
Reduced Cabinet - $44 million;
Removal or Horseracing Subsidy - $25 million;
Pretend Rebranding Didn't Happen - $11.3 million
Total Savings: $482.3 million.
6% Reduction.
And, keep in mind, that our most significant source of revenue is our oil industry, and, if we are faced with international sanctions or trade restrictions, that 6% reduction would look like change in your piggybank.
That being said, I will, however, give credit that the WRA is putting forth something beyond the platitudes and complaints which we've seen to this point, and in theory, I do also agree that spending the kind of money we have on "branding" our Province and having any significant involvement in the subsidy of any business is a bad plan. So, points for focus, if not exactly for execution yet.
Here's a breakdown of their suggested changes to the current budget, with my own thoughts in response:
Spread the $20.1 billion capital budget over 4.5 years rather than three years. This yields a budgetary savings of nearly $2.79 billion in 2010 alone.
- assuming that the cost of construction and the cost of carrying charges (interest) do not increase during that time period. A risky, and, frankly, naive assumption. Construction costs are now probably at the lowest they are going to be, and spreading the capital cost for another 1.5 years will certainly reduce today's cost, but will likely, in the long run, create much higher costs. This also ignores the issue of whether or not our ability to service the needs of the Province can be postponed simply for economic reasons - see the bridge collapse in Minnessota for a reason to be cautious over ignoring capital improvement. (Final comment - this isn't actually savings anyway, just deferral)
Increase Health and Education operational spending in line with inflation plus population growth (3.5%) rather than the astounding Budget 2010 increases of 13.7% (Health) and 4.6% (Education). This would yield $1.33 billion in savings for 2010 and still provide significant investments in these two areas.
- again, on paper, this seems like a sensible enough solution, but again, the simple view belies some very real issues not considered in this suggestion. As reported in Senate Finance Committee report, "THE DEMOGRAPHIC TIME BOMB: MITIGATING THE EFFECTS OF DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE IN CANADA":
With the exception of increased fertility rates during the post-World War II baby boom, a declining fertility rate and rising life expectancy have been reflected in Canada’s demography. The number of people aged 65 and older is expected to increase from 3.9 million in 2000 to approximately 7.8 million in 2026, reaching almost 9.4 million by 2051. The fastest-growing segment of the older population will be those aged more than 80, a group that will nearly double in size between 2000 and 2026, and quadruple in size between 2000 and 2051. The proportion of elderly persons was 8% in 1971 and is 13% currently. By 2031, about 25% of Canadians will be aged 65 or older.
So, the simplistic views that we can control consumption by simply having regard to gross population changes and rates of inflation are incredibly naive as well. Clearly, the demands on health care are going to increase, so the Wild Rose plan will of necessity result in worsening health care for Albertans, in the asbence of other efforts to improve efficiency, to reduce need, or fundamentally change the current delivery model. All of which may be considered, but aren't currently a part of the Wild Rose alternative budget.
Delay the Green TRIP mass transit initiative until economic conditions improve for savings totalling $70 million.
See point 1 above. Saving on capital investment by postponing expenditure will likely simply result in a higher overall cost. Now, perhaps it could be debated as to whether or not the initiative is needed in general, however, assuming the initiative will proceed, most economists suggest putting off capital expenditures during times of low labor and construction costs is a "penny wise, pound foolish" effort. Should the government engage in that sort of effort, it is likely that, when times improve and construction costs are much higher, the complaint at that point will be "Why didn't you do this when it was much less expensive." (See complaints two to three years ago regarding school construction, etc., and again, is a deferral, not a savings)
Cancel the wasteful and unproven $2 billion Carbon Capture and Storage experiment saving Albertans $100 million this year.
Again, alarmingly naive. I'm not certain if Carbon Capture and Storage is the answer. However, clearly, if we want to fully realize on the potential of our oilsands projects, we need to take some positive steps to respond to the growing global demand for reduced carbon emissions. Even if we may disagree on the whole premise, to ignore the demands of trading partners (U.S.A.) creates the risk of trade restrictions and sanctions that will seriously impair our financial stability. We do not live on an island. I would, however, be open to consider what other options are being suggested by the Wild Rose Alliance to deal with this issue - besides putting a head in the sand.
Eliminate Alberta's Venture Capital Fund. Government should not be allocating funds to private business ventures. This would return $100 million to the balance sheet in 2010.
I'm not seriously opposed to the idea that government is not necessarily the best source of prudent business investment, however, clearly, there is a need to help broaden our economic base and diversify our economy. Because our our latent disadvantages (no seaport, lack of proximity to major markets) clearly, we need to consider ways of inducing new investment in Alberta. The lowest taxes in Canada is one area in which we can do it, but maintaining an inexpensive and high quality health care system for investors and employees (see above) is also important, as is the availability of a well-educated work force (see above as well). Clearly, just waiting for investment to happen is not going to inspire new techonology in Alberta, and so, while I'm not, personally, opposed to the suggested action above, I would be interested to know the alternative plan.
Cut corporate subsidies for product commercialization. The government has no business being in business. This would save Albertans an additional $110 million in Budget 2010.
Really, this is the same issue as above. Currently, the Alberta government has been seeking to assist in the broadening of "value added" production of agricultural products in particular. Again, I wouldn't be opposed to letting the free market have a greater hand in business, however, I would ask if the Wild Rose Party would ignore any effort to diversify our economy, and if not, what they would replace this sort of effort with, and what THAT cost would be.
Terminate the Alberta Livestock and Meat Agency. Marketing beef is a role for private farmers, agricultural marketing organizations and private business, not the Government of Alberta. This correction will save roughly $50 million in 2010.
See above two points. Do we give up on seeking to expand markets, or do we have a different plan?
Reduce the size of cabinet from 23 to 16 by combining, among others, Infrastructure with Transportation, Treasury Board with Finance and Enterprise, and Municipal Affairs with Housing and Urban Affairs. This will save Albertans approximately $44 million.
Not opposed. Savings would, however, be marginal, and would be offset, no doubt, by increased administration in the new expanded portfolios to take into account the expanded responsibilities.
End the direct subsidization of horse racing, saving $25 million per year.
Not opposed.
Through retirement and natural attrition, increase the Government's worker to manager ratio from 4:1 to 12:1 (the ratio in the private sector is about 25:1). This will save Albertans approximately $35 million this year alone.
Not opposed - but I'm curious as to where the Wild Rose party obtains figures that they numbers can be accomplished solely through attrition in the time frame suggested. Otherwise, savings would have to be offset by severance costs.
Cut the Government's communications (public affairs) budget in half saving $7 million.
Not opposed, but what would the costs of severance be to offset the savings.
Significantly reduce spending in the Premier's Office and end Alberta's wasteful 'rebranding initiative' and save $7 million this year alone.
What does this really mean - what are the particular costs we're talking about? I'm not about to have my Premier flying coach on Westjet, and driving a Hyundai to first ministers' meetings. I have no problem, however, with the suggestion that the "rebranding effort" was a waste of money - a cost of about $11.3 million per year for three years.
So. From what I can see, if we give up on doing ANYTHING to diversify our economy and do NOTHING to respond to trading partner demands regarding carbon emissions, the legitimate savings would look something like:
CO2 Capture - $100 million;
Abandoning Economic Diversification - $260 million;
Further reduction in workforce - $42 million;
Reduced Cabinet - $44 million;
Removal or Horseracing Subsidy - $25 million;
Pretend Rebranding Didn't Happen - $11.3 million
Total Savings: $482.3 million.
6% Reduction.
And, keep in mind, that our most significant source of revenue is our oil industry, and, if we are faced with international sanctions or trade restrictions, that 6% reduction would look like change in your piggybank.
That being said, I will, however, give credit that the WRA is putting forth something beyond the platitudes and complaints which we've seen to this point, and in theory, I do also agree that spending the kind of money we have on "branding" our Province and having any significant involvement in the subsidy of any business is a bad plan. So, points for focus, if not exactly for execution yet.
Welcome to Vancouver.. Here's your burger, would you like smack with that?
And I would like it kept that way.
Sadly, there are areas of Vancouver that aren't so beautiful, where the homeless and the drug addicted stake their own piece of "paradise" - and this is particularly poignant during this time that Vancouver is on display for all the world during the 2010 Olympics.
In the midst of this, we see the B.C. Court of Appeal last week basically ruled that the Province has the right to ignore the Criminal Code of Canada under their authority over "health care", and ruled that heroin users couldn't be charged with using heroin and clinic operators couldn't be charged with facilitating that use in Vancouver "safe sites".
I admit, my gut reaction is that this is monumental stupidity. Short-sighted "progressiveness" gone wild, in an effort to reduce harm to heroin addicts, they are sending a message that heroin use can be made "safe", and therefore, potentially, increasing the prevalence of those who may use heroin in the first place.
However, real results have to trump "gut feeling" and ideology. So if they truly work, and if they don't increase potential use of heroin, I guess I would have to reconsider my thoughts on this issue.
The problem is, they have no evidence that they do work. The evidence presented, both by the Insite people, but also by the European Monitoring centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction provide no evidence that the presence of safe injection sights have any impact on reduction of overall users.
In fact, some indicators suggest the contrary.
In Europe, where safe injection sites have become more common, the EMCDDA reports that use of heroin and injected opioids which had been decreasing to 2003, is now showing an increase:
Data on drug-induced deaths in 2007, which are mostly associated with opioid use, provide no indication of a return to the decreasing trend observed until 2003 (see Drug-related infectious diseases and drug-related deaths). More than half of the reporting countries recorded increasing numbers of drug-induced deaths between 2006 and 2007 (9). Similarly, a decline noted in the number of heroin seizures in the European Union until 2003 has now been replaced by a steady increase. In the most recent data on drug law offences, an increase in the number of heroin-related cases may also be observed.
While the report does not suggest treatment efforts have any relation to this change, and in fact, posit that increased availability of the drug from Afghanistan is a likely source of the increase, this in itself suggests that the biggest issue - which is the prevalence of those starting to use the drug - is a function of availability, not of treatment.
Similarly, the Canadian Medical Association Journal reports:
Our data provide evidence that suggests that heroin use has become an increasingly marginal form of drug use among illicit opioid users in Canada, particularly outside of Vancouver and Montréal (port cities that are major heroin import points).
Again, the suggestion is that treatment options are not an impacting on the prevalence of heroin use, and the suggestion in fact is that rates of heroin use are, again, a function of availability, not of treatment options.
The information provided by the Insite supporters themselves is very weak on the issue of the impact of such centres on new users. And by weak, I mean, well, more or less non-existent. What they do suggest is that, they are putting band-aids on the problem that has some positive impact on the users themselves. Those using the facilities are less likely to overdose, to contract aids or hepatitis.
And this is the problem, not only with Insite, but with many socially "progressive" ideas. They refuse to consider the forest for the trees. They can see an immediate benefit, but, happily ignore the broader social impact which they may have.
The question in my mind is this:
If I help save the life of one addict, and in the bargain, contribute to the creation of 5 more addicts, am I accomplishing good?I might suggest that the Insite issue is but one cog in a significant social wheel that is sending a message to the broader society that you may choose whatever asinine course of action you wish, and when the shit hits the fan, the state will bale you out.
And if you think I'm wrong, well, consider the prevalence of 9-11 calls for things as stupid as getting the wrong cheeseburger at the drive-through. Imagine 30 years ago any sane person calling the police because they didn't get the right burger.
The McDonald's Effect is alive and well, and, if well-intentioned, but short-sighted progressives have their way, it will only get worse.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Dave Bronconnier.. would you like a little cheese with that Wine?
Ted Morton takes aim at Government critics..
Well.
Some direct talk from our Government, as reported in today's Calgary Herald.
In response to the expected complaints from Dave Bonconnier about how Calgary isn't getting enough to keep building and providing infrustructure for subdivisions from Strathmore to Canmore, our Minister of Finance, Ted Morton, had this response:
"Neither I, nor the premier, nor anybody has any interest in having a public pissing match with the City of Calgary or any other city - we're treating all municipalities the same," Morton said today.Ted.. don't be coy, tell us how you really feel.
"The government of Alberta has shared with municipalities when revenues are good and are asking municipalities to share with the fiscal restraint in years like this."
When asked about his thoughts on the Wild Rose Party, Morton was no less direct:
Morton said he actually agrees with as much as 80 per cent of the fledgling right-wing party’s principles. “But agreeing on principles does not mean agreeing on strategy. ...”Well said, Mr. Minister, well said.
“As I’ve gotten older, I’ve come to appreciate good results over good intentions.”
The last thing Alberta needs is two conservative parties, Morton argued Wednesday morning. He added the only way to put good principles into effect is to form a majority government.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
More from the Cheshire Cat..
..and the public asked, "Would you tell us, please, which way we ought to go from here?"
"That depends a good deal on where you want to get to," said the Cat.
"We don't much care where--" said the public.
"Then it doesn't matter which way you go," said the Cat.
"--so long as we get SOMEWHERE," the public added as an explanation.
"Oh, you're sure to do that," said the Cat, "if you only spend enough."
Beware a leader who has nowhere to lead... or who doesn't tell you where he's leading you. Such is our dear Michael Ignatieff. The Cheshire Cat of Canadian politics. Like Lewis Carroll's cat, for decades, he is invisible to Canadians, and then, suddenly, he appears, as from nowhere, coming to give us the benefit of his murky directions, providing more confusion than direction, until, most certainly, he eventually vanishes again, leaving nothing behind but his broad learing grin.
Indeed.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Greasy, Greasy, Greasy.. Ontario pushes for universal daycare through the backdoor.
Welcome to Liberalland, Alice.
My name is Michael.
It's kind of like Alice in Wonderland, where to see what "is", you can only look at what "isn't".
In Ontario, while in the midst of a massive Provincial deficit, Dalton McGuinty reaches farther into debt and pulls out a few white rabbits, including a bailout for the Nortel Pension fund (why millions of other RRSP investors get ignored is left unanswered), and, daycare for children aged 4 and 5.
Now, without getting into the whole daycare issue, we'll just say that now Ontario is part-way to it's goal of a Quebec-style daycare program where parents no longer have to raise their children and where they also don't have to pay someone else to do it.
The second half of the equation is the greasy part, however.
Many people will look the other way when children are basically brought into the school system a year or two early, but would be offended if suddenly, one year old children were added to the general public school system. So Dalton doesn't deal with that issue directly.
No.
What he does is create a situation where now, daycare and dayhomes, because of the loss of revenue of older children and higher adult-child ratios, now have to maintain a living with younger children and lower adult-child ratios.
That means higher costs for daycare. Much higher.
So.
What next?
Well, yes, you are going to have parents screaming for government assistance.. and concerned steward of the government that Dalton is, he's going to say, "well, we can't afford it for heaven's sake, you'll just have to talk to your federal MP about that issue."
And suddenly, the GTA and South Ontario starts to scream for government funded daycare.
And like the Cheshire Cat, all we can see is Michael Ignatieff's evil grin.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Danielle Smith: The New Michael Ignatieff..
So.
Danielle Smith is now accusing Premier Stelmach of "spying" on her, because, apparently, someone speaking to her, presumeably from the PC Party was asked by another PC'er what they were talking about.
Really?
Paranoid much? First it was Rod Smith suggesting that anti-Stelmach voters were "vetted out" at the last AGM, though, as I posted, that was complete garbage and without any substantiation, and now Danielle Smith is complaining because, *gasp*, people are being asked what they spoke about with her.
Memo to Danielle Smith:
I've had coffee with one of your supporters. I've discussed this with people in my party. Haven't yet received a call from Premier Stelmach or his aids asking what nefarious discussions took place.
Now, who does this remind me off.. let me think.. what other political leader has recently tried to manufacture an "issue" where none exists to try and avoid any critical examination of the reality that they have no plan.. nothing to offer of substance other than complaints about the government of the day?
Oh, yeah, Michael Ignatieff.
Welcome to Alberta, where our answer to Michael Igantieff is another leader without a plan.. Danielle Smith.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Michael Ingatieff: 21,006 Dead Children Don't Matter
Michael Ignatieff: A Very, Very Bad Man
Well.
I would appear that Michael Ignatieff has little regard for the tragedy of a parent losing their child.
And beyond this callous disregard, he also thinks that most Canadians are stupid.
He disrespects us, and believes in his core that we will not be able to see through his thinly veiled effort to pull at our emotions to discourage our support for the Conservative party.
Long gone are the days of anyone believing the Liberal lies and scare tactics about the Conservatives seeking to outlaw abortion, so, now, desperate to try and find something to create relevance for the Liberal Party of Canada, Michael Ignatieff continues to make a fool of himself and betray the complete absense of any Liberal "plan" to try and play on his apparent belief that Canadians are truly stupid.
Here's the basic thrust of Ignatieff's efforts.
Stephen Harper wishes to move the G8 towards a goal of assisting developing nations, and his target is seeking to reduce maternal and infant mortality.
And that irritates Michael Ignatieff. Because it doesn't allign with the Liberal suggestion of Stephen Harper as anti-women and having no compassion for those less fortunate than himself.
What does Michael do in response? Well, he pulls out the "abortion" card, as Liberals love to do. Even though it has no current relevance in Canadian society, Michael is going to try and make it an issue, basically trying to diminish Harper's efforts to help women and children in developing countries, saying to Harper, "If you want to reduce the number of women and children dying in childbirth and during infancy, your plan HAS to include funding abortions."
Truly.
So, basically, the logic goes, if we help developing nations by providing the means to obtain clean water, by helping support access to proper nutrition, and quality pre- and post-natal medical care, we are basically letting those nations down. We aren't doing enough unless we impose upon other nations the obligation to provide abortion on demand.
It makes me sick.
And I'm pro-choice. I wouldn't presume to compel any woman to adopt my own point of view regarding abortion, and would and have argued loudly against those who would seek to do so.
But here's the thing.
Michael Ignatieff doesn't believe in giving other's that respect. He doesn't believe in things like cultural autonomy and national sovereignty.
Consider this:
Poland is about 90% Catholic. Now, I'm not Catholic, but one would hope that even Michael Ignatieff and the Liberal Party of Canada would understand the concept of freedom of religion.
Now from 1956 until 1993, abortion on demand was basically permitted in Poland, in any case where a women was experiencing "difficult living conditions". With the fall of communism and the resurgence of the importance of religion to Polish society, the laws were changed in 1993 making abortion illegal unless the mother's life is endangered, the pregnancy resulted from a criminal act, or the fetus is seriously malformed. It has now amongst the most restrictive abortion laws in Europe.
Now, personally, as indicated, I disagree with that. But then I'm not Catholic and I'm not living in Poland, and unlike Michael Ignatieff, I believe every country has a right to their own autonomy.
But here's the funny thing.
To use Michael Ignatieff's logic, with the banning of abortion, maternal and infant mortality couldn't possibly be reduced. As he has said, very clearly, that any effort to help women and children in developing nations "MUST" include assisted abortion options.
Problem is, the experience in Poland shows that just isn't true.
Here are the facts regarding rates of infant mortality in Poland according the UN Common Data Base:
Year 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2002
Infant mortality rate 62.0 32.0 21.0 16.0 8.0 8.0
(per 1000 live births)
Think about for a moment, and think about this:
The number of births in Poland in 2007 was 389,000.
This means that, as a result of improved care for women and children, without access to abortion, based upon the last recorded infant mortality rates, 21,006 children did not die who would have died as infants in 1960.
42,012 parents in Poland did not have to see their child die because of improved pre-and post-natal care.
And, apparently, that means nothing to Michael Ignatieff.
And, apparently, Michael Ignatieff thinks Canadians are so stupid that it would mean nothing to them.
If there wasn't enough reason to despise this man for his dishonesty, I can give you 21,006 more reasons today. Because if Michael Ignatieff had his way, those children would have died. Because he would prefer, apparently, to provide no care at all to mothers and children if that care doesn't include access to abortion.
Send a message, please.
We aren't that stupid, Michael, and, frankly, you are scum.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Alberta PC Principles.. thoughts shared with our Party.
The President of the PCAA, Bill Smith, has solicited input from our constituencies regarding the current Progressive Conservative Statement of Principles, which has come to my attention as President of the Lethbridge East Constituency of the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta. The submissions from our Constituency are contained below - your comments (polite and constructive) would be most welcome.
For your reference, the current Statement can be found here:
Response to President Smith re: Statement of Principles
President Smith;
I would like to offer these thoughts on behalf of the Lethbridge East PC Association, in response to your call for input regarding your questions relative to the PCAA Statement of Principles:
1. Do the principles as currently stated reflect where we stand today and where we need to go in the future? If not- then what? – It is often easy to identify a problem- not so easy to identify the solutions.
I have currently been reading up on Political philosophy, and have come across a fascinating book called, “Moral Clarity: A Guide for Grown-up Idealists”, by Susan Neiman. While the message in the book is often presented from the perspective of what I would call the “left side” of the political spectrum, she makes some fascinating observations about the failings of parties on either side of the political spectrum to engage the electorate with “moral clarity”.
To paraphrase her message, gone are the days when politicians and parties “stood for something”. We have become overly concerned with the appeasement of material and physical well-being, and have neglected to offer up any message of hope or honor in a metaphysical sense, in the sense of giving the electorate a message of something good and decent that they can believe in.
The current Statement of Principles continues to move further along this road – paying little attention to fundamental concepts of morality, honesty, dignity and hope. While these might appear to be just words, having regard to the example set in the last American Presidential election, the single word, “hope” can have profound impact upon the electorate.
With all due respect, it is my opinion that our current Statement of Principles is too broad, unfocused, and, taken in total, comes across as a typical political effort at appeasement. When looking at the totality of the Statement of Principles, we find we believe in:
More importantly, if we were to compare this to the Liberal Party statement of principles, they start out with the statement of “What We Stand For”, but then, in an even more unfocused manner, go about saying they stand for everything that everybody wants.
So, what’s the difference?
What do our principals suggest that distinguishes us from the Liberals, the Wild Rose Alliance, or anyone else?
I would like to see our party return to a party of very clear and very simple principles, consistent with the concept of being “Progressive” and “Conservative”,
And every time ANY issue arises, those four principles can be reinforced with our citizens, over and over again. And if we truly follow and adopt them, we will be the party of tomorrow.
For example, in the face of Environmental concerns? – well, we must be honest. We have an independent, science-based assessment open to input and scrutiny by all stakeholders. We have to show a respect for the dignity of our citizens, including our first nations people and interested land owners in being listed to and understood regarding their concerns. We have to be accountable if plans change or errors occur. And finally, we have to engage our obligations with a view not just for the immediate benefit to concerned parties, but with a view for hope of a cleaner world tomorrow than we have even today.
2. With the answers to the first question- what are the policies our Party should be pursuing- in health, environment and education for example?
I wouldn’t want to presume to have a greater understanding than our senior civil servants and our Ministers regarding these issues, however, as alluded to above, I believe that while the problems are complex, our citizens can be reassured if they can see that our efforts our consistent with fundamental, and noble principles as stated.
I would like to assure that there is a clarity and openness to disclose our plans and weather the storm of debate and question openly and fearlessly – Honesty and Accountability. Also – respecting the ability of our citizens to understand the difficulties that we will be encountering with an aging population – respecting their Dignity – both in terms of allowing them the respect to be honest with our concerns and our plans, but also in how we implement those plans – with sensitivity to our elderly and families with disabled persons in particular.
With education, more than anything else, I think this is the cornerstone of a functioning democracy and a vibrant and progressive society. Better effort needs to be made to communicate the relative expenditures we are making on education compared to other provinces, and I would like to see a commitment to prevent increases in education funding from going to teacher salaries alone. If it requires some labor unrest, so be it. Now more than ever, Albertans need the government to be bold and firm in meeting the needs of our children in particular.
With our environment, more than anything, as alluded to above, the starting point is a commitment to honesty and accountability. Will carbon sequestration work – what do we have to support that? What if it doesn’t? What is our position relative to global warming HONESTLY and what do we base that upon – are we ACCOUNTABLE for taking that position. Are we assuring the short-term benefits of industry still leave ample room for the HOPE of maintaining a clean environment for our children’s, children’s children?
As an aside, I have to candidly state that the use of Policy Resolutions is more of a hindrance than a benefit to the party. In my opinion, it appears that to a great extent Policy Resolutions are window-dressing to give the appearance of “grass-roots” input, when in fact, the caucus sets policy based on its own set of priorities. In keeping with principles I’ve suggested above, I would prefer the party be more honest and direct and if the chances of Resolutions being implemented are remote, well, say so. It may be much more effective to facilitate open discussion with our MLA’s and Ministers in an informal manner, perhaps in our own constituencies without it being a one-way speech and fundraising event. Our members should have the opportunity to meet with our party members WITHOUT paying for it.
3. What should our key messages be- as a Party? And how do we communicate those to Albertans?
I think our key message has to be a simple, but profound statement of principle to our citizens. Barack Obama was extremely successful in a very simple poster with one word, “Hope”. While we would not want to copy his effort by any means, I think that some effort at arming our constituencies with a simple, unified message – which could be used on websites, blogs, apparel, whatever – could be very effective.
Also taking the lead from the current U.S. President, we need to attract support from the ground up. And that requires a recapture of hope and imagination in the electorate – and that will not be easy, and it will require humility and the ability to be self-critical – and to risk losing seats.
As I have blogged on my own site – I would prefer to lose with my principles, than to win without them.
Above all else, our effort HAS to be sincere. There has to be an open acknowledgement by government that “business as usual” is not good enough. That THIS government is a government to ALL Albertans, not only to those with the money to attend our dinners, or to donate to our coffers. And then we demonstrate that by connecting with our members beyond just $200 per plate dinners, and we engage Albertans on the streets and fields of this Province, one on one.
4. What avenues of fundraising can we pursue on an ongoing basis?
Fundraising is the last of our concerns, frankly. The pre-occupation with getting more and more money from our supporters has left them jaded, and asking why they are giving money to us. If we can recapture imagination of the electorate and our members in particular, the money will come.
When it is time, after we have re-aligned our principles and commenced the hard work required to retain the trust of our citizens, I would suggest much of what we have done in the past is effective, in moderation, and that other efforts could be efforts at grass-roots engagement and internet donations. We have many political blogs who could easily add a “donation widget” that readers can click and use to donate, which I have already added to my own blog, here:
In that respect, I might also suggest effort to educate our members to create their own blogs and perhaps appoint a person to set up a “blogroll”, similar to the Federal “Blogging Tories” effort.
However – as stated, I think that the financial efforts have to take a back seat for the moment, to discussion of “principles”. I may come across as an idealist – which is a dangerous thing, perhaps, for someone interested in politics, but consider this:
People will seldom put their life on the line for material benefits – however, they will gladly put their lives on the line to defend their liberty and their dignity. Money and material wealth comes and goes... but principles matter. Deeply.
Thank-you for your consideration of the forgoing, and best of luck in your efforts.
Robert G. Harvie
President – Lethbridge East PC Association
For your reference, the current Statement can be found here:
Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta Statement of PrinciplesLethbridge East Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta
Response to President Smith re: Statement of Principles
President Smith;
I would like to offer these thoughts on behalf of the Lethbridge East PC Association, in response to your call for input regarding your questions relative to the PCAA Statement of Principles:
1. Do the principles as currently stated reflect where we stand today and where we need to go in the future? If not- then what? – It is often easy to identify a problem- not so easy to identify the solutions.
I have currently been reading up on Political philosophy, and have come across a fascinating book called, “Moral Clarity: A Guide for Grown-up Idealists”, by Susan Neiman. While the message in the book is often presented from the perspective of what I would call the “left side” of the political spectrum, she makes some fascinating observations about the failings of parties on either side of the political spectrum to engage the electorate with “moral clarity”.
To paraphrase her message, gone are the days when politicians and parties “stood for something”. We have become overly concerned with the appeasement of material and physical well-being, and have neglected to offer up any message of hope or honor in a metaphysical sense, in the sense of giving the electorate a message of something good and decent that they can believe in.
The current Statement of Principles continues to move further along this road – paying little attention to fundamental concepts of morality, honesty, dignity and hope. While these might appear to be just words, having regard to the example set in the last American Presidential election, the single word, “hope” can have profound impact upon the electorate.
With all due respect, it is my opinion that our current Statement of Principles is too broad, unfocused, and, taken in total, comes across as a typical political effort at appeasement. When looking at the totality of the Statement of Principles, we find we believe in:
Innovation;Look at all of those descriptions of our principles. If someone were to ask, even the most committed member of our party, “What do you stand for?” it is very unlikely they will rip off a list of these 29 factors. And if we can’t, simply and succinctly, suggest what we stand for, well, the impression is that we stand for nothing. We are a malleable party seeking to be all things to all people. We are a party of appeasement. And, if we are not careful, we are a party without meaning at all.
Commitment;
Excellence;
Integrity;
Prosperity;
Valuing our History;
Energized by Imagination;
Motivated by Optimism;
Leadership;
Confidence;
Sustainable Excellence;
Fiscal and Economic Responsibility;
Accountability;
Lifelong Learning;
A Healthy Society;
Individual Responsibility;
Individual Initiative;
Self-Reliance;
Dignity;
Meaning;
Environmental Stewardship;
Entrepreneurship;
Importance of Family;
The Roll of the Individual (rights and responsibilities);
The Rule of Law;
Equality;
Provincial Sovereignty/Equality in Confederation
Openness;
Accessibility;
More importantly, if we were to compare this to the Liberal Party statement of principles, they start out with the statement of “What We Stand For”, but then, in an even more unfocused manner, go about saying they stand for everything that everybody wants.
So, what’s the difference?
What do our principals suggest that distinguishes us from the Liberals, the Wild Rose Alliance, or anyone else?
I would like to see our party return to a party of very clear and very simple principles, consistent with the concept of being “Progressive” and “Conservative”,
Honesty.That’s it. Everything else will fall in there somewhere. And, once adopted, I would like to see our government be unyielding and scrupulous in the application of those principals to every single thing that we do – otherwise, principles are just window-dressing.
Dignity;
Accountability; and
Hope
And every time ANY issue arises, those four principles can be reinforced with our citizens, over and over again. And if we truly follow and adopt them, we will be the party of tomorrow.
For example, in the face of Environmental concerns? – well, we must be honest. We have an independent, science-based assessment open to input and scrutiny by all stakeholders. We have to show a respect for the dignity of our citizens, including our first nations people and interested land owners in being listed to and understood regarding their concerns. We have to be accountable if plans change or errors occur. And finally, we have to engage our obligations with a view not just for the immediate benefit to concerned parties, but with a view for hope of a cleaner world tomorrow than we have even today.
2. With the answers to the first question- what are the policies our Party should be pursuing- in health, environment and education for example?
I wouldn’t want to presume to have a greater understanding than our senior civil servants and our Ministers regarding these issues, however, as alluded to above, I believe that while the problems are complex, our citizens can be reassured if they can see that our efforts our consistent with fundamental, and noble principles as stated.
I would like to assure that there is a clarity and openness to disclose our plans and weather the storm of debate and question openly and fearlessly – Honesty and Accountability. Also – respecting the ability of our citizens to understand the difficulties that we will be encountering with an aging population – respecting their Dignity – both in terms of allowing them the respect to be honest with our concerns and our plans, but also in how we implement those plans – with sensitivity to our elderly and families with disabled persons in particular.
With education, more than anything else, I think this is the cornerstone of a functioning democracy and a vibrant and progressive society. Better effort needs to be made to communicate the relative expenditures we are making on education compared to other provinces, and I would like to see a commitment to prevent increases in education funding from going to teacher salaries alone. If it requires some labor unrest, so be it. Now more than ever, Albertans need the government to be bold and firm in meeting the needs of our children in particular.
With our environment, more than anything, as alluded to above, the starting point is a commitment to honesty and accountability. Will carbon sequestration work – what do we have to support that? What if it doesn’t? What is our position relative to global warming HONESTLY and what do we base that upon – are we ACCOUNTABLE for taking that position. Are we assuring the short-term benefits of industry still leave ample room for the HOPE of maintaining a clean environment for our children’s, children’s children?
As an aside, I have to candidly state that the use of Policy Resolutions is more of a hindrance than a benefit to the party. In my opinion, it appears that to a great extent Policy Resolutions are window-dressing to give the appearance of “grass-roots” input, when in fact, the caucus sets policy based on its own set of priorities. In keeping with principles I’ve suggested above, I would prefer the party be more honest and direct and if the chances of Resolutions being implemented are remote, well, say so. It may be much more effective to facilitate open discussion with our MLA’s and Ministers in an informal manner, perhaps in our own constituencies without it being a one-way speech and fundraising event. Our members should have the opportunity to meet with our party members WITHOUT paying for it.
3. What should our key messages be- as a Party? And how do we communicate those to Albertans?
I think our key message has to be a simple, but profound statement of principle to our citizens. Barack Obama was extremely successful in a very simple poster with one word, “Hope”. While we would not want to copy his effort by any means, I think that some effort at arming our constituencies with a simple, unified message – which could be used on websites, blogs, apparel, whatever – could be very effective.
Also taking the lead from the current U.S. President, we need to attract support from the ground up. And that requires a recapture of hope and imagination in the electorate – and that will not be easy, and it will require humility and the ability to be self-critical – and to risk losing seats.
As I have blogged on my own site – I would prefer to lose with my principles, than to win without them.
Above all else, our effort HAS to be sincere. There has to be an open acknowledgement by government that “business as usual” is not good enough. That THIS government is a government to ALL Albertans, not only to those with the money to attend our dinners, or to donate to our coffers. And then we demonstrate that by connecting with our members beyond just $200 per plate dinners, and we engage Albertans on the streets and fields of this Province, one on one.
4. What avenues of fundraising can we pursue on an ongoing basis?
Fundraising is the last of our concerns, frankly. The pre-occupation with getting more and more money from our supporters has left them jaded, and asking why they are giving money to us. If we can recapture imagination of the electorate and our members in particular, the money will come.
When it is time, after we have re-aligned our principles and commenced the hard work required to retain the trust of our citizens, I would suggest much of what we have done in the past is effective, in moderation, and that other efforts could be efforts at grass-roots engagement and internet donations. We have many political blogs who could easily add a “donation widget” that readers can click and use to donate, which I have already added to my own blog, here:
In that respect, I might also suggest effort to educate our members to create their own blogs and perhaps appoint a person to set up a “blogroll”, similar to the Federal “Blogging Tories” effort.
However – as stated, I think that the financial efforts have to take a back seat for the moment, to discussion of “principles”. I may come across as an idealist – which is a dangerous thing, perhaps, for someone interested in politics, but consider this:
People will seldom put their life on the line for material benefits – however, they will gladly put their lives on the line to defend their liberty and their dignity. Money and material wealth comes and goes... but principles matter. Deeply.
Thank-you for your consideration of the forgoing, and best of luck in your efforts.
Robert G. Harvie
President – Lethbridge East PC Association
Notice: No Mixing of the Races (No, this isn't 1950's Mississippi)
Kahnawake Band Council
Seriously.
Welcome to "La Belle Province".
The same province that brought us the notwithstanding clause to prevent people from expressing themselves freely, has also upheld a demand that there be no mixing of the races.
I kid you not.
As reported in The Gazzette today, the band counsel for the Kahnawake Indian reserve on Montreal's south shore has given notice to 25 residents that they have 10 days to leave the reserve - the majority of them being white persons involved in relationships with Mohawk members.
Well, won't Martin Luther King Jr. be embarassed by his obvious misunderstanding of the needs of a just society? Clearly, we need to separate people according to some arbitrary standard of "race", and then assure that they don't mix.
According to the report:
In 1981, the community announced a moratorium on mixed marriages, which meant that non-natives who married Mohawks after that year would no longer have the right to live on the reserve. Any non-native who had married a Mohawk before the moratorium is still permitted to live on the reserve.There's a message I'm sure their children can be proud of.
In the 1980s, some Mohawks contested the policy before the human rights tribunal, but lost. The courts have ruled that Mohawks can make any membership policy they deem necessary for their survival as a people.
Race DOES matter. And, if you choose to "mongrelize the races", well, you aren't welcome to live in your community near your family.
Apparently, the Mohawk leaders next move will be to join the New Christian Crusade Church, whose tenets instruct that:
Many warnings are given in the Bible not to mate with "the stranger." But the Hebrew words translated "stranger" in these verses are "ZUWR", "NEKAR", and "NOKRI...and each one means a person of DIFFERENT RACE FROM OURS.Well. Obviously we here in rural Alberta aren't sophisticated enough. We happen to believe that the measure of a person is not their race, but their quality as a human being.
'course what do we know, we're just a bunch of ignernt red necks.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Whither the children..
The Liberal National Daycare Program is a favorite target of this blog.
And, if there was any more reason to distrust the Liberal Party of Canada for having brought up the idea in the first place, they upped the ante today, when in reference to the Liberals proposed National Daycare Program, Michael Ignatieff said:
"I am not going to allow the deficit discussion to shut down the discussion in this country about social justice.”Yes.
That is the sales pitch.
National Daycare is about "social justice". And cost is no object.
Telling a mechanic living on a salary of maybe $50,000.00 per year that he is going to pay for daycare for a Lawyer making $500,000.00 per year.
According to the Liberal party, we can't put a price on a pointless social program.
They did it with gun control, and they'll do it again with National Daycare if we give them the opportunity.
The tab?
Well, in 2004 Paul Martin promised to spend $5 billion, with an ongoing cost of about $2 billion per year. You can safely assume an annual cost of about $4 billion.
How to pay for that? Well, Liberal insiders are suggesting a two percent increase in the G.S.T. Other than that - well, look how Paul Martin "balanced" the budget. Slashed transfers to the provinces for health care, post-secondary education and social assistance. This is the "kinder and gentler" Liberal Party of Canada.
The net result if the Liberals are elected and impliment this stupid plan?
Well, get ready for more waiting lines, and a more diluted health care system that already is becoming well known for providing mediocre care to whoever needs it. Get ready for higher tuition in Univeristy and College.
But, more importantly, be prepared for a generation of young Canadians who are even more disconnected from those around them.
If there is an silent epidemic running ramptant throughout this Country, it is children who grow up estranged from those in their lives, and who then take that experience and translate it into later life. Children who, perhaps, grow up to become investment bankers and to whom the idea of a "neighbor" is an abstraction that means nothing to them as they seek to assert their own self-interest, just as their parents did.
The Liberals, and other progressives, are supposedly big believers in the modern "enlightenment". That only through putting out faith in the hands of intelligentsia, can we truly move forward as a society.
Well, ok, then, how about listening to Dr. Jay Belsky? Prof. Belsky obtained his Ph.D. in 1978 in Human Development and Family Studies from Cornell University and, before moving to London in 1999, served on the faculty at Penn State University for 21 years, rising to the rank of Distinguished Professor of Human Development. In 2002 the Institute of Scientific Information, Philadelphia, PA granted Professor Belsky the Highly-Cited-Researcher designation. In 2007 he was awarded the American Psychological Association Urie Bronfenbrenner Award for Lifetime Contribution to Developmental Psychology in the Service of Science and Society.
In fairness, Professor Belsky points out that high quality child care can advance a child's cognitive development. Ok, so fine. However, in his paper, "Effects of Child Care on Child Development: Giving Parents a Real Choice", Professor Belsky points out:
For more than 30 years evidence linking early child care experience with increased aggressive and disobedient behavior has been reported (e.g., Schwarz, Strickland & Krolick, 1974). When attention was called to a continuing “slow steady trickle of disconcerting evidence” of this kind in the case of children beginning child care very early in life and for long hours in the 1980s (Belsky, 1986, 1988), many contended that failure to statistically control for family background factors, take into account variation in quality of care and/or distinguish aggression from independent assertiveness were likely responsible for the disconcerting findings being reported (Fox & Fein, 1990). Nevertheless, in the ensuing two decades, evidence has continued to accumulate linking early and extensive child care experience, sometimes especially centerbasedHe goes on to point out that these increased levels of aggression can, in fact, be contagious as those children interract later in life at school with children who were not exposed to high levels of child care.
care, with elevated levels of aggression and externalizing problem behavior (e.g., Belsky, 2001; Cote, Borge, Geoffroy, Rutter & Tremblay, 2008; Loeb, Bridges, Bassok, Fuller, & Rumberger, 2007). Never, however, has child care experience been linked to diagnosed conduct disorder and some investigations discern effects opposite those described (e.g., Cote, Boivin, Nagin, Japel, Xu et al., 2007).
So.
Higher levels of daycare may create aggressive children who blame everyone else for their problems.
Sound familiar to you?
Now, to be sure, Belsky does not suggest that external child care is, broadly speaking, "bad" for children, however, the thrust of his paper is that parents should have the right to make a choice on their own. That a highly functioning parent who chooses to remain at home should be supported in that choice - which is not what Michael Ignatieff proposes we do.
Michael Ignatieff has no use for a stay-at-home parent. Your choice does not matter to him. And if a generation of aggressive children who blame everyone else for their problems is the result, well, so be it.
Michael Ignatieff calls this "social justice".
Indeed.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Sovereignty.. how dare you give it up to the U.S., when we want you to give it up to Bangladesh
Welcome to the New World Order
Funny thing, when you think about it.
It's the right that a country has to exclusive control over the governance of its own affairs.
However, in the recent past we have seen more and more effort to move towards a sort of global government, which is either an Orwellian sort of "Oceania" a la "1984", or, perhaps more likely in our current progressive democracies, a Huxleyan sort of "World State" a la "Brave New World".
In either case, it requires that we cede authority over our welfare to others. We give up our rights to make our own decisions, for good or ill, under threat of violence or under inducement of some sort of lazy, easy lifestyle that neither encourages initiative nor rewards independent thought.
I'll choose neither, thank-you.
However, while we are talking about notions of sovereignty and independence, the "Deeply Stupid Irony" award, must go to Graham Saul of Climate Action Network Canada.
You see Graham is not happy that the Conservative government has announced committed reductions of CO2 levels, mirroring those being debated in the United States. After hearing of the announcement, Graham had this delicious piece of irony to deliver:
"What this government is saying now is that they intend to do nothing until the U.S. government forces them to take action which is an incredible abdication of responsibility, not to mention sovereignty," said Graham Saul of the Climate Action Network Canada.Really Graham?
We have, according to him, "abdicated our sovereignty", by prudently hitching our horse to adopt a plan of action mirroring our most significant trading partner and, at the same time, most dangerous trading competitor. Keeping in mind that, as we are adopting this plan without formal treaty with the U.S., we are free to change that if circumstances warrant without any threat of sanction or penalty if we choose to adopt a different plan from the U.S. down the road.
That, apparently, is an "abdication of sovereignty".
However.
It is not ceding our sovereignty when we march, lock step, along with the lemmings of the international community, into Kyoto.
Graham would have us enter into some commitment which will put us at a serious trading disadvantage with the United States, in order to appease the likes of Bangladesh, who, continuing to suffer from entrenched and widespread government corruption, stand, with hand out, demanding not only massive transfers of wealth from developed and function democracies like us, but also demanding that we cede our sovereignty to them and others like them through Kyoto-like commitments, with the ability of their "club" to impose significant penalties upon us if we do not do as they have collectively demanded.
Now THAT is ceding our sovereignty to another body.
Oh.
By the way, the impetus to do this is based upon what has become a highly politicized and, apparently, corrupt bureaucracy operating the IPCC (see post here).
Thank God for Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada. I'm not quite ready to start singing the national anthem of "The World State" quite yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)