Highest Paid Nurses In Canada Suggest a Wage Freeze is "Not Helpful to Morale"

Sometimes, I drone on and on and on.

Today's you're going to be spared - my post is pretty simple, following up on an article in the Calgary Herald today.

To quote:

Alberta's nurses vote Wednesday to ratify an agreement that will see them go two years without a raise; the proposed agreement contains a zero per cent increase in the first and second year, followed by a four per cent increase in the third.

The agreement also allows for a "productivity increase" of two per cent in the second year. The last three-year contract, gave nurses five-percent salary increases each year, making senior nurses the best paid in Canada.

So.

Nurses in Alberta have been the highest paid in Canada.

Must be extremely grateful to the Government for that sort of largess, no?

No.  In response to a temporary proposed wage freeze, to quote Union President Elisabeth Ballermann:

"Quite frankly, with the morale issue and the staffing issues that have been happening in Alberta Health Services, this statement is not helpful to make people feel valued and to help with their morale," said Ballermann, whose union represents 20,000 professional, technical, support and EMS workers in Alberta.

Do I need to editorialize on how greedy and self-centered this response is..  considering that, you and I, the tax payer, have been giving her and her members the most money of any nurses in the country?

Didn't think so.

Talk amongst yourselves.







Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/energy-resources/Alberta+health+unions+fear+freeze/3213983/story.html#ixzz0sLbZwdhb

Recollections of "Liberal" use of force with Protesters

"Liberal" use of violence with Protesters. 

Just one laugh after another.

So.

The armchair quarterbacks are running amok.

Amidst a host of Liberal bloggers decrying the security during the G20, and alleged "abuse" of protesters, one marvels at the lack of short-term memory.

Going back a few years, to one of the supposed architects of the current "Librocrat" alliance, Jean Chretien, we discover that he had his own problems with security of foreign visitors during the 1997 APEC Summit in Vancouver.. you may recall the "Peppergate" scandal.

To recap, during the APEC Summit, under the direction of the Liberal Government under Jean Chretien, the RCMP engaged in various actions that resulted in an inquiry into their conduct and the conduct of government, which included using attack dogs on protesters, using pepper spray on protesters, taking down signs on private property, protesters were unnecessarily strip-searched.

The report found widespread abuse of rights of free expression and excessive use of force by the RCMP, accompanied by inappropriate involvement of the Government in directing the RCMP's use of force to avoid embarrassment of a foreign dignitary.

A commission of inquiry into police actions at APEC last November has revealed disturbing evidence of the prime minister's involvement in the violation of protesters' constitutional and human rights.

Ironically enough, as reported in"Green Left":

Documents released demonstrate that in his zeal to prevent then president Suharto of Indonesia seeing unsightly protesters and signs supporting human rights and free speech, Chrétien's office ordered the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) to get rid of the protesters.


As a result, protesters were roughed up, pepper-sprayed, arrested and strip-searched by police, merely for holding signs promoting freedom of speech, or for standing too close to where the "dignitaries'" motorcade would pass.

Constitutional experts have argued that Chrétien's office violated the law, which could potentially throw the country into a constitutional crisis, by breaching the barrier between legislators and the police force.

Human rights advocates in Canada have launched a petition calling for Chrétien to resign.

When Jean Chretien was asked about use of pepper spray, in the face of this damning report, Chretien joked, "Pepper?  For me I put it on my food."

How many times must I respond to Liberal attacks..

"Rocks, Glass houses..  you know the rest."

"Conservative".. If It Doesn't Mean "Stupid", What does it mean?

Well.

I sort of skirted an issue yesterday, and a commenter caught me on it.

I was writing about liberals who quickly jump to support the theory of evolution when it's questioned, yet refuse to apply it's theory when they demand government policy which encourages unhealthy and irresponsible behavior.

And I intentionally skirted a thorny issue applying to conservatives, and then got caught on it by a commenter, Dance... dance to the radio, whose post is worthwhile repeating here:

A Darwinian perspective is perfectly conservative.

It does not seek equality of outcomes.
It does not seek equality of cultures.
Conservatism is the perfect function of ability adapting to the environment.

Why don't more conservatives choose to believe in evolution?

It's a question worth asking - as truly, we who criticize others do ourselves no favors if we don't also occasionally become introspective in asking some pointed questions about what sort of weeds we have growing in our own backyard.

So, why don't more conservatives choose to believe in evolution.

I think they do.

I think, however, there is a small, but very vocal, minority of conservatives who, while decrying liberals for seeking to foist their misguided vision of utopia on society - turn around and seek to do the same.

The only difference, however, is it's THEIR misguided vision of utopia.

While decrying the efforts of extreme Muslim theocracies, they oddly enough, seek to create their own version of theocracy under some thinly described "bootstrapping" about how "our society is built upon the ideals of Christianity" - which, even if true, doesn't provide a justification for it.

Oddly enough - often this version of "conservatism" also is accompanied by ignorance of the complexity of society and the world, and by intolerance and lack of compassion for others.  So-called "Christian" values, I guess.

Don't get me wrong.

I consider myself a Christian.  But that's between myself and my God.  I wouldn't for a moment seek to impose my vision or my belief upon others.

And I see a hidden Christian theocracy as no less dangerous and offensive than Muslim theocracies.

To me, "conservatism" is the fundamental basis of a free and democratic society - where changes in society are not pressed upon us by the heavy hand of government, but through "evolution" in society based upon what works and what doesn't.

To me, "conservatism" encompasses a willingness to look at issues from an open and critical perspective - and where we take no broad "knee jerk" responses to a societal issue based upon some simple-minded notion, along the lines of hitting a television when it's not working.  We, as conservatives are better than that - or we should be.

And just like peaceful protesters in Toronto last weekend have a duty, in their own interests, to decry those who seek to infiltrate their groups to do mischief, so too, do we, as conservatives have a duty to speak out against those within our midst who would do their own form of mischief.

So - in answer again to the question, "Why don't more conservatives believe in evolution?"  My response - most of us do.  And while I welcome those who don't to embrace my view of "conservatism" - to the extent that they seek to impose their beliefs upon others with the assistance of government - well, they are best cut loose from our midst.

They are best pointed out and shown the door.

And in doing so, we strengthen our core, and we weaken the fear-mongering that liberals and many in our media are so fond of.

Liberals: Touting "Evolution", Yet Ignoring Its Lessons

Modern Man:

If Liberals Were in Charge 35,000 Years Ago

Isn't it ironic, don't you think?

Mention the theory of "intelligent design", and every liberal worth their salt will come flying out of their dark little caves in coffee shops and book stores and suddenly begin espousing Charles Darwin, and asserting themselves as experts on the "settled science" of Evolution.

And from my own perspective, so they should.

While evolution may have been a random occurrence of nature, or a creation of an intelligent God, there is no rational denial of the reality that, to simplify, things that work tend to survive and things that don't, tend to, well, not survive.

Funny thing is, however, after finishing their strident defence of the theory of evolution, when they go back to their coffee shops and book stores, they do everything they can do to assure that the theory comes to a full stop for modern man.

In other words..  natural selection be damned.  Regardless of how foolish we are, the state should step up and kiss our boo boos and assure that no negative consequence are suffered as a result of our own stupidity.

Current scientific theory posits that Neanderthals and Cro Magnon man existed at the same time, and that it is quite possible that the Neanderthals died off as a result of their inability to compete with the more intelligent and socially adept Cro Magnon, or "Modern" man.

Imagine Liberals,however, 35 thousand years ago.  While Cro Magnon man learned to use advanced tools, to organize in cohesive social groups and to hunt with more efficiency when times became lean - the Liberals would have, no doubt, said, "No, this is no good.  Take your food and feed the Neanderthals.

If man had survived the natural cycle of serious global cooling (yes, you heard right "cooling"), there's a good chance we would still be nomadic early humans, with pesky things that intelligent motivated and driven people helped create like, oh, penicillin and electricity, having no part in our development.

Take a look at the world around us today.

There was a reason that North America and Northern Europe in particular were not heavily populated until modern times.  Living there was hard.  The price of being stupid or lazy was death.

There is a reason that equatorial countries have been more heavily populated. Life there was easier.  The price of being stupid or lazy was much less likely to be death.

So - as man becomes more able to function in a hostile environment and as hard work and initiative are shown to allow for expansion of modern man to areas earlier considered unattractive and beyond significant habitation, well, no surprise - not only did man survive and expand in those areas, but they in fact prospered.

To such extent that now, the most stable political and economic systems exist in areas only sparsely inhabited 35,000 years ago. 

And now, the response of our liberal friends, is that the failures of societies in the Sudan, and Niger and Indonesia and elsewhere.. are the fault of the west.

And now, the response of our liberal friends, is that the failures of segments of our society to thrive and prosper..  are the fault of those who succeeded in overcoming their own hardships.

Sure.. there were some who emigrated to Canada from families of wealth - but the great majority of the families that I know had grandparents and great-grandparents who came here will little or nothing.

My own grandfather emigrated to Canada from Hungary with nothing - and worked in mines until scraping some money together to buy a small farm in the Okanagan.  My other grandfather's family were simple farmers, eventually settling in the Sweet Grass Hills, on the southern border of Alberta, living 5 people to a tiny two-room home in the middle of nowhere.

Their hard work, and sacrifice and initiative I am grateful to say was passed on to my parents who passed on some of that (perhaps not enough) to me.. such that our family "evolved" to relative material comfort.

Liberals would penalize my family for that.  They would suggest my grandparents and parents were fools for not simply putting their hand out and demanding government tend to their needs.  That their decision in moving to a harsh and difficult lifestyle was fool-hardy when they could have simply immigrated to one of the larger cities and waited until the government gave them jobs that were easy and without toil.

Liberals would have all of society return to  state of the lowest common denominator - would have us all living as modern-day Neanderthals.

Thank-goodness their time on this earth is passing.

We will all be well-served when, like their predecessors, the only place we see a "liberal" will be on display at a museum.

Amnesty International: Credibility on the Wane

Amnesty International Auxiliary Member

There was a time when the barbed-wire, surrounded candle of Amnesty International was a symbol of bravery and strength - an organisation standing up boldly against broad human rights abuses.

But, of late, the group has become a mouth piece for socialism and anti-capitalism and has, too often, turned a blind eye to true human rights atrocities, preferring to rail on about how we treat terrorists at Guantanamo Bay and how we treat hooligans who choose to hide behind "freedom of speech" in democratic countries to riot and cause damage as "sport".

Again, today, we read their latest missive, basically complaining about how police exerted influence to quell rioting in Toronto.

No water canons, no attack dogs let loose - for the most part, peaceful arrests using great restraint.

And Amnesty International isn't happy.

You see, arresting and photographing people, releasing them within 24 hours is an offense of the highest order - yet wide spread threats and violence by Muslim extremists get very little time.  Sure - they publish missives, but the real voice, the loud talking, is all generated against countries where democracy and capitalism are the rule.

Why?

Because it's easy stand on your soap box and criticize a country who practices free speech.

A little more difficult and risky to stand up in Islamibad,Pakistan and denounce the government for tacitly supporting the murder of 90 Ahmadi Muslims last month, because they aren't the "right kind" of Muslims, such that every Pakistani must sign a declaration when obtaining a passport affirming that Ahmadi are not Muslims.

Pardon me, but while I have been one to rail against the loss of freedom in Canada, and the progression towards a police state - in this case, I have no difficulty with Police taking firm and decisive action to prevent violence and to prosecute those who would use the blanket of "freedom of speech" as a cloak to hurt others and damage their property.

File this under: "Stupidest Group Known to Man"

Gay in Israel..                                  Gay in Gaza      

Well.

The monumental battle is over.

"Queers Against Israel Apartheid" has been allowed to use their name in the Toronto Gay Pride Parade.

I'm sure they are all very happy.

Now they can assure that the middle east will not be infect by Israel's status as the "Gay Capital of the Middle East", being at the forefront of all countries in the Middle East regarding treatment of homosexual persons.

I'm sure they are very happy supporting Hamas and the current Palestinian state, where:

• Male homosexuality is illegal;
• There are no civil rights laws protecting homosexuals against discrimination;

Aside from "legal" rights, the treatment of homosexuals under Palestinian authority is abhorrent.  As reported in The Advocate:

The abusive treatment of gays by the Palestinian Authority--which does not differ much from the abusive treatment of gays in most other Arab and Muslim societies--is conclusively documented. Take just one story—in the May 2003 issue of Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide by Charity Crouse (who is described in the story as a “Jewish lesbian anti-occupation activist”). Tarek, a young Palestinian gay man suspected of homosexuality, was sentenced to a “reeducation” camp run by Muslim clerics under Palestinian Authority jurisdiction. He said that for a period of two months he was “subjected to beatings with belts, clubs, and was forced to sit on bottles which were inserted into my rectum. I was hanged by the hands, I was deprived of sleep, and when I finally did sleep, my limbs were tied to the floor.”

Sooooo....

"Queers Against Israeli Apartheid"..   yeah..  is there a more stupid group in existence?  Is there anyone else supporting a group who more clearly offends their own sensibilities, while attacking another group who supports them?

Is there a "Blacks Supporting the Klan" group out there?

Didn't think so.

"Conservative".. Does Not Mean Stupid.

Think About It

Every day we boot up our computers or turn on the television to watch some sanctimonious liberal like Jon Stewart or Rachel Maddow insulting anyone who has a conservative idea and dismissing them as knuckle-dragging idiots.

And it angers us, as it should.

Because it just isn't true.  There are in this world doctors and lawyers and university professors (not a lot of the latter, perhaps) who are, in fact, conservative. 

Beyond that - to "sell" conservatism to our electorate, it is extremely important that we acknowledge this perception, and be at least somewhat sensitive that we don't provide further fodder to the left-side attacks upon conservative thought.

So.

Yesterday, in response to my blog criticizing the current Harper "tough on crime" legislation, "Alex" left this comment:

"Turning simple ideas into complex moral/logical/financial calculation is what got us to this point in the first place."

Now - don't get me wrong - I have a sense of what Alex is trying to say, but I think while it's understandable, it's misguided.

"Conservatism" does not mean that we discount expanding our knowledge.

"Conservatism" does not mean turning our back on electricity and penicillin, going back to the dark ages.  Does it?

No.  To me "Conservatism" means a few things.

It means the prudent use of knowledge - not the ignorance of knowledge.  It means not responding to every crackpot theory by some liberal knee-jerk as if one PhD. thesis gives us a reason to spend millions of dollars on some new course of government spending to "wipe our noses". 

So.

Crime.

Alex comments about how we "got to this point".  What point is that?  The point the media likes to portray, making every crime they report into an epidemic, creating fear and paranoia to sell papers?  Why is it that we clearly see the dishonest hand of the sensationalism in media when it portrays conservatives as dangerous and misguided - but we accept without question when they portray our streets as dangerous and unsafe?  In both cases, they are selling fear - because it sells papers.

Don't get me wrong.  When we read about a crime committed by someone who didn't serve their full sentence, it's real.  It impacts on the victim and their families - but as lawyers at least used to understand, "sad facts make bad law".  In other words, the answer of the legal system isn't to make everyone perfect - because it can't be done.  It's to do the best with an imperfect situation - making effort to help the most people, the best that we can.  And if putting more people in jail saves ONE life, but costs 2 more - is that a good plan?

The facts, fellow conservatives, because I know, as conservatives, we are open to thinking about the facts, and not just knee-jerking to new government policy like our Liberal friends are wont to do.

As reported in a CBC article of July 18, 2007, referencing data from Statistics Canada:

Driven by a decline in non-violent felonies, Canada's crime rate reached a 25-year low in 2006, with every province and territory recording a drop, Statistics Canada said Wednesday.

Lowest crime rates in 25 years.

That equals fewer victims.  Fewer people being hurt.

And, as Alex suggests, our current legal system "got us to this point".

Think about that conservatives.. really THINK about that.

We have moved to the lowest crime rates in 25 years, doing what we are already doing.

We didn't need a gun registry to do this.

We didn't need some new sentencing legislation to do this.

Just doing what we're doing.

And, if there is a simple description of what "conservatism" means, it might be this:

If it ain't broke, don't "fix" it.

And we certainly don't throw away 8 billion dollars to fix something that isn't broke.

We leave that sort of thing to Liberals.

Don't we?

8 Billion Reasons Conservatives Can't Support Current Sentencing Bill

More Jokers.. and more Money to Burn

Remember the Liberal Gun Registry and the furor it has raised (rightfully so) with conservative Canadians.

Remember the massive expense, some $3.4 billion for implementation and enforcement that created so much furor (rightfully so) with conservative Canadians.

Because, after all that money, it will not make us safer.

Well.

From today's Globe and Mail:

According to a report released by Mr. Page this morning, the Harper government’s Truth in Sentencing Act will cost federal and provincial governments an additional $8-billion by 2016.

Read that again.

Eight Billion Dollars.  As in DOUBLE what the hated gun registry will cost.

And it's not going to make us safer.  See my earlier post on this point.

Last I checked, a major complaint of most conservative voters is that Liberal policy has typically been a misguided "tax and spend" policy, where money is thrown at pointless endeavors, simply to try and curry favor with various special interest groups.

And yet here we are.

In a massive deficit.

Spending money, like, well...  Liberals.

Send a letter to your Conservative MP, point out your membership in the party, and say, "Enough, please, get back to "conservative" government.. reduce the deficit and take us down the road where, as we understood, "conservative" meant less government and less spending.

We won't have Michael (Shut up!) Ignatieff leading the Liberals forever my friends.

Obama, Biden Killing American Soldiers. And the Media is Good with That.

Consider this for a moment.

You are living in an area where crime is running rampant.  Your neighbors are being kidnapped and killed, and your life has become a war zone.

Then, thankfully, police are sent to help - the problem, they are given a directive to "patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourself with lethal force." In other words, no protection at all.

Believe it or not, this was a directive given to troops in Afghanistan under Barack Obama's administration.  However, for allowing this disclosure, among others, the General in charge will probably be losing his job.


Really.

Recall the reaction of the Mainstream Media in Canada when Richard Colvin publicly attacked his bosses and their conduct in dealing with terrorists in Afghanistan.  Colvin was championed as a hero whistle-blower - with nary a word of criticism for the sense that he was clearly attacking his superiors and undermining the ability of Canadian soldiers to protect themselves and innocent civilians in a forward war zone.

Now check out the treatment being afforded General Stanley McChrystal for doing much the same with President Barack Obama and his administration.

This last week, Rolling Stone published an article on the reaction of McChrystal and many of his senior advisers regarding the Obama administration.  The Washinton Post, having received an advance of that article, wastes no time in pillorying McChrystal and making it clear that he is being publicly brought to the wood shed by Obama and that the article "raises fresh questions about the judgment and leadership style of the commander Obama appointed last year in an effort to turn around a worsening conflict."

However, give credit to the Post for at least disclosing why the General and other senior officers have such disdain for the so-called "Commander in Chief", buried in page 3 of the article is the tragic reality of what the real world impact is of the Obama/Biden take on war.

The magazine story shows that McChrystal is also facing criticism from some of his own troops who have grown frustrated with new rules that force commanders be extraordinarily judicious in using lethal force.

A few weeks ago, according to the magazine, the general traveled to a small outpost in Kandahar Province, in southern Afghanistan, to meet with a unit of soldiers reeling from the loss of a comrade, 23-year-old Cpl. Michael Ingram.

The corporal was killed in a booby-trapped house that some of the unit's commanders had unsuccessfully sought permission to blow up.

As the article further points out, "June is on track to be the deadliest month for NATO troops in Afghanistan since the war began nearly nine years ago. At least 63 NATO troops have been killed so far this month, including 10 who died Monday in a helicopter crash and a series of attacks."

So.

For those keeping score at home:

Richard Colvin - attacks his superiors, disclosing a policy which resulted in no deaths of troops or insurgents = Hero.

General Stanley McChystal - criticizes his superiors, disclosing a policy which is killing his troops and giving a free pass to insurgents = Goat.

And, watching CNN today, it's apparent that the more exposed tabloid journalism of CNN is being even less honest in their assessment of the situation.  Amid almost no disclosure of what, exactly, McCrystal is alleged to have said, there is no commentary of the broader nature of the criticism of Obama and his administration, including not a word of the death of  Cpl. Michael Ingram and the sharply increasing troop casualties under Obama's watch.

The message, apparently, is that while Obama and Biden are killing American soldiers, the media is good with that.

Get out of your armchairs..

A few thoughts after returning from a short trip to Arizona last week.

Firstly, I saw three arrests being made by Phoenix police.

All Caucasian.  The point?  Well, not all crimes are being committed, apparently, by Hispanics, and Arizona police are apparently doing a piss-poor job of "racial profiling".  One imagines that the recent announcement of a federal law suit against the State of Arizona at the behest of Barack Obama is just a shameful effort to distract the country from his impotence in responding to the BP Oil spill.

Shame on Barack and his side-kick, Hillary Clinton.

Secondly, I walked into the Apple store to check out the IPad's.  Funny thing.  I can "tether" my Iphone to my Hewlett Packard laptop, to allow for internet connectivity via my Iphone, but you can't do the same thing with an Ipad. 

When I asked the pink-cheeked salesman to explain this he mumbled something about that "functionality" not YET being included.  Really?  What he meant to say is that Apple doesn't want to lose out on selling it's 3G versions of the Ipad so they have intentionally prevented tethering functionality in the Ipad to increase revenue.

Shame on Steve Jobs and his Apple corporate thugs.

Which leads me to a thought which struck me while getting away for a few days and letting my mind wander.

We, the electorate, are getting abused by the vocal minority.  On the left and right.

There is no need for drilling in the Gulf.  But, the left, oddly enough, enjoys attacking the oil sands and so that, ironically, opens the door for deep-sea drilling and associated billions in profits to companies like BP without demonstrated ability to do so safely, and, viola, big oil hand in hand with David Suzuki creates, the BP oil spill.

There is no need for flotilla aid to Gaza, and in any event, the need is significantly greater in places like Helmand province - but fighting to get aid to Helmand doesn't allow for attacks on Israel from the left through purely political stunts like the flotilla.

The salaries being paid to corporate CEO's are truly, criminal, relative to the interests of shareholders, but the "brains" behind large corporations and fund managers are part of the same "club" as the CEO's and so are hardly going to recommend sensible salaries for corporate officers to their shareholders.

The efforts on the left to universalize daycare are going to be great for the bottom 30% of the income scale and won't impact at all on the top 30% - but the middle 40% who will be paying taxes to support other people's babysitters will be hurt.

There is no need for more prisons and greater border security - but in the effort to make society "safe", we'll pony up for get tough crime bills and wasted billions on border security to appease the angry right and our misguided friends south of the border.

There is a need for an accountable Senate, but we don't do service to the argument by stacking the Senate with our own toadies.

There is a need to insulate government from the influence of big business - and cutting off funding of political parties by the government isn't going to accomplish that - it will do the opposite.

There is a need for clear separation of Church and State - and a Muslim theocracy in Saudi Arabia is no more offensive than a Christian theocracy in Canada.  Funding to any faith-based groups should be illegal.  Period.

The great middle is being abused.  We are being beat down by big business touting the virtues of "democracy" and "capitalism" who then quietly put their strong arms on the electorate by buying influence in government to undermine democracy and then put their hands out, over and over again, for government assistance through tax breaks and subsidies of all sorts to undermine capitalism.

We are being beat down by the loud left minority to normalize anarchism, supporting those who break laws and damage property for "a cause", who tout the need to "help" the less fortunate by removing any vestige of personal initiative and responsibility in the broader society - encouraging a culture of entitlement where people are being encouraged to call the government to help them when they get the wrong burger at Burger King.

The great middle needs to get out of their armchairs and say, "enough".

Otherwise, sadly, you're going to get exactly what you deserve.

"Progressive" Views on the Middle East

Too wise by half.

Ever hear that saying?

That seeking to be clever has exposed someone as, truly, being just the opposite.  A dullard, a dim-witted oaf.

Such was the case with recently fired Helen Thomas, who, stupidly, suggested that Israeli's should get out of Palestine and go back to Germany, or Poland.

And such is the case with another witless buffoon, Libby Davies.

Recently, the Vancouver East MP , Deputy Leader of the NDP Party was quoted as saying that the Israeli "occupation" has been ongoing since 1948.  Effectively suggesting, as did Helen Thomas, that the establishment of the Israeli state in 1948 was an "occupation".

This is the thing about "Progressive" thought.  It so often isn't "progressive" at all, it has the veneer of being based upon scientific and considered wisdom, but when the surface is scratched, it's really about fear, ignorance, and, in this case, bigotry.

Yeah.

I said it.

The recent angst world-wide over Israel's efforts to secure it's borders has the stench of anti-Semitism surrounding it.

That Israelis, or worse, Jews, have somehow fewer rights than every other country to live peacefully, because, well, they aren't "us".

Now.. here's the thing, however.

Unlike our Prime Minister, I'm not asking the NDP to fire Libby Davies.  She's entitled to express her ignorant opinions just like any stupid neo-Nazi is.  And in the market of ideas, like this blog, we are entitled to ridicule and expose her, and others like her, as the ignorant, small-minded bigots that they are.

Though, if I were Jack Layton, I'm not sure I'd feel all warm and fuzzy about having her locked to my side as Deputy Leader.

But that's his choice.

Damn Violent Israelis...

Uh.. Be consistent.. Does soccer belong with Jihad or not?
Translation on Ball:

“There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah”

According to the Vancouver Sun:

Somali soccer fans executed for watching World Cup matches

Two Somali football fans have been killed by Islamic militants after being caught watching World Cup matches.

The deaths happened on Saturday near the capital Mogadishu when members of the Hizbul Islam group stormed a house where people were watching Nigeria play Argentina.

A further 10 people were arrested by the group, which has imposed a strict version of Islam in the areas it controls in southern and central Somalia. The next night, another 30 people were arrested as they watched the Germany-Australia game in the town of Afgoye.

Oddly enough, Kevin Neish, had no comment.

McGuinty's Liberals: Love Lawyers, Hate Business

So.

Imagine you operate a business in Ontario.  Big or small, doesn't matter, the bottom line is quite probably you have been struggling to keep your head above water in the wake of the recent economic melt-down.

And its great when your government understands and does what it can do to give you a hand, isn't it.

Like creating stupid legislation that simultaneously:

a) Requires you to divert management resources from productivity to expending significant resources to complying with stupid government bureaucracy;
b) Requires you to divert income from employee salaries or shareholder profits and to redistribute them to your lawyers to help decipher and comply with stupid government bureaucracy;
c) Requires you to take employees away from their work to "educate" them on the bureaucracy; and
d) The real bonus?  In the bargain, all of the foregoing creates a massive new area of litigation against employers, implicitly making them liable for violence between employees and even violence by non-employees towards employees, including domestic violence.

This is Bill 168.

"The Occupational Health and Safety Amendment Act (Violence and Harassment in the Workplace), 2009.

But don't bother trying to read it, if you aren't a lawyer.  Even if you are, it will, no doubt, give you a headache. 

The summary of the Bill is bad enough.

I could write for hours about just how stupid and poorly thought out this legislation is.. basically, it requires all employers to undertake an obligatory "risk assessment" for violence and harassment in the workplace, it requires the employer to create a response plan for such problems, it requires employers to educate their employees regarding those problems and it imposes penalties, including possible jail sentences, for failure to do any of those things properly.

I could point out in detail how this is going to hurt business and create even more alienation between employees, not less, however, I would be cutting my own throat.

You see, I'm a lawyer.

And this legislation is the lawyer "mother load".  It's complicated and confusing, and with the bonus of significant penalties for non-compliance, it's going to create significant work for the legal profession.

Beyond that, it's guaranteed to increase exponentially, litigation against employers.

And for every lawsuit against an employer, you have work for at least two lawyers - probably more.

Sadly, for lawyers in Alberta, we don't have an intrusive nanny-state government like the Ontario Liberal Party, but one can hope, can't one.

Truly, Dalton McGuinty is a lawyer's best friend.

For business, well, not so much.

The Difference between Heros and Zeros.

Two days ago, it was reported that the Taliban executed a 7 year old child in Helmand Province in Afghanistan.  He was playing in his garden, when the Taliban came and seized him, hanging him from a tree until he was dead.  To send a message to his grandfather who spoke up for the Afghan government.  The Taliban said the 7 year old was a "spy".

These are the friends of Hamas.

Sadly, this occurred a few days after I posed a question to Canadian flotilla member, Kevin Neish, asking him why he was doing nothing to help children in Helmand Province, where real human rights were being abused, where there is a real need for humanitarian help, not some politically manufactured need as is the case in Gaza.

While the Kevin Neish's of this world turn their back on the real horrors such as the death of this infant - there are some people who are not - the difference between "heros" and "zeros", and while I typically hate those "chain emails" that  ask you to pass on a message to others, in this case, I'll make an exception.

From: 

Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 8:21 AM

To: Robert Harvie 

Your cell phone is in your pocket.

He clutches the cross hanging on his chain next to his dog tags.

He knows he may not see some of his buddies again.

 

You walk down the beach, staring at all the pretty girls.

He patrols the streets, searching for insurgents and terrorists.
He's told he will be held over an extra 2 months.

You call your girlfriend and set a date for tonight.

He waits for the mail to see if there is a letter from home.

You hug and kiss your girlfriend, like you do everyday.

He holds his letter close and smells his love's perfume.

You roll your eyes as a baby cries.

He gets a letter with pictures of his new child, and wonders if they'll ever meet.

You criticize your government, and say that war never solves anything.

He sees the innocent tortured and killed by their own people and remembers why he is fighting.

You hear the jokes about the war, and make fun of men like him.

He hears the gunfire, bombs and screams of the wounded.

You see only what the media wants you to see.

He sees the broken bodies lying around him.

You are asked to do some thing by your parents. You don't.

He does exactly what he is told even if it puts his life in danger.

You stay at home and watch TV.

He takes whatever time he is given to call, write home, sleep, and eat.

You crawl into your soft bed, with down pillows, and get comfortable.

He tries to sleep but gets woken by mortars and helicopters all night long.

If you support your troops, pass this blog post on to others.

REMEMBER our Troops, and do not forget them LATER



Lest we forget -

Arrogance: The Last, Sad, Remnant of What "Liberal" Means

Warren Kinsella.. at the Bovine Sex Club.  Maybe It's Time to Grow Up?

The Liberal Party of Canada is a disaster.

From thievery under Chretien, to the bumbling of Martin, to the vacuousness of Dion, and now, to the complete lack of substance in Ignatieff - the party has deteriorated from the Big Red Machine, to the Pink Gremlin.

The party has lost it's way - no doubt.

In light of recent caterwauling between current party elite and a sad collection of yesterday's men, it is apparent that the party stands for nothing.

The only remaining constant in this party of Pierre Trudeau is arrogance.

Like an out of fashion dinner jacket, frayed at the elbows, the Liberals continue to pull out the tired old story that the country would die without them at the helm.

As Chantel Hebert writes today in the Toronto Star, when speaking of the rift between Chretien and Ignatieff, she points to their only commonality:

While the two men share a strong belief that a Harper majority victory in the next election would have profound and—from their perspective—tragic consequences for the country, Chrétien is convinced that little short of a pre-election recasting of the progressive side of the federal landscape can ensure that Conservative rule does not become the new normal in Canada.

What neither the "has-been" nor the "soon-to-be-has-been" understand, is this addled view of reality is at the core of why their party is struggling.

Firstly, their chicken-little act has grown thin.  While the Liberals have been crying about the Canadian sky falling under a Conservative government, Stephen Harper has now been in power for some 4 1/2 years and the sky is still there.  We've weathered a horrendous world-wide economic crisis better than most other countries, including our neighbors south of the border - and we're all still standing.  Pretty well in fact.

The message this sends to the electorate is simple - the Liberals are being disingenuous, if not outright dishonest.  As a lawyer, we learn early in our career, not to promise more than you can deliver in your opening statement.  The Liberals continue to fail in this simplest of tasks.  They promise a country in chaos under Conservative rule, but now, when the reality shows otherwise - they look to be little more than sideshow hucksters.

However - the worst sin of the Liberal Party of Canada is arrogance.

They truly believe they are the "natural governing party".

They truly believe that the country cannot possibly survive without them.

They truly believe that the answer to all of societal ills is government manipulation and control.

The problem is - the electorate don't believe it.  And while they may have misgivings over the Conservative party (hey - even this blogger, as has been very evident, has complaints over our government), the electorate fundamentally do not trust government in general.

I'll say that again.

We don't trust government.

We see them as a necessary evil, at best, and the author of much of our misfortune at worst.

So - when a party is based solely on the idea of selling themselves as the saviour of all of our ills - it is difficult for the electorate to take them seriously.  Because deep down, we all know that our success or failure rises and falls on our own shoulders... well - all of us, that is, excepting the most naive of socialists who still find Lenin and Marx appealing, who have ignored the glaring reality of the failure of socialism - in its most extreme form under the Soviet Union, or under it's more democratic form as we've seen in Greece

Which - perhaps - explains the current fetish of some rabid Liberals, including yesterdays man, Jean Chretien, for "uniting the left".  You see - there aren't enough Liberals anymore drinking the kool-aid that government micro-management of our lives is a good thing...  so they have to go trolling in NDP waters.

It's almost sad.

It's like watching an aging athlete trying a "comeback" when everyone knows that they will just embarrass themselves, no one has the heart to actually come out and tell them... or, maybe the best metaphor is Warren Kinsella himself.  An old man trying to be a punk-rocker.

The Liberal party has a place in Canada's politics.

We have too many partisan kool-aid drinkers on both sides of the political spectrum in Canada who pretend "their brand" is the only brand who can possibly govern.

I'm under no illusion that the country will somehow implode if the Conservatives lose the next election. I just think it will be worse off. 

What we know, but sometimes forget - is that the country is not built on the back of the government - it's built on the backs of it's people. The businesses, the workers, the citizens - not the government - make the difference at the end of the day.

I have voted Liberal in the past, and given the right circumstances, I could do it again - but it won't be under some effort to move farther left.  It will be for them to come up with real ideas to help us to be better able to take care of ourselves.. not to take over our care completely.  Frankly, were I their "Machiavellian mastermind", I would attack the Conservatives, big time, on their spending and failure to show any ability to balance books - and I'd pull the Liberal party right.

THAT would be a nightmare for Stephen Harper - not the creation of the "Librocrats", or, as I've affectionately come to now know them "NDP Lite".

More from the Mad Hatter..

MrazAffidavit

Well.

Isn't this an interesting how do you do?

Apparently, Jean Chretien, Ed Broadbent, Joe Clark, Roy Romanow, and Roy McMurtry are the new "party elite" in the Librocrats.

Well.

That sounds like a great idea, no?  We gather up a collection of yesterday's men, who have been properly kicked to the curb, and create a NEW (can you say "irony") party, promising to "renounce" socialism, but made up of every socialists dream.

Really, it couldn't make more sense than if the Chicago Black Hawks cut Jonathan Toews and Patrick Kane, to sign Bobby Hull and Stan Mikita.

I mean, everyone improves with age, no?

Leif Garrett

Michael Jackson

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Nick Nolte

Coming Soon: NDP Lite

The "Librocrats"

So.

Warrent Kinsella walks into Jean Chretien's office, and says, "Hey Jean, I've got an idea for a new party".  Jean says, "Warren, we've already got a party".

"But Jean", Warren says, "This party's different, you have to hear me out".

Chretien says, "Ok, ok.. go ahead, I'll hear you out."

Warren goes on.."Ok, so here's the deal.  We take a flaky Lenin wannabe, Jack Layton, and all his socialist followers, and ask them to join our new party.  Then, we take a Liberal who in reality is a big devotee of Karl Marx, say, Bob Rae, and we put them together in a room.

Now - here's the good part.

We put about 50 knives in the back of Michael Ignatieff, and send him packing.

Jean, "But why do that to poor Michael, Warren?"

Warren - "Because he was rude to me and doesn't have the good taste to laugh at my lame jokes and be impressed with me when I play pseudo-punk music in my lame band."

Jean, "I see.. go on".

Warren - "Well, here's the thing.  If we TELL the electorate we're going to ram socialism down their throats, they will immediately rebel - so we PRETEND that we  are against it and make a big announcement about how Layton and his lackeys are "renouncing socialism".

Jean, "I like it.. tell me more."

Warren - "Ok, so, now we combine all of our incredible ideas, from gun control, to universal daycare, to carbon taxes.. we basically make sure that no one has any incentive at all to work hard or succeed and at the same time, we legalize and tax marijuana, so that the electorate becomes so buzzed that by the time they realize we've become a socialist republic, they'll be so stoned and lazy, they won't care.  And here's the best part.  George Papandreou feels like he's done his work in Greece, so we bring him to Canada and make him Finance Minister in the new party.. in no time at all, we make Canada the "Greece" of North America.  By the way, did you ever notice how much he looks like Jack Layton. 

(George Papandreou  and Jack Layton... coincidence?)

Jean, "Very nice, very nice..  is there more?"

Warren - "Oh, yeah, here's the best part, all party members get nifty little golf balls with the party logo on one side and their picture on the other - you know, to hand out to heads of state and whatnot when they come visit."

Jean, "I'm very impressed.. so what do you call this party?"

Warren: "The Librocrats".

The Mad Hatter goes all in..

Crap.

The madness is coming at us so fast, we can't keep up.

Warren Kinsella (props to Iceman) just went all in.

According to CBC - 5:26pm ET:

In a sworn affidavit, Liberal Party strategist Warren Kinsella says the party's president, Alfred Apps, told him in May about "high level" discussions with NDP officials about the "creation of a new party."

Hmm.

And what did the party President, Alfred Apps, have to say in response?

Apps told CBC News that Kinsella's claims in the affidavit are not true. He insisted Kinsella called him and told him of the meetings of two party's senior figures, not the other way around.

"In subsequent calls from Warren, I discouraged him strongly from pursuing the idea," Apps said. "I have never personally engaged in serious discussions on this topic and have no personal knowledge of any such discussions among others. I have never encouraged such discussion."

So.

According to Warren, "high level" Liberals are in discussion with the NDP about a merger, the "creation of a new party."

According to Ignatieff, that is "ridiculous".

According to Apps, it was Kinsella who informed him of two "senior figures" having those discussions.

It would appear that my use of Alice in Wonderland as a metaphore for current Liberal shennanigans (yeah, I said it, "shenannigans"!) is very apt. 

As Warren Kinsella seeks to create his new Libocrat Wonderworld, I can almost hear him ponder:

"If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?”

More from Wonderland.. Kinsella implies that a coup is in the works!

Methinks Kinsella is Quite Mad

From Chapter 6: "Warren's Adventures in Liberalland"

`What sort of people live about here?'


`In that direction,' the Cat said, waving its right paw round, `lives Ignatieff: and in that direction,' waving the other paw, `lives Layton. Visit either you like: they're both mad.'

`But I don't want to go among mad people,' Warren remarked.

`Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.'

Curiouser and Curiouser.
As posted earlier, I dropped by Kinsella's blog to comment on his dismissal by Ignatieff as someone with "no relationship" to the Liberal Leader's office.

Well, to his credit, Warren didn't axe my post, and responded:

Rob H. says:

June 9, 2010 at 2:43 pm
Ignatieff states that Warren’s musings are “ridiculous” and adds: “I have no relationship with Warren Kinsella.”

Wither Warren.. cat got your tongue?

Reply

Warren says:
June 9, 2010 at 3:09 pm

Stay tuned.

Reallllllly...  now things are getting interesting.  Intrigue in the castle, as the saying goes.  Perhaps skulduggery is afoot. 

Might the next thing we hear from Kinsella be, "Off wit' is 'ead?"

Of course, as pointed out in Alice's story, can you lop of the head of a cat without a body?

Warren Kinsella - "The Reality is that we (Liberal Party of Canada) are in a bad position."

Like the Cheshire Cat Grin.. the Liberal Party may just disappear.

At least, according to Cat Gourmet, Warren Kinsella

I was just going to add this as an update to this morning's post, but it's so priceless, I guess it deserves another post of it's own.

In response to "Serious" Warren Kinsella musing on the merger discussions between the Liberals and the NDP, Michael Ignatieff summarily dismissed Kinsella's musings as "ridiculous", and adding insult to injury, made a point of stating for the press:

"I have no relationship with Warren Kinsella".

Of course, Warren Kinsella, insecure to the core, would never allow his ego to be bruised without a fight, and is further quoted again in CBC News:

Kinsella would not say who was involved in the discussions, saying he did not want to "deter" people.

He added that with the Liberals polling at around 25 per cent support, a merger necessitates consideration.

"The reality is that we are in a bad position," Kinsella said.

"We don't want to see the Liberal Party of Canada disappear and I'm sure there are a lot of New Democrats who are getting fed up with their fate."

Is this how it ends, fair Kinsella?

The Liberal party becomes NDP Lite.. or just fades away, like your Cheshire Cat grin?

**Couldn't Help sTROLLING over to Kinsella's site - and in the midst of a major muckfest over Ignatieff's shortcomings, I gave my $.02:

Rob H. says:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.
June 9, 2010 at 2:43 pm

Ignatieff states that Warren’s musings are “ridiculous” and adds: “I have no relationship with Warren Kinsella.”


Wither Warren.. cat got your tongue?

Any bets on whether my comment gets hacked?

Liberal/NDP Merger.. "Serious People?"

Hi.  My name is Warren.  I'm a Serious Person.

Is it real?

Well, according to CBC News, "Serious people are involved in discussions at a serious level."

Problem is, their source is Warren Kinsella.

Really.

"Serious people?"

Remember old Warren pondering going to a local Chinese restaurant for some "BBQ cat and rice"?

Remember old Warren attacking "The Agenda" for wanting to interview Kathy Shaidle, and trying to use his connections to the Liberal government in Ontario to prevent her interview?

Remember old Warren's "Stupid Easter Tricks"?

Remember old Warren again seeking to threaten and intimidate the Canada-Israel Committee, again implying that his Liberal friends will make sure that the CIC will "regret it profoundly" if they failed to do his bidding in excluding two right-wing bloggers from a trip to Israel - the threats backfiring on Warren when, shortly after, and a completely unrelated act, Warren Kinsella resigned from his volunteer position with the Canadian Jewish Congress.

Remember old Warren - who complains about Stephen Harper's need to control his party, but when a Liberal insider dares to criticize Michael Ignatieff, Kinsella's response to the person making the comment? "I intend to take a chainsaw to your political ambitions, however modest they may be."

Remember old Warren, commenting in his blog that a female MPP would prefer to be "at home baking cookies", to then have to eat crow and admit his comments were "puerile and sophomoric".

 

I could go on, and on, and on..

Serious people?

Apparently Michael Ignatieff isn't a "serious" Liberal person.

A spokesman for Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff said there are no merger or coalition talks going on. 

According to Michael O'Shaughnessy, Press Secretary for Michael Ignatieff, ""Sounds like a fabrication to me."

Apparently Bob Rae isn't a "serious" Liberal person either.

"We all have to recognize that in politics, particularly toward the end of a session, all sorts of rumours start flying around but this one has absolutely no substance that I can detect."

So.

The bottom line, apparently, appears to be that Warren Kinsella is full of shit.  According to Michael Ignatieff's press secretary, Kinsella's comments "appear to be fabrication".

Color me shocked that Warren Kinsella appears to simply be speaking so that he can hear the sound of his own voice. Trying, desperately, to remain "relevant" as his party continues to dismiss his "sophmoric" musings.

Why else would rumours of a Liberal/NDP Coalition be swirling about?

Why indeed?

It's called FEAR.

**UPDATE**

According to CBC News:
Apparently, Wayne Easter isn't a "Serious Person" in the Liberal Party either.
**UPDATE** (As if the Liberals and their Albatross Warren Kinsella couldn't get any stupider)

As reported in the Toronto Star:

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff says rumours of a merger between his party and the New Democrats are “ridiculous”..

And, commenting further - Ignatieff dismissed the source of the story, saying “I have no relationship with Warren Kinsella”.

There is absolutely no truth to rumours that the federal Liberals a New Democrats are talking about combining forces to create a new party, an Island MP says.
Liberal Wayne Easter said he's an active member of the Liberal strategy and tactics committee and would know if plans were in the works.
Easter said he thinks the speculation was started by the Conservatives. 

We're trying to actually figure ourselves what games some people are playing," he said Wednesday.