Stupid Bloc Tricks.. We've Seen Them Before.

Remember the old David Letterman show?

Remember stupid pet tricks.. you know, when some guy would come on and show his dog flipping a milk bone off his nose and into his mouth.  Or playing dead.

The essential core of the bit was that someone had a pet who could do one sorta cool trick, on demand, and that was it.  Nobody brought on amazing guide dogs or talking gorillas or anything.  It was, literally, a collection of one trick ponies, or, more often, one trick puppies.

Such is the Bloc Quebecois and Gilles Duceppe

Today we read about Gilles Duceppe doing his stupid pet trick - being indignant and petulant about being told that he isn't the only Province in Canada and can't always have things his way.

You've seen this trick before.

"We didn't get a handout when we went and harmonized sales tax and GST."

"We want a new hockey arena to house a team no one will want to play for."

Now - he's all up in arms because there is discussion of the Federal Government assisting the Province of Newfoundland to guarantee loans for undersea electrical transmission lines that would take away Quebec's virtual monopoly.

Now - you have to admire his cajones, I mean, Quebec standing up and screaming about Federal subsidies going to a Province..

But, really Gilles.

We would be more impressed if you just played dead.

For a while...

..a long while.

Harper - No Desert 'til We Finish Dinner

The "Liberal" Diet Plan

So.

I'm having lunch with a couple of buddies this week, and one of them, who will remain nameless, lets just call him Blaine Dens, is a closet Liberal.

Oh yes, he professes his undying love for Brian Mulroney - even had a picture of the former PM in his bedroom..  but deep down, the rest of us all know his underwear is red.

Anyway, Blaine is all irritated because Harper has made some promises for benefits to families that will not come to fruition until we are no longer running a deficit.

To quote Blaine, "You can't promise people something, but then tell them they don't get it for five years."

To quote me, "Sure you can, Harper just did it.. the problem is that his mind is so incredibly fantastical that your small liberal brain can't grasp it."

I was being facetious.

Blaine's a bright guy.

And the concept is actually pretty easy to grasp.  We've been doing it all our lives.

"You can't have desert until you finish your dinner."

"You can't go out and play until you finish your homework."

"You can't have a new bike until you've saved enough money."

It's called delayed gratification.  It's called maturity.  And the ability to practice it is one of the strongest signs of a well-adjusted, mature human being.

Yes, we understand the electorate doesn't like it.  We live in the age of McDonald's and Burger King - where you drive up to the window whenever you feel like it, and are served what you want when you want it.

But that's not how a healthy life works - and it's not how a healthy economy is built.  You can't just hand out goodies without paying for it.  There is no free lunch, as the saying goes.

Michael Ignatieff doesn't get it.

He thinks you can just increase corporate taxes to get more money, and then deliver goodies now.  Problem is, his plan is a recipe for a big stomach ache.  Because higher corporate taxes will actually reduce tax revenue.  And may negatively impact a slowly recovering economy.

His vision lacks maturity.

His vision shows the inability of Liberals to grasp the importance of delayed gratification.

Thank-you Michael, while eating ice cream for dinner sounds yummy, being an adult, I'll do my hard work, I'll finish my dinner, and then, once my house is in order - I'll have a little desert.

That's how we do it at the big people's table.

Immigration: Ignatieff is Wrong.. Again

Alright.

Into the first week of the campaign, and Michael Ignatieff has betrayed his ignorance (or his dishonesty) again.

As blogged earlier this week, the Liberal Plan to increase corporate taxes to "save money" will, in fact, do the opposite.  It will result in a net loss of tax dollars. 

Well, today we see Ignatieff stumbling again, this time respecting immigration. 

In his most recent ads and announcements, Ignatieff suggests that the government should be admitting more immigrant parents and grandparents under the family reunification program, clearly suggesting that the Harper Government is anti-immigration.

The problem betrays Michael Ignatieff's ignorance in two major respects:

a) He is lying when he suggests the Harper Government is anti-immigration; and
b) He is just wrong when he suggests that it would be good policy to increase the "sponsorship" of parents and grandparents as immigrants.

First point.

a) The Harper Government Supports Immigration

The Harper government has, in fact, increased immigration generally, continuing a broad trend of increased immigration over the last decade.  As reported in the China Daily this past May, "The data showed that Canada admitted 252,124 permanent residents in 2009, well within the government's planned range of 240,000 to 265,000 new permanent residents for the year, and about 30,000 higher than the average annual intake in the 1990s."  Canada has admitted 3.5 million new immigrants to our country in the last 15 years.  Think about that for just a moment.  Our current population is approximately 34 million people.  Over 10% of our population are immigrants admitted in the last 15 years.  Does that seem like a government hostile to new Canadians?

In fact, between 1994 and 2004, Canada had the highest net immigration rate of all G8 member countries.

So.

On the first point, Ignatieff is either ignorant of the basic facts that a 5 minute "Google" could disclose, or the master of "ethics" is, well, just being dishonest.

b)  Increasing "Family Reunification" Immigration is bad policy and will hurt Canadians

Today's Vancouver Province reports the completely misleading headline that "Ignatieff promises to reverse cuts to Immigration", implying that the Harper Government is cutting immigration rates.  Which, as indicated above, is patently false.  In fact, the Harper Government has attempted to increase the admission of new working immigrants, but to put limits on "Family Reunification" Immigration.

What is that?

Well, it's allowing people to immigrate who do not possess the ability to establish that they can support themselves - primarily parents and grandparents of new immigrants.

Does that seem harsh?

Well, consider that the most daunting challenge of our time will be managing sky-rocketing health care costs.

In October of this past year, the Canadian Institute of Health Care Information reported that total health care spending in Canada will reach $192 BILLION dollars this year, amounting to $5,614 per person.

Now also consider that when a person agrees to "sponsor" their family member - what they are talking about is assisting them with food and shelter.  Not paying their share of a burgeoning health care budget.

And also consider that when we are talking about admitting older immigrants - we are talking about admitting people who, on average, cost significantly more than the average Canadian respecting health care:

Among seniors, per capita spending jumped to :

• $5,589 for those aged 65 to 69
• $7,732 for those 70 to 74
• $10,470 for those 75 to 79
• $17,469 for those 80 and older  (CBC Report, Nov. 19,2009)

So, then.

A new immigrant who is permitted to bring his parents and grandparents into the country will be adding $55,878 to our health care costs each year of their lives.  Are we going to ask that THOSE costs be covered in their sponsorship?  No.

No one is talking about denying all family reunification applications, but the Harper government is talking about maintaining and even increasing working immigrants, but controlling the pace of admission of immigrants who cannot pay their own way and who, with respect, will rely on the tax payer for their care.

Ignatieff's suggestion that we do not do this is just another example of Liberal extravagance with your tax dollars, and it's wrong.

So - as the campaign continues, we see, more and more, the very distinct differences between the "stay the course" efforts of the Conservative government and the tax and spend policies of Michael Ignatieff.

The choice is yours.

Liberals: Bringing you a long walk from Saskatoon to Calgary

Nice day for a walk..

What does it matter if Michael Ignatieff comes from Russian nobility?

What does it matter if someone seeking to be the Prime Minister of our Country is an elitist, without a true connection to the average Canadian?

Well, perhaps to see what utopian liberal ideas might bring us, what the ideas of people living in major cities without any connection with their rural neighbors bring - look to plans in Europe.

Perhaps, to see the future, look to the European Union today.  On Monday the European Commission announced plans to ban personal automobiles using gasoline in European cities.  It further announced ending low-cost air fair in Europe, seeking to force at least 50% of all travel over 186 miles to take place by rail.

All in an effort to reduce global warming.

While we see, first hand, the risk of moving electrical generation from carbon-generating facilities to nuclear energy in Japan, they embark on plans which would increase reliance on nuclear electrical generation.

Because people still need to get around.  They need to move themselves from one place to another.

And if it isn't in conventional gas powered vehicles, it will be in electric vehicles. 

And that means increased reliance on nuclear energy, unless they are going to continue to rely upon coal powered generation - which we know they hate.

According to the U.S. Energy and Information Administration forcasting expansion of nuclear power in the world, "Electricity generation from nuclear power increases from about 2.6 trillion kilowatthours in 2007 to 4.5 trillion kilowatthours in 2035, as concerns about rising fossil fuel prices, energy security, and greenhouse gas emissions support the development of new nuclear generation capacity."

Almost a doubling of reliance on nuclear energy.

Europe, in particular, will lead the way in seeking to expand use of nuclear power to generate electricity.

This is the new liberal utopia.  It's worked out pretty well in Japan, hasn't it?

And reliance on mass transit is fine if you need to travel from London to Paris.  But not everyone lives in major cities.  Some people live on farms and in small towns.  So, forget driving your S.U.V. in the middle of January from Saskatoon to Calgary.  You see, some brilliant liberal environmentalist from downtown Toronto or Montreal will decide that there is no reason to have a personally owned vehicle capable of driving through a January snow-storm in Alberta or Saskatchewan.

Oh, sure, VIA Rail is a wonderful service - if you live in Southern Ontario or Quebec, where the rest of Canada gets to pay for commuter rail service for the privileged of Toronto and Montreal.  There are six departures every day from Toronto to Montreal.

But if you want to jump on a train from Saskatoon to Calgary - you can't do it. 

Ever.

There is no passenger rail service from the largest city in Saskatchewan to the largest city in Alberta.

Oh, all of Canada pays for VIA Rail, we just don't all GET VIA Rail.

So.

Get out your walking shoes.

Because the liberals don't want you to be able to fly or drive - and how that impacts you if you happen not to be an liberal urban elitist doesn't really matter.

THIS is why it matters who leads our country.  Ignoring that Michael Ignatieff wasn't being honest when portraying his roots in poverty, which limited him to attending a prestigious private school as a child.  The fact of his privileged upbringing, his lack of connection with ALL Canadians, leaves us open for urban visions of liberal utopia that you will get to pay for, from you wallet, and with the soles of your boots.

Michael Ignatieff: Welcome to Wonderland - The Story of the Mock Turtle

The Mock Turtle

Well.

Michael Ignatieff has his wish, an election is on the way.

No big deal.

Three hundred million dollars.  I mean, what else would we do with that money?

And, as the election commences, in which it is almost a certainty that the Conservatives will win another government, Michael Ignatieff begins spitting out nonsensical promises that sound nice, but are devoid of substance.  Coming out of the gate, as reported in the Globe today, Michael gives us the following:

“We stick [the corporate tax rate] at 18 per cent, you save $6-billion, you pay down the deficit and you make the specific targeted investments in our platform.”

Well, first problem that Stephen Gordon notes is that the current corporate tax rate is actually 16.5%.

So.. he's not talking about holding the tax rate (that he supported), he's talking about raising taxes.

In the middle of a still struggling economic recovery.

But then again, in Michael's Wonderland, up means down, and down means up.. so to him, it makes perfect sense. 

I can't do better than Stephen Gordon does in showing how Michael's plan actually REDUCES revenue to the government, so I encourage reading the whole of his article.  To simplify.  Corporate tax cuts increase revenue in the long run.  And corporate tax increases reduce government income, and, when coupled with added Liberal spending, mean an even greater increase in our deficit.

But that doesn't matter to Michael Ignatieff.

Michael's math, apparently, has come from his training like the Mock Turtle in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.. where the four branches of arithmetic are, Ambition, Distraction, Uglification, and Derision.'


For those of you perhaps not conversant with Michael Ignatieff's prior life growing up as the Mock Turtle, I paraphrase his story, (with apologies to Lewis Carroll):

So they went up to the Mock Turtle, who looked at them with large eyes full of tears, but said nothing.


`This here young lady,' said the Gryphon, `she wants for to know your history, she do.'


`I'll tell it her,' said the Mock Turtle in a deep, hollow tone: `sit down, both of you, and don't speak a word till I've finished.'


So they sat down, and nobody spoke for some minutes. Alice thought to herself, `I don't see how he can EVEN finish, if he doesn't begin.' But she waited patiently.


`Once,' said the Mock Turtle at last, with a deep sigh, `I was a real Turtle.'


`When we were little,' the Mock Turtle went on at last, more calmly, though still sobbing a little now and then, `my family had nothing, so my brother and I had to go to an expensive private school, called Lower Canada College. The master was an old Turtle--we used to call him Tortoise--'


`Why did you call him Tortoise, if he wasn't one?' Alice asked.


`We called him Tortoise because he taught us,' said the Mock Turtle angrily: `really you are very dull!'


`You ought to be ashamed of yourself for asking such a simple question,' added the Gryphon; and then they both sat silent and looked at poor Alice, who felt ready to sink into the earth. At last the Gryphon said to the Mock Turtle, `Drive on, old fellow! Don't be all day about it!' and he went on in these words:


`Yes, we went to school at Lower Canada College, though you mayn't believe it--'


`..because your family had nothing!' interrupted Alice.


`They didn't!' said the Mock Turtle.


`Hold your tongue!' added the Gryphon, before Alice could speak again. The Mock Turtle went on.


`We had the best of educations--in fact, we went to school every day--'


`I'VE been to a day-school, too,' said Alice; `you needn't be so proud as all that.'


`a PRIVATE school?' asked the Mock Turtle a little condescendingly?


`No,' said Alice, `just a public school like most other children.'


`A public school?' said the Mock Turtle.


`Yes, a public school!' said Alice indignantly.


`Ah! then yours wasn't a really good school,' said the Mock Turtle in a tone of great relief. `Now at OURS they had at the end of the bill, "French, music, and FINANCE."'


`You couldn't have wanted it much,' said Alice; `your family having nothing.'


`We couldn't afford not to learn it.' said the Mock Turtle with a sigh. `I took all the regular courses.'


`What was that?' inquired Alice.


`Reeling and Writhing, of course, to begin with,' the Mock Turtle replied; `and then the different branches of Arithmetic-- Ambition, Distraction, Uglification, and Derision.'

And, so, as Michael grew up, left Canada to find a better place to house his ego, he refined and developed his sensibilities, but never forgot that basic lesson learned as the Mock Turtle.

That in responding to the financial concerns of the citizens of Canada, the best response, is not a question of addition and subtraction - but is answered with Ambition, Distraction, Uglification and Derision.

And such ends the story of Michael the Mock Turtle.

Ok.

Liberal Media "Whistling Past the Graveyard"

Well.

It would appear we're headed to an election.

And, it would appear, nothing is going to change.  The Liberals and NDP are going to vote down the government, and stop the business of government AGAIN for no good reason.  They have no chance to win.  There is no major problem with government facing Canadians at this point in time - and the budget presented was a ho-hum, stay the course affair.

But we're going to election anyway.

And the media - dominated by liberal types - are doing their best to "whistle past the graveyard". 

Pretending that everything is going to somehow be better for those with liberal sensibilities, while, knowing full well that there is no real hope of a Liberal victory.

The Globe and Mail for example, today gives us the headline, "Poll shows increasing voter skepticism about Harper government".  But, when you read through the article, in fact, what it tells us is that ..

"Most polls continue to show the Conservatives well ahead of the Liberals. An Ipsos-Reid poll released on Thursday has the Conservatives at 43-per-cent support, in majority-government territory, with the Liberals far behind at 24 per cent."

I guess time will tell.

And if the Liberals win the next election..  I'll eat my shorts.

Nancy Grace - Yelling "Fire" in a Crowded Theatre

THIS is the mainstream media.

So called "Headline News" debutant Nancy Grace telling the public that there is a state of emergency in California as a result of radiation from Japan.

Except it's complete and utter bullshit.

There is, and has never, been a statement of emergency declared in California related to radiation from Japan.

And when meteorologist Bernie Rayne tries to explain the facts to her, she does what she does - talks over him and expresses disbelief and doubt without a shred of evidence to back her up.

This is, effectively, yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre.

Already millions of people in Canada and the United States have been frantically buying up potassium iodine pills - for no good reason, with a risk of shutting down their thyroid if taken to excess.

And yet - while people get fired for daring to say something politically incorrect, she is rewarded for putting the welfare of people at risk by portraying herself as a journalist, and essentially doing nothing but trying to stoke the fears and insecurities of the public.

Time to Olbermann her too, me thinks.

Canada's Involvement in Libya: Sucker Play

"Hey, Canada.. would you like a chance at a U.N. Security Council Seat? 

Well.

Isn't that nice that Canada has devoted yet more resources, and put more Canadian lives at risk to help Libya.

Good idea, or sucker play?

Let's take score, shall we?

We send troops to try and provide stability to the cesspool of the world, Afghanistan, leave almost 2000 Canadian soldiers dead or wounded, and for the sacrifice of the dead, the wounded and those who survived - they received an ongoing litany of attacks from their own opposition governments at home accusing them of torture based to a great extent upon the word of terrorists who masquerade as human beings when Amnesty International comes knocking.

And.

After so many Canadians pay the ultimate sacrifice to help those outside of our own borders, when it comes time to constitute the U.N. Security Council, Canada is snubbed and, instead, the U.N. appoints a collection of international misfits that not one of those nations, in reality, would trust to cover their backs ahead of Canada in the middle of a fire fight - and in fact, countries who have established a record of abuse of their own citizens.

I mean truly, imagine, you need a hand, like, oh, say the people of Libya.

Who do you call?

Bosnia?
Nigeria?
Mexico?

I'm sure.

So - when Muammar Gaddafi starts bombing and killing his on people for having the audacity of seeking a voice in their own government, what happens?

The U.N. Security Counsel says, "We have to stop this, we request military assistance to create a no-fly zone and to prevent Gaddafi from continuing the murder of his own citizens."

And who shows up?

Canada.

So - are we being the noble good global citizen, coming to the aid of a group who essentially thumbed their noses at us, because, "we're bigger than that?"

Or, are we being played for suckers.

While the whole of the world essentially acts completely in their own self-interests, we are supposed to just "do the right thing".

Me?

I say tell the U.N.S.C. to blow it out their ass.

Stay home.

Save the money - or better yet, spend it on social housing, health care, policing for that matter..  send a message to the U.N. that if they choose people like Mexico and Portugal to back up their efforts - that's what they'll get.

So.

Say, "Ola" to your new Security force from Mexico.

I mean.. maybe they could bring along  their experience in bringing peace to Ciudad Juárez.



Ignatieff on the Budget: He may not have "come FROM nothing", but he certainly shows he has "come TO nothing".

Finally.

After months of ankle-biting by the opposition over matters that are virtually irrelevant to the electorate - like whether or not Bev Oda should or shouldn't have made an initial to the denial of funding for KAIROS, or whether or not the Government has given ENOUGH information to the opposition respecting the costs of the fighter jet purchase or the building of new jails - finally, we have an issue that is of relevance to Canadians to define what separates Conservatives from everyone else.

The budget.

The budget, as tabled, provides some benefits to low-income seniors - some $223 million to increase the guaranteed income supplement for low-income seniors, as well as some modest perks to encourage re-settlement of doctors and nurses in rural communities through forgiveness of Student Loans.

The budget also seeks to close some corporate tax loop holes and to harmonize treatment of RRSP's with Individual Pension Plans.

Otherwise, it is a very boring, "stay the course" type of budget.

Which is exactly what the country needs.

No more lavish "stimulus spending".

No grand social programs.

A budget that basically says, "we, the government, will try to get out of the way of the economy".

The Liberals and Michael Ignatieff?

Read the transcript of Ignatieff's response here.

Mike is in it for Mike.

It takes over half his speech before he actually responds to the budget.  And then, a good part of his commentary is basically approving it - except for wanting to spend yet more money.

A couple things to note:

a) He makes no mention, specifically, of added expense for building new jails and the anticipated increased cost of more inmates;

b) He makes no mention of the cost of the acquisition of F-35 fighter jets;

c) While he makes broad statements of "reckless spending", he makes not one single statement suggesting WHERE that reckless spending occurred.

Why?

Because his statement has nothing to do with the budget and has everything to do with getting ready for an election.

Typical of Michael Ignatieff he says a lot, and at the same time, says nothing.

Where's the beef, Michael?

Generic complaints and platitudes come across like so many Monday morning quarterbacks - "If I got in the game, things would be different!"

But the thing of it is - he's not in the game, and he has suggested no specific plan to improve on the game plan of the Conservative government.

While Michael Ignatieff may not have "come from nothing", he certainly is showing Canadians that he has "come to nothing."

Time to "Olbermann" a few Canadian Reporters

Hi.  My name is Susan Delacourt.  And I am a Liberalaholic.

"The Fourth Estate"

Generally considered to be the news media - an unofficial arm of the state who's job is to act as the eyes, ears, and voice of the  people to assure that the people have access to "truth" respecting the society around them.

The importance of a free press to a democracy cannot be over-stated, and this is affirmed by the fact that in May of 2010 our Supreme Court of Canada expressly affirmed that there are cases where the right of "journalist-confidential source" privilege will be recognized, such that even a Court will not be permitted to force a journalist to disclose the source of their information.

Pretty important stuff.

In many respects, this "Fourth Estate" is a referee of sorts in the game of politics.  Watching the game as a neutral observer, and, when necessary, calling out the participants when they appear to have breached the rules.

So then.

Would it bother you if the referee was choosing sides ahead of the game?

It should.

And it is happening in Canada all the time.  And we sorta take it for granted - but we shouldn't.

Yesterday I commented on Susan Delacourt of the Toronto Star getting all bent out of shape because the Conservatives dared to call Michael Ignatieff on his seeking to trade on his so-called "humble beginnings".

Good journalist that she is, she immediately jumped to Ignatieff's aid, suggesting how the Conservative questions respecting Ignatieff's allegation that his family came to Canada "with nothing" were:

a) An attack on the Ignatieff Family; and
b) An attack on immigrants.

Completely absent from her little screed is ANY question of whether or not Ignatieff has, in fact, lied about his beginnings. Not a word. 

And we accept this.

We have been conditioned to just consider this sort of drivel as "normal".

Now - it is noted that this detritus is not a formal news article, and is part of her "blog".

But just wait a moment.

Susan Delacourt and the Toronto Star pass her off thusly: 

Susan Delacourt, the Star's Senior Writer in Ottawa, has covered federal politics for more than two decades as a reporter and bureau chief.

While most conservatives have come to know Delacourt as a lacky of the big red Liberal machine, not everyone in the reading public is aware of her clear Liberal leanings.

And so, they come to her blog, and they read her rants and rambles and then see, just to the right of it, that she is the "Senior Writer in Ottawa".

Really?

A clear neutral member of the "Fourth Estate"?

Hardly.

And this, sadly, isn't unusual at all.

Go read Jane Taber, or Don Martin, or the past writings of James Travers.

The richest irony, is the response to the media over SunTV.  How many times do I have to hear abou "Fox North" in the MSM? 

The referee is in the pocket of one party in this country, by and large, and that shouldn't be accepted as "business as usual".  It's damaging to our democracy and they should be called on it.

A la Keith Olbermann.

Michael Ignatieff: "And you want to be my new ethics salesman..?"

The Ignatieff Art of Seduction

Michael Ignatieff, truly, is the George Costanza of Canadian Politics.

Delusions of grandeur, combined with monumental incompetence.  An interesting mix.  They create a character who is prone to criticize everyone around him, yet is completely unable to see his own inadequacies.

Michael is seeking to bring down the government and force an election based upon the issue of "ethics", while recent polls indicate quite clearly in spite of all the Liberal attacks, Canadians still see Stephen Harper as more trustworthy by a two to one margin.

It's truly comical.

In a sit-com.

Not so much when you want to run a country.

Anyway, this leads me to share a conversation overheard in Liberal caucus last week between Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae..

MICHAEL: [Frantically] Did anybody call here asking for "Ethics Industries"?

BOB: No. What happened to you?

MICHAEL: I've out of breath.. I come to work so infrequently I got lost.  Now, listen closely. I was talking with the Toronto Star and I told them that we were changing our party name to "Ethics Industries". So, when now when the phone rings you've got to answer "Ethics Industries".

BOB: WE are Ethics Industries?

MICHAEL: Right.

BOB: And what is that?

MICHAEL: We're in "Ethics"

BOB: Ethics? And what do we do with "ethics"? 

MICHAEL: We manufacture it, we make it up..

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: Here in the middle of the Liberal Party of Canada?  The home of the "culture of corruption"?

BOB: And what do I say about you if someone calls?

MICHAEL: You're considering hiring me for your ethics salesman.

BOB: I'm going to hire YOU as my ethics salesman? 

MICHAEL: Right.

BOB: Ha, Ha, Ha..  I don't think so. Why would I do that?

MICHAEL: Because I asked you to.

BOB: If you think I'm looking for someone to just sit at a desk, looking at their own reflection in a mirror, you can forget it. I have enough headaches just trying to manufacture ethics myself.

Besides which, you've gone off and told everyone who will listen about how your family came from nothing, and now, I get to read about how you were bullshitting everyone, yet again, and that you actually came from privilege.

MICHAEL:  I did come from nothing.  

BOB: I'm reading your family sent you and your brother to some snotty private school?

MICHAEL: So?

BOB: I'm reading about how your grandfather, after leaving Russia, took tons of money and actually bought a country estate in the United Kingdom?

MICHAEL: So?

BOB: Well, that sounds to me like you've been lying.

MICHAEL:  No.  My family is being attacked by the Conservatives.  The are printing these things because they don't like immigrants.  Susan Delacourt at the Star says so.

BOB: Uh, Susan Delacourt..?  Did she report that any of the statements about your family were false?

MICHAEL: Well..  no.

BOB: Really Michael?  

You know, Mike,  maybe you should think about a job managing the Yankees. 

Or maybe being a Civil War buff.

Harper in Trouble Says CTV.. as they publish polls saying he isn't.

CTV published a Nanos Poll result Sunday, with all indicators suggesting that the Liberals would be foolish to call an election, unless the point is to bring their lack of leadership to a head to clean house yet again.

According to the Leadership Indicators:

Most amusing result?

That while the Liberal Party under Michael Ignatieff continues to try and suggest they have the moral high ground in the "ethics" discussion, Michael Ignatieff is seen, clearly, to be the least trustworthy of the three major party leaders - the actual numbers showing 26.6% of respondents find Stephen Harper to be the most trustworthy leader, with less than half of those, or 12.7%, finding Michael Ignatieff to be the most trustworthy leader.

To be sure, as the polls indicate, Harper's numbers have gone down since the last poll results a month ago.

As they should.  The handling of the Bev Oda fiasco is a black mark on the party and shouldn't be rewarded - however, as I have blogged in the past, the effort to make this an election on "Ethics" is a bad move for the Liberal Party as Canadians memories are not that short, and the stinging breach of trust in the Adscam fiasco clearly outweighs any current ankle-biting going on by the Liberals over the election expense issue and the Bev Oda affair.

And it isn't helped when yet another good Liberal Soldier, Senator Ray Lavigne, has been just convicted of fraud on the tax payer and may well be going to jail.

But such are the missteps of the arrogance and ignorance of the Liberal Party of Canada - who refuse to do a public mea culpa for their mistakes and also refuse to reconsider their plans to embark on one questionable social engineering effort after another.  With the threat of "national daycare" and other intrusions into Provincial jurisdiction and individual autonomy on the horizon should the Liberal Party gain power - and little else to offer Canadians other than vague complaints over "Stephen Harper's Canada", it could be a long, long time before the Liberal Party gains power again in this Country.

Which is good.

So..  election?  What's the point?  Except, perhaps to help show Michael Ignatieff the door.

And maybe THAT is the point.

*Sigh*.. on the eve of an election, just feeling "dirty"

Well.

Yes, there is yet another scandal.  A so-called Conservative insider, who happens to be an ex-con, selling his so-called "influence" to benefit himself and his escort partner/girlfriend.

And yes, the usual denials are being thrown about, and maybe they're true.

And yes, we will soon see Conservative supporters, like me in the past, pointing to Liberal dishonesty and criminal conduct, saying, "See.. we may not be perfect, but look at them..!"

I just don't have the heart today.

On what appears to be the eve of a federal election, while I'm not about to vote NDP or Green, and have no intention of supporting what has been a clear culture of corruption in the Liberal Party of Canada, I don't feel real positive about the party I've been supporting either.

I feel, well, dirty.

It all just kinda smells, doesn't it?  All the way around.  Conservative contempt, Election Act charges, Liberal Senators convicted of stealing from the taxpayer, now this asinine water salesman and his hooker girlfriend being linked to our Prime Minister.

But then, as the saying goes, in a democracy I guess we get what we deserve.

I think I'll maybe just put on my headphones and listen to some music..

Imagine

Imagine there's no scandal

It's easy if you try

No influence being peddled

Above us only sky

Imagine politicians

Not working for themselves..

Imagine there's no Adscam

It isn't hard to do

Not one investigation

And no contempt charge too

Imagine Politicians

Who work within the rules

You may say that I'm a dreamer

Hope I'm not the only one

I hope someday they’ll join us

And the dirty deals will all be done

Imagine no Bruce Carson

I wonder if you can

No need for hooker partners

No water cleaning scam

Imagine Ray Lavigne

Just doing what he should

You may say that I'm a dreamer

Hope I'm not the only one

I hope someday they’ll join us

And the dirty deals will all be done

Progressive Conservative MLA Dave Elniski - a Study in Incompetence

Alberta PC MLA Dave Elniski Betrays His Fear and His True Colors

(With appreciation to Daveberta.ca for bringing this video to my attention)

Watch this video and think about it for just a moment.

Edmonton-Calder PC MLA Dave Elniski sort of goes on a tirade about Lyle Oberg's involvement in a private hospital in Hanoi.

What is he really saying, though?

I'll help you out..  I'll translate, I speak a little "PC Party" myself.. this is a loose translation of Elniski's commentary:

"Well, firstly, we're really jealous that one Albertan, one man with a plan, can build a state of the art hospital will all of the latest technologies, including a DNA sequencer, while the whole of the Province of Alberta seems to be unable with all our wealth, to deliver a better quality of care to our citizens at home.

While the PC Party of Alberta has had a stranglehold on political control in this Province for 4 decades, holding majority governments throughout, in that time, we've been completely unable to create or even articulate a plan to encourage doctors to come to Alberta, or even retain the doctors we have.  We know that Lyle isn't the only private businessman in the world, but it's easier to pick on him and make him look like a bad guy for just having a good business idea, than to explain why we, the government, have no plan of our own.

It's called "misdirection".  It's what you do when you have no ideas, no plan - nothing beyond the "same old, same old".  You ask the citizens to go look at someone else.. in this case, someone who is a Wild Rose Supporter, but who isn't an MLA or even running as an MLA.

I mean, dang, I feel like an opposition MLA here..  because what opposition does is criticize the people in control, and, well, to be honest we're not really in control.  Everyone else is.  Lyle Oberg is in control.  The Wild Rose is in control.  Everyone but the PC Party.  We're not responsible for any problems in health care at all. 

And finally, how dare Lyle Oberg invest in a business.

How dare he take a risk, create a plan, invest his own money and hard work on a plan.. I mean.. that's such a conservative idea, and we, the governing party of Alberta, are really wearing blue suits with red underwear.

Now I think I'll go sit down beside my good comrade Brian Mason, and make plans on how we're going to spend more tax dollars to deliver less to Albertans."

As I commented on Daveberta, I could have sworn I was watching an opposition MLA from the way Elniski sort of assumes that he and his party have no power or ability to influence what is happening in his own province.

Like how doctors who choose to move from Alberta aren’t impacted at all by the “same old, same old” policies in Alberta which if not causing doctors to move to Hanoi, is causing them to move to the Mayo Clinic and elsewhere south of the border.

Like how the inability of the PC Government to articulate any policy which would induce more and better doctors to remain and in fact come to Alberta has no impact on waiting times.

And, as an aside, note the not-at-all-subtle criticism of an Albertan who has undertaken risk to succeed in business and who, by the way, is not an officer or even candidate of the Wild Rose Party.

Does Elniski actually believe that there are no other private hospitals in the world opening arms to Canadian-trained doctors? That if not for Oberg investing in opening a private hospital in Hanoi, no Albertan doctors would ever move from Alberta to a private hospital where they don’t have to struggle with an ineffective and stagnant health care bureaucracy in their own Province?

Is he really that dim?

“Conservative”?

Hardly.

Incompetent?

Completely.

"Getting Tough on Crime".. is this a misconceived anti-conservative idea?

Not MY idea of "Conservatism"..

Are you a "conservative"?

I'm guessing most of my readers will say yes, though I do have a few pesky self-described liberals who stop by from time to time.

Well.

If you are a conservative or consider yourself a conservative, you might ask yourself what that means to you.

Does it mean having less government, from the point of view of being more "libertarian"?

Does it mean having less government, from the point of view of reducing taxes?

Does it mean eschewing so-called "intellectual" answers to problems dreamed up by utopian sociologists that are passed off as "new science", but so often are proven to be little more than modern-day "voodoo". 

I'm hoping it doesn't mean being small-minded, intolerant and refusing to open your mind to think critically about the world around you.  If it is the latter, you are probably best leaving now.. because I want you to think just a little bit for a moment.

Right now the Harper government, the government that I support, the party that I hold a membership in, the party that I donate money to - is putting forth a "get tough on crime agenda", in particular, Bill C-25, the "Truth in Sentencing Act".

Now, the first thinking I want you to do is to ask yourself, "Why do I think that is a good idea?"

Presumably, you would suppose that tougher sentencing is a good plan.  Presumably you think that as you watch 24 hour, 7 day a week news, and online reporting, and twitter and so forth commenting on crimes every day, you want it to stop.  Or at least go down. 

So.

What if I were to tell you, that probably, the Conservative agenda will not reduce crime rates.

As a conservative.

As someone who wants fewer government employees eating up your tax dollars, as someone who wants less government bureaucracy, not more - would that cause you concern?

And what if I were to tell you that the effort is going to increase costs to the tax-payer of perhaps five billion dollars or more, according to the report of the Parliamentary Budget Officer?

As someone, again, who might want to lower your taxes, or as least assure that your tax dollars are collected and used efficiently, would that cause you concern as well?

Well, then, think about this for just a moment. 

The U.S. Department of Justice published a discussion document called the Crime and Justice Atlas 2000, to discuss issues related to the improvement of responses to crime in the United States.

In that paper, there is a brief summary of the research of Susan Turner, Associate Director for Research, Criminal Justice Program, RAND Corporation.  You may have heard about the RAND Corporation, it is a massive U.S. think-tank, funded partly by government and partly by private enterprise - and is a corporation which has typically been criticized as overly connected to U.S. military interests and has seldom been criticized as overly "liberal" in its leanings.

In her summary, Susan Turner has this to say about the impact of "Truth in Sentencing" and "Three Strikes" Legislation in the U.S., which have been brought forth since the early 90's:

As part of an ongoing evaluation of violent offender incarceration and truth-in sentencing incentive grants, RAND analyzed a nationwide database of index
crime reports, state and federal prison admissions, and state correctional system
expenditures from 1986 to 1996 to determine the effectiveness of get-tough policies.
The evidence so far suggests that such strategies—at least in the early stages
of implementation—have not resulted in any major changes.

Although it is still too early to make a final judgment, RAND found that three
strikes and truth-in-sentencing laws have had little significant impact on crime
and arrest rates.

So.  Then.

Possibly our current government, our current "conservative" government is embarking upon a plan to spend upwards of $5 billion or more on a plan which is based upon some "utopian" ideal which may be little more than some "voodoo" response to reducing crime.  Which, according to Susan Turner, may well have "little significant impact on crime and arrest rates."

Consider how up in arms we were over the Liberals spending $3.4 billion or so on the Gun Registry.  An idea that Liberals and their supporters "felt" would reduce crime, but which most conservatives see as simply a waste of tax dollars on a plan that won't work.

Are we prepared to do the same think with THIS government?  Are you, as a Conservative, supportive of a bill which will cost us $5 billion, that we "feel" will reduce crime, but which may turn out to be a waste of tax dollars on a plan that won't work?

Not this Conservative.

Japan, Canada, Nuclear Power and Global Warming..

As we watch Japan dig itself out from it's recent disaster, and in particular as we watch them struggle to get the resulting damage to their nuclear plants under control, a few thoughts come to mind.

Just some things to think about.

According to the New York Times, of the four nuclear reactors damaged in Japan, "industry executives in close contact with officials in Japan expressed extreme concern that the authorities were close to losing control over the fuel melting that has been ongoing in three reactors at Daiichi, especially at the crippled No. 2 reactor where the containment has been damaged."

Losing control over meltdowns in three nuclear reactors - damage that "is way past Three Mile Island already", according to Princeton physicist Frank von Hippel.

Consider this as well - as reported in Bloomberg - "Japan, the world’s most earthquake-prone country, has increasingly relied on 54 nuclear reactors to supply 30 percent of its power as the oil, coal and natural gas burned at other plants all need to be imported. Prime Minister Naoto Kan has said nuclear technology exports from Toshiba Corp. and Hitachi Ltd. would help revitalize the nation’s economy and meet greenhouse-gas emissions targets."

And are these plants being built and maintained with sufficient due dillegence.  It appears not.  As also reported in Bloomberg:

Revelations from 2007 that the utilities had regularly doctored safety records were a repeat of a 2002 scandal that brought public apologies from Tokyo Electric, the resignation of its chairman and president, and a government shutdown of all 17 of the company’s reactors. The utility said in that year it had falsified reports on power plant repairs for two decades.


The disaster at Fukushima isn’t the first quake-related accident for Tokyo Electric. A 6.8 magnitude temblor on July 16, 2007, caused a fire and radiation leaks that shut down the Kashiwazaki Kariwa nuclear plant, the world’s biggest. It took almost two years to restart.

The government failed to conduct sufficient checks for seismic faults before approving Kashiwazaki as the site, Trade Minister Akira Amari said a week after the quake. The ministry approved the reactor site based on surveys Tokyo Electric conducted in the 1970s, he said.

So, then.

We have  a disaster beyond that experienced by Three Mile Island already, and it's not under control yet, and is possibly spinning out of control.

Which gets me to my point.

We in Canada, and particularly in Western Canada, have been undergoing massive global criticism over the last few years by our global neighbors, because of our use of carbon-based fuel to provide power and to facilitate transportation of our citizens.

But as we watch Japan's poorly regulated nuclear industry literally melt down, and create massive risk of long-term nuclear contamination and poisoning of its citizens, here are a few things to consider:

Nuclear Reactors:

1.  In Western Canada (B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba), we have NO nuclear power generating plants, aside from research facilities.  As such, the risk of a meltdown impacting our citizens and our neighbors is, well, zero.  Oh.  And we are almost devoid of earthquake or tsunami risk.

2.  Japan has 55 nuclear reactors in operation, including those at jeopardy of melt down.

3. California has 4 nuclear reactors in operation at two power plants - both located in close proximity to major tectonic fault lines along the ocean - making them prone to both earthquake damage and possible tsunami damage.

Population Density:

1.  Japan has a population density of 337 persons per square kilometer. 

2.  California has a population density of 91 persons per square kilometer.

3.  Alberta has a population density of 4.65 persons per square kilometer.

That means we have to burn much, much more energy to connect with our neighbors and to transport goods to our consumers.

Average Annual Temperature:

1.  Red Deer has an annual temperature of 3.4 degrees Celsius, and while not in the center of Alberta, is in the center of the most populous area of Alberta so is a fair indicator of the bulk of our energy needs for home heating - with average temperatures in January running at about -11.6 Celsius.

2. Tokyo has an average annual temperature of 16.1 degrees Celsius, with an average temperature in January of 9 degrees Celsius.

3. San Francisco - far cooler than the bulk of the the population in California, has an annual average temperature of 17 degrees Celsius, with an annual average temperature in January of 13 degrees Celsius.

That means we have to burn much, much more energy just to keep warm in our homes and to heat our places of business.

The net result - we are forced by geographic reality to burn more energy than others, and, yet, we pose much less risk to ourselves and our neighbors relative to the massive potential threat of nuclear energy usage.

Just something to think about.

Maybe, just maybe, Kyoto wasn't necessarily everything it was cracked up to be.

Justin Trudeau.. take a break from your ankle-biting to watch the death of Dua Khalil Aswad

Liberal MP Justin Trudeau is unhappy.

Why?

Well, in a "Study Guide" distributed by the immigration department to prospective immigrants, there is the following directive:

In Canada, men and women are equal under the law. Canada’s openness and generosity do not extend to barbaric cultural practices that tolerate spousal abuse, “honour killings,” female genital mutilation, forced marriage or other gender-based violence. Those guilty of these crimes are severely punished under Canada’s criminal laws.

And, women's rights advocates, take note of Justin's complaint:

"There's nothing that the word 'barbaric' achieves that the words 'absolutely unacceptable' would not have achieved," Trudeau, the Liberal immigration critic, said.

"We accept that these acts are absolutely unacceptable. That's not the debate. In casual conversation, I'd even use the word barbaric to describe female circumcision, for example, but in an official Government of Canada publication, there needs to be a little bit of an attempt at responsible neutrality."

He would prefer that the guide suggest that female genital mutilation is "unacceptable".  He thinks that in referencing the torture and killing of women, we need to attempt "responsible neutrality".

Better yet, perhaps we should just say that honour killings are "frowned upon" in Canada.

Here is the road that political correctness takes us on, this liberal moral relativism where we need to be careful about how we refer to men killing women who dare to oppose their will.

Not in our Canada, Justin.

Why?

Well, Justin, let me introduce you to Dua Khalil Aswad.  Of course, you won't be able to actually meet her, because, well, she is dead now.  The best you can do would be to get to know here a little bit.

Perhaps the best introduction would be for you to watch this video of 17 year old Iraqi, Dua Khalil Aswad, dragged from her home and stoned to death because she dared to fall in love with a Sunni Muslim boy.  As reported in The Guardian and in the Institute of War and Peace Reporting after her death in the town square, Aswad's body was tied behind a car and dragged through the streets. She was buried with the remains of a dog, allegedly to demonstrate that she was worthless.  Eventually, her body was "exhumed and sent to the Medico-Legal Institute in Mosul so that tests could be performed to see whether she had died a virgin, results had then come back that confirm that she was in fact still a virgin."



Sorry Justin.

There is no other word to describe this sort of thing but "barbaric".  And if that offends barbarians and dissuades them from feeling welcome in our country, well, I'm actually pretty good with that.  Anyone who would be offended by such a description is NOT welcome in my Canada.

But then again, I'm not jumping up and down crying about Israel defending itself against Palestinian terrorists either.

Color me funny that way.

More "Political Football" in Alberta? Anonymous Doctor Speaks Out

Wild Rose MLA Heather Forsyth received a letter from a Doctor, requesting anonymity, speaking to the inability to have a frank and open discussion respecting the problems in health care.

While the content of the letter as respects the doctors own concerns respecting his own jeopardy in speaking out is somewhat ambiguous, his comments respecting what might fairly be suggested to be an attack on Dr. Raj Sherman should raise more than a few eyebrows.

As a lawyer, I have seen this happen on more than a couple of occasions - under the guise of "seeking help" for an opposing party, you contact their doctor to suggest a need for a psychiatric intervention - where the true motive is self-serving - trying to discredit and harass the person you are suggesting you are "trying to help".

I would call that "off-side".

Stelmach Perhaps Correct: Health Care is Not "Political Football"

Ed Stelmach is right..  we've had enough "Political Football" in Alberta

It's no big secret that I've soured on the PC Party of Alberta, and have recently decided to support the Wild Rose Alliance.

I think the "same old, same old" has gotten old, and that the fresh, energized new face of Danielle Smith is the tonic Alberta needs to bring in new ideas and to "clean house".

But, I'm afraid, I'm onside with the government today.

Sort of.

The opposition parties, including the Wild Rose, and Raj Sherman as an independent all called for an official inquiry into whether or not doctors are being paid or being given certain benefits in exchange for keeping quiet on the negative impact of delays in our system.

And our Premier, Ed Stelmach, has opposed such an inquiry, suggesting that this is "all about politics".

And he may be partly right.

Health Care in Alberta has been failing us for decades now.  With the typical response of our current government being to just throw more money at it, hoping it will somehow magically get better.  And it hasn't.

As blogged earlier, we spend more money and get less than most provinces in Canada.

Comparisons internationally are just as dismal.

But the answer isn't some committee looking into allegations of hush money and intimidation..  it's to over-haul the system.

It's to expand private deliver and public funding - similar to Japan and most European models.  Public funding, and private delivery equals greater efficiency and less expenditure devoted to bloated bureaucracy and five star union pension and benefits.

Danielle Smith, I think, is on the right track - however, this latest demand to me smacks of political theatre.. which I think we've had about enough of.  Let's get serious - and rather than some limited inquiry, whether it's the Government examination of "wait times" or the opposition demand for an inquiry into intimidation and hush money - let's actually engage into a focused all party examination of health care delivery around the world, and a serious plan to implement a model similar to those which seem to be giving the citizens the "most bang for the buck".

Let's examine whether the plan to build hospitals in every town of more than 50 people under Don Getty was a good idea.

Let's examine whether the centralization of health care management in the "Super Board", the hiring of a consultant who wasn't listened to by the Government and who was then fired for all the wrong reasons - necessitating a big severance payout was a good idea.

Let's examine whether spending more and more without obtaining results enjoyed by other provinces paying less was a good idea.

We don't have to engage in political football.  We can just have an honest and open examination of the system in total, and then let the results speak for themselves.

Globe and Mail Tolerates No Comments on Liberal Crimes

Curious.

Having noticed the almost frantic glee with which the Harper haters have been expressing in the comments section of the Globe and Mail of late, I was curious this morning to see their take on yet another criminal conviction of a Liberal stealing money from Canadians.

How will they explain the growing line of Liberals sporting criminal convictions?

Well,no fun for me today on their account.

You see, the Globe and Mail has disabled comments "for legal reasons".

Really?

What's the worry? Defaming a CONVICTED Liberal thief?

No problem allowing thousands of slanderous comments regarding Conservatives.

I guess they have a certain ethical "flexibility" about these things.

From the Liberals touting themselves as "Ethics Police'.. another Criminal Conviction

"So, once again the Liberals are caught with their

naughty bits all dangling in the wind..  isn't that special?"

Well.

After re-examining the not-so-long-ago history of Liberals going to jail for various types of larceny, I see that we have, yet again, another Liberal convicted of a criminal offense and probably going to jail for stealing from Canadians.

Isn't that special?

Just as the Liberals ready themselves to bring about an election that they most certainly will lose, based in part upon Jason Kenney's staffer using a piece of government paper, we see that Liberal Senator Raymond Lavigne has been convicted of fraud and breach of trust for.. you guessed it, stealing from the tax payers.

What was it that former Liberal Sheila Copps described as the Liberal ethos... a "culture of corruption"?

According to the Vancouver Sun:

Senator Raymond Lavigne has been found guilty of fraud and breach of trust.

Ontario Superior Court Judge Robert Smith handed down the ruling Friday, saying Lavigne "committed a false and dishonest act" when he requested $12,365.50 from the Senate for travel actually made by former staffer Michel Gendron, when the true cost had been $2,700.

The judge said he believed the testimony of Gendron, who said Lavigne gave him $50 for return trips from Ottawa to Montreal while the senator personally claimed $217 for the trips.

The judge said he believes Lavigne received more than $9,665.50 for expense claims that were not owed to him.

The judge said he also believed another witness, Daniel Cote, who testified Lavigne filed travel claims on his behalf.

The senator was convicted of the breach-of-trust charge for directing Cote to cut trees on his property in Wakefield, Que., while he was paid by the Senate in order to save money by hiring an external contractor.

Well, isn't that a fine how-do-you-do?

The kicker?

As also reported, "While he waited for the case to conclude, Lavigne continued to collect a $132,300 salary despite being barred from attending Senate proceedings and committee meetings. The Quebec senator recently came under attack for spending $315,355 in office and travel expenses on top of his pay cheques since 2007."

Color me completely unsurprised.

And the Liberals are attacking Jason Kenney over a piece of government stationary.

Lovely.

If that isn't the most grotesque example of the pot calling the pot a pot.

Top 10 Reasons to Hate the Montreal Canadians

Following up on my last post:

TOP 10 REASONS TO HATE THE MONTREAL CANADIANS:
(Yeah, I know, they spell it "Canadiens".. but I live in Alberta.  We speak English here.  Deal with it.)


10.  They have always been a bunch of pussies.  Chippy, dirty, divers. Now, when a player gets injured, they whine and complain that criminal charges need be laid;

9. Claude Lemieux (speaking of dirty, cheap players)

8. Decades of preferential treatment by officials.

7. What have they done lately?  Any pride in their team requires their fans to live in the past.

6. Patrick Roi.

5.Their fans boo the U.S. National Anthem exemplifying their complete lack of class.

4. Ken Dryden. Need I say more?



3. They play in a City that used to world class business centre, and is now a world joke.

2. Did I mention Ken Dryden?

1. They call themselves "Canadians", yet the whole culture of their Province displays nothing but disdain for our country.  It is almost criminal that a team in that Province has the gall to still use that name.


Feel free to add your own reasons to hate the Habs in the comments section.

Random Friday Thoughts on Quebec Hockey, Japan Earthquake..

Alright.

First, our prayers go out to all residents of Japan and other locations struck by the earthquake and resulting tsunami.  Watching video this morning of the damage in Japan was stunning.

That being said - if I hear another comment about the impact of the disaster on stock markets I think I might hurl.  Is it just me or when we see hundreds of people dying from the results of this disaster, should we really be that worried just now with the impact on our stock portfolios? 

And just in general, while I understand the impact of the market on our economy, I think we are perhaps giving just a little too much attention to it.  Not everything in life revolves around the current price of Apple stock.

Now then.. moving on.

Have you watched the Zdeno Chara hit on Max Pacioretty?

Watch the video here.. and pay attention.  The media would like you to believe that this was somehow a dirty hit - beyond that, the great minds in Quebec are requesting that police conduct an investigation.

BTW.. weren't Quebec prosecutors recently complaining about being over-worked and underpaid and going on strike?  Apparently they don't have enough to keep them busy and are going out and finding crimes to prosecute now. 




Two comments:

a) The hit was clean.  Entirely.  His arms were down, he did not hit Pacioretty from behind - it was just a tragic circumstance that the hit happened to be at that point on the ice where the leading edge of the glass was exposed.  To suggest that there should have been a suspension, or worse, that there should be a criminal investigation is the nanny state gone wild, which leads to the second point;

b) Quebec.  Say good-bye to your dream of obtaining an NHL team. Clearly Gary Bettman has no major concerns over the incident and the fact that the political culture in Quebec is such that players may suffer criminal investigations for clean hits I suggest makes it highly unlikely that anyone looks at planting a team in the rink built for nobody.

I mean, my God, why would anyone but an idiot propose to want to expand their business into Quebec?

Message to Gary Bettman: 

You are right on to do nothing in response to the Chara hit, and, remember this bit of high drama when it comes time to consider where you might plant the Coyotes and the Thrashers.  Winnipeg? Sure  Hamilton? Why not?  Quebec?  Nope...  oh,  excusez moi, "non".

The Liberals Crying about "Targeting" Muslims for Examination

Why you callin' me a "radical"?

Liberals hate dealing with reality.

They would prefer to live in a world of theory and ideals.

But the sad truth is that we don't live in the text books of sociology professors.

We live in a world where evil DOES exist.  Where there are bad people who hurt and kill their neighbors for reasons that have no basis at all in rational thought.

There was a time when some of those people existed in the Italian-Canadian communities of our major cities, manifested itself in the creation and support of the Mafia.  And just as the U.S. government was required to investigate and infiltrate that culture to bring the Mafia to it's knees, so to must we look inside the Muslim community to understand, to identify, and to remove the threat of Muslim radicalization.

Yet.

As I write, I have the great displeasure of watching Rep. Keith Ellison drone on about how unfair it is that the U.S. Government endeavor to get a handle on radicalization of Muslims in the U.S.

How ironic.

Why?

Well, Ellison was a big fan of Louis Farrakhan and in fact wrote himself of the need to create a separate black state.

When his compatriots spoke of their bigotry against Jews, he stood hand and hand with them and supported them.

Ellison is a close associate of the members of the Counsel on American-Islamic Relations and has received financial support and attended fund-raising events organized by CAIR - a group having ties to Hezzbola and other terrorist groups, a group who has been described thusly: "CAIR is to Muslims as the Klu Klux Klan is to Christians."

Of course he's disavowed anti-Semitism now.  He's all better.

The former bigot is now on CNN giving us lessons on "tolerance".

How nice.

"Psst...  hey..   let me give you a lesson in ethics."

Well.

I hate to say, "I told you so," but now the government is facing much bigger headaches than they would have faced if they had just dealt with things in a direct way from the outset.

Jason Kenney's gaff is a non-issue.  That's the best response we've seen in some time from our Government.  "Sorry, it was a mistake" - done.

Would that they were willing to be as forthright regarding Bev Oda.

However, the interesting point is that the Liberals seem dead set on presenting a challenge to the Conservative government based upon the issue of "ethics".

Really?

Well.  Just a little reminder of the greatest ethical lapse in our lifetime:

The Spornsorship Scandal - Adscam.

Ironically enough, the ruling yesterday on contempt came from Peter Milliken who was part of the big red machine who grossly betrayed the trust of Canadians by actually stealing money from the government to give to their friends.  Milliken has been a Liberal MP since 1988 - and has been speaker since 2001 - after the sponsorship scandal came to a head in 2000.

So.

Under Milliken's watch, under his leader, Jean Chretien's watch - the Liberal Party of Canada fleeced Canadians of the sum of perhaps $200 million dollars, giving the money to their good friends, and perhaps just as damaging to our country, serving to solidify and in fact increase separatist sentiment and lack of trust in Government in the Province of Quebec.

Under Milliken's watch, under his leader, Jean Chretien's watch - there were criminal offenses committed and people were put in jail:

In May 2005, Paul Coffin – the first person to face charges in the scandal – pleaded guilty to 15 counts of fraud. He was later sentenced to two-years-less-a-day to be served in the community. By the time of his sentencing, he had repaid more than $1 million of the $1.5 million he had been accused of taking. However, the Quebec Court of Appeal eventually overturned his conditional sentence and ordered Coffin to spend 18 months in jail.

On Sept. 21, 2005, Chuck Guité and Jean Brault pleaded not guilty to six charges of fraud.

But, on March 2, 2006, Brault changed his tone and pleaded guilty to five of six fraud-related charges, leaving the charge of conspiracy. The former head of Groupaction Marketing admitted to paying salaries to Liberal party workers who never did any work for his company. He was sentenced to 30 months in prison, and was granted a full parole after five months. Brault will later go to trial for the conspiracy charge.

Guité, however, headed to trial on five fraud-related charges involving a total of $1.5 million. In late March, he told a judge he couldn’t afford a lawyer, and he represented himself when he went into a Montreal court on May 5, 2006. The court heard that he authorized more than $2 million in contracts to Brault's Groupaction Marketing Inc. without proper competition. And, testimony revealed he also doubled the value of one contract to $500,000 without demanding any additional work. On June 6, 2006, Guité was convicted of all five charges.

On June 19, 2006, Guité was sentenced to three-and-a-half years in prison.

So.

Let's have an election on the issue of "ethics".

Let's accept the ruling of the Speaker, do a mea culpa, and then proceed to fight the election on the performance of the Canadian economy, and, when discussion of ethics arise, suggest that we enter into a frank and broad discussion of who truly has a track record of the grossest abuse of ethical principals in our lifetime.

A party whose members themselves have described as creating a "culture of corruption".

The Liberals, I might suggest, in seeking to make "ethics" their platform of choice are making yet one more, in a series, of massive blunders in making their party less and less relevant to Canadians every day.

"THAT guy" at work everyone hates - Michael Ignatieff

In every work place, there is "THAT guy" everyone dislikes.

You know the guy.

He shows up late, calls in sick, and when he is at work, is obsessed with bitching about his co-workers, while, ironically, paying no attention at all to just doing his own job.

You know.

"THAT guy."

Well.

They have a guy like that in Ottawa, in the House of Commons.

His name is Michael Ignatieff.

He's "THAT guy".

Michael Ignatieff and his Liberals are all up in arms because of the mistake of Jason Kenney's staffer in sending out a party letter on government letterhead.

And when they aren't ranting about that, they are also up in arms about Conservatives using their own money (not government money) in the last election, in the so-called "in/out scandal".

Meanwhile, when it comes to the issues that really matter to Canadians, they are missing in action.

Literally.

A report in the Toronto Sun today, discloses that the worst offender of all MP's for failing to show up to work was Michael Ignatieff, missing 182 out of 311 Parliamentary votes in the last two years.  That's an impressive 58.5% of the time missing in action..  or perhaps more properly, away without leave.

In fact, the whole of the Liberal caucus has betrayed their constituents, and in fact, the country by refusing to live up to the modest commitment of just showing up for work - with the Liberals counting 43 of the worst 50 MP's in commons for missing the most votes..  including the big proponent of the national daycare program Ken Dryden.  (Why did hey complain so much about the prorogue when they show no intention of going to work anyway?)

Why are the Conservatives poised to capture a possible majority government?

Well.

Maybe because they are doing more than just giving lip service to the need to work towards a stable economy for Canadians.

Maybe because they actually are doing the work of the people, as opposed to doing nothing but ranting on about partisan "gotcha" politics which has been the trademark of the Liberal Party of Canada under Michael Ignatieff.

Whether it is worrying about terrorists like Omar Khadr (even though they couldn't care less about him when THEY were in power), or worrying about the treatment of terrorists in Afghanistan, the Ignatieff Liberal Brand is all about being a group of whiney fussbudgets.

The ability of Stephen Harper to maintain a minority government as long as he has is due, primarily, to the lackluster effort of Michael Ignatieff to create a substantive vision for Canadians to get behind.

There in fact is no vision at all.

And when you are a one trick pony, who's modus operandi is waiting for relatively minor conservative miscues and then doing your best to equate them with the Adscam Scandal, well, you are doing two things:

a) You are showing the electorate that you really have nothing of substance to offer yourself; and
b) You are, implicitly, reminding Canadians of where REAL political corruption was allowed to run rampant - namely, the Liberal government under Jean Chretien.

Word of advice, Michael.

Think about showing up for work today and actually doing something, instead of just bitching about someone else.

Stop being "THAT guy".