Alberta.. We Don't Got No Spending Problem

Mentors for Current Alberta PC Government..

Like the old joke about the drunk, so goes Alberta's financial picture:

"Spending problem?  We don't got no spending problem.  We collect money and then we spend it.

No problem."

Yesterday, Lloyd Snelgrove is proudly telling the press that the Province has reduced it's deficit by $1.3 billion, and that "The fiscal results are promising and all indications certainly point in positive directions."

Cue big smile and a congratulatory pat on his own back.

Problem is, firstly, the reduction in the deficit has nothing to due with prudent management, as he suggests.

As Brian Mason pointed out, with some wit, the government is to be congratulated "on the rise of international oil prices" for improving Alberta's bottom line.

As Snelgrove sort of neglects to explain, a "drop" in our deficit doesn't mean our budget is balanced - it means, due to rising oil prices, we're not overspending, AS MUCH, as we were.

During the booming current economy in Alberta, we're still spending $3.4 billion than we're bringing in.

And praying for higher oil prices yet.

The problem?  Well, we're the highest spending province in Canada, per capita, with the exception of Newfoundland.

And in fairness, Newfoundland hasn't been rolling in money for decades like Alberta has, so they might just need to spend a little bit more to catch up.

And now we watch the leadership race in the P.C. party, and in that race we will take our cue as to whether or not the government has learned anything in the last several years - I'm betting they haven't.

The choices are basically three:

Move forward with a truer "conservative" agenda, bring spending in line with other Provinces, and, well, act "conservatively" - Ted Morton.

Stay where we are, a government infiltrated with Liberals who couldn't get elected as Liberals, so they called themselves "conservative" and then went about spending tax dollars, and creating more and more legislation to tell us how to live our lives, like.. well..  "Liberals" - Allison Redford, et al.

Move backwards, to that mythical time in yester year, when Cabinet Ministers could dole out contracts to their former executive assistants with impunity, and still get rewarded with a plumb government job in Washington, D.C. - Gary Mar.

Will the party show themselves to be even remotely "conservative"?

Time will tell.  I would like to see Morton win - and will be buying a membership to help that along - but I'm thinking that there are way too many Libservatives in the PC Party to let that happen.

Go ahead, PC Party of Alberta - prove me and every other holder of a Wild Rose Alliance membership wrong.

Wild Rose Comes out of their AGM Smiling.. PC Party.. Not so Much

              Moving forward..

  ...  or back?                              

Well.

The Wild Rose just finished it's AGM last weekend, and came out energized and ready to engage in the first real battle Alberta politics has seen in 40 years.

That's 40 years of ups and downs under the PC Party, the party which brought us the good (Peter Lougheed, and Ralph Klein the first), the bad (Don Getty), and the blue NDP in Conservative clothing.

What will the future hold?  Who knows - but it will be interesting to watch - for a change.

The two big changes promised under Danielle Smith coming out of the convention appear to be increased use of private delivery, public funded health care, and a dismantling of the Human Rights Commission.  A Commission that even Lindsay Blackett - the PC Minister responsible, has acknowledged as being deeply flawed - even as he did nothing to improve it.

Most Albertans, I think, are at best ambivalent about the Human Rights Commission.  They saw the stupidity of it when it put Ezra Levant on trial for daring to publish the cartoons that Islamic extremists used as the pretext to call for murder and mayhem all over the world.  Imagine - a political cartoon pokes fun at their prophet, essentially, for being used as a pretext to spread violence and intolerance - and when Ezra Levant publishes the cartoon himself, to show the world why people are being murdered - the Alberta Human Rights Commission pushes him through the ringer, spending $100,000.00 to defend himself not for attacking Muslims - but for daring to question the sanity of killing people over a political cartoon. 

Health care - however, hits us all closer to home.  And there is plenty of fear-mongering going on with the left-oriented press and their friends this week.  Talk of the Wild Rose bringing us "American style" health care - the rallying cry of anyone opposing changes to the "same old, same old" system which is rapidly falling apart (under "our future" see: "Greece").

To make it clear - what the Wild Rose Alliance is talking about is using the same delivery system that Alberta family doctors have been using for decades.  You might call it the "traditional Alberta-style" health care.  Where clinics are owned by doctors and staffed by doctors - but the patient care is paid for by the government. 

It works.

It works much better than the pure socialist-style health care advocated by "friends of medicare".

Imagine if health care were truly public only.  Every private clinic in Alberta would close down, and new building would be paid for by the tax-payer, would be repaired and maintained by the tax-payer, and all the staff members - nurses, receptionists, custodians - would, suddenly, become public sector union employees.

The Wild Rose is doing no more than suggesting we adopt the same efficiencies that family medical clinics have been using, to great success, for some time.

We have a party who's thinking of change, and a party who isn't.

Your choice.

If You Want Big Government and Red Tape: Try the Alberta DISAdvantage

Quick.

When I say "Alberta" what do you think?

Oil.  Business.  Freedom.

These are the things Alberta is known for, world wide - so, while perhaps we could improve our situation relative to the environment, relative to innovation, we do "do business" well, don't we?

Apparently not so much.

According to the recent Global Petroleum Survey, Alberta ranks 51st in the world for attracting investment, primarily due to regulatory interference and interminable red tape.

However - all is not lost, I mean, we're ranked 6th in Canada.

Behind Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.

Read that again.

The red necks in Alberta, the land of "free enterprise" are being done in respecting providing an attractive investment climate by Jack Layton and Olivia Chow's stomping grounds, Ontario.

We're being "out free-enterprised" by NDP voting Manitoba.

Isn't that just special.

There was a time when I would blithely ignore comments that "Alberta just has the good fortune to have oil under its feet."  I would suggest that the freedom and ability to make efficient use of that good fortune is ultimately what makes Alberta great.

Now?

Not so much.

Time to re-think whether the "Alberta Advantage" is all talk.

Time to "walk the walk".

Wake up Alberta.

Vancouver Canucks: NDP Party Demands Diversity on Team Roster

CP: June 24, 2011

Citing recent demands to expand the diversity of Canada's Supreme Court, BC NDP Leader Adrian Dix, with the support of his Federal counterpart Jack Layton, filed a formal complaint today with the BC Human Rights Commission against the Vancouver Canucks, claiming that their hiring practices evidence a clear bias against women, aboriginal people, senior citizens and the physically disabled.  During a press conference Wednesday, Dix stated:

"It has come to our attention that there is not one single woman on the team.  There is not one single aboriginal person.  There is not one person over the age of 50.  There is not one single person with disability currently wearing a Vancouver Canuck Jersey. 

Certainly, the absence of diversity, and frankly, the "whiteness" of the team contributed greatly to the recent riots in our city - between people of various ethnicities feeling "left out", and young, white urban males perceiving that they have been given a "free pass" in society - the current hiring policies of the Canucks are leading to anarchy in our streets."

When questioned about whether or not forcing the team to place people on the roster who might not necessarily be the most qualified or the most talented could lead to a weak and failing hockey program, again, in response, Jack Layton referred to the make up of Canada's Supreme Court:

"Certainly, there can be said to be no more important or significant role in Canadian society that that of the Supreme Court of Canada", said Layton.  "And if the aim of establishing diversity can take precedence over the quality of applicants at that level of our society, certainly, the need to win a "game" of hockey is much less significant, and must bow to diversity demands as well."

Surprisingly, considering the large gay and lesbian community in Vancouver, there was no comment respecting the inclusion of gays and lesbians on the team - though having regarding to the general response of the Sedin twins during the final series, it has been suggested that there is already a "gay friendly" roster in Vancouver - and that, coupled with the new team logo, has allowed the team to escape any criticism from that segment of the Vancouver community.

Tracy Morgan - Bowing Down to his Massah, GLADD

GLADD: Freedom for us.. but not for Tracy

I enjoy, occasionally, the Opie and Anthony Show on XM Radio.

Sure - sometimes their humour is a bit juvenile, and sometimes it crosses the line respecting good taste - but they provide something there that we really don't see anywhere else in the world today.

Free speech.

While somewhat muzzled by their own station's lawyers, Opie and Anthony still say more or less whatever is on their mind - and then often open the phone lines for people to challenge them - knowing, however, that when they call, they may get as good as they give - and then some.

Yesterday, however, there was a moment when I wasn't amused or shocked, I was saddened.

They played a clip of Tracy Morgan giving an apology at the behest of GLADD (The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation).

It was tragic..  clearly, Tracy is a man of some sensitivity who happened to make what was clearly a facetious joke respecting how he would react if his son told him he was gay - "I would pull out a knife and stab him".. or words to that effect.

Politically correct?  Nope.

Funny? Not really.

Worthy of public shame and censure - being paraded about, figuratively in chains, to appease the politically correct gestapo.  Not a chance.

Comedians are an interesting segment of our communities.  Like no other aspect in our society, they have an ability to throw out ideas that are very difficult for us to have open and honest conversations about - and under the umbrella of humour they can force us to consider things that we might not feel comfortable about considering in open, polite conversation.

Comedians used to be (and to some extent still are) a big part of the back bone of liberal ideas - in fact, numerous blogs and articles have been written about how conservatives just don't have any sense of humour as they find offence with people like Jon Stewart, Bill Maher and Janeane Garofalo.

People like Lenny Bruce truly led the way to expand our conceptions of what "free speech" truly means - finding himself arrested and charged with being "obscene" for daring to discuss sexuality openly and in public.

People like George Carlin held up to ridicule our conservative notions of how "words" can do damage.

How odd, then, that after liberals and, specifically, the homosexual community rode the backs of comedians (no pun intended) to help them press mainstream society for acceptance of all lifestyle choices - when those same comedians continue to do what they do and they now offend homosexuals - they cry, "Enough".

Well, GLADD, you can't have it both ways.

You can't have Bill Maher attacking Catholics and Christians, holding them to ridicule and, frankly, inciting hatred against them - but shackle Tracy Morgan like some modern-day Kunta Kinte.

And, while I'm at it - why no vitriol over Bill Maher suggesting that American Christians convert to Islam so "

"..we can stone homosexuals instead of just bitching about them on talk-radio."

Why?

Because he wasn't really advocating stoning homosexuals.

Just like everyone knew Tracy Morgan wouldn't really stab his son if he were gay.

It's called a joke.  And GLADD knows it was a joke - but by pretending it was something else, it gives them press and allows them to pursue their agenda with greater publicity.  And that's dishonest, it's offensive, and it actually cheapens the reality of the work that needs to be done to help the broader society evolve towards full acceptance of homosexuality in our communities.

Abusing and manipulating a black man for offending us was something I had hoped we had moved beyond in the 21st century.

Obameagan and the Republicrats

Barack Obama: Reagan Redux

Yesterday, I wrote about the grotesque stupidity of the American Government in, essentially, giving thousands of weapons to drug dealers to "see where they go" - a plan (?) now well known as Operation Fast and Furious.

The scandal just now is beginning to gain traction, even though evidence began to leak out that guns provided to Mexican gunrunners were sourced to the ATF operation within a couple of weeks of the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry on December 14, 2010.

On January 27, 2010, Senator Chuck Grassley wrote a letter to the Director of the

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives stating:

Members of the Judiciary Committee have received numerous allegations that the ATF sanctioned the sale of hundreds of assault weapons to suspected straw purchasers,who then allegedly transported these weapons throughout the southwestern border area and into Mexico. According to the allegations, one of these individuals purchased three assault rifles with cash in Glendale, Arizona on January 16, 2010. Two of the weapons were then allegedly used in a firefight on December 14, 2010 against Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents, killing CBP Agent Brian Terry. These extremely serious allegations were accompanied by detailed documentation which appears to lend credibility to the claims and partially corroborates them.

These allegations and concerns were then published widely in the news media - however, little concern was raised until more recently when ATF agents came forth and corroborated that not only were weapons entering Mexico under the operation, but that, in fact,in an extremely disturbing disclosure, AFT Agent John Dodson has now given evidence that he was ORDERED by his superiors to allow the guns to go to Mexico.

Curious.

Why would this happen?

Why would the Department of Justice permit, reportedly, thousands of weapons to enter Mexico and go into the hands of Mexican drug cartels, only to then be used to murder American Border Patrol agents?

Well.

It is no secret that Barack Obama has been a big proponent of stricter gun control legislation, and in that regard, has often suggested that the availability of weapons in the United States has in fact armed drug cartels in Mexico. When meeting with Mexican President Felipe Calderon in April of 2009, President Obama urged support for his gun control efforts, stating at the time:

“I will not pretend that this is Mexico’s responsibility alone. The demand for these drugs in the United States is what’s helping keep these cartels in business,” Mr. Obama said at a joint news conference with Mr. Calderon. “This war is being waged with guns purchased not here, but in the United States. More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that line our shared border.”

Little did we know, at the time, that thousands of these guns were knowingly being supplied, intentionally, by the Obama administration to the drug cartels.

Did Barack Obama know that his administration was supplying weapons to the drug cartels when he made this statement?  Certainly he is now denying any such knowledge, stating, in response to the direct question of whether he was informed of the operation, "Absolutely not, this is a pretty big government, the United States government. I got a lot of moving parts."

"A lot of moving parts?"  I'm sure, Mr. President.  I'm sure that when you are meeting with the President of Mexico, and are quoting numbers respecting weapons coming from the United States, and demanding support for your gun control policies - you never even remotely inquired of your Attorney General or the Director of the ATF, "Hey, how are we dealing with the whole issue of trafficking guns into Mexico?"

Of course you are denying any such knowledge.

But then so did another President when faced with allegations of weapons being supplied to enemies of U.S. interests in the past - namely, Ronald Reagan.

Is Barack Obama today's Ronald Reagan?

It would appear so.

As was the case once the dust settled on the investigation of the Iran/Contra affair, we will most certainly be left with a dilemma of choosing only one of two possible explanations:

a) That the Commander in Chief was aware of laws being broken, and lives being put at risk to support his own political agenda; or

b) That the Commander in Chief was a commander in name only - an ignorant figure head who allowed his subordinates to take the law into their own hands to the detriment of the American people.

Time will tell.

But either way, the answers will not flatter Barack Obama.

While our recollections of Ronald Reagan may have mellowed with time and his passing, one is reminded of the conclusions of the Congressional Report on the Iran-Contra affair:

"Fundamental processes of governance were disregarded, and the rule of law was subverted,” the majority report of the committees asserted. “If the president did not know what his national security advisers were doing, he should have.”

How does that saying, go, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it?"

Change you can believe in?

More like, "Here we go again."

Let Naomi Klein Control the Riots

Naomi Klein finally doing something useful..

So.

Today we read that the frenzied media response to criticize Vancouver police, particularly, the unquestioned "authority" quoted by..

CBC;
The Vancouver Sun;
The Toronto Sun;
The National Post;

..has now been found to be very lacking in both his authority and his credibility.  The man plastered across our television screens and our newspapers, Bob Whitelaw, who was quoted ad nauseum, telling us how Vancouver Police failed to follow HIS recommendations respecting the 1994 riot in Vancouver, is now found to be a bit of a charlatan.  Which could have been easily discovered by the press - but why fact check, when you can just immediately go to press with some more criticism of our police.

I wish they would make up their minds, already.

Do you want the police to do more to stop riots, or less. 

It's just so confusing.

I mean, we're recall our attacks on the Toronto Police for their aggressive response during the G20 riots, with liberal darling, Naomi Klein writing in the Globe and Mail, soliciting donations for those arrested in the G20 riots - stating, "..we are here because we know what happened in this city during the G20 and the wrong people are on trial for it. There are police officers that should be facing charges for assault and harassment -- and so should any supervisors who enabled or covered over those abuses."

But yet, now we're not attacking the Vancouver Police for being too passive.

A million armchair quarterbacks in Canada - who have never walked a beat, who have never been required to engage in a violent confrontation to protect others - feel compelled to express their disdain, yet again, for our police.

Listen.

I am a lawyer.

And I have cross-examined and questioned police on the witness stand, and know for a certainty that they are not all saints, and like any other segment of our population (including lawyers, maybe especially lawyers..) they have their black sheep.

However - in the context of my work I have also seen the often impossible task they are asked to perform - namely, keeping order and providing security in a society which, essentially, asks them to do more by doing less.

Keep us safer - but do less.  We expect more security, but we expect you to exert less force to accomplish it.

This is the refrain.

Stop riots, but don't detain or interfere with the liberties of anyone who is "innocent".

Have you ever been in a riot?

I have.  One summer, while on holidays with friends in Penticton, British Columbia, things got out of hand.  Police, seeking to disburse young people partying along the beach parks, were met with bottles and rocks being thrown, which escalated the conflict, and, as we walked through a park on the periphery of the conflict, returning to our hotel, we were met with several officers in riot gear.

We hadn't done anything wrong.  We were walking in a public park, at night.. and as we were approached by the officers, one of them, struck me in the chest with his riot stick - and in unequivocally told us to turn around and leave the park.

And we did.

And I've never complained, then or since - as it struck me, being somewhat logical, that removing me from that area - and technically, the officer committing an assault in so doing, was the right thing for him to do.  He did not, and should not, have been required to engage in a conversation to assure himself that I hadn't done anything wrong or that I didn't intend on doing anything wrong.

But civil libertarian types would have been aghast.  

But that's the point.  It's easy to criticize someone when you've never been asked to undertake their job.  Easy to criticize the Sedin twins (and I have, trust me, I have..) for not being tough enough - when you've never had to go in the corner with a monster like Zdeno Chara.

I was in Vancouver for game two of the finals.  As I worked my way back through the thousands of people on Georgia and Hamilton, it was apparent, even that day that there were those who given the chance would engage in mayhem.  And as I watched the riots on television after game 7 - it struck me that the police did exactly what they were told to do after the G20 riots in Toronto..  which is pretty much, let the crowd burn itself out, sit back until opportunity has been given for the truly "innocent" to leave the area - and then move in to quell violence and vandalism.

And I think they did a pretty good job, all things being considered.

And for those who would like to criticize them, for people like the reporters saying they didn't do enough in Vancouver, and civil liberty advocates crying tears for Adam Nobody and his ilk in Toronto, I suggest they take up a riot shield and stand a post.  Or just say thank-you for the efforts of our police.  Either way - I don't give a good God damn about their Monday-morning, armchair quarterback criticism of our police.

Their job, in times of civil unrest, is impossible.  They are either being too harsh, or too lenient..  there will never be a perfect balance that will allow them to escape the scorn of our liberal Utopians.  In light of that, were I legal counsel for any police officer in that position, I would say, take the course which is least likely to leave you injured or arrested yourself.

Do less.

And leave the riot control to Bob Whitelaw and Naomi Klein.

Obama's Failed "Fast and Furious" Effort - Waiting for the Jokes

Where's your smirk, Jon?

Cue Jon Stewart:

Let's take a short walk along memory lane, shall we?

Back to the days where Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama weren't the good pals they are today, back before Hillary was Obama's Secretary of State.

Back when Barack Obama was betraying his disdain for the great middle class of the United States of America, stating during the Democratic primaries, "It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."


Well.

Hillary Clinton suggested these remarks painted Barack as an elitist. 

Elitist, Hillary? Just because he stereotypes blue collar middle class Americans as gun-crazed bigots?

Surely you jest.

And, let's be honest, they are a bunch of bigots, aren't they?  Fabricating fears over Mexican immigrants engaging in drug wars back and forth across the U.S. border where clearly, there's no such drug war going on - and if so, the wars certainly aren't connected to any of the good (albeit illegal) immigrants in the southern U.S. border states.

That's just bigoted white middle class paranoia.  "Bitterness" over a failed Bush economic plan turned against immigrants and creating an unhealthy demand for guns.

Barack's answer?

Take away their guns, and give them to Mexican drug cartels.

I kid you not.

They called it "Operation Fast and Furious".  An operation that went so amazingly bad, that just today, we are hearing that Obama's appointee, ATF Director Kenneth Melson will soon be resigning his post.

Isn't that cute?  An ATF operation naming itself after a movie glorifying reckless, illegal behaviour by law enforcement officials, under the heading, "the ends justify the means".

But, apparently, the use of the name is pretty accurate - as that's just what Obama and his Department of Justice planned to do.

Except in this case it wasn't just flashy cars - it was guns.  Thousands of semi-automatic weapons were intentionally put into the hands of known gun traffickers, with the INTENTION of allowing them to move them to drug cartels in Mexico. 

You heard right.

The U.S. Government was intentionally giving guns to Mexican drug cartels.

The "idea", (can you have a complete absence of brain activity and still call it an "idea"?) was to then track the guns to the cartels to figure out just how many guns are, in fact, finding their way to Mexico.

Problem is there was no real tracking ability - just let the guns go, wait for the bodies to pile up and hope that some of the guns can get traced back.

Second problem is that no one told the Mexican government that we were sending weapons into their country.

What happened?

Well.

About what you would expect.

The guns got into Mexico two of those guns were found at the scene where ATF Agent Brian Terry was murdered.  You heard right.  Guns that Barack Obama gave Mexican drug cartels were then used in a gun battle with drug runners that then resulted in the shooting death of the agent last December.

What?

No laughs, Jon Stewart?

No laughs, Bill Maher?

Where is that new mocumentary Michael Moore - where you stand around in Cuba and remark on how safe it is there because Fidel Castro doesn't give guns to drug traffickers and murderers like Barack Obama does.

Oh.  That's right. 

It's only funny when you're making fun of a stupid REPUBLICAN President.

When Barack Obama's administration is found to be farcically incompetent - well, that's just met with deafening silence.

Of course, there is more important news to cover, like Anthony Wiener's tweets and Tracy Morgan's rude comments.

*tapping microphone*

Is this thing on...?

Rioters: "Boo Hoo" over Consequences of Their Stupid Actions

Cammille Cacnio: Do Not Hire This Woman.  Ever.

Well.

So now that more and more rioters are being identified, they are pleading their cases in the media trying to now minimize the consequences of their actions.

I say, let them burn like the police cars they set fire to.

Witness the article in the Globe and Mail today where Camille Cacnio, who helped loot a Black and Lee, cries crocodile tears over the consequences being leveled upon her as a result:

“I fully admit to my mistake now, but the way I saw it at the time was that everyone was vandalizing, everyone was burning things. … At the time, I thought, ‘This would be funny if I took a souvenir’ because this is completely out of character,” Ms. Cacnio said.


Still, Ms. Cacnio believes the online backlash has gone too far in some instances. In her case, it’s the negative publicity now surrounding the Enspire Foundation, a charity she was once involved in. She said some online postings have recommended donations be directed elsewhere.

“The whole social media thing ... it’s great that people are trying to help catch and identify people, but it has become a problem in that people are actually ruining people’s lives. The consequences are far greater than they need to be,” Ms. Cacnio said.

Really Camille?  The consequences are unfair?

Bullshit.

What is unfair is to be a business owner who has done nothing wrong, but to own a business on a major street, only to have throngs of losers feel that be sheer force of numbers, sprinkled with liberal amounts of alcohol, they are entitled to trash and pillage that store-owner's property.

That would be unfair.

You losing your job and being vilified is not only "fair", but in fact necessary to send a message sufficient to inhibit further such activity in the future.

The next step had better be criminal convictions assuring that they will not be entering the U.S. anytime soon, assuring that they will be given a scarlet "L" for "loser" on their forehead which won't be washed off with some convenient shedding of tears.

I encourage others to read her "apology" to understand my point.

She writes for several paragraphs about how sorry she is and how she accepts responsibility for her actions, and then, amazingly, she writes:

I want to shed light onto the thought process that was in my head so that maybe you can all get a little bit of an understanding and sympathize for people like me, who made wrong decisions but have now become victims of this social media form of mob mentality.


Why don’t I think I deserve all this treatment?

Because for one, I’ve admitted to my mistakes, two, I am ready to deal with the consequences in a judicial manner, and three, because (may I remind you that) I am responsible for theft – a fairly minor action compared to vandalism and arson. Please remember and understand that I am not responsible for the riot.

I did not vandalize any buildings.


I did not set fire on anything.


I did not break any glass.


I did not instigate the riot.


I did not physically harm anybody.


I did not jump on any cop cars.


I did not even plan on being in the riot.

Clearly her rank stupidity isn't limited to brief acts of impulse.  It appears that even when she has time to reflect and consider her actions, she is almost as stupid as she was on the evening of the riots.

A little comment, Cammille, and the rest of the rioters and their supporters.

Firstly, when you say, "sorry", and then immediately write (in bold letters no less) that you "don't deserve" the consequences of your actions, you have not "accepted responsibility".

Words are cheap.

We live in a society where, far too often, people drag out insincere and hollow apologies hoping that their words will make everything "all better".  But then that's what our culture of entitlement does.  It sends a message that we should not be responsible for outcomes of our own making.

Fortunately, however, even in our coddled liberal democracy, the real world does creep in, every now and again, to the shock of these entitlement babies.

But - to understand the depth of her insincerity and stupidity, you really have to read her whole blog.

You see.. uh, she is a female person and a visible minority..  and she's studying "conservative biology" and so she is an environmentalist too!!

Oh.

Well, why didn't you say so.

Of course you get a free pass.

Let me tell you something you stupid cow.  While you didn't burn any cars or commit violence, your obviously gleeful support and, let's not forget, involvement, provided much needed fuel to the fire.  So, spare us the, "I didn't burn any cars" line.

You only true regret is that you got caught.

And that, oddly enough, you are finally being shown that there are consequences in this world where not every asinine act is forgiven by a slap on the wrist.

Here's hoping that you, and your fellow rioters, have long and sad careers where the breadth of your intellect is properly challenged by requiring your to memorize the line, "Would you like fries with that?"

Winners and Losers

Well.

Sadly, Vancouver came up short last night - but, at the end of the day, it's just a game.

And, as has become too pathetically common, the news of Boston's win in game 7 of the Stanley Cup Final is overshadowed by the actions of yet another group of social misfits and losers who used the event as an opportunity to riot and cause damage to other people's property.

I had the good fortune to be at Game 2, Vancouver's overtime win in Vancouver - and I can tell you that even in the post-game euphoria of that win, as I made my way from Rogers Arena back to my hotel on Robson, in the midst of the thousands of cheering, happy fans - even then, I noted a few assholes trying to start trouble, "Let's roll over a car!" yelled by them more than once.

And, invariably, when you see them, you know exactly what is going on.

Take a good look at the above pictures and video.

These are losers who are angry and bitter because they are, ultimately, losers.  And so, they attend gatherings of large crowds to act out like the petulant children that they are - breaking and damaging the property of other people who have actually made something of themselves.  Like a whining brat throwing a tantrum, they are just aching to cause mayhem.

Now - in fairness, these are not the unfortunate and downtrodden.  These are not people who made the effort to improve their situation and struggle against circumstances outside of their control.  These are quite the opposite - people who were given the tools to succeed - usually white, middle or lower-middle class males.

And that's, I suggest, what feeds their infantile behavior.

Because they know, deep down, they are failures and losers.

They know they had advantages that others did not.  They are, typically, not gay, not women, not visible minorities - they are the top of the food chain so-to-speak - people who have none of the normal disadvantages that many others have to surmount to succeed - and yet, when they look in a mirror, they see a loser.

And they have fed off of the "culture of entitlement" that our progressive politics creates - and when their expectations are not met..

That makes them angry.  That leads to their mindless tantrums.

Fortunately, the winners outnumber the losers.  While the media loves to concentrate on the profane - there are those who remind us what it is to be a decent Canadian.

Winners:

Thousands volunteer online to clean up Vancouver’s riot mess

**P.S. Cudos to Vancouver Police for handling an explosive situation with a relatively high degree of professionalism and restraint.  While some are complaining over their lack of agression, the guilty will be found and prosecuted - and the innocent who were caught up in the fray were never subjected to broadly applied vioent response by authorities.  A job that appears to have been well-done in a difficult situation.

Gary Bettman: Hockey - "America's Game"

Watch this video, and then consider:

a) Nathan Horton's injuries are, to a great extent, attributable to his own momentum as he runs into Aaron Rome, essentially skating at full speed into the path of an oncoming defenceman;

b) The hit occurs after Nathan Horton releases possession of the puck;

c) The hit occurs on a player moving with his head up, presumably able to himself change direction or brace himself for a hit if he was paying attention to the place of the Defender (Aaron Rome);

c) The injury to Nathan Horton was a concussion - an injury which, while serious, is almost common-place in the game of hockey.



Now, watch the injury to Mason Raymond, and then consider:

a) Mason Raymond never had possession of the puck.  Not for even one millisecond.  The puck came off the boards and as he sought to move towards the puck, he was struck by Johnny Boychuk.  This "hit" occurred against a player never in possession of the puck, and was not delivered as he was entering the offensive zone having released possession;

b) There can be no argument that 100% of Mason Raymond's injuries were attributable to the hit delivered by Johnny Boychuk.  Mason Raymond's momentum was, in fact, exerted away from the boards - not into them;

c) Mason Raymond was struck with his head down, as he was reaching to pick up his stick.  While he was, effectively, kneeling down, without possession of the puck, trying to pick up his stick - he was slammed into the boards by Johnny Horton who delivered the hit with complete indifference to the disadvantaged position of Mason Raymond;

d) The injury suffered by Mason Raymond was a broken back.  Not quite so common-place.

The response of the officials and the NHL.

In the first case - a hit that the NHL used to reward with admission to the Hall of Fame (Scott Stevens, Mark Messier), was responded to with a four game suspension, taking away Aaron Rome's Stanley Cup Final participation.

In the second case.. nothing.  Nada.  Nary a finger-wag.  NHL officials said he "lost an edge".

Seriously.

Go look at that video again.

And even if you are a die-hard Bruins fan, tell me that Mason Raymond was injured because he "lost an edge".

The antics of the worst officials in Professional sports, and the condonation of those antics by the executives of the NHL as an embarrassment to an otherwise amazing sport which I have played myself for some 45 years.

It would be comical, if it weren't actually tragic.

I wish the Canucks and Bruins well tonight, hoping the best team prevails - and hoping that the game is not marred by NHL officials who feel compelled to take sides from time to time to make some "point".

One posits that Gary Bettman, in his misguided zeal to expand hockey to American markets still has not received the message that his small-minded interference in seeking to put franchises where they don't belong (Atlanta, Phoenix, Nashville) while thumbing his nose to the country who continues to make this sport great might... just might..  have something to do with looking the other way when a celebrated American franchise commits an offense on the ice that far exceeds the culpability of anything done by Aaron Rome.

Just sayin'

Memories.. of the Way They (Liberals) Were

Doesn't it seem like just yesterday we were embroiled in a Federal Election.

And doesn't it seem like just a moment ago we were watching the Liberals attacking the Conservative government and Jason Kenney over their effort to tighten up laws regarding human trafficking of illegal immigrants.. ie) Sri Lankan boat people?

Yes.. as memory serves, good Canadian Bob Rae, back in April was writing that:

The Conservative Ad on “human smuggling” and refugees crosses an important line.


It is based on fear, and is directly prejudicial to a fair determination of refugee claims that are currently being considered. The use of the picture of the MV Sun Sea – twice – amid statements about “crimes,” “smugglers,” and attacks on the Liberal Party – clearly leads to no other interpretation than that those individuals aboard this boat are criminals and illegitimate refugees.

Yes.

How dare the Conservatives stand up against boatloads of illegal immigrants brazenly cruising into our shoreline, taking advantage of week-kneed liberal immigration policies of people like.. well... Bob Rae.

How dare the Conservatives suggest that such acts are, *gasp*, criminal!

Well.

What do we read today?

Well, charges have been laid against four men who were found aboard the MV Sun Sea.

As stated by Public Safety Minister, Vic Toews, in response to the arrests:

"We want to reiterate our government's position. It's clear human smuggling is a despicable crime. Not only does it take advantage financially of underprivileged and desperate people but also puts people's lives at risk."

Not according to Bob Rae, Vic.
 
According to Bob Rae, apparently, we should continue the soft liberal response - and effectively encourage more boatloads of desperate and dangerous efforts to crash our borders.
 
There is a reason that, today, the Liberal party is in shambles.
 
There is a reason that, today, the Conservative government holds a majority.
 
Because Canadians know that someone in this country has to do the heavy lifting, and make the difficult decisions that make Canadians safer, and that, in fact, makes immigration fairer.
 
But keep on with the far-left, Utopian view of the world that the Liberals espouse, Mr. Rae.
 
Keep up with policies that shift the burden, yet again, from the criminals to the backs of people who are doing the "right things" in this country.
 
Keep it up, and the idea of a Liberal government in this country will truly be left to the stuff of memories only.
 
Memories.
 
Of the way they were.
 
(Did I mention Adscam and Liberals stealing money for Liberal pals?  Just in case you forgot!)

Of Anthony Weiner and Geddy Lee.. the Achilles heal of Progressivism

Well.

Have we had enough of Anthony Weiner yet?

Frankly, I think this dufus has had more than his share of attention.. though, as always, I think it is worthwhile to look at the stupidity of others and use that as a learning moment.

What can we learn from some Democratic Congressman who decided it was a good idea to send pictures of his, well..   wiener.. on Facebook.. to strangers?

Well.

Now it appears that Mr. Weiner is in rehab.  Isn't that special?

But curiously, it gives us a chance to think about what is to a great extent the central theme of progressive politics - namely, that no one is truly responsible for their actions, that they are essentially, a pawn in a world for which any wrong they perpetuate is the responsibility of either:

a) Someone else; or
b) The government.

Noted to be missing from the mantra of progressivism is the idea of personal responsibility.

That when you do something wrong, you accept responsibility and move forward.

But not Anthony Weiner.  He's doing the tried and true "Hollywood Cure" for major screw ups.  You blame you're stupid actions on an "illness" and you get "treatment".

Because nothing we do, at least nothing we do that brings us discredit or pain or discomfort, is our own fault.

But the problem with that is that while it allows us to avoid responsibility for our mistakes, it also robs us of full credit for our successes.  Though that is also an apparent aim of progressive thought.

No more trophies for winners - we want to give everyone medals for just showing up.  By rewarding those who work hard and make sacrifice to succeed we are making those who don't succeed feel bad.

We want to muddy the waters, creating a world where no one is really good and no one is really bad.. we're all just passive pawns in the game of life.  Puppets.  Poor players who strut and fret their moment upon the stage and then are heard.. no more.  Or something like that.

I prefer the sentiments of Geddy Lee to Shakespeare, personally - at least on this score.

There are those who think that life is nothing left to chance,

A host of holy horrors to direct our aimless dance.

A planet of playthings,

We dance on the strings

Of powers we cannot perceive.

"The stars aren't aligned

Or the gods are malign"-

Blame is better to give than receive.

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;

I will choose a path that's clear-

I will choose Free Will.

Canada Post and Air Canada.. Dumb and Dumber

Well.

So Canada Post and Air Canada employees want to flex their collective union muscle, do they?

One might have thought that after the recent meltdown of the auto industry, to a great extent credited to overly generous union settlements, particularly regarding health care and retirement benefits, there might have been a greater understanding respecting the need for the employer to prosper before the employees can ask for a greater share of the pie.

But, I guess not.

For those Air Canada employees clamouring to man the the picket lines, here's a sobering look at the company you think is getting too "fat" at your expense.

While the last year profit was some $107 million, looked at over the past 5 years, we see a much less rosy picture:

So, what does this tell us?

Well, over the last 6 years, Air Canada has managed to suffer an average annual loss of $197 million.

On average, it's owners have lost $197 million each year for the past 6 years.

So.  One might consider that maybe, just maybe, the employees of Air Canada might consider it to be quite a miracle that they have any jobs at all.

What is in issue with Air Canada?  Pensions.  Defined Benefit Pensions.

The union won't let go of them - which were, to a great extent, the giant killers of GMC and Chrysler.  Pension plans that guarantee a level of income post-retirement - and when return on investment goes down, the cost to the employer becomes astronomic. 

So.  the CAW (we'll call them "Dumb") , wants to go out on strike over this issue - which is fine - but the net result is, yet again, travellers are being told that while your tickets with Air Canada may not be in immediate jeopardy due to impending bankruptcy (see creditor protection applications by Air Canada in April 2003 and September 2004), they may be at jeopardy due to striking employees. 

Which, eventually, leads to reduced consumer confidence in the company and, in turn, lower profits, and, in turn, worse conditions for the employees.  As it is, I routinely decline flights on Air Canada out of principal - because I refuse to support a corporation which, over and over, is given government support and handouts, while competition (see WestJet) is required to succeed on their own merits.

What about Dumber?  (The Canadian Union of Postal Workers)

While it is true that over the last decade Canada Post has been operated in a much more business-like manner than Air Canada, showing consistent profit through that period - to a great extent that has been due to a marked attention to the bottom line and to controlling costs in particular.

The management of Canada Post appears keenly aware of how changing technology has impacted their business, in particular, a significant drop in volume over the past year.  The bottom line is that, as a business, it doesn't require the same level of employees that it has in years gone by. 

How many of your bills now come to you via email?  Over the last year alone, half of my bills are now received digitally.  That is not going to change - it's only going to increase with the massive shift in the demographic of those using e-commerce.

Canada Post is getting smarter while CUPW is getting dumber.  They demand that wages stay high for new hires and ignore the clear and obvious change in consumer demand that reduces the need for the number of employees used in the past.

So.

Just today I shifted two more of my bills to be received by email.

And guess what.

They won't be going back to regular mail.  Ever.

And I'm thinking this week, I'm not the only one.  Think about that Dumber.

Separation of Church and State: Good for Christians, So Why Argue Agains It?

He refused to adopt the beliefs of the majority..

Simmering under the surface of the Conservative Party convention this week is a difficult marriage between social and fiscal conservatives.

And for those of us who are still giddy and hung over following the election of a Conservative majority, we may want to sober up a little bit.

You see, the social conservatives in the party are already trying to flex what they see as new muscle.

Witness the editorial today from Joe Johnson, of Nanaimo, B.C. published in Canada.com, "PM Must Use Majority to Return to Christian Values"..  followed by a call for the PM to outlaw gay marriage and abortion.

Really Joe?

You are a big believer in theocratic government are you?

Big fan of the Taliban?

Saddened to hear of the recent demise of Osama Bin Laden?

Because that's what you, and others of your ilk are asking for.  Abolishment of the fundamental democratic principals requiring separation of church and state.

Of course, because you are convinced of your righteousness, you don't see that if you suggest that we base our government on "Christian" beliefs, you are, effectively, saying, "If the majority support a particular flavor of religion, that gives them the right to impose those beliefs upon all."

Which is fine, as long as you are in the majority, I suppose.

But what do you do if you live in an area which isn't of "your" faith?

I live in Southern Alberta.  Very large Mormon community.  Should we blithely permit our municipal government to outlaw consumption of liquor, coffee and tea?  No Tim Horton's allowed!

Or maybe you live in certain boroughs of Toronto, where there is a large Jewish population.  No sales of pork permitted - in fact, nothing but Kosher food here.

And god forbid we develop areas with broadly held hard-line extreme Muslim beliefs.  No reading classes for your daughter, thank-you very much.  You see, in our community, we are all supporters of extreme Muslim beliefs - and, as you have suggested, Joe, majority rules, no?

In matters of faith, the answer is simple. 

No.

Religion is a private matter between a person and their God.  On this point, there can be no debate or discussion.  No matter how convinced you may be of your "rightness" and your impassioned need to "save" your neighbor, you and I have no right to impose our religious beliefs on others. 

Now - the response I often receive when I engage in this debate is, "But this country is founded upon "Christian" values, and if people wish to come to our country they should accept that."

Except that's not actually true, now, is it?

Because in fact, our country was founded upon traditional aboriginal spiritual beliefs.  And that was only changed by way of conquest of a larger and more powerful population. 

So - if you want to blur or remove the principal of our democracy which requires a separation between church and state - feel free, but consider the precedent that you will set should Christianity fall to the minority in this country.

Consider the history of persecution of early Christians who fought and were killed in the effort to engage in full freedom of their faith, only to now, apparently, have the small-minded and misguided, seek to destroy that same freedom which ultimately allowed Christianity to flourish.

Consider that, perhaps, for just a moment.

And then learn how to kneel and pray towards Mecca.

Bridget DePape's Rank Stupidity - And a New Sign Contest!

What she really said..

Well.

Normally I tend to ignore morons standing on a soapbox and saying, "look at me".

But in this case I'll make an exception for Bridget DePape, the Parliamentary Page who made an ass of herself on the opening day of Parliament last week by pulling a stop-sign out of her skirt saying, "Stop Harper."

Why give her a little more press?

For a few reasons.

First, to suggest that she is a moron.

And so too would anyone be who hired her, for any reason whatsoever.  Like, apparently Michael Moore. 

She is someone devoid of commitment to her employer and, obviously, puts her own stupid and mindless desires ahead of everyone else.

Note the commentary of the opposition - almost to a person they have condemned her act as wrong and inappropriate - and good on them.

Because they are right.

Regardless of what we might think of individual politicians, the structure of our Parliamentary Democracy is something to be revered and respected.  Not sullied by some sophomoric prank that did nothing but betray her immaturity and ignorance. 

But this is what happens with the self-centred and the self-involved.  They don't REALLY care about anyone but themselves - and that's what this act was.  A monumental example of self-indulgence.

"Look at me!"  I have nothing valuable to contribute or say, but, "Look at me!"

As she moves on, after being fired, and seeks her next career, imagine her options, and consider her behavior in light of even the most mundane of occupations.

McDonalds employee:  "You want to order a egg mcmuffin?  Are you aware that the chickens who lay these eggs are being mistreated.. I would suggest you order the salad."

Garbage collector: See her standing in your driveway with a protest sign because you had an aluminum can in your trash.

Newspaper delivery girl: Scrawling "Stop Harper" in lipstick on the front of your morning newspaper over top of Dilbert.

There is no job this child is fit for.

Eventually, Michael Moore will find out that when he, the employer, wishes her to do something that she doesn't agree with, she'll be standing on her soapbox on his dime as well, criticizing him.

So.

Give her a soap-box.

Let her stand up, and, in this case, "look at her!"  And make note of the one person in Canada that no employer should ever consider giving a job to.

Which brings me to my sign contest.

If you think that you can think of something funnier or catchier to put on her little stop sign and/or to use as a caption, I'll immortalize your idea with a photo shopped version of this picture and your caption next week.

In your own little way, YOU TOO can say, "Look at me!"

The Liberal Media coverage of the Weiner scandal.. the new "Pravda" at work?

Oops.

There is no such thing as perfection in politics.

History abounds with so-called "God fearing" Christian conservatives getting caught trolling public washrooms for gay sex, getting caught in dalliances with prostitutes, and the like.

So, my comments today should be taken in that vein.  We're all in glass houses to some extent.

However.

There is something special about watching the abject hypocrisy and rank lies of high-profile democrats like Anthony Weiner, and then the scurrying around by good "journalists" like Jeffrey Toobin and CNN (more on him, perhaps, later) seeking to make sure that we question NOT the liberal politician who has lied and mislead the public and, sadly, his wife about carrying on a childish and offensive twitter exchange where he was sending lewd pictures of himself to a young women only known by him via her twitter account.

According to Jeffrey Toobin, the crime was not the acts that we all now know Weiner was involved with - but the fact that CNN reported it, and gave face time to conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart:



Why is it that the only lawyers that CNN can attract to their so-called, "most trusted name in news" are shrill stupid talking heads like Jeffrey Toobin and Nancy Grace?

The story in the Weiner case isn't what Weiner did.. it's THE STORY.

The refusal many in the mainstream media to challenge Weiner and instead challenging the messenger.

Statistics have clearly established the gross inequity in the financial political support for liberal politicians by the mainstream media in the United States.

As referenced in the L.A. Times in a review of Federal political donation records, of journalists making policital donations, 235 donated to the Democratic Party and only 20 made donations to the Republicans.  That's something in excess of 92% of journalists evidencing a financial commitment to supporting liberal policies as opposed to conservative policies.

MSNBC itself, acknoweldged darling of the progressive left, did a similar study, as also referenced in the L.A. Times article above, and they found similar numbers, with over 87% of journalists supporting liberals over conservatives.

And yet they complain when one network has supported a conservative point of view.

So then, it is no surprise when we find that the Weiner story currently dominating the news did not come from CNN, or MSNBC, or the Washington Post - it came from a blogger.

And after being broke, many talking liberal heads like Jeffrey Toobin did their best to distract the media from THE STORY, to the messenger who broke the story.

What Weiner did was stupid.  But, at it's core, it's just another stupid politician caught with his, uh... hand in the cookie jar.

The real concern should be asking ourselves to what extent the conversion of the media from the fourth estate to a bunch of liberal political shills is preventing the public from being able to make reasoned decisions respecting their politicians at election time.

Are we approaching a strange time where the so-called "independent" media while not under control of a fascist dictatorship has, nonetheless, become little more than mouthpieces of progressive propaganda?  A western equivalent of Soviet controlled Pravda?

(Note: not one "wiener" pun)

Now the Hard Work - Keeping the Troops Happy

Well.

A Conservative majority government.

How does the saying go, "Be careful what you wish for, because it might just come true?"

Stephen Harper is dealing with that as we speak.

Already we are reading about concerns being raised from various factions in the blue tent.

That more needs to be done on Senate Reform, that the cabinet is bloated and there are no indicators of government getting smaller, that government needs to get tougher on crime, that government needs to spend less money, that governments needs to...

You get the drill.

And while you are a minority government, it is much easier to duck the difficult questions.

But now, the rubber will the road.  With a majority government and a liberal party in shambles, Stephen Harper has a mandate to do what he wishes.  To make whatever changes he wants, without opposition if he so chooses.

We will soon see if the so-called "secret agenda" of restricting rights to abortion will really come true.. I suspect not.

We will see how committed the government is to the concept of an elected Senate.

We will see if the gun registry will truly be dismantled.

And, we will see some real contest between the libertarian and social conservative arms of the party.

Social conservatives will be battling for expansion of the military and policing, bigger, better jails, longer sentences.

And libertarian conservatives like me will be demanding less.

Less government.

More allowance of society to tend to its own imperfections in the imperfect way that has, more or less, allowed our country to prosper and succeed for generations.

I truly is a daunting task - and I for one, am very curious to see how Prime Minister Harper delivers.

I have some concerns that a balanced budget is a pipe-dream, and that effective reduction in government will not occur anytime soon.  And my donations will be held in my wallet pending some indicators or where THIS government will take us.

Alberta PC Leadership - for Non-PC Voters

Alberta's Next Premier?

Well.

I had an interesting issue arise respecting a post a couple of days ago.

I was musing that Wild Rose Alliance supporters might wish to support Ted Morton as a sort of "risk reduction" strategy.. i.e.) If we HAVE to have a PC Government, we might as well have something approaching a "conservative" leader, relatively speaking.

And, in response, Canbuhay suggested that the better move is to support the leader most likely to "Kim Campbell" the PC Party.

The debate is thus open.

What do you think?

If you do not support the Alberta PC Party, you basically have three options:

a) You ignore the leadership vote entirely;
b) You buy a membership and vote for the leader least offensive to you, in case they win;
c) You buy a membership and vote for the leader most likely to carry their party to failure (my recommendation would be Alison Redford if you lean that way).

My take is that voting for the crappiest possible leader as a "strategic vote" to support your own party is pretty flawed, as if they do win, well, you have the crappiest possible leader.  More likely, your vote is just going to be wasted - so personally I think the better view is to either ignore the event entirely or to support the person you believe to be the most aligned with your values.

For me that person would be Ted Morton.  No one else is even close.

But it is an interesting question - I know during the last leadership race, many, many Albertans took it as a de facto provincial election and in fact turned up at polling stations complaining that they shouldn't have to even be party members to vote.

So, what's your take?

Do you vote for the next PC Leader or not, and if you do, who do you vote for, and why?

Plan #1 - Reduce Drug Addicts; Plan #2 - Feed the Homeless

Now.. moving on to how to feed the homeless..

Excuse me, but I just finished laughing my ass off.

My post this morning posited that in order to attack drug addiction we, essentially, make heroin lethal and kill the addicts.  No more addicts, and no one but the galactically stupid becoming addicts.

Classic win/win.

Sadly, Big Red was very upset with this idea:
"This is a pretty shocking post. I know many on the right do not like Insite, but suggesting we poison addicts is beyond the pale."

Really Big Red?

Shocking?

Beyond the pale?

Perhaps this is not the best time to suggest you read up on social plan #2 suggested to assist the plight of the hungry, a modest little proposal by my good friend, Jonathan Swift.

Do YOU think it's a good idea to make heroin use "SAFE"?

Heroin Use: I'm not so sure making this easier is such a good plan.

While not getting much mainstream media exposure, conservatives may wish to pay attention to a case currently being argued before the Supreme Court of Canada, Attorney General of Canada v. PHS Community Services Society.

As you may recall, in January of 2010, the B.C. Court of Appeal affirmed a lower court ruling that it was unconstitutional to prohibit allowing the government to supply and allow use of narcotics at "safe use" locations established by the B.C. Government with the support of the former federal Liberal government.

So the argument goes, providing junkies with a safe place to tie off and shoot up heroin reduces the likelihood of deaths by overdose and spread of AIDS.

The Federal Government under Prime Minister Harper has appealed that decision, and argument is currently ongoing at the Supreme Court of Canada over the right of the Provincial Government to fully exclude the application of the Criminal Code respecting use and possession of narcotics where deemed necessary to facilitate "treatment" of addicts.

The problem?

Well, they haven't yet got got to the point where they are actually giving heroin and cocaine to drug users for free.  Well, at least not in a wide-spread fashion.  The NAOMI project in Vancouver DID do that, and the INSITE program has actually applied for authorization to do the same.

For now - however, they provide a safe place for them to use their drugs and supply clean needles.

But the actual acquisition of those drugs is still up to the junkie.

Because, according to the B.C. Government's own information, as disclosed in a 2001 Senate Report, "the Chief Coroner of British Columbia stated that law enforcement agencies generally admit that many chronic drug users commit crimes to support their dependence.  At the time, police officers in British Columbia estimated that 60% of crimes committed in the province were motivated by, although not directly linked to, drugs."

So.  While they are making it easier for junkies to use their drugs "safely" (did I seriously just say that?), the liklihood is that they are still committing crimes to support their dependance.

And the only way to remove THAT aspect of the problem is to give the drugs to junkies for free or to subsidize their use.  Which is what has gone on with the NAOMI project.

And all of that would come at the expense of the great middle of Canada, the taxpayers.  The people who don't use heroin.  The people, like you and I, who have jobs and don't commit crimes.

Where is the concern and sympathy for the taxpayers of Canada?

Think about this for a moment.

The INSITE program addresses the needs of an estimate 8,000 addicts in Vancouver.

The cost of that program is reported to be about $3 million per year.  Now - the cost per addict may appear relatively modest, but according to a recent program review, the principal use of the program was by 500 individuals at a cost of approximately $13,100.00 each per year.

Responsible, hard working Canadians get to pay tax.

Junkies get the benefit.  $13,100 each to help them continue their habit "safely".

Here's my thought.

We don't make it SAFER to use heroin, we go the other way.  We make it MORE likely to kill you.

I call that a win/win proposition.

We begin to "cull" addicts AND we provide the strongest sort of disinsentive to ever START using heroin.

Call me a visionary.

Alberta NDPC Party continues to show it's character.. or lack thereof.

The Alberta Teachers' Association:

"We're not quite full yet.. we want more!"

Well.

I go on holidays for two weeks (Hawaii, and yes, it was lovely) and come back to see that not much has happened in my absence.

The Alberta PC Party.. looking more and more everyday like he NDPC Party, continues to display it's complete absence of character, and a willingness to eschew any semblance of "conservative" values.

Today we read in the Calgary Herald that Education Minister Dave Hancock is castigating our Premier for being overly "blunt" when the Premier commented that teachers are responsible for their own layoffs by being overly greedy about their own salaries.

Dave Hancock, good socialist that he is, is clearly a big fan of the ATA and hopes to curry favor with the teacher's union by subtly throwing his Premier under the bus.

Too "blunt" Dave?  Really?  Either you are a complete buffoon, or you are willing to ignore the obvious reality to suck up to teachers who, by and large, have never voted PC anyway, and never prevented the PC Government from rolling up majority after majority after majority.

How 'bout this for "blunt" Dave:  Alberta teachers were already the highest paid educators in North America when, they demanded the government institute more pay raises and a contract which gave them guaranteed ongoing wages in line with Statistics Canada cost of living increases in 2007, under what everyone, including the Calgary Herald, called, "fantastically generous terms".

This required two things:

a) A "conservative" government who ignored financial prudence, ignored the reality of it's strong mandate to act conservatively, and instead, broke the tax-payer piggy bank to dole out unreasonable salary increases and other benefits to Alberta teachers;

b) An ATA which, while continuing to bemoan class size and quality of education, when push came to shove virtually ignored using any of the government generosity to meaningfully increase the number of teachers and instead, put all of that money in their own greedy little pockets.

Is that too blunt for your Dave? 

Then comes the coup de grace.

StatsCan decides to change how they calculate the cost of living index and in 2009, teachers salaries increase a further 5.99% instead of what initially appeared to be 4.85%.

Think about that.

In the midst of the biggest financial recession of our lifetime, while untold numbers of Albertans were collecting pink slips, taking pay cuts, and struggling to find jobs - when the teachers were given the initial StatsCan increase of 4.85% - they said, "Not enough".  "We want more".

Like the obese Mr. Creosote of Monty Python fame, already grotesquely fat with a salary that would bring teachers from anywhere else in North America to tears of joy, when the Alberta government effectively gave teachers a full Boston cream pie of a 4.85% for desert they said, "we want more", another wafer thin mint if you will.. and they took the government to arbitration to seek yet an additional 1.14% on top. Just one more wafer thin mint.

And then their stomachs burst.

And now they cry crocodile tears about layoffs and cutbacks and how it will impact "the children".

Except the truth is that they didn't give a good god damn about the children when they demanded more and more salary increases making it impossible for even an overly generous Alberta government to reduce class size and actually improve our classrooms.

The Premier subtly stated the obvious.

That teachers have only themselves to blame for being short-staffed in difficult times.

But even that subtle honesty is too much for our so-called "conservative" Minister of Education Dave Hancock. 

Time to get on board with the Wild Rose Alliance.. and maybe hedge your bets by getting a PC Membership and parking a vote with leadership hopeful Ted Morton.  No law against two party memberships.. trust me, I worked the door during the last PC leadership vote, and was amazed with the number of Liberal and NDP supporters showing up at the door to make sure Ted Morton or Jim Dinning didn't get elected.