Happy Anniversary Abortion

Well after Greg's SSM post, this may not be the favourite blog for social conservatives, but this is the first time Roe v. Wade had an anniversary since I started my blog so I'll have one social post before I start to bitch about taxes again.

I'll start off saying I am not pro-life (that makes me pro-death? well I'm already anti-family because of my SSM position, so I guess I can be in favour of death too). I do not think this post is against Christianity, or any other religion, because I do know many Christians that are pro-choice because they simply do not believe a fetus is a person. So please, no one comment that I'm against religious people because I'm really not, I'd say I'm more indifferent.

I am also not pro-choice. I have real trouble saying where I fit on this issue. I have thought about this hard, and I still officially have no opinion. I do not think libertarians have to be pro-choice. I am against murder, so if abortion is murder, I'd have to be against it. I do find it very hard to accept abortion as being murder. If I heard that thousands of people were murdered in North America every year, I'd be very upset... yet I'm not upset about abortions happening. I can't get behind the pro-life cause.

I think any cut-off point where we say a fetus is a person has to be arbitrary. Whether it be self awareness, conception, birth, heart beat, whatever, nothing defines a human. I can see arguments for all of these, and I don't know where to draw the line. I will basically agree that the day before birth is too late, but the day after conception is too early to set the cut-off. So say half way through pregnancy for arguments sake

The only way abortions should be allowed after this point is if the mother's health is in danger. After that, the mother missed her window. Notice that I did not say rape can be used as an excuse. If abortions are murder, wouldn't saying a rape victim can have an abortion be equivalent to giving her a free pass to murder just because she had been victimized. In my world where I said that abortions should be at about half way through the pregnancy, this should be fine since they still have 4.5 months to have the abortion if they choose. What I do not understand is those that feel abortion is murder from conception allowing rape victims to have abortions. Sure they didn't choose to have the baby inside of them, but isn't it still murder?

People that know more about fetus biology than I do (read: anyone that has ever taken a biology class after grade 10) should be arguing about the specific point where a fetus becomes a life, but I just can't buy that a fetus is a person, with all the same rights as me, the day after a female gets pregnant. This is not an issue that matters to me all that much, I would be able to vote for a party that has a pro-life or a pro-choice position on this. My views on this are not a set position that I feel can never change, if anyone has any links that they think can change my position, please put them in the comments.

At least I'll live longer

I filled this out honestly, wasn't trying to beat you. So it looks like I may be nerdier, but I'm going to live 14 years longer than you. To put this in perspective, take 2/3's of your life right now Greg, I will live that AFTER you are long gone and I'm dancing on your grave. So there!

High-Nerd

Comment it gave me was "High-Level Nerd. You are definitely MIT material, apply now!!!" Well since I'm already at math student at Waterloo, I think this comment may be accurate. But I'm nerdier than 89% of people? This can't be! I'm just an O/S change away from being over 90%! I mean I drink beer, watch sports, do normal stuff. But I also memorized all the Stanley Cup Champions, can list off the top 5 scorers in the 1995-96 NHL season, and happen to know the lowest score shot in all 4 golf majors... so I guess I even make normal stuff nerdy.

(When they asked if I knew my IP, was I the only person to wonder if they are talking about the IP address given to your computer from a router or the external IP address? It just makes people with routers nerdier since it is trivial if you have a router that your IP your computer thinks it has is 192.168.x.x for most factory settings of routers... wait, maybe I do deserve that 89%)

What's in a name?

A blog by another other name would read just as sweet, well no, the old name sucked. It was meant to be temporary, so as I was listening to some Garth Brooks I finally came up with an idea. It is obviously taken from "American Honky-Tonk Bar Association". Here a few lyrics from the song:

When uncle sam dips in your pocket
For most things you don’t mind
But when your dollar goes to all of those
Standing in a welfare line
Well rejoice you have a voice
If you’re concerned about the destination
Of this great nation
It’s called the american honky-tonk bar association.
It represents the hardhat
Gunrack, achin’-back
Over taxed, flag-wavin’, fun-lovin’ crowd

Now if that isn't conservative, I don't know what is!

National Post > Globe and Mail

I always reject the idea that the National Post is a conservative paper. They just appear to be conservative when juxtaposed against The Globe and Mail. I will show similar articles off of the two websites that talk about Klein being against the smoking ban (also want this posted to show that Klein seems to be only leader in this country that actually gets it, where ‘it’ is defined as almost everything). Here are the same articles, with pretty much the exact same quotes and text, but what does G&M have to add, referring to Ralph Klein?

“But he appears ill-informed on the impact of smoking bans.”

National Post shows the quotes from both sides on the issue, but left it up to the reader to decide how to feel about the issue. Thank goodness we have The Globe and Mail to tell us exactly how to think on that issue, I think enough each day, it is clearly better to have your media tell you how to think on every issue so you can relax and just vote Liberal. I was against the smoking ban, but since Klein is so clearly “ill-informed” I am now for it, thanks Globe and Mail!

Greg

Well I added my friend Greg to the blog as well to add variety and to allow the blog to be updated more often. He's also a big Conservative. He moved to Winnipeg by choice, so you may have to take anything he says with a grain of salt.

15 years of stagnation

The Toronto-Dominion Bank found that there have been 15 years of economic stagnation in Canada. They did not just imply a certain course of action, they flat out said it, "Income growth would have fared far better were it not for rising tax burdens, which went from trimming back incomes in the 1970s to giving them a brush-cut thereafter." I'm not sure what else to say about this, how can anyone defend our massive tax burden? Tax freedom day in late June/July in this country is ridiculous. TD economist also said, "Normally, a rise in the tax burden would not automatically be associated with reduced economic well-being if it were used to finance more current services or to invest in the future, but this is not the case here." Martin is not even planning for any tax cuts. Maybe we should spend less time trying to have a nationalized day care system and do something for the good of the country.

Say it ain't so

What????

Well I wasn't going to write anything today, but I just saw this before I went to bed. I don't understand this at all, didn't we, as Conservatives, argue for free votes on this issue? I thought we had no official stance? I agree that the fiscal conservative wing of the party cannot take the social conservatives for granted, but it has to go both ways. The question I get asked most from people after saying I'm a Conservative is how can I be against gay marriage. Sure it isn't the biggest issue facing most Canadians, but it is an issue that is on the minds of people. I can right now proudly say that our party is for free votes on the issue and explain that we allow for differing view points on social issues. If these advertisements are true (it is ctv after all, hopefully it is just a smear campaign) then how am I supposed to back up my claim? Getting away from that argument even, it isn't smart marketing to constantly change the message you are trying to sell. During the election the party was trying to not position itself as hardcore social conservative, if we go down that road now, we cannot go back any time soon. If we change our party's position on this, we would be very inconsistent to go back, giving the Liberals plenty of ammo for attack ads. Social and economic conservatives within the party hopefully can agree to disagree and not put anything official, or unofficial as in these ads, into our platform on this issue.

I Hate Lou Dobbs

My frustration with Lou Dobbs cannot be any higher than right now. I only have FoxNews Channel in my living room, not my bedroom, so I can't flip the channel to try and get something that isn't the left wing point of view shoved down my throat. Sure, I'm a bit more aggravated after watching the Daily Show just 100% going after Republicans, but here is a recap of the 5 minutes of Lou Dobbs I endured:

-Dobbs talks to some congressman about how something must be done to stop free trade with China. They both were in agreement, Dobbs loved the guy because he talked about how evil those outsourcing companies are.

-Viewer mail: One about how privatizing social security is stupid, especially when corporate crooks are getting off (because they of course are connected in some way). Next mail about jobs being lost and Bush not stopping the outsourcing. Some other left leaning letter, then Dobbs makes a comment in agreement.

Wow, what a balanced show. At least Bill O'Reilly does not pretend to be neutral. He is right wing, and he lets everyone know it. Dobbs has stated on many occasions he does a balanced show. This is why I stopped watching CNN. I could keep going, but I would like to keep my blog without profanity...

Upset

Not a big post here, but I'm upset for 2 reasons:

1) I come to my parents place for the weekend, but when I show up at their door they aren't even in the country! Ok, they were just out for dinner in Buffalo and they live in St. Catharines, and my mom had fresh baked cookies ready for me on the kitchen table... so I guess I don't have a reason to be mad about that.

2) What I am actually upset about is how Ralph Klein is getting slammed by the Liberals, and that is all the media likes to report. No one mentions how our health care system is not sustainable and that, right or wrong, Klein is the only person in power with the guts to do something about it. My anger isn't that I think Klein is right and everyone should adopt his policies (even though he is right), it is that we can't even have a discussion about it! Wanting Canadians to have better health care, without moving tax freedom day another month back, is not un-Canadian in any way! We live in a country with (semi) free speech, keep it going Ralph! Don't worry King Ralph, if dialogue can eventually open up because of what you are doing and a real change to the system can happen, Canadians years from now will thank you - even if you are getting slammed now.

Union grievance

So I figured out that I approximately pay union dues equal to 45 min of salary a week. I think of this as the union stealing 45 min of my time, so for 45 min per week I try to find ways out of paying union dues. It seems the only way to get rid of the union is to get 40% support and then do a bunch of other stuff, but since the union I’m in has thousands of members over an extremely large area, I cannot accomplish this in a 4 month co-op term. Since we love communism in Canada, I do not have the simple choice to not pay union dues.

Does anyone know of a way to claim that I should not be under union representation? I think I have a strong case since vast majority of the union is more blue-collar work while I am in the finance department. No one else on my floor or in my department is even in the same union as me. No union rep has contacted me at all, I wouldn’t even know how to go about finding who to contact. They do nothing for me, yet I am forced to pay over 2% of my salary that I earned to this anonymous group. I don't want to be in the union even if it were free, I view this arrangement eqivalent to paying someone to punch you in the stomache every week.

As anyone that has ever worked in an office knows, the key factor for work place environment is supply of coffee. I have to go down 8 floors to a place in the lobby or go down 9 floors and walk into the Eaton’s center to just buy coffee. Both non-union co-op jobs I had in previous terms had free coffee available to me within a 20-meter radius. So my working conditions are severely worse with union representation. At least give me my money back so I can put it towards coffee!

I will use the remaining union time for the week to go for a coffee break now.

Up in smoke

Yet another province is going to ban smoking in all restaurants and bars. This is insane. No one is doubting second hand smoke is bad for your health (although there is much debate over whether it actually causes cancer), but this does not mean non-smokers need government protection from those evil smokers. I am willing to allow bans on smoking in places where minors are allowed, but in bars or smoking sections of restaurants that do not allow minors, there should be absolutely no restriction. Allowing smoking in bars does not restrict anyone's freedom whatsoever. I hear the argument about wanting the freedom to go to a bar without others smoking; however, this is not freedom. Freedom does not mean the right to force people to do certain actions just because you do not agree with them. If a bar owner wants to allow someone to smoke in their bar and a customer wants to light up, you have the freedom to stay away from their transaction.

This is not some radical libertarian idea that will never happen, it is in practice in many places. Take my hometown Lethbridge, Alberta. The law is that any building open to the public cannot have smoking unless minors are not allowed in. If a restaurant wants to allow smoking, it has to either be on a patio or in a completely separate room. I have been carded in a smoking section before even without ordering alcohol, so private companies do enforce this. Denny's even, after midnight, becomes smoking only so no minors are allowed in. This law allows for no innocent child to be hurt, the only people exposed to smoke are adults that agree to it. Bars are allowed to go smoke free if they choose to, but they obviously do not because people want to smoke in bars.

Politically, it is a very easy position to take to be for smoking bans. Minority of Canadians smoke, and if you pin them as the bad guys trying to hurt the majority, it is easy to see how there could be support for this restriction of freedom. I was always taught in school that democracy is supposed to be majority rule, but with respect for minorities. My teacher should have added the statement 'unless the minority can be used as a political tool to buy more votes' to that definition. Health ministers are free to speak about how bad smoking is for people, but let us make our own choice whether to go to the bars with smoke! If you want smoke free bars, take the initiative to call up your local establishments' management staff and tell them you will not go back until smoke is not allowed. Then follow through with this and don't go if you do not want second hand smoke.

Crossed the Line

Well my friend Matthew just did it. He had to say the free market did not work because he personally would like to force everyone to cater to his specific needs. Poor baby. Fine if you talk about how abortions are murder or any other socon view, I do not expect Conservatives to all share my social views, but I thought we could at least all share capitalist views! I will now explain why Matthew is wrong, let the blog war begin! I am not going to spend pages explaining why capitalism is good, that should be obvious and I would like to go to bed tonight. I am going to just target where Matthew is wrong, on video games only. His claim is that the video game industry was better back when there was no real competition for Nintendo (apparently he thinks Sega never existed, but it was clearly inferior and it also isn't the point).

The first fallacy to combat is that gamers have less access to games now since you have to purchase more than one system to play all the games. Well think about this for a second, why do you have to purchase more than one? Because there are more games now! Each system has a unique (to a degree) set of games, so your only problem is that you see another person playing a game that looks like fun and you get jealous. Back in NES days, if it wasn't on NES, you didn't see it, and you didn't feel envy.

Not only are there more games, games are much cheaper! The nominal price of games have decreased drastically, and this is actually understated once you consider the inflation over the past 15 years. Yes, you may have to buy more than one system making the initial outlay higher, but the decreased price in games make you financially better off if you like to buy a lot of games. I've seen the amount of games you own Matthew, if you bought another system you would still be better off comparatively, in financial terms, than I was when I (read: my parents) bought my Nintendo in 1989! For someone that purchases very few games, they will likely be satisfied with any of the current systems that are out now, and if you purchase a lot of games then just bit the initial bullet because games are cheap! As with any high volume corporation, they would be better off paying a slightly higher fixed cost to reduce their variable costs.

So more games and it costs you less, can it get any better? Oh it does! Video games are much better than they were before. This can be a subjective measure, but I will argue it nonetheless. I understand technology advances allow for this, but if you can somehow create a "game inflation index" that calculates the total enjoyment value out of a basket of games in each year, I would say there is real growth adjusted for the inflation index. Matthew said, "Quality was also protected since developers would compete with each other for gamers' cash." Not so, Nintendo signed exclusive agreements with certain companies to make certain types of games. So once that deal was in place, there was no direct competition in the duration of the contract and that would hinder the need for game improvement. This does not happen in the current environment as there are many console companies that can sign parallel agreements with any number of game companies. So there is always current competition, not just the threat of competition that encourages continuous improvement.

I had a couple other arguments in the queue (ie. total benefit to the economy) that really don't need to be said since I already wrote way too much on something way too trivial. I am not sure what else you want out of this deal Matthew. Yes with Nintendo you always had the choice of all the best games, but that was only because nothing else was there to be better. You have more choice of better games for a lower price. Stop complaining and start playing!

Stupid White Man

'Fahrenheit 9/11' won the People's Choice award for favourite motion picture. I cannot understand this. Well I do understand why it won, half of the country hates Bush so F911 gets 50% of votes while other choices split the other 50%. But I mean I don't understand how anyone can actually like this movie. It does contain plenty of Republican bashing, but it isn't entertaining.

Take Roger & Me for instance, it really isn't a documentary since all the scenes are out of order to help him prove his point (ie. Reagan came to visit about 5 years before layoffs happened, but movie leads you to believe it happened after), but at least the movie is funny! How can you not enjoy that crazy rabbit lady, Miss Michigan attempting to say something intelligent, or the juxtaposition of "Wouldn't It Be Nice" by the Beach Boys played up against scenes of a ravished Flint, Michigan. Sure Moore would have never been able to find Roger Smith at a yatch club that Roger Smith never was a member of, but it was fun to see him try. This movie was well made satire.

F911 just went on and on and on, with 'facts' that were obviously wrong without having to do any real fact checking. If someone can find one endearing quality about this film (other than "Bush Sux LOL"), please tell me in the comments because I am missing it. He takes advantage of soldiers and their families in their most desparate of states, just to show how evil the US is. Moore does say many times that he hates Bush not America, but this film is helping to fuel anti-American sentiment, especially here in Canada.

NFL Picks

When I go 11-0 in NFL Playoff predictions, I would like to have written evidence. I am not responsible for any gambling losses based on this page, but am willing to accept percentage of winnings. My lines are taken from here at time of post. Should be close enough to game times for them to not change without any major injury announced.

Chargers(-7) over Jets
I'm surpised they only gave the Chargers 7 points. I read today that San Diego was 13-1-2 against the spread this season.... enough said.

Packers(-6) over Vikings
Things going against Minny: Moss drama during week 17, Mike Tice coaches the team, Moss still injured, no defence, 2 losses to GB this year, oh and Mike freaking Tice is the coach. That said, Vikings are getting at least 20 points, but I think GB can get over 30 on the uber-weak Minnisota defence.

Colts(-10) over Broncos
I was upset that I didn't get to bet against Drew Bledsoe (I was going to break my no gambling until I finish university rule I put into place before first year). Still, Jake Plummer is the starting QB of a playoff team. This should be enough to make you bet against them. Manning will throw for 4 or 5 TD's, Plummer may throw for 4 or 5 INT's.... I'd say 10 points is realistic!

Rams(+4) over Seahawks
Worst game all weekend, neither should be in playoffs, but the NFC was forced to accept 6 teams. Rams will suck most of the game, but have a few big plays. Rams will cover and win.

So one upset pick with Rams, other 3 home teams will cover.

Union Benefits!

Well I can already see the beneifts of being in a union (other than the obvious one of me blogging instead of working): I get paid weekly instead of monthly! Now if I assume I can earn 5% annualized return on money, which isn't too far off what my mutual funds have made after oil prices calmed down, I calculated the present value of my extra income. Over the 4 months, I am making about $19 more*. Yep, 19 bucks exta, wahoo! Good thing the union dues only cost $250 over the term... wait a second!



*Calculations assume 4 weeks/month for simplicity. Exercize for reader: work backwards and attempt to figure out my salary!

Jon Stewart

I'll start off by saying my lack of posting recently will not continue to be a trend. I moved to Toronto, didn't have the net for a bit, and started a new co-op job.

I am sure everyone heard the news that Jon Stewart got Crossfire cancelled and right wing host Tucker Carlson fired! Well, at least that is what much of the media claims and what Stewart himself assumed on last night's Daily Show. It obviously was his bitch session a couple months ago, and not horrid ratings (21% drop in ratings for the show in the last year alone and it isn't that CNN moved the show out of a more prime time slot to the middle of the afternoon after decreasing ratings). Just as obvious is Tucker Carlson's exit was because Stewart called him out, not because he was using his CNN job as negotiating leverage over MSNBC. In Jon Stewart's world, he is really that powerful!

I am going to stop here to mention I am a fan of the Daily Show. I have been watching since the Clinton years and have current streak of not missing an episode since sometime in 2002. I have seen Stewart in multiple TV appearances including multiple times on Larry King's show, NPR, PBC, C-Span, and yes, the Crossfire epsiode that apparently is the reason the show got cancelled.

So what annoys me about what Jon Stewart is saying is that he seems to think that viewers are helpless peons that have to watch whatever is on the channel. He is right that Crossfire sucked, but he seemed to think that someone needed to step in to do something about it. He wants the media to have less sensationalism, a noble goal, but he is too arrogant in his puruit. If viewers want plain news, the stations would be showing this, since it is in their best interest to show what people want. So he was apparently preaching to the converted already, then claimed victory when the inevitable happened. If I start to write that a show with awful ratings is horrible and should be off the air, and it gets the boot a couple months later, this does not make me powerful, it makes me observant. If I do have this power then please get Train 48 off the air immediately, I cannot even make it through a 30 second commercial for this garbage (hey, it doesn't hurt to try). If you want news coverage to be real news and not a yelling match, do not watch the yelling matches. Viewership is the only thing that dictates what a network will air. I agree with Stewart's goal, but this does not mean I should have any type of power to enforce my view of what is entertainment on others.


While on a Stewart bitch-fest I may as well start on his actual show. It is still incredibly funny and one of the best shows on TV, but I wish he would start to go after the left as well as the right! Especially in the past year or so, he seems to be using the show as an attack against the Republicans. When a Republican guest goes on the show he tries to grill them, but when Howard Zinn was on last night he may as well have just gone down on him. But I still watch every night, so I guess I don't have too much right to compain... damn hypocracy!