Canadian Honky-Tonk Bar Association

Ridiculous Law

2006-09-25T12:29:00.000-04:00

I have absolutely no idea why government needs to be involved with this, but now the Ontario government is considering regulating gift cards! Yes, it is more valuable to a consumer to have a gift card that never expires, but shouldn't this arrangement be worked about between the customer and the retail store? As long as a store does not lie about there being an expiry date, who are we protecting and from what? A store should have a right to offer whatever services they want if customers want to purchase them. There may be legitimate reasons a store does not want to offer a card for infinite periods of time (and by the way, a legitimate reason could just be that they feel like it since it is their own damn store). If you are thinking of buying someone a gift card, but are worried that they may not spend the money in a year or 2, maybe you should pick a better freaking gift to give the person!

I Agree With the NDP!

2006-09-07T20:40:00.000-04:00

Well on one of their policies:
WHEREAS Queen Elizabeth II was not born nor has ever lived in Canada; and
WHEREAS in fact, the actual democratically elected Chief of state, Canadian citizen and residing in Canada, is the Prime Minister of Canada; and
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the NDP conduct an active campaign so that Canada becomes a Republic; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the NDP conduct an active campaign to redefine the role of the Executive within the Canadian Constitution.

QUEBEC SECTION

(Thanks to Steven Taylor for the policy resolutions.)
Well if you look at my post below, you will know I called for this over a month ago. So 1 down, N-1 to go (where N = all of the NDP policies).

Let's Get Rid of the Monarchy

2006-07-26T02:15:00.000-04:00

I know this probably isn't a popular opinion, but I don't really care. I want to get rid of British rule of Canada. Some random family from England has less right to rule Canada than the leader of the Canadian Action Party (at least they got some votes!).

I always had this opinion, but then I saw this picture. In a free society, people have the right to be stupid and wear Che Guevara shirts every day of the week. They even have the right to form the Che Guevara Party and become the Prime Minister if people elect them. However, this guy is 3rd in line to be the head of state so it makes me incredibly uncomfortable. Harry is either an ignorant moron or actually likes brutality, either way he isn't fit to be my leader. I used to be against the monarchy, but thought it was too much trouble to get rid of it, but now I feel the trouble may be worth it.

World Cup Fever

2006-06-24T09:20:00.000-04:00

So for any of you that know me, you'd probably realize that it would be an understatement to say I don't like soccer. I can write for hours on what is wrong with the sport, it is just simply inferior. I'll give a just 2 reasons without getting into the actual game (which is just simply too boring to ever catch on here).

1) Diving. I know that North American sports have diving problems too, but it isn't anywhere near the level of soccer. In hockey, for instance, when someone does an obvious dive, the ref is encouraged to call a penalty so that the team has to play without 20% of their manpower for 2 minutes. As well whenever you see a basketball player fall with barely being touched, the announcers will be all over the guy for a minute and keep showing replays and explaining to the fans why the player is a little bitch. In soccer, the diving seems to be celebrated as just part of the sport. The announcers will treat the diving as acceptable method of gaining the ref's attention to get a call. The culture of the sport is just wrong, and it is not appealing in the least.

2) Imprecise Timekeeping. In soccer time is just approximate. I get that the game was invented before we had the advanced technology of a stop watch, but I cannot be the only one that finds it silly that the ref semi-arbitrarily assigns stoppage time rounded to the nearest minute, and even then the game only stops when he blows the whistle. Again like diving, it is a different culture for sports, but I (and I think most North American sports fans) cannot accept sports not being exact. Time is not something that should be judged, if the play is stopped, just stop the freaking clock! Some of the best drama in football, hockey and basketball is the last second play, a play that never exists in soccer since a player has no idea what the last second is!

Ok, well now that I said that, I am actively trying to watch the World Cup. You may ask, why the hell would you do that? Well, just because it is on in the morning and early afternoon and it is not conflicting with any other sport at the time. Plus, I enjoy watching big tournaments just for the competition, they really could put 32 teams in a hotdog eating competition and I may watch.

So now that I decided to watch, I've been having trouble deciding who to cheer for. I don't buy into the crap that because some direct lineage of my family tree goes back to other countries somehow connects me to them. My dad's family came from France to Canada in the 1600's, my great-grandparents on my mom's side were born in Sweden and Norway. I am not French, Swedish or Norwegian, I haven't even been to any of these countries. To be proud of something I had no control of seems borderline insane to me. I am Canadian. If you try to tell my grandfather that he is French-Canadian, instead of just Canadian, (even though he didn't learn English until his teens) I'd give it a 50/50 shot that you'd be punched in the face.

Anyways, so since Canada is not in the World Cup, I have no ties to any country in the competition. So in the opening round I started to haphazardly pick countries I just liked better, not knowing anything about any soccer team. I came up with some good reasons to cheer for a country, such as I cheered for Tunisia for being a Muslim country that can respect democracy and try to move towards freedom of their people. I also came up with reasons to cheer against teams, such as Italy for having too many men wearing ponytails on their team. I was also told by a friend that you have to cheer against Brazil unless you are from Brazil or having sex with a girl from Brazil (I guess they are soccer equivalent of the New York Yankees or Toronto Maple Leafs).

So based on how I cheered for teams in the first round, I developed a foolproof algorithm to decide who to cheer for. Take a country's Economic Freedom ranking, add on the number of people on the team that have ponytails, then rank them from lowest to highest. Brazil automatically goes to the bottom. So here is the rankings of who I am cheering for:

1. England (#5 Economic Freedom)
2. Australia (#9 EF)
3. Switzerland (#15 EF, if I find out about a ponytail or 2, they move down)
4. Netherlands (#16 EF)
5. Sweden (#19 EF)
6. Germany (tied #19 EF, need to inspect ponytails to see if they move up)
7. Portugal (#30 EF)
8. Spain (#33 EF)
9. France (#44 EF)
10. Italy (#42 EF, their ponytails move them below France)
11. Mexico (#60 EF)
12. Ukraine (#99 EF)
13. Ghana (#105 EF, definitely no ponytails here, won't move down)
14. Argentina (#107 EF)
15. Ecuador (tied #107 EF, again need to check on ponytails)
16. Brazil (Yankees of soccer)

So there we have it, GO ENGLAND! (England also has a Canadian on the team, so I can get behind this, my algorithm works!)

No Red Mile?

2006-04-14T00:37:00.000-04:00

I haven't been blogging much since finals started, but I just had to voice my extreme disaproval for this! Calgary is cracking down on the Red Mile. So no flames girls sites will be popping up this playoffs. Damn Shame.

But What About Rick Mercer?

2006-04-02T16:28:00.000-04:00

The Liberal government tried to challenge Canadians to reduce emissions by one tonne, and how well did it work? Not at all! This is why Harper's government decided to scrap this waste of taxpayers dollars! This program was doomed from the start. They challenged us to reduce emissions by one tonne, but almost no one knew how to even do this! Not that we don't know how to cut back, but how much is a tonne? I read a whole pamphlet on the One Tonne challenge and I still didn't know what I had to do. Sure, they said ways to reduce, but I didn't know how many I had to implement to achieve this goal. Although for me, I am not sure how possible it would be to reduce by one tonne (although I don't know how many total tonnes I use, maybe one tonne isn't too much?), I do not own a car, my house doesn't have air conditioning, I have the energy saving light bulbs in my room, and I don't even take public transit (walking is better than busses)! Reducing your emissions by one tonne is just too abstract of a goal for most Canadians.

As well, even if you knew how to reduce your emissions by one tonne, there was no incentives for participation. There were no new tax breaks for conservation (at least that I heard about), no reward for reaching the goal, not anything! Having Rick Mercer telling us to do something isn't exactly the motivation that Canadians need.

Canceling this useless program does not show that Harper doesn't care about the environment, it shows he values the Canadian tax payers! This, from the start, was a do nothing program just to make Canadians feel good about ourselves. If I want to pay money to feel good, I will go to a strip club, my tax dollars should not be going towards making me feel warm inside. I know everyone hates to think that the United States are better environmentally than we are, but they are. As I was reading the article on the One Tonne Challenge being scrapped, I saw a commercial on CNN from an appliance company (not the government) telling people to switch to more environmentally friendly air conditioners because you will get a tax break and save in energy costs in the long run. Now that would make me think about reducing my usage if I was a home owner!

How to solve the violence problems in Toronto

2006-03-31T12:00:00.000-05:00

"So many opinions out there, everybody flapping their lips. It pisses me off, man, and it makes me angry. All this stuff about targeting minorities. Hey, blacks aren't a minority. There are more of us in the world than white people. They want to fix the problem? I'll tell them how to fix the problem: Get these kids to join the army, or join anything of substance. You don't need to go gang-banging to stand tall. Put that uniform on and you stand up taller. The army teaches you pride. It teaches self-worth. It gives you self-worth."

Those are the words of Pte. Nigel Williams, former NFLer and CFLer, and current bodyguard to Lt.-Col Ian Hope, battle group commander of Task Force Orion, our combat soldiers in Afghanistan.

More quotes from Pte. Williams:

"If you like guns, come to us, we'll teach you how to handle them properly.
"If you're looking for respect, come to us.
"If you want to be a big man (emphasis the Toronto Star’s), come to us."

I agree.

(via Nealenews)

Add Colin Mayes' vision of Canada to the list below

2006-03-31T09:03:00.000-05:00

Then again, at least one of our MP’s isn’t all that much better then the Bahamians. Backbencher Colin Mayes (Okanagan-Shuswap) suggested that reporters who do not do their jobs properly be jailed.

Err, Colin – remember, we are the right-wing party, we believe in a free and open market – that means that reporters can write pretty much whatever they want, and if they do a poor job people don’t buy their articles, and they end up starving. We don’t throw the press in the gulag because they disagree with us.

So far, we are doing a good job at dispelling the myth that we are a bunch of neo-conservative facists. People like Colin Mayes just aren’t helping that cause, and while I agree with the freedom of individual MP’s to speak their minds… hopefully this story doesn’t grow legs, because it reinforces the worst fears about us.

What do Radical Muslims, Bahamians, and China have in common?

2006-03-30T20:07:00.000-05:00

Censorship.

Well, we now have a western country deciding to shove morality on it’s citizens. No, I’m not talking about same-sex marriage, or abortion, or affirmative action, or any such thing. I’m talking censorship.

Now, this topic has been getting a fair bit of press lately, with the publication of the cartoons mocking Islam in multiple newspapers in Europe, a handful of University student papers in North America, and the Western Standard (more on them below). This time, the censored item is the movie Brokeback Mountain.

The Bahamian government has decided to prohibit theatres from showing Brokeback Mountain as it “shows extreme homosexuality, nudity and profanity, and (the regulatory association) feel(s) that it has no value for the Bahamian public”

I’m sorry – last time I heard a government telling me what was a great value for me, we ended up with a public health care system that doesn’t work, a gun registry that did nothing to prevent crime, and an attempted child registry that wasn’t going to work for the vast majority of families.

The concept of value can be easily determined by the market. If a movie does not have any value, then people will not pay to see it, and it will not be profitable. That’s the way that things work in a democratic society. China has also banned showing this movie – which isn’t completely unexpected for a communist dictatorship, however last time I checked, the Bahamas aren’t communist.

Just ultra-puritan, apparently.

On another note, the backlash of the few against the Western Standard’s decision to run the Danish cartoons isn’t over. Imam Syed Soharwardy, the same individual who went to the police when the cartoons were first published (and was laughed out of the station), has now filed suit with the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission.

Now, I oppose the attempt to censure the Western Standard on two grounds. Firstly, of course, I don’t like to see an attempt at censorship. Secondly – taxpayer dollars are now being wasted on this complaint. That’s right, the Imam doesn’t have to put up so much as one penny for this complaint – the lawyers, the court – all paid for by taxpayer dollars.

Outraged? I hope so. Consider a subscription to the Western Standard – help them pay their legal bills, and treat yourself to a good read from the West.

Quitting Smoking

2006-03-29T22:05:00.000-05:00

As Ken mentioned, I quit smoking last weekend (Saturday, 6:00 PM, at work, to be exact). It’s a tough battle – one that I’ve fought before (this will be, jeez, at least my 4^th quit attempt), and one that will hopefully will last a bit longer then the last quit attempts.

I’m going to take this moment to type out a few words of thanks:

Ken – Thanks for putting the pressure on – nothing like public humiliation as a motivator

Grant – Thanks for the $20 you’ll owe me when I am smoke free next time you see me. Instead of a steak dinner, I’ll buy you a cigar. (No, I haven’t ‘quit’ cigars, those are still acceptable in moderation – and moderation is all I can afford, because I won’t smoke the cheapies)

Steph – Thanks for putting up with the mood swings and helping me get my mind off the cravings.

Bre – Thanks for the kind note, hope all is well, drop me a line sometime, gregphelan@gmail.com, let me know how things are going with you.

The gang at work – Sorry for the moodiness, guys – I’ll be back to my usual, only semi-cranky self, soon.

I hope.

This is a good time to quit smoking. I had quit for about 3-4 months (started up again the evening the Government fell in 2005), but now, hopefully, we won’t be in an election for a year or so. I can’t see the Government falling on the budget – the Liberals simply won’t be ready until the 2007 budget. And with the Conservatives up to 39% in the latest Decima poll, it’s not really all that politically attractive for them to go to the polls now.

Oh No!

2006-03-27T12:55:00.000-05:00

I was thinking the protests of the seal hunts weren't a big deal until I found out that Morrissey was refusing to come to Canada! I mean, Morrissey, come on! Wait, I had to actually click on his bio to find out who he was, and I still am not sure (is Morrissey a first name, a stage name, a last name, is he actually famous?). Any boycotts of Canadian goods seem to be so minor and overstated. I was watching a Canadian news network (either CBC Newsworld or CTV Newsnet) and they went to restaurants that supposedly banned Canadian fish and the people working there had no idea what they were talking about. So let the seal hunt go on and let's boycott Morrissey! (yes the boycott will be really easy for me since I never heard of him until today)

Peer Pressure

2006-03-27T09:44:00.000-05:00

Greg just quit smoking in the past couple days, so to add extra peer pressure I am making this post. If he starts up again, he has to make a shameful post, so you better not start up again! Good luck

Western Standard

2006-03-25T09:09:00.000-05:00

Once the whole cartoon thing happened, I decided to subscribe to the Western Standard. I just wanted to say I am completely happy with my decision and urge others to do the same. I didn't subscribe just to reward them for reporting a major news story, but because they were the only one willing to do so. Every major media outlet in Canada should have done the same. It is hard to get perspective on a story about cartoons without showing the cartoons. The Standard has a lot of great articles written from people with great perspectives (from the right to the further right at least!). They don't pander to the Conservative Party either, if the CPC is wrong, they are not afraid to call them out, such as with the recent article by David Warren in the March 27th issue being highly critical of Peter MacKay. I am certainly Conservative, but I am more loyal to advancing freedom than I am to a political party, and the Western Standard does a great job holding the Conservative Party to this. After this year is over, I plan to renew my subscription. My only regret is that I missed out on the first two years of the publication!

Americans Hate Me

2006-03-24T07:16:00.000-05:00

Disclaimer: I usually don't talk about atheism here as this is not a blog about that sort of thing, but many other bloggers talk about their faith in some way or another. I feel I'm allowed to do one post on atheism in the 1.5 years this blog has existed.

Atheists seems to be the most hated group in America, according to the new study talked about here and here. Atheists are the least trusted group in all of the US. They even found that Americans are least likely to let their children marry atheists, even less likely than homosexuals! I have nothing at all against gay people, but 5% (or something) people being gay, those 95% of parents with straight kids would be happier with their child marrying someone of the same sex than atheists. As well, if you think about it, an atheist is closer to a Christian than a Muslim is. Christians are atheist for all gods that aren't theirs, Muslims are atheists for all gods that aren't theirs, while the atheist is in the middle of the believing both are wrong. So it takes two steps to go from Christian to Muslim, but just one step from either to go to atheist!

Penny Edgell, the lead researcher, said atheists are viewed as, "ultimate self-interested actor who doesn't care about anyone but themselves." I do not understand how because I do not believe in anysupernaturall activities, I am viewed as selfish. I am not atheist for any other reason than there is no god. This has nothing to do with not being able to think about anything but myself, that is just a silly argument.

While Cole Ries, the president of the Maranatha Christian Fellowship, said he does not agree with the above statement from Edgell, saying, "Atheists seem to be concerned with the human good." But then he said, "I don't believe that anybody is really an atheist. I believe that deep down everyone knows there is a god." However, this 2nd quote is the type of reasoning people would use to think atheists are selfish. If you truly believe there is a god, and then you keep saying you are atheist, someone could conclude that you only want to think about yourself instead of ignoring the obvious reality. But trust me, there are people that do not agree there is a god. When I say there is no god, it is true that I am not 100% confident, I think of god as the same as the invisible pink unicorn, in that I cannot prove either does not exist. This is not the same as saying I believe it does exist.

Since I don't have any kids, will you pay for my dog, instead?

2006-03-20T16:23:00.000-05:00

A friend of mine at work is expecting his first child, due in September. On our way out to lunch today, we were discussing child care options. His wife works part-time in retail, and we were discussing the pros and cons of his wife continuing to work once the child is born.

Within the child care argument in Canada, there are three main positions. The first, championed by the Liberals and the NDP, is that child care should be provided, at little to no cost, to all. The Liberals were somewhat realistic – they realized that it isn’t practical to provide free child care spaces to all – the costs would be enormous, and decided to provide free spaces for some.

The second option, the Conservative Party of Canada’s choice, is to provide money to parents. This will assist each parent in caring for their child, however will not fully subsidize any parent.

The third option is, do nothing. Personally, that’s my favourite – if somebody decides to have a kid, why should I be forced to subsidize them? When I decide to have children, I will ensure that I am in a financial position to take care of that child. It’s this funny thing called ‘responsibility’.

(before I get nailed with any hate-mail, in the title of the post I'm not trying to directly compare canines and humans. I simply think that I have the same responsibility for both, when I a) don't own either, and/or b) don't have any say in the acquisition or use of either)

The YWCA recently published their recommendations on child care. Unsurprisingly, the child-care provider supports publically-funded child care! They mock the $1,200 choice in child care allowance as “about $8 a week for a middle-income family once it is taxed” (from the CTV story on their report). Now, let’s get this straight, $1,200 a year is around $25 or so a week, gross. I know we are overtaxed in this country – but, not that badly. Even a high-income family would get to keep more than 32% of that allowance.

In their report, they detail characteristics of high-quality child care, among them being, “unionization”.

Give me a freaking break. Unionization? I work in a union environment – unionization isn’t really something that screams ‘workplace efficiency’. “Oh, sorry little Johnny’s mother, I would have stopped him from running with scissors, but I was on my break” “Oh, it’s not in my job description to move the draino from underneath the sink, my job is just washing the sink”

That’s just 19 pages into the report (which you can read here, if you are looking for an alternative to syrup of ipecac).

They look at four sites where they did their research, and note a problem being, “there is a general lack of public awareness of the importance of early childhood learning and care programs”, or if you want to get away from the doublespeak, “people don’t agree with our preconceived notion that publicly-funded child care (which we, coincidentally, provide) is best”

You know that when a report leads off in the introduction with, “ In 2004, the federal Liberals were re-elected with a commitment to invest $5 billion over five years in a national system of early childhood learning and child care (ECLC). Bi-lateral agreements with provinces and territories were developed and signified a true start to building a ‘national system’. With the newly elected Conservative government (January 2006), Canadians are concerned that the progress made toward achieving integrated ECLC may be compromised”, the rest of the report might as well come out of the Liberal or NDP war rooms.

Guns, Dope, and Equality for Ostriches

2006-03-16T10:12:00.000-05:00

Does that title just sound like a perfect campaign slogan? Well a party has it, the Guns and Dope Party!

We advocate
[1] guns for those who want them, no guns forced on those who don't want them (pacfists, Quakers etc.)
[2] drugs for those who want them, no drugs forced on those who don't want them (Christian Scientists etc.)
[3] an end to Tsarism and a return to constitutional democracy
[4] equal rights for ostriches.

Those are some solid core principals. You may be saying, "Well I'm all good with the guns and dope, but ostriches?" Well think about it, one third of all elected officials randomly replaced by ostriches could be good for this, or any, country. Not counting the possibility of an ostrich attack in parliament (which should be good enough reason on its own, but you aren't convinced read on), but this limits the power a politician can have. They may be replaced by an ostrich at any time! It will always keep them trying to fight for the people that elected them at all times since they may be randomly selected to be gone.

Going back to the ostrich attacks. The potential for ostrich attacks will make CPAC the highest rated channel on TV. Networks will be scrambling to provide live coverage of everything from committee meetings to budget readings. This means more accountability! The average Canadian doesn't know what these politicians actually do, but this won't be the case here. Upset about people watching too much American Idol or Survivor, well now citizens will be informed!

I'm not sure how this relates to policy, but I do enjoy this:

GUNS AND DOPE PARTY POSITION PAPER #23

Little Tony was sitting on a park bench munching on one candy bar after another.
After the 6th candy bar, a man on the bench across from him said, "Son, you know eating all that candy isn't good for you. It will give you acne, rot your teeth, and make you fat."

Little Tony replied, "My grandfather lived to be 107 years old."

The man asked, "Did your grandfather eat 6 candy bars at a time?"

Little Tony answered, "No, he minded his own fucking business."

Canada's Place among Terrorists - and Non-Partisan Fun in the House

2006-03-16T08:56:00.000-05:00

So, Canada is now the favourite of Palestinian terrorists. Mark Budzanowski, the Canadian recently released by the (leftist) PLFP, recently stated in an interview with the Globe and Mail, “Then they were certain I was Canadian, they were very disappointed. Then, they told me, 'We love Canada.'”

Um…. The hell? Is this a good thing? Do we really want to be known as the favourite country for terrorist organizations? We’re already on good terms with the Tamil Tigers, thanks to the previous government, apparently that extends to other groups as well.

On another note, Bev Desjarlais, former NDP MP for Churchill, is now working for Greg Thompson, the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Judy Wasylycia-Leis isn’t happy about it, apparently taking a job with a, ‘gasp’ conservative, violates the sacred oath that one must take in order to join the NDP. Of course, that oath only goes one way, right Judy – your games up in Churchill ensured that the Liberals gained that seat.

Bev’s a good person for the job as Greg Thompson’s parliamentary relations aide – she knows how the house works, and she knows most of the members of parliament. Kudos to Thompson for offering her the position – great to see partisan politics put aside in favour of efficiency. And, the comedian medal to Tim Powers, for saying, “Is Bernard Shapiro aware? The NDP seem to be firing conflict-of-interest and ethical-challenge missiles all day. I'm sure they're going to fire one at Bev Desjarlais any moment."

McCartney Makes My Blood Boil!

2006-03-03T21:26:00.000-05:00

I'm watching Larry King with Paul McCartney on it, and I am more upset now than I have ever been watching a stupid celebrity come out against any issue. This may be because it is about my country when he isn't even from here, or maybe it is just the sheer stupidity of McCartney and his wife.

Danny Williams did a very good job defending the seal hunt, but he has everything stacked against him. The McCartney's had about half the show completely uninterrupted, then when Williams comes on you get the McCartney's chiming in after every one of his sentences. Williams is truly showing them to be ignorant of this situation, I'm hoping all viewers can see this.

All of the arguments the McCartney's say are simply ridiculous, and Danny Williams tried to combat a lot of them, but it was hard when they get over twice his time plus they are arguing things that are simply facts. What I take offense to is when the McCartney's say the federal government should be buying out the sealers so they will stop doing it. He is promising our money for his cause. He has a billion dollars, if he feels so strongly about this, why doesn't he buy out the sealers? He claims each sealer barley makes more than a $1000 anyways (and yes, this figure is crap, but he believes it), so he can clearly afford this, at least in his mind.

Goodbye Harry Browne

2006-03-03T15:42:00.000-05:00

Freedom lost a great leader this week, former Libertarian Presidental candidate Harry Brown. I won't write much about him because I could never come close to sounding as good as he did. Here are some of my favourite quotes from Harry Browne, I'm sure there are many others I may have missed though:

In my experience, people who are truly compassionate rarely use the word 'compassion' Those who do talk compassion generally intend to be compassionate with your money, not their own. It's wrong for someone to confiscate your money, give it to someone else, and call that 'compassion.'

You can't give the government the power to do good without also giving it the power to do bad - in fact, to do anything it wants.

The important thing is to concentrate upon what you can do - by yourself, upon your own initiative.

The government's War on Poverty has transformed poverty from a short-term misfortune into a career choice.

Left-wing politicians take away your liberty in the name of children and of fighting poverty, while right-wing politicians do it in the name of family values and fighting drugs. Either way, government gets bigger and you become less free.

You don't have to buy from anyone. You don't have to work at any particular job. You don't have to participate in any given relationship. You can choose.

The first step in freeing yourself from social restrictions is the realization that there is no such thing as a "safe" code of conduct - one that would earn everyone's approval. Your actions can always be condemned by someone - for being too bold or too apathetic, for being too conformist or too nonconformist, for being too liberal or too conservative. So it's necessary to decide whose approval is important to you.

You are where you are today because you have chosen to be there.

If you own a business you should be able to hire whoever you choose. And if you don’t, what should happen? Absolutely nothing. Race as an issue in hiring usually backfires - you’re closing off potential talent. If a company is stupid enough to follow that policy, have at it.

A welfare state is frightened of every poor person who tries to get in and every rich person who tries to get out.

Everyone will experience the consequences of his own acts. If his act are right, he'll get good consequences; if they're not, he'll suffer for it.

A little government involvement is just as dangerous as a lot -because the first leads inevitably to the second.

The government is good at one thing...it knows how to break your legs, and then hand you a crutch and say 'see if it weren't for the government you wouldn't be able to walk.'

Some people say that Libertarians want anarchy. But anarchy is what we have now. Our cities aren't safe, our schools are centers of violence, the politicians have turned the rule of law into a chaotic web of millions of regulations and mandates. Libertarians want to restore order by removing, wherever possible, the destabilizing influence of government.

The problem with politics isn't the money, it's the power. So long as politicians have the power to grant favors, exemptions, and business protection, people will find some way to subvert them -- if not with money now, then with promises to take care of them later. The only way we will clean up campaign financing is by taking power away from the politicians -- reducing the federal government to just the functions specified in the Constitution.

Conservatives say the government can't end poverty by force, but they believe it can use force to make people moral. Liberals say government can't make people be moral, but they believe it can end poverty. Neither group attempts to explain why government is so clumsy and destructive in one area but a paragon of efficiency and benevolence in the other.

There are no violent gangs fighting over aspirin territories. There are no violent gangs fighting over whisky territories or computer territories or anything else that's legal. There are only criminal gangs fighting over territories covering drugs, gambling, prostitution, and other victimless crimes. Making a non-violent activity a crime creates a black market, which attracts criminals and gangs, which turns what was once a relatively harmless activity affecting a small group of people into a widespread epidemic of drug use and gang warfare.

The free market punishes irresponsibility. Government rewards it.

Government seems to operate on the principle that if even one individual is incapable of using his freedom competently, no one can be allowed to be free.

Robert Bork has said that Libertarians have an unrealistic "sweet view of human nature," and that is why they oppose government attempts to impose morality. He has this matter precisely backward. It is because there are evil, incompetent people in the world that we must never give government the power to enforce morality, economic equality, or any other social goal. The coercive power of government is always a beacon to those who want to dominate others -- summoning the worst dregs of society to Washington to use that power to impose their will upon others.

The police can't stop an intruder, mugger, or stalker from hurting you. They can pursue him only after he has hurt or killed you. Protecting yourself from harm is your responsibility, and you are far less likely to be hurt in a neighborhood of gun-owners than in one of disarmed citizens – even if you don't own a gun yourself.

I say that the Second Amendment doesn't allow for exceptions – or else it would have read that the right "to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless Congress chooses otherwise." And because there are no exceptions, I disagree with my fellow panelists who say the existing gun laws should be enforced. Those laws are unconstitutional [and] wrong – because they put you at a disadvantage to armed criminals, to whom the laws are no inconvenience.

It's wrong for someone to confiscate your money, give it to someone else, and call that "compassion."

Whatever the issue, let freedom offer us a hundred choices, instead of having government force one answer on everyone.

I want a government small enough to fit inside the Constitution.

Immigrants used to come to America seeking freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom from government. Now they come looking for free health care, free education, and a free lunch.

Republicans campaign like Libertarians and govern like Democrats.

In almost all matters, the real question should be: why are we letting government handle this?

The seeds of today's runaway government were planted when it was decided that government should help those who can't help themselves. From that modest, compassionate beginning to today's out-of-control mega-state, there's a straight, unbroken line. Once the door was open, once it was settled that the government should help some people at the expense of others, there was no stopping it.

The problem is big government. If whoever controls government can impose his way upon you, you have to fight constantly to prevent the control from being harmful. With small, limited government, it doesn’t much matter who controls it, because it can’t do you much harm.

Jeopardy Stupidity

2006-03-02T19:55:00.000-05:00

The one game show that annoys me the most is Jeopardy. These people are all supposed to be smart, yet they are so stupid when they bet in Final Jeopardy. People are just as stupid in the Price Is Right, but at least we expect them to not be potential Mensa members.

Today's show, the amount each contestant has is $4600, $8000, $9500.

Here is how each one should bet: If you have $4600, you have no chance to win if the others get the answer correct, so there is no point to bet anything here. He got the question right, but bet it all. He was lucky here. If the others get the question right, he still doesn't win, but he risked way too much.

The guy in 2nd place, with $8000, should be betting enough to double the 3rd place contestant as long as it is still higher than 1st place. He bet $6600, which was also too much. The 3rd place contestant could have, at best, got to $9200 so he should be betting $1201. He got question wrong anyways, but still a stupid bet.

The lady in first place, with $9500, should be betting enough to double the 2nd place contestant in case he gets the answer right and bets it all. She bet $6499, which would give her $15999 if she was right. This is stupid! She needed to bet $2 more than that. The extra $2 would probably not cost her anything if everyone was wrong, but if they both were right she'd lose. She got answer wrong, so it didn't end up mattering.

Three contestants, three wagers that do not make any sense. Only the smartest people on Jeopardy!

The (laughingly fallacious) Arguments against Private Health Care

2006-03-01T22:18:00.000-05:00

My provincial health minister, (NDP) Tim Sale, was quoted in the New York Times as saying, “"If anesthetists go to work in a private clinic, the work that they were doing in the public sector is spread among fewer and fewer people."

So, what Tim must be saying is, if there are private clinics, there will suddenly be more patients. Let’s assume that, over a rolling 10 year period, there are 10,000 patients, and 20 anesthetists, in Manitoba. That means that each anesthetist, on average, will see 500 patients per year. It doesn’t matter if those patients are spread out over 1 or 20 different facilities – the ratio of anesthetist to patient doesn’t change. In the short term – yes, once the capacity for surgery increases, then assuming there will be no more anesthetists come into the system, there will initially be a higher ratio of anesthetists to patients. However, only x number of patients per year will require surgery – so over a period of time, the ratio will be unchanged from whatever it is currently.

And, that brings in the other argument, why won’t more anesthetists (and other physicians) come and practice in Canada? Right now, we lose a lot of skilled medical workers to the United States (among other countries), simply because they want to be rewarded for their hard work during University – and, guess what, most people in our society want at least part of their rewards in the form of cash. If the opportunities for making money increase in Canada, there will be an increase in the number of medical school graduates remaining in Canada to practice, as well as an increase in the number of skilled immigrants applying to come to Canada.

This, of course, comes after Ralph Klein announced his health care plan, permitting physicians to work in both the private and public sectors, and expressly permits patients to pay for faster access to non-emergency procedures. Not to mention, the ensuing debacle in the Provincial Legislature, in which Klein told Liberals that if they had any good ideas about health care, to pass them along; the Liberals passed along a copy of their health policy, and Klein tossed it back at the page who brought it over. Pretty tame, really, from the man who has blamed “eastern creeps and bums” for Calgary’s rising crime rate in the 70’s, flipped the bird to an environmentalist at a news conference, calling homeless people lazy at a shelter, blaming “dinosaur farts” for causing the Ice Age, among other comments.

King Ralph – thanks for keeping quiet during the 2006 campaign election, and good luck with getting your reforms through. Hopefully, the (federal) Conservatives won’t try too hard to block your plans – once Canadians see a mixed system working well, support will be so overwhelmingly in favor of such a system, that only the diehard leftists will be able to object.

Definition of Irony

2006-02-27T23:03:00.000-05:00

Irony in the dictionary should just be changed to this story.

Sports (Part I)

2006-02-24T20:23:00.000-05:00

I call this Part 1 as I have too much to write about in just one post. I said in the comment section that I will be posting on what constitutes a sport since I said shooting gun is not a sport. I need to comment on the stupid Bryant Gumbel racist comment. I need to talk about the Winter Olympics and a reflection on Canada's performance, which I will leave until we finish our events.

So now the comprehensive list on what is, and isn't, a sport. If you think I'm wrong, leave a comment, but chances are you are just wrong.

So to address what is a sport, I'll start by giving some examples of sports that no one, in their right mind, disagrees with: hockey, basketball, football, soccer, rugby, tennis, baseball, cricket, handball, squash, racquetball, table tennis (no one would disagree with this one if you actually see professionals play), cross country skiing, track/marathon running, bike racing, speed skating, swimming, lacrosse, volleyball, badminton, and Aussi rules football. I probably missed a ton in there, but you should be ale to get the point with any of these. There can be a lot of physical exertion, combined with some level of skill and strategy.

The other common theme of all of these sports is that is completely objective who wins. There is no doubt who won the football game, it is the team that scored the most points. Yes, a referee can get a call wrong, but you look at video replay and come up with an answer if the ref was got it wrong or not. This is not to say that all judged events are not sports, if you can properly assign a score that will consistently be given by different judges under perfect viewing conditions, then I will argue that it is objective.

Which brings me to my first event that I will say is not a sport: figure skating/ice dancing. You cannot call anything a sport that your uniform and music get judged based on artistic merit. I understand it is a very physically demanding competition, it just is not a sport. The new judging system maybe is a step in the right direction, but it still matters what the freaking participant is wearing! This isn't a beauty pageant, if you want to be a sport, act like one. Now that figure skating is not a sport, gymnastics comes into question. Here is the big difference for me: male floor routine = sport, female floor routine = not a sport (this is not sexist, the events are different, if females did the male version it would be a sport). When females do the routine, it matters how they work to their music and how graceful they are between athletic moves. For the male version, only the athletic moves count. You can then assign difficulty and judging criteria based on completely objective actions instead of how "pretty" the thing looked.

Golf is a sport. I hear people say it isn't, mostly because they either think a) it is boring or b) you can be out of shape and do it, it isn't physical, etc. The boring argument is irrelevant, I just hear it all the time, and if you want to argue it, you are stupid, period. On the physicality of golf, I think it requires a tremendous amount of skill to play well. It is a different type of sport than hockey to be sure, as under normal conditions a golfer will not be gasping for air after their round. Why golf qualifies as a sport is that it takes incredible control of strength and agility to hit the golf ball. You have to alter how you are going to swing depending on what the lie is (ie. uphill, downhill, the ground conditions, etc) so it is not just one repeatable action over and over. It is true that you can have a beer belly and be a good golfer, but the best golfers all have personal trainers and work out daily. To swing faster you need to be stronger, and swinging faster has benefits in many areas of the game. Winning at golf also is completely objective as the person with the best score wins, so it does follow all the rules up until now.

The other thing that can make a sport is reaction time and quickness. This is why I will allow someone to consider auto racing a sport, in that they control the car and react to the other drivers. I agree it is borderline, but I am also told the amount of G-force a typical racer feels will also completely tire someone out that is out of shape. I have never seen a fat race car driver, so I will accept this to be a sport. Horse racing/jumping/riding, however, is not a sport. It is a sport for the horse, not for the human. Anything that requires actions that are outside of human control I don't think I can count to be a sport. With cars, humans build them, if they don't work, it is human error at least. If a horse doesn't run fast enough, or buck hard enough, or whatever, it is not due to the skill of the human. It is a competition, not a sport. This also eliminates fishing and hunting, as some people consider these to be sports. If people want to have an extreme hunting competition where the people have to hunt other each other, it is gruesome, but it is a sport. I pretty much pissed off all rodeo fans, too bad.

On the quickness factor, combined with other reasons mentioned in the golf paragraph, downhill skiing and snowboarding events are sports. It isn't pure strength, but it requires very good leg strength, combined with reacting to course and making quick turns. I am going to also allow curling to be a sport as there are times when the sweepers will use a lot of strength to get the stone where it is needed, as well as the competition aspect of it. Luge/bobsleigh/skeleton because they take strength at the beginning, then quick reaction as they go down the course.

Another rule: a sport combined with a random act can still be a sport. Biathalon is one of these. Cross country skiing is a sport, shooting at stationary targets isn't, but the shooting doesn't take away from the skiing. The shooting actually does add something here, to do target shooting you have to steady your arm, but that becomes much more difficult as your heart rate is higher from the skiing. Just shooting by itself is, as I have said, not a sport. There is a laid out shooting range, nothing changes from one day to the next, the act of shooting is in no way physically demanding. If you shot for a couple hours straight, yes you will be sore, but that isn't what shooting competitions do. They take a set number of shots, the one with the best accuracy wins. To shoot a gun requires exactly X amount of force, just need to use that force and the gun will shoot just the same. I am willing to accept types of action shooting events to be sports though, or any shooting that requires movement and reaction. Guns are allowed to be part of sports, but just straight shooting of the gun to a stationary target is not a sport.

I am going to, with some reservations, make this list all be considered sports: half pipe, aerials, diving, ski jumping, and the like. You have to be able to get into athletic positions to be successful in all of these, but the judging aspect of them do give me pause to accepting them as sports. But by my previous rule, if you can develop proper judging, they can all qualify.

Question marks: are billiards and darts sports? I have a lot of trouble with these, neither requires a lot of power, but they are both objective competitions that depend on what you physically do.

Anyways, please leave comments, as well as let me know if any more sports need to be judged that I left out. If there is a sport that is clearly just a modified version of a sport listed, consider it to be in the same category of the listed one (ie. luge is a modified version of skeleton).

Levant Has Balls!

2006-02-13T09:40:00.000-05:00

Ezra Levant, the publisher of the Western Standard has said that the magazine will print some of the Mohammad cartoons today, according to the Globe. I say good for them! Fine, the cartoons may offend some people, but the magazine should have every right to print them. They aren't showing them on the front cover, so only people that choose to see the cartoons will see them. If you are going to be offended, I have a very easy solution for you, don't buy the freaking magazine! It is just that simple.

The Canadian Islamic Congress said they will seek to have charges laid, against distributing hate crime literature. Well I have a question, I am not religious, so my beliefs are in the freedom of people, does this mean the Canadian Islamic Congress is committing a hate crime against my belief in free speech by filing this complaint?

When Levent was asked if these cartoons could spark violence, he responded, "We're about to find out." As someone that loves freedom, thank you Mr. Levant! I don't think he is publishing these to be offensive, but to make a point that he will not be bullied into not expressing himself. Judging from the comments I have heard the extremist Muslims say, he may receive death threats. I applaud him for, literally, putting his own ass on the line in the name of free speech!

Edit: I just saw that Ezra wrote this in the Calgary sun. Great article!

Edit2: I was about to look into getting a Western Standard subscription, but it seems much of their website is down. I'm hoping it is down due to high traffic, not any malicious act. Whenever their site is back up, I encourage everyone to reward their courage by subscribing!

A letter from the NDP to Buzz Hargrove

2006-02-12T20:06:00.000-05:00

Dear Buzz,

Things were so good at the start. Back in 1999, things were going well. You were our best friend, you helped our provincial friends fighting those nasty Harris people. You talked a bit about that funny ‘strategic voting’ thing, but you didn’t shout it. We had little arguments late at night, but we always kissed before going to sleep.

Then you changed, Buzz. You became all high and mighty, and started talking more and more with that charming Paul Martin fellow. I thought we could still work things out, and be together forever. During the 2004 election, Buzz, you cheated on me. Private things like strategic voting that we had whispered about in the dark of night before, you were shouting from the top of your lungs.

You hurt me, Buzz, but I thought our relationship could continue. We kissed and made up, and you promised that we wouldn’t fight ever again.

But you kept talking to Paul. I kept answering the phone at night, hearing heavy breathing, and a hang-up. Whenever you were away, the calls stopped. Why didn’t you tell me you wanted to be friends with Paul? I would have understood.

Then you cheated on me again. Right out in the open, you gave him your letter jacket! You couldn’t just keep it in a no-tell motel, you had to flaunt your cheating in front of the world.

I got mad, Buzz. We said some things, and you tried to patch things up. But, you spent a lot of time with Paul, and I realized that, even if you say you love me, your heart isn’t with me.

I can’t live like this, Buzz. I changed the locks, and gave your things to that nice Bill fellow down the street. You and he can be very happy together now, now that Paul is gone. I never want to see you again.

Without Love,

The NDP.

Want another case against the long-gun registry?

2006-02-12T14:54:00.000-05:00

If the thought of personal property being taken without proper compensation didn’t turn you off the gun registry, and the wasted billions didn’t do it, maybe an anal cavity search will.

To give an executive summary of this story, a man was hunting small game in a field next to a school, with the landowner’s permission. A faculty member at the school called 911, slightly frightened by the man wearing fatigues and carrying a firearm. The police dispatcher informed the police that the situation was “guy in fatigues with big gun in the schoolyard”. The cops swarmed the hunter in his driveway, being forced to his knees and receiving an anal exam from a police officer, in front of his children. The rifle in his car was legally stored; the police then illegally entered his house and charged him with illegal storage for a disassembled rifle and some ammunition.

Let’s look at what went wrong, here. The dispatcher sent a fairly ambiguous and misleading message to the line officers. “big gun” might mean anything from a target pistol (those things are fairly large), to a fully automatic military assault weapon. The police, caring for their life, assumed the worst. No problem there – our men and women in blue need to have the ability to protect themselves and others.

Then the takedown and arrest. Ok, making sure he doesn’t have a gun on him is one thing – but when the report is of a “big gun” – how does the anal cavity search help? Hard to hide much up there! Next, the police entered the house – and there’s the major overstep. According to the news report, the police arrested him when he pulled into the driveway. If he was threatening people at the school, what do the contents of his home have to do with anything? Sounds like a pretty weak search to me.

3 years after having his property confiscated, the judge has ordered it returned. Due to bill C-68, the police have fairly broad powers to confiscate firearms, even from licenced owners. The police may decide that this man might pose a danger, and keep the firearms – hoping for a more ‘friendly’ judge to enforce the prohibition. Sounds like the gun registry is working, and our tax dollars well spent.

Excuse me while I laugh, or vomit. Maybe both.

The Final Countdown

2006-02-11T15:37:00.000-05:00

This has nothing to do with politics, but an issue that is dear to my heart.

I am sad to say the last episode(s) of Arrested Development, possibly ever, aired last night. So this is just my sad attempt of a plea to Fox or any other network to bring the show back! It has to be one of the smartest comedies on TV, and probably the best current comedy. I encourage everyone to buy the DVD's for all 3 seasons (Season 1, Season 2, Season 3 to come out later) to show networks how much demand there is for the show, it worked for Family Guy after all. I always loved sitcoms, and sadly they pretty much all suck now. The only decent ones left are The Office and My Name Is Earl. We need to keep crap like Everybody Loves Raymond and Will & Grace off the air, bring back AD!

Missing the Point

2006-02-10T10:11:00.000-05:00

I was watching CTV NewsNet this morning and they were talking to a representative from the European Committee for Prophet Honouring. I understand the Muslim community was offended by the cartoons, but I don't think they (or at least this representative) understands what free speech means. He was saying that before the violence they had petitions and non-violent protests and the government still didn't do anything. He was implying the government should have actually taken steps to ban these cartoons or come out heavily against them. When people say they need to try and achieve their goals from non-violent means, this doesn't mean to do as much non-violence as you can and then when the government doesn't limit the freedom of their citizens you have the right to react with violence. Protesting should be to trying and get the newspaper to apologize or to get awareness of the issue so that the public will boycott the paper and force publications. If their goal is to get free speech banned in the Western world, I don't think the understand what living in a free society means.

Atheist Reaction?

2006-02-09T05:54:00.000-05:00

I found this cartoon really funny, and just for the record I will riot after just 4 blank sheets. Some other good ones here.

Aren't We the Party of Freedom?

2006-02-08T15:41:00.000-05:00

STATEMENT BY MINISTER MACKAY ON REACTION TO CARICATURES OF PROPHET MOHAMMED

Why why why why why why are we even releasing an official government statement on this? This issue has nothing to do with the government. Some people have cartoons that offend other people, other people protest, none of the government's business! MacKay said, "Freedom of expression is a legally enshrined principle in Canada, but it must be exercised responsibly." [Emphasis added] There are no "but"s about this. The statement, "Freedom of expression is a legally enshrined principle in Canada," does not need a qualifier. Should the government come out and have to say that we have freedom of expression after every person says every thing that could possibly hurt the feelings of another person?

Further along in this unessasary statement, "The Government of Canada will continue to promote a better understanding of Islam internationally, in partnership with Muslim communities." Why is this our job? I don't give a crap what people think about Muslims, Christians, Jews or any other religion, it isn't the government's job to be the public relations department for a religion! If a religion wants to change their image, freaking do it, no one is stopping you!

Barbie, Brison, and Emerson

2006-02-06T17:20:00.000-05:00

So, after losing multiple MP’s to the Liberals, we gain one back. Hours (minutes?) before the swearing-in ceremony and cabinet announcement, David Emerson publically switched to the Conservative Party. The former Industry minister gets to keep his perks as the new internatonal trade minister, as well as the minister responsible for the 2010 winter Olympics in Vancouver.

On the bright side, this gives us representation in Vancouver proper – something that was sorely lacking after Jan 23^rd. We now can say that we have a representative within Vancouver, a cabinet minister, no less. I suppose he also has federal cabinet experience, something which will come in handy for this government.

That’s about all that I can say positive about this announcement.

It smacks of opportunism. I look back at what I wrote when Stronach went to the Liberals, “To join the Liberals, and take a nice plum cabinet post - smells like bribery.”

I stand by my words.

One of Harper’s advisors must have been taking some strong drugs, dropped some into Harper’s morning coffee, and convinced him to take Emerson in as a cabinet minister. If Emerson had defected and was a backbencher, that wouldn’t have been too bad. If he sat as an independent, no problem whatsoever. But to go directly into a cabinet post – not nice to see. Hopefully Harper realizes his mistake early, and fixes it quickly – heck, take the short-term hit, push Emerson into the back benches (maybe give him a parliamentary secretary spot in order to capitalize on his experience).

Not likely to happen. This simply isn’t a great start for the Harper government. We still have a long way to go, and I’m not trying to say that it’s a lost cause – but, it’s not a good start.

Introducing the Right Honourable Prime Minister

2006-02-06T11:49:00.000-05:00

From http://www.pm.gc.ca

Need I say more?

Another Liberal Handgun Ban

2006-02-06T09:07:00.000-05:00

Well, Ontario’s Liberal Government is once again showing their true colours. Attorney General Michael Bryant has now said that if the federal government does not give the provinces the power to ban handguns, he’ll try to find a constitutional back-door. He would only allow the police, military, and ‘Olympic sharp-shooters’ to have handguns. Well… since the military can’t normally carry their sidearms home, and many police forces do not allow their members to carry outside of work… it’s down to just the Olympic sharpshooters.

That has me wondering, how do you define an ‘Olympic sharpshooter’? Are these only people who have competed in the Olympics? That would be the most obvious interpretation of those words, and one that would be fairly self-limiting, in that without giving new people the ability to try out the sport, there would very soon be nobody left in the sport.

This also discriminates (in a way) against those who compete in other ventures then the Olympics. Under this proposed ban, these individuals would not be allowed to participate in their sport – so, eliminating not only a chance for our athletes to shine, but some money coming into the country, in as much as competitions are routinely held in Canada.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again – any restriction allowing for only ‘competitive’ shooters will result in the sport dying in Canada. Without the ability for young (relatively-speaking) people to try firing a handgun at the range, how will you get new people into the sport? If only professional hockey players were allowed to have hockey sticks, would you see a Canadian Olympic hockey team in 10 years?

Yes, firearms can be stolen from houses. They can also be stolen from army bases. They can also be stolen from RCMP armouries. They can (and most often are) be smuggled from the United States. Dealing with firearms along will not stop crime. It is dealing with criminals, and to an extent with the root causes, that will stop crime. All that something such as the proposed handgun ban will do is score cheap political points – and result in the same amount of blood being shed on our streets.

Freedom of Speech

2006-02-05T03:22:00.000-05:00

I was able to post on offensive Islam cartoons and free speech since it seems like the in thing to do, and then I realized that Greg had already done so. I essentially agree with him. I think it is wrong to publish those cartoons, that is why I will not do so. I do not think it should be illegal to publish them. Freedom of speech should not only apply to things that are pleasant. If you are deeply offended by these cartoons, write to the newspapers asking them to apologize, create a petition for them to apologize, start a boycott of all media that published these cartoons, or simply try to inform as many people as you can that these cartoons are not representative of Islam. The reaction that shouldn't happen is violence. The violent reactions and threats that happened are quite ironic, as they are upset with being characterized as violent people. I know it is only a subset that do this, but this certainly won't make the spread of the offensive ideas like this die down (I'm not saying it makes it valid to depict Muslims as terrorists, just it isn't helping disprove it).

I do not believe that people have a right to not be offended by anything. If this was true, I probably would have to cut down about half of the things I say. I have a right to say what I want, offensive or not, on this blog. Google, which owns Blogger, has the right to limit what I say on their website. My ISP has the right to restrict the content I access/distribute over their network according to my service agreement (including Rogers annoying block on bit torrent/P2P progams that I hate). The administrator of Blogging Tories has the right to kick me off the blogroll for making offensive comments, just as any political parties I hold memberships in have the right to cancel my membership if I do not comply with conditions of membership. Finally, you, the reader has the right to not read what I write. I am not forcing you to read this, so if I offend you, stop reading what I write. I try not to be offensive because I do not want to offend people, and please let me know if I do say something offensive, but you do not have to the right to tell me what I cannot say.

Part of the reason I am against any laws that limit free speech (and really only why I'm against implementation of the law, I am against the law in general because I respect freedom) is because there is no standard for offensive. If anyone makes any comment that is contrary to any religion, is this offensive? If a Muslim says, "The Jews are wrong," is this crossing the line? I think it is silly if it is crossing the line because if you are Muslim you implicitly say that you believe you are right and other religions are wrong, or else you wouldn't be Muslim. What about if I say there is no god? I am clearly saying I think every religious person in the world is wrong, and even if that offends you, I don't see how I could face any legal ramifications for the statement. Or what about when Christian groups make comments about gay people being sinners? This may raise more questions about whether it is offensive enough to justify the law getting involved, but many would still disagree. The line cannot, and should not, be set. The line will be set by everyone, and the market will react accordingly. If a newspaper offends enough people, it won't stay being published very long, or at least it won't be a mainstream paper.

(On a side note, I have read certain bloggers, who I won't name because I don't want to start a religious argument when I don't think it is an important enough subject, who seem to say that all "anti-religion" or "godless" people do it to somehow rebel against the religious establishment, as if we really did think there was a god and we just choose to ignore it/him/her. I am not religious or spiritual whatsoever. I am not rebelling against anything, there just is no god. Sure, there are some on the radical left that will oppose anything that religious people do, but this is not everyone. As Penn Jillette said on his radio show, "Atheists are given a bad rap from Socialists and Communists.")

I am not hypocritical either, if any Christian wants to make a cartoon of me burning in hell for not accepting Jesus and my lord and savior, go right ahead (but it isn't like you need my permission to do it)!

The Danish Cartoons - My Take

2006-02-04T12:57:00.000-05:00

The popular thing on most small ‘c’ conservative (and several big ‘C’ ones) seems to be to post the cartoons making fun of Islam, in solidarity with the Danish, French, and other European newspapers who published them. I’m not going to do that. Giving credit where credit is due, I had a good, long talk with a friend last night about these cartoons. She brought up some good supporting points, which I am going to try to outline below.

Let’s look at how different societies look at their prevailing religion. In Western society, predominantly Judeo-Christian in nature, religion is, for the most part, not taken too seriously. We (as a collective society) don’t have too much trouble making fun of our religion. It is mainstream to call somebody in politics with religious beliefs as being on the “Religious Right”, and many use that term as an insult. Papers (and, many bloggers) have made fun of George Bush for his strong religious beliefs.

In predominantly Muslim cultures, they don’t go there. They may call Western society a bunch of apostates and sinners, out to corrupt the world, but they don’t make fun of God, or Jesus (granted, Jesus is also a revered individual in the Islamic tradition). There is a religious tension between Islam and Judaism, however I’ve never seen them go so far as to start mocking Moses.

The cartoons in question depicted Muhammad as a terrorist. News Flash – Islam isn’t all about terror. If you read the Quran, it’s got about as much to do with violence as the Bible. There are those who take brief snippets out of the Quran and use them to support violence – is that any different then Christianity has done over the years?

That being said, the violent reaction to these cartoons is also inappropriate. Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus were burned today – a reaction to the cartoons. That goes a bit too far. While those cartoons were inappropriate, so are the violent reactions. When predominantly Muslim countries were calling for boycotts of all Danish products – hey, that was fine. That’s a good, capitalist way of dealing with a problem (provided the boycott is done by the consumers, and not enforced by the Government).

Another issue can be brought up here – that is the ethics of the media. In publishing these cartoons, the media went across the line from reporting the news to being the news. There is definitely a self-interest on the part of these newspapers to be controversial – those who agree with them will buy more papers, those who disagree will buy papers in order to be angered, and those who are indifferent will buy more papers in order to see what all the ruckus is about.

So, what’s the answer? Perhaps, the newspapers should apologize for their actions, and the rioters should stop, well, burning stuff down. That’s probably a bit idealistic, but hey, if we don’t have room for idealism, then what’s the world coming to?

The Supremes on Judicial Reform

2006-02-03T13:28:00.000-05:00

Wow – surprise of the year, judicial appointees somewhat like the fact that they are appointed.

Chief Justice McLachlin said publically today that the existing system is ‘fine’ and should not be ‘politicized’.

What the hell? Appointments by the Prime Minister are never political, right? Nobody is ever awarded for, oh, running for office, not running for office, keeping one’s mouth shut, etc. with a patronage appointment. And, according to McLachlin, there is currently a public confidence that the courts are not political. HAH!

Judges are not subject to any serious scrutiny – the recent appointments did appear before the standing committee on Justice, however were not under oath, nor were they compelled to answer questions. Once it was over – the committee had no say. These weren’t judicial nominees coming for confirmation; they were appointed judges coming for a quick visit. Cup of coffee, quick chat and it’s over – no messy voting required.

Perhaps McLachlin is worried that her credentials would not have stood up to public inquiry. Maybe she is worried that there will be, *gasp*, a requirement for judges to explain their views before sitting on the bench. With a supreme court that has become more and more activist over time (annoying both the left and the right, for example with health care and same-sex marriage, respectively) – don’t we deserve to know where they stand?

Thanks to the CTF for pointing this one out.

I Love Miss Nevada!

2006-02-03T06:33:00.000-05:00

This is not a sexist post or anything, I don't even know what Miss Nevada looks like since I didn't watch the show, but she must be the first women to ever say anything intelligent at a beauty pageant in history! I know this is a bit old, but I just heard about it.

Instead of getting the typical question like, "Do you love all the children of the world?" Instead this happened:

In Thursday's interview, Miss Nevada was asked by one of the judges about the
proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain.
The facility has to go someplace, and Yucca Mountain is the best-built facility in the country, Crystal Wosik replied.
And if people die?
"We just have to take one for the team," she replied.

I love this quote! Take one for the team, absolutely classic! You can argue the pros and cons of nuclear power, but she resisted the easy politically correct BS answer to come out against nuclear waste dumping without providing any other alternative. It isn't black and white. If there isn't the nuclear waste dump there, it will be somewhere else. Or if they use a different type of power, there are many other issues.

Media Bias? Naaaw

2006-02-02T13:58:00.000-05:00

We argue a bit, in my office, about the presence (or lack of) a distinct, well, red tint to the media. Some arguments are a no-brainer – the Toronto Star is the communications arm of the Liberal Party of Canada. The CBC… we won’t go into how far to the left the CBC has gone. Now, the CP – something that I (at one time) thought was fairly unbiased, shows their stripes.

“OTTAWA -- Canada's natural governing party took its first tentative steps toward reconstruction and reconciliation yesterday when defeated Prime Minister Paul Martin named Bill Graham as his interim Liberal replacement.” (emphasis added)

They have edited the story since it was first written and distributed to replace “natural governing party” with “Liberal party”, however at least one media outlet (London Free Press), as of the time of this writing, still has it in the original form.

The ‘Culture of Entitlement’ isn’t just ingrained into the Liberal Party members – it is a part of the Ottawa establishment. Heck, I can’t even claim to be 100% immune – it’s been a long 12 years in opposition. But, I don’t claim to be an unbiased reporter. When I put something up on this website, I give a pretty clear disclaimer that I tilt to the Right. Editorials in newspapers will have the slant of the editorial board of that media outlet – I have no problem with that.

Where the problem comes up is when the “fact-based” reporting shows a slant like the one above. The media has a certain responsibility to provide the facts, and clearly point out when something being said is opinion or conjecture. Bluntly put, the CP screwed the pooch on this one – and owes Canadians an apology for forgetting where the line is in between editorialism and reporting.

Thanks to either orr and SDA for pointing this one out.

Mmmm, Crackberry... aaarrrgh (cue Homer Simpson-style drool)

2006-02-02T09:29:00.000-05:00

The Blackberry fiasco in the United States is causing thousands of companies’ IT departments angina. There are estimates that a company with around 1,000 blackberry using employees might pay around 700 dollars per person to switch to another device. Now the US Government is getting involved, with the Justice Department wanting a guarantee that it’s users will be exempt – and, it argues, that means that it would be difficult for a court to issue an injunction shutting down the use of Crackberries in the US.

I can see the addictiveness that has lead to the nickname. I recently bought one of those fancy phone/pda/internet devices. I looked at the crackberry, but after much contemplation, went with the Audiovox unit. Windows-mobile technology, touch screen… it just makes more sense. But, now I can’t put the thing down. I was out with a friend last night, she was trying on some clothes, so I went onto the internet and started taking care of some stuff. So much more convenient then staring at the ceiling and shuffling from leg to leg. When I walked to the cash register when she was paying – my reception died. It was almost a physical sensation.

But, should the government be getting involved in this? More importantly, does the government deserve more consideration then any generic corporate user? Does governmental involvement, in this case, start to erode that separation between the legislative branch and the judicial branch?

To an extent, I would argue that yes, it does. The government seems to be invoking a special necessity, “exceptional public interest”, in trying to argue their case. They aren’t just saying, “this is gonna suck, if you take away our crackberries” (albeit in much more refined legalese), they are saying, “Hey! We need these things. No, we ‘need’ (wink wink, nudge nudge) them!”

If the Judge rules that RIM has indeed infringed on a patent, then all Blackberries should be shut down. To set a precedent that the Government can condone the infringement of a patent… that could lead to the weakening of the patent system, resulting in a weakening of intellectual property.

Gomery II = Meh.

2006-02-01T16:14:00.000-05:00

I’ve had a bit more time to think over Gomery II and… I’m distinctly unimpressed. Some of his suggestions are decent, for example, providing a clear and concise statement of responsibilities to public servants – not a bad idea. Others, like giving some members of the PCO new titles – would be a larger waste of money then, frankly, adscam was.

We are talking about changing some pieces of legislation (requiring the time of our elected representatives to address), throwing out a whole load of stationary, business cards, and the like; probably some new interior decorating (gotta remove the old titles wherever they appeared), changes to various Government of Canada websites, etc. etc. etc. All for the value that, “It’ll make them appear to have more power”. Yeah… no.
Don’t take this to be a condemnation of Gomery – his work in finding the truth behind adscam was commendable – and the country owes him a huge debt of thanks. But… he probably could have stopped there.

Coming soon – Gomery: The Book

Detailed Analysis of Gomery II - 45 minutes after Release

2006-02-01T14:45:00.000-05:00

So, I finally saw the second report by Mr. Justice Gomery (Gomery II, for short), and have been browsing it for the past 40 minutes. It’s quite a lengthy (200+ page) document, and in the interests of full disclosure I have been flipping through it very rapidly, and may have missed some minor details supporting Gomery’s recommendations.

One recommendation by Gomery was that Public Servants be given a clear and comprehensive Public Service Charter – much more easily read and committed to memory then the current Values and Ethics Code for Public Servants – a 2003 document of over 5000 words that does not clearly define such things as public interest, impartiality, loyalty, and integrity. This was a shortcoming that was addressed by the Auditor General’s report in November 2003, and has not been looked at by the Government. This isn’t something that is directly mentioned in the Conservative Federal Accountability Act – but, it would be a worthy addition.

Gomery suggests increasing the funding of parliamentary committees, as a method of back-checking things such as the main estimates (which should have, but did not, indicate the amount of money being spent on the Sponsorship Program). This is an ok idea – however, the establishment of a non-partisan Parliamentary Budget Office would go a lot farther, and accomplish the same goal. He also specifically identifies the Public Accounts Committee as needing more funding – again, taking this way from the partisanship of Parliament is, to my mind, a good idea.

He wants to make Deputy Ministers (and senior public servants) directly responsible for their actions to the Public Accounts Committee, while at the same time giving Ministers the ability to overrule Deputy Ministers, with direct oversight by the Auditor General. Not a bad idea – and, that flows nicely with the Conservative’s desires to increase the powers of the Auditor General. He does want Deputy Ministers and senior public servants to be appointed for a minimum of three years, with an expectation of a five-year term, with a public explanation for any change in this policy. That would help Deputy Ministers become very familiar with their job – but, aside from the oversight aspect (which would, by nature, be addressed by the Auditor General) – doesn’t really do much with relation to Gomery’s work. Deputy Ministers would be selected by an open and competitive process.

He suggests that the Public Accounts Committee members be appointed for the length of the Parliament – ok, not a bad idea.

Special Reserves should not be allowed to be managed by the Prime Minister – Good idea – and these reserve funds be required to table a comprehensive report on their actions every year.

Gomery also wants to prevent exempt staff members from being appointed to the Public Service without a competition for three years. That’ll keep the unions happy – and may help to prevent the politicization of the civil service. Exempt Staff would not be allowed to give direction to public servants – well… good idea, but at times the Minister may want his/her exempt staff to take his role during certain projects.

He wants to change some letterhead within the Privy Council Office (PCO) – assuming that a new title will change their power. Sure… He wants to make sure “advertising” means just that – and not be as wide-ranged as it has been lately. Not a bad idea.

Gomery’s ideas for lobbyists, upon a quick glance, are the same as the Conservative Federal Accountability Act. Good to See.

As expected, Gomery came down hard on financial mismanagement by civil servants. He recommended that violation of a specific section of the Financial Administration Act (mainly, from what I gather, reporting elements) be grounds for immediate dismissal.

With regards to Crown Corporations, he suggests that the CEO be appointed, evaluated and (when required) dismissed by the Board of Directors of the Corporation (as opposed to the PMO). The Board should be initially appointed by the Government “on the basis of merit”, and thereafter replacements made by the Board itself.

At the end of this 200+ page report, Gomery gives a timeline – “Within 24 months of receiving this Report, the Government should table before Parliament a report detailing how it has dealt with each of the Commission’s recommendations”.

More analysis later.

Payday Loans – The “Scourge” of the Inner-City

2006-02-01T09:14:00.000-05:00

Ok, who hasn’t seen the advertisements for the various payday loan companies – you know, money mart and the like. You go there mid-week, write a post-dated cheque, and walk away with (generally) up to half of your next paycheque. The cheque you write is dated on your payday, and covers the principal of the loan, plus interest (usually around what you would pay on a high-rate credit card), plus ‘administrative fees’. Well, one such company (Paymax Canada Inc. of Winnipeg) is in court today, facing charges of “entering into an agreement with the public to charge a criminal interest rate”

According to the Criminal Code of Canada, you can only charge a 60%/annum interest rate, except where a judge considers that too high. Where these payday loan companies get into trouble is the administrative fees – sometimes as high as 20% of the principal. Anti-poverty groups are up in arms, seeing this as taking advantage of the poor, yadda yadda yadda.

Liberal cheerleaders at the Toronto Star are giddy – one columnist writing, “It's good to see one case of predatory lending finally coming to court.” I wonder if she’s ever heard the term, ‘it takes two to tango’. Nobody is being forced to take out a loan here – they are simply voluntarily using the service.

The rates are high because of the large number of defaults on such loans. They have to charge extremely high rates of annual interest because charging lower rates would not let them do business. Take a $400 dollar loan for two weeks from Money Mart. I went on their website, and the total interest + fees charged for that loan would be approx. $460 or so (I looked at it last night, and can’t get to the website today due to my work’s annoying firewall). That’s $60 in fees over two weeks – or, it would be $1680 over a full year. Legally, all that can be charged over a full year is $666.66, or around $23.80 for the two weeks. If their default rate is, say, 1 in 10 (and I bet it’s a whole lot higher then that), and a $400 dollar loan is average (which it probably isn’t, but – it will work to show the point), for every 10 loans, at a legal rate of interest, they will take in $3814, and pay out $4000… so, they would have to operate at a loss.

Anti-poverty groups dislike what they see as usury – but, I bet they’ll be screaming louder when these places go out of business. Banks won’t go into the short-term, high-risk market – they make good money at what they do, and are adverse to such high liabilities. So, what’s the solution? Get rid of these payday loan companies, and see the lower-income members of society stuck when they have to pay an unexpected bill, and don’t have the money for groceries for a week? Payday loan companies fill a void – they don’t hide how much they charge you for the two weeks (despite the Toronto Star saying, “Most clients — 74 per cent of those interviewed by Strategic Communications Inc. last fall — are unaware of all the fees and charges that are tacked on to their bill.” Um…. If you take out $400, write a cheque for $460, what exactly are you not aware of? They probably can’t itemize the $60 in expenses – but, do they really need to?

So, I dare somebody on the left to explain, if payday loan companies don’t exist (which, if they are limited to a 60% interest rate per annum, they won’t), how not having that resource will be better for the poor then things are right now. If somebody on the right can give that explanation – all the better, because I am quite curious to see how, exactly, it’s going to help.

Support for Separation Falling

2006-02-01T03:45:00.000-05:00

This article mentions a new poll showing that support for independence has fallen from 43% before the election to 34% after the election. This is huge. Sure, it may just be in celebration that the Liberals are gone and Harper needs to make sure he makes real change with the fiscal imbalance, respecting provincial jurisdiction, etc. What this shows is that people were wanting separation based on the incompetent Liberal government and not until they left could they feel comfortable in this country. I'm hoping the support for separation continues to fall and gets below 30% once the Conservatives start to implement their policies.

24 Hours until Gomery II

2006-01-31T15:11:00.000-05:00

Tomorrow will see the end of the saga that has been Justice Gomery’s work. The second report will be officially released at 2:00PM Eastern, with Gomery reading a statement and taking media questions at 3:00PM. Pundits are saying that this will be the first real test for Harper’s government, and to an extent, I agree.

The report to be released tomorrow outlines Gomery’s ideas as to how to prevent another sponsorship scandal from ever happening again (apparently, it isn’t as easy as “don’t elect the thieving bahst’ds”). Gomery is widely expected to go further then, say, the promised Federal Accountability Act, suggesting that public servants be able to be fired more easily when wrongdoing can be proven.

This probably won’t fly, politically. The unions love their job security – so, they’ll put pressure on the NDP, Liberals, and BQ to go against anything which might, *gasp*, make it more difficult to fire somebody who is incompetent or crooked. Buzz won’t give out the fancy CAW leather jackets to somebody who doesn’t ensure the right of a dues-paying union brother or sister in solidarity to steal, and keep their job.

If the Accountability Act is similar to Gomery’s second report – that’ll be a positive mark in Harper’s favour. He will be able to say, “our party fully agrees with Mr. Justice Gomery, and vowed to implement these recommendations even before he made them. Reforming the public accountability system is not a matter of political benefits – it is a matter of common sense”. If it differs radically in intent – well, then there will be a problem – but about the only people realistically hoping for this are the potential Liberal leadership candidates.

The Philosophy of Change

2006-01-31T10:35:00.000-05:00

Well, a good friend of mine got philosophical on her blog, and as I was standing outside having a quick butt, I decided that the topic was something that could be dealt with in a separate post.

I know of several people who do not vote, not because they are apathetic or lazy, but because they do not want to take the individual responsibility for the decisions that are made in Government. They don’t want to vote, say, Liberal – help to elect a Liberal government, and then feel responsibility for what the Liberals do. This transcends generational boundaries – it’s not just the younger generation at fault.

Our elected representatives are just like the rest of us. Every morning, Prime Minister Designate Harper wakes up just like the rest of us, puts on his socks one foot at a time like the rest of us, and gets his kids ready to school just like the rest of us (well, those that have children, anyways). Yes, he is privy to some information that we are not – however, he is human, with the benefits and drawbacks that humanity has.

Steph makes a good point – we all want to see results right away. When I got back to work last Wednesday (after my week-long election leave), I was inundated with questions as to when the GST cut would be implemented, when the military funding would increase, etc. etc. etc. That is a sign of the times. Those in our (early 20’s) generation are used to seeing quick results. You want to talk with somebody halfway around the world? Our parents had to wait for the mail – we send a quick Email. You want to go to Europe? Our grandparents (well, maybe great-grandparents) had to take a several week-long boat trip – we hop on a plane for a few hours.

Change takes time. We can start to deal with things in the short term – moderate reductions in taxes, slow repayment of debt, increased funding for the military – but that doesn’t mean that in 6 months (or a year, or even five years) we will be a tax-free, debt-free, safehaven.

Look at Alberta. During the early days of Klein’s Government, funding was cut to many departments. Hospitals filled up, schools became decrepit, things, well, sucked. 10 years later – funding is way up, there is no debt, and every citizen received (or is in the process of receiving) their “Ralph-Bucks”. To put it bluntly, change can suck the big one, at the start. Think of it as a surgery to remove a bullet – before you can start to fix the problems the bullet caused, you have to cut into the skin even further. That’s the process we will have to go through over the next few years. Hopefully Canadians remain long-sighted enough to see the light at the end of the tunnel – after 12 years of waste and mismanagement, it’s about time that we start to see the light.

A Tale of Two Armies

2006-01-31T09:06:00.000-05:00

It seems that Canada’s armies are having trouble with their money, lately.

First comes the national army – DND was bilked out of $100 million through phony billing by some contractors, assisted by former-employee Paul Champagne – fired in 2003 for his involvement, and now coming back into the country to face criminal charges.

Now that the stealing has stopped from DND (at least, by this group of individuals – who knows what else there is to discover), the liabilities start. Agusta-Westland, creator of the EH-101, has filed a claim for $1 Billion in damages, alleging political interference in the bidding process for the new Sea-King replacements. They claim that the Liberal government wanted to avoid having the EH-101 selected as the new replacement, to avoid embarrassment over having cancelled the EH-101 contract signed by the Mulroney government, at a cost of around $470 million in cancellation penalties.

Hard to believe – the Liberals interfering in an ‘open’ competitive process for their own political gain. That’s almost as hard to believe as any federalist party using the fight against the separatists in Quebec for their own personal gain…. Oh… yeah.

Another army – this time the Salvation Army, has discovered a little bit of fraud. Former Salvation-Army accountant Ming Wa is being sued by the Salvation Army to recover the money. This story is somewhat funny, actually – Wa’s personal attorney, Christopher Reed, attempted to broker a deal between Wa and the Sally-Ann, in which Wa would give 40% of the stolen money back as well as show the Army how the money was stolen, in return for immunity from criminal or civil action, and confidentiality.

That takes real stones – Stealing money, and then trying to give only 40% of it back and wanting to call it even. Sounds vaguely like something one would see on, say, the Sopranos. The Army, incidentally, turned down the offer, and eventually tracked down Wa on their own.

Thankfully, the latter story seems to be on it’s way to resolution. The first story – well, probably won’t see much money out of that one coming back to the Government. And the second… there is a nice little welcome present for Prime Minister Designate Harper - $1B in new liability. The next few months will probably see more cases like this start to come out of the woodworks – and only then will we know exactly how much money there is in the coffers.

Canadian Idol - Political Style

2006-01-30T13:31:00.000-05:00

Well, the race is now wide open for Leader of the Official Opposition, AKA the Liberal Party of Canada. The two early front runners, McKenna and Manley, have either been reported as declining to run (the former, as of the writing of this entry), or have publicly stated they would not run (the latter).

Who is there for the Liberals to pick? I’ve already talked about Glen Murray – not so much of a longshot now, but nowhere near the favourite. Scott Brison is a possibility – he is playing his cards close to his chest for now, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he was trying to get some money for a potential bid. Another possibility is Michael Ignatieff – he’ll feel some pain from being out of the country for so long, and cannot attack the Conservatives on issues such as being “too close” to the USA.

Another name being thrown out is Belinda Stronach – she’s got the experience in leadership races now, and would be able to use daddy’s money (oops, I mean, her money) to try to buy the win. I think that Conservatives across the nation would be glad to see her win the leadership – that would be perhaps the final sign that the Liberal Party of Canada is failing. I am sure that Peter Mackay has some great stories that he could share – the bedroom talk of “No, honey, the Minister of Transport doesn’t get to say who can and cannot have a driver’s licence, he can on-… a driver’s licence is this piece of paper that your chauffeur has to have in order to drive your limo.” The Liberal’s electoral strategy under the Stronach regime (assuming she grew enough of a backbone/ego to ignore her handlers) would be something like, “Instead of winning more seats, let’s just make Ontario a bigger pie!”

The other name being strutted is Brian Tobin. He was the Premier of Newfoundland in between stints in the House of Commons, serving in opposition and as a Cabinet Minister during Chrétien’s time. On paper, Tobin would be a good choice for the LPC’s leadership, except for the fact that he isn’t from Quebec. The problem with him is that he is associated with the Chrétien side of the Liberal Party. Granted – that side probably has a bit more power now then, say, 6 months ago – having seen the Martin-ites lose the election almost single-handedly; but, do the Liberals really want to have somebody associated with either side of the Chrétien-Martin feud as leader? If I were a Liberal (… I’d have to get a lobotomy… I would shoot myself… - that lead-in is too easy to joke about), I would want somebody fresh to come in – accept a possible loss in the next election (if called within the next two years), and take the time to re-build the party.

As an aside – the new corporate internet policy that I talked about earlier has been rescinded. The company line is that the firewall software mysteriously switched that filtering on without any human involvement whatsoever – the truth is likely that the CEO got into the office, wanted to look at an auction on EBay, was blocked, and called down to Information Management in a rage. So – there goes my productivity for the day.

Recap of Ken’s Riding Predictions, Plus my own Riding Results

2006-01-30T09:14:00.000-05:00

I was re-reading some of the old articles on this blog (making sure I haven’t pulled a Klander – safe for another week), and came across Ken’s predictions on the ridings where he lived.

Well, Ken, you did ok… 6 ridings correct, two (Kitchener-Waterloo; St. Pauls) incorrect, and one (Welland) half-credit. You called the Liberal win in Welland, Ken, but you called us in second place – 800 votes short! Still, not bad – and, seeing as how Toronto and the GTA didn’t flip – your predictions were pretty accurate.

So, how did my ridings do?

Well, I started off in Calgary South-East. Jason Kenny – a nice easy Conservative win. 75% of the popular vote, too! Lethbridge – Rick Casson with only 67% of the popular vote. Stormant – Dundas – South Glengarry – Guy Lauzon re-elected for the CPC with 54% of the popular vote. And here in Charleswood – St. James – Assiniboia, Steven Fletcher with 47% of the vote.

That’s somewhat exciting, I’ve lived in four ridings, and in all of them a Conservative was elected! Yes, me getting somewhat excited about that is sad, but, whatchagonnado.

In other news, the end of the internet has gotten a whole lot shorter for me at work, the network guys have instilled “quota time”. Now, I can only access online auction, health, real-estate, and political organization-related sites for 1 hour per day (separated into 10 minute chunks). It’s almost like they’re trying to send us a hint, “you shouldn’t do personal crap on company time”. Bast’ahds.

The Radical Feminists Love to Hate Harper

2006-01-27T15:31:00.000-05:00

Leave it to the CBC to give me something to rant about. Georgie Binks, feminist-extraordinaire, thinks that Stephen Harper will help to promote the feminist movement by, “… revers(ing) some kind of thing we thought was assured”. She goes on to ramble about how 73% of Conservative incumbents have expressed anti-abortion sentiments, and 24% supposedly refused to say where they stand on the issue of abortion.

Well, let’s look at that. What is, exactly, an ‘anti-abortion’ sentiment? Is saying, “Abortion is murder” ‘anti-abortion’? Sure. What about, “I do not like abortion”? Ok, I’ll buy that is an anti-abortion statement. How about, “It is sad when a woman has to have an abortion”? Ok… if we really want to, we can call that an ‘anti-abortion’ statement. Perhaps even saying, “I would not personally choose to have an abortion” would qualify as an ‘anti-abortion’ statement.

Now, I’ve never had to contemplate, in any detail, a significant other having to have an abortion. It isn’t something that ever came up within my family, or my immediate group of friends. Even if the circumstance came up, I can’t think of anybody jumping up and down saying, “Yay to Abortion! Yay to Abortion!”. Heck, even most pro-choice individuals (myself included) tend to recognize that abortion isn’t what one would call a great day out. I don’t see many couples spending a weekend going to see a matinee, followed by a therapeutic abortion and followed up with dinner and dancing. So, Georgie – let’s try breaking that down a bit – what percentage of Conservative incumbents have stated that they wish that therapeutic abortions are illegal? I bet it’s nowhere near that 73% number – and that’s what differentiates between pro-choice and anti-choice (aka. “pro-life”, as if those of us who support a woman’s right to choose are somehow “pro-death”)

Now, as to the 24% that refused to say where they stand… I wonder, Georgie, is that based on one of the many surveys that were sent to each candidate in the last election? I can’t speak for all candidates; however our campaign received well over 20 candidate surveys – some which would take no more then 15 minutes of time, others that would require several hours to fill out. Sorry, Georgie, but spending 5 hours in order to answer a question that may be foremost in the minds of one or two potential voters just doesn’t make sense. Far better to go door knocking or making phone calls – that gets more questions (not to mention, more relevant questions) answered for more individuals.

Or, maybe they told you, and you didn’t like the answer. Maybe they gave the company line, “A Conservative Government will not support legislation which would limit access to abortion”, and you said “but, what do you think”, to which they replied, “I agree with the party position”, and a vicious circle went around.

I’ll be honest, I’m not usually one for this whole radical feminism thing. I believe in equality of the sexes – not supra-equality as Georgie usually supports, where women should be given more opportunities then men to make up for the, as they say, sins of our forefathers. When talking about child care, Georgie says, “Too many Conservatives don't believe in universal day care and are still trying to get their heads around women being in the workforce.” Sorry, Georgie, but you’re now trying to assign yourself a gender role – that of stay-at-home parent automatically female. What about the dads who want to be able to spend time with their children, because it works better for the family for the mother to persue her career? The Conservative policy on child care will work equally for those families, as well as the more ‘traditional’ single-income, dual-parent family where the mother stays home to work.

Of course, Georgie may be feeling a bit of pressure, as there are some (Rick Mercer, for one) who worry about the future of the CBC under a Conservative government. Well, Georgie – I do hope that the CBC stops the funding of socialist wackos like you. It’s nothing against socialist wackos, per say, I just like it when they at least admit that they’re making up numbers and facts when they write their BS.

The Liberal Leadership Contenders – Glen Murray

2006-01-27T08:58:00.000-05:00

Now, here’s a rumour which, while improbable, isn’t completely impossible. Calgary Grit is reporting that good ‘ole Glen Murray is considering a run at the Liberal leadership.

(Pause for laughter)

For those that haven’t heard of Mayor Glen, he was the former Winnipeg mayor who left his job halfway through a term to run against Steven Fletcher in 2004. After losing the election, he lectured at the University of Toronto’s Massey College before being nominated to a cushy patronage appointment as chair of the National Roundtable on the Environment. The House (read: everybody but the Liberals) didn’t really like that, and passed a motion telling Martin to find somebody that, oh, knows something about the environment, to take this $400/day (plus expenses) job. Martin, in a typical show of indifference to the wishes of Parliament, ignored that idea.

I have trouble believing this rumour. Murray’s never held an elected position higher then mayor. He is somewhat learned on urban policy – however, knowing how to run a city is a far cry from being able to deal with the provinces on both urban and rural issues. I can’t see the Liberals ever selecting him as leader – he is a former card-carrying NDP member, and would take the Liberal Party even farther to the left then it already is. This would probably push even more moderates to the Conservative Party – the red Tories (and even blue Grits) who currently have found, if not a home, somewhere to squat in the Liberal Party, would not be able to stomach some of Murray’s socialist policies. The only mark in favour of electing him would be to bring in an openly homosexual leader, in order to try to demonstrate the Liberal Party’s ‘progressiveness’ – and, if they want to do that, then Brison could do just as well.

Likelihood of Murray winning: 5%
Liberal success with Glen Murray as Leader: Best-case, Murray could live in Stornoway. Worst-case, Duceppe moves in.

The story of the final days of the Fletcher Campaign - Part 2

2006-01-26T10:39:00.000-05:00

Tuesday, January 24

Woke up at about 8:00 AM, after 6 hours of almost semi-restful sleep. Cleaned my kitchen for the first time in a while (hey, I’m not a slob – I’ve just been busy! And besides, I haven’t cooked at home in a long, long time), and went into the office. Started to organize the paperwork that we got from the scrutineers – piled up all the bingo sheets, and all the result pages. Sorted through the, oh, 400 or so bingo sheets we had in the office, tried to narrow it down to the master sheet (or sheets) for each poll, and got those ready to send off to Ottawa to enter. That took the better part of the day. Chatted with Steven for a while, he was in for an interview with CBC (I think French radio, not 100% sure), and called it an “early” day at around 4:30

Wednesday, January 25

Back to work I go. I had taken off a full week from my paid employment in order to work full-time on the campaign (resulting in only 12 hour days, rather then the 15 hour days while working and volunteering), and let me tell you, getting up at 6:30 after getting to sleep in for a week really sucks! (yes, Steph, I know, 6:30’s rather late, but I like my beauty sleep – I need all of it that I can get!). Called the computer rental company to arrange pickup of the computers we rented for the campaign during my lunch break, got that set up for Thursday. After work, went over to the campaign office, and spent the better part of three hours packing up all the computers. 6 boxes of towers, monitors, routers, and cables to go back – man, the place looks empty! The association now owns a laser printer, a print-scan-copy all-in-one device, and a print-scan-copy-fax all-in-one device, that I get to find somewhere to store. We also have a computer – purchased used for a reasonable price, and hopefully I can find a foster home for that. And paper – reams and reams of paper… my apartment’s going to look like a two-bit computer product wholesaler by the time this is done.

And there’s the story of the final few days of the Fletcher campaign. It was a great experience, I worked with a lot of great people, and made some new friends. Best of all – we won! We are in good shape for the next election campaign – can anybody say Team Fletcher 2007?

The story of the final days of the Fletcher Campaign - Part 1

2006-01-26T09:42:00.000-05:00

Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Yes, that does have a nice ring to it.

I’ve been a bit quiet here lately – finishing up the campaign took a lot of time, resulting in a lack of sleep and my coming down with a wicked cold. Oh well, it was worth it.

To recap the last few days:

Sunday, January 22

Entered a ton of data from our blitzes on Saturday, then went to a rally. Got to stand on stage behind Harper, apparently I was seen on one or two of the pool cameras (no autographs please). Went back to the office, hung out for a bit, then went and put up signs for a couple hours with Scott, one of the campaign managers. We shamelessly doubled and tripled up on some of the major thoroughfares, and un-hid some of our smaller signs that Loewen’s crew tried to hide.

Monday, January 23

Went out for breakfast with a few of the others from the campaign. The other two data-entry people, as well as the lady who was helping to organize (ok, who am I kidding – who was whipping us into shape, which sure was required) the office-side of E-Day. Got to the campaign office around 9:00, and shortly thereafter found out that the aforementioned lady was in a car accident, and broke a couple ribs. Thankfully, those were the only injuries – painful, but she will be ok. It didn’t help the organization at the office – the people working at the office were going to receive a detailed briefing on what to do on the morning of E-Day, before data started to pour in.

The rest of the day was a busy blur of putting in data. We received “bingo sheets” from our scrutineers, with the ID number of each voter (it’s not as Orwellian as it sounds – each voter per poll has a specific number from 1-1000) being input into our computer system, so that our callers wouldn’t keep calling people who voted. My fingers are still somewhat sore from pounding away on the number keys. I guess I’m not cut out to be an accountant.

At 8:00, the data entry stopped, and the set-up for results began. We set up a shared Excel workbook to allow people to view poll-specific results, with a volunteer at the front, wearing a two-way radio with earpeace to get total results from the back room, and write them on a large poster board. That was supposed to give great visuals to the media who were there – and, were there ever a lot of media there! I think there were somewhere around 40-50 members of the media in attendance, with uplink trucks parked around the building. One guy had driven in on Sunday from Seattle, was doing the uplink for Global National, and after the election was on his way down to Chicago for the Superbowl. Tough Life!

Around 8:50, results started to pour in. The first poll to come in, Steven was down about 10 votes. We decided not to put that result out right away, we wanted to wait for a few more polls to come in (hopefully ones we were winning). That plan got shot all to hell when one of the other campaign managers, James, came into our back room (3 of us on cell phones getting results in from the scrutineers) and told us to start putting whatever data we had out, because the reporters had just called the riding for Steven. The next hour and a quarter or so are a blur – I was madly putting data in, and calling out results every 10 minutes or so to the guy at the front for posting. Around 10:00, I was able to step out of the room and have a quick glass of wine. Man, that hit me hard! I guess not eating all that much during the day, then slamming a glass back, wasn’t a great idea. My work finally ended around midnight, with all of the polls (except two) reporting – Steven had won, Loewen had come to concede and left already, and the big question was would Rod Bruinooge take out Reg Alcock in Winnipeg South. I finally left around 1:00 or so, after hearing that Bruinooge looked to be winning in Winnipeg South. I found out the next day that he had, in fact, won – and several of our campaign staffers (as well as Steven) went out to celebrate with Bruinooge’s team until the wee hours of the morning.

Later on today (or tomorrow) – the story of the clean-up.

Proof Why You Must Vote Liberal

2006-01-21T20:13:00.000-05:00

Why you cannot vote for Conservative (also why I'm not Canadian), proof by contradiction

I am voting Conservative
You have to be Canadian to vote (by election laws) (*)
We know that Canadian Values = Liberal Values
If you are Canadian you hold Canadian Values
=>If you do not have Liberal Values, you do not have Canadian Values
But there are other choices you can vote for on your ballot
If you vote Conservative you don't hold Liberal Values
=> You do not have Canadian Values
=> You are not Canadian
This is in contradiction with (*), therefore you cannot vote Conservative

This proof works by substituting in any other party except for the Liberals. Therefore you have to vote Liberal.

Home Riding(s) Predictions

2006-01-16T03:13:00.000-05:00

This may be a long post, I am going to predict who will win in every riding I have lived in.

Toronto Centre (Ages 0 - 1 days old) - I was born in this riding, so I thought I'd include it. I don't see how Bill Graham won't win this riding. However, I really think Lewis Reford would do amazing in Ottawa if he got elected. I met Lewis a few times, hopefully Tory support will keep building up and eventually he'll have a seat.

Halton (Ages 0 - 2) - Garth Turner should be able to take this riding over the Liberal incumbent Gary Carr. Garth was previously a cabinet minister under the Mulroney government, so he already has name recognition in the riding. This riding was close enough last time and with the polls for the Tories staying strong, Turner will win.

Carleton-Mississippi Mills (Age 2) - Tory incumbent Gordon O'Connor will easily hold onto this Ottawa area riding. He won by over 10,000 votes in 2004, so look for him to win with close to 50% of vote.

Ottawa West-Nepean (Ages 2 -12) - Former Provincial Cabinet Minister John Baird is running for the Conservatives here. The current MP is not running, so he faces Lee Farnworth, a Nepean City Councillor. You'd have to assume the MPP has more name recognition than a City Councillor. In 2004, the Liberal only won by about 1000 votes, there is no way Baird will not win this. The real question is: what cabinet position will Harper give Baird?

Lethbridge (Ages 12-18) - Rick Casson by a landslide. Last time he ran against the sitting MLA (for about 1/2 of the riding), Ken Nicol, and he still got well over 60% of the vote. I'm surprised Rick is even in Canada, letalone having an 8am campaign meeting like he mentions in his campaign blog that he frequently updates. At least it shows he is willing to work for the votes instead of believing he is entitled to them. I wonder if he can keep all other candidates below 10,000?

Kitchener Waterloo (Ages 18-22, off and on) - Working on Ajmer Mandur's campaign I know this riding is much closer than some may think it is. Andrew Telegdi, the Liberal incumbent, has to be one of the most despicable politicians - oh hell, I won't limit this to politicians, so just people - hey it isn't libel if it is true. (Links and quotes thanks to the Liberal Warren Kinsella) In 2001 he said Canada, "is acting like a Nazi-style regime," which is ironic since he was defending an interpreter with a Nazi death squad during the Second World War. As well, he used the N**** word back when he was the President of the University of Waterloo Federation of Students. So you may say that was over 30 years ago, right? Well he refused to apologize for this remark at the all candidates meeting last week. Fine, people can change in 30 years, but that doesn't mean you stand by it! Here's a quote from the KW Record article about the debate:

Brad Wiffen, a fourth-year business student at Laurier, said Telegdi used the phrase "students are n------ because they want to be n------." The question sparked complaints about the question itself as well as calls for Telegdi to respond. The Liberal candidate said the student was distorting the story. He said he made the comment in 1974 as president of the students' federation at the University of Waterloo. He said the term was part of the "lexicon" at the time of the "students' movement" and it wasn't racially motivated. He said he used it to describe all students who were fed up with politics and those in power. But he didn't apologize when Wiffen asked. That drew sharp criticism from [NDP candidate Edwin] Laryea, a native of Ghana and Mandur, who was born in India. "I'm surprised that he doesn't have the courtesy to say 'I'm sorry if I offended somebody,' " Laryea said. "I don't think we should be using terms like that. That is not acceptable." Mandur [sic] said he was also offended. "As a visible minority, I'm appalled," he said. "It's a courtesy from Mr. Telegdi to at least apologize."

I'm hoping the good people of KW will stand up for ourselves and elect someone we can actually be proud to call our MP. I think Mandur can take this riding, but if he does it will be VERY close.

Willowdale (Ages 19, 21, & 22: 4 months each time) - Jovan Boseovski is running once again for the Conservatives. While I think Jovan has almost no chance against Cabinet Minister Jim Peterson, I do think his vote total will increase. Ever since receiving the nomination in May, Jovan has been door knocking and trying everything he could do to get his name out in the riding. As long as Peterson keeps running, he will keep winning this riding; however, provincially Willowdale has elected MPP's from the PC Party. So if CPC can keep doing well across the country, especially in Ontario, and if Peterson retires, this riding can be in play.

St. Paul's (Age 20) - While working downtown Toronto and living in Willowdale in December, I volunteered many days after work for Peter Kent. I heard from some people that we have no chance in the real Toronto ridings such as this one, but my experiences were completely different. In my two canvasses, I found very few Liberal supporters, just people that always voted Liberal. I went up to one house with a big Carolyn Bennett sign on the lawn and by the time I left they were marked down for a Peter Kent sign with 3/4 people in the house supporting us! Another day I was phoning riding residents, in 2 hours I had 10 signs ordered. This riding may have been used to voting Liberal, but I refuse to agree that they are Liberal. Since anecdotal evidence is always conclusive, here is an article about many people, including St. Paul's Federal Liberal Riding Association Executive, switching to Peter Kent's side. On an election betting site, the line for Kent was +10000 votes just a couple weeks ago, then it was +6000 on the weekend, now it is down to just +2000! This means so many people were willing to bet money that Peter would come within that margin, that the margin kept shrinking and shrinking. Election Prediction also finally put this riding as too close to call last week. All these positive signs put together with the very strong Tory poll standings, I think this is the riding for us in Toronto! Peter Kent will be a wonderful MP for the party.

Welland (Ages 21-22, official residency after my parents moved here) - At first I was thinking this was going to be an easy enough Liberal win, now I am not quite so sure. Mel Grunstein's website sure leaves something to be desired and he is still using the old "Demand Better, Vote Conservative" lawn signs. However, the reason I know he is using these old signs is because there are so freaking many of them! I was just there this past weekend, driving into the riding on a road that was 1/2 in St. Catharines riding and 1/2 in Welland riding, it was like a tunnel of blue signs with Rick Dystra on the left and Mel Grunstein on the right. I know signs don't vote, and all that, but these signs were all on private property! I think we may need to be in majority territory to win this riding, but if we are, this riding can surely fall our way. I would say the Liberals are in the lead here, but we are definitely not 3rd place here anymore.

Ummm What?

2006-01-15T14:53:00.000-05:00

I couldn't believe what I was seeing when I watched the news this morning (or more like it was 1pm and I just woke up),

Martin cited Lester Pearson, Pierre Trudeau and even former Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney as examples of leaders who "dedicated themselves to keeping Canada's word to the world, to reflecting Canadian values, to defending Canadian interests."

So what Martin's point is that even though there isn't a good reason to vote for him, Harper isn't the statesman that Mulroney was so umm... vote Liberal? I think what the underlying issue is here is that we don't need a Liberal to represent us. I am not a huge fan of Mulroney, but he certainly did represent us well internationally, and I think most Canadians will agree with this. That's why Martin can't just say the Conservatives cannot represent our country, because Canadians know otherwise. Harper will represent our country abroad much better than dithers ever could!

Great Policy!

2006-01-14T04:08:00.000-05:00

The last new announcement from the Conservative Party is to eliminate the taxation of capital gains if the money is moved into another investment within 6 months. I love this policy. Sure, it won't move our poll numbers even higher (as most fiscal conservatives are likely already on our side), but it is just a very good idea. Under the current system it is possible for a rational investor to stay with a worse performing company just to move the capital gains tax to future years if the benefit is higher than the incremental improvement of switching to the company with a higher expected return.

I will show how this is effective with a completely true story. Two weeks ago my dad was facing a dilemma: whether to sell a shares in company A for shares in company B, that he thought would do better. In his decision he had to consider that he would have to immediately pay the capital gains taxes this year. Company B would have to perform better than A by at least the present value of the difference in taxes paid depending on which year he sold his shares. With my father only a few years away from retirement, it is possible that he could be in a lower tax bracket when he sells the security, so it becomes even more beneficial to put off the capital gains tax. So the end result is that investors will not invest purely on which security they think will perform better, as they would in an ideal market. Under this new Conservative policy, the decision becomes obvious - my father would just switch his position to the company he feels will perform the best - as it should be!

Liberal education plan even worse then it first appeared

2006-01-11T11:29:00.000-05:00

I was a critic of the Liberal’s “50/50” plan when it first came out. That was before I actually ran the numbers.

The leaked copy of the Liberal red book (available at http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/files/platforme.pdf), says that “– Students will have the choice either to opt in to the new (50/50) plan, or to draw benefits from the existing Tuition Tax Credit and Education Expense Deduction.” Ok, fair enough, either you get the cash, or get the tax credits. That wasn’t announced as loudly when they announced this plan, and for good reason – the tax credits are better.

Follow along with me:

As of 2003/2004, the average Undergrad tuition was 4,025/year. That works out to a savings of 4,025 under the 50/50 plan.

The total cost for University (if completely self-paid, via savings, scholarship, or loans) is, on average, 16,100 of tax-refundable tuition expenses. Consider the average University student spends 4 years studying full-time 8 months out of the year, that works out to 12,800 that can be claimed as an educational expense deduction. So, 28,900 in total. 16% of that is 4,624 in tax savings – far better then the Liberal’s handout of cash, and this hasn’t yet accounted for other tax refundable education expenses.

These tax deductions can be saved until the student starts working full-time – giving them more of their money to pay off loans, or start up a family.

Worst. Ad. Ever.

2006-01-11T09:10:00.000-05:00

Canadians have seen plenty of dirty attack ads over the years, from both sides of the spectrum. This one will take the prize for dirtiest ad ever.

The Liberals went beyond attacking Steven Harper in this ad – they attacked our men and women in uniform. Our military was compared to that of one of those developing nation militaries that randomly overthrows the Government.

I’m pissed. These people have risked their lives to guarantee our rights – and the Liberals repay them with not only shoddy equipment, but now with outright insults.

To make this story even better, John Duffy apparently tried to intimidate Mike Duffy into not running or discussing the ad during the post-debate commentary last night. God knows, I don’t always agree with what Mike Duffy has to say – but his “we will not be intimidated” line was bang on. Hopefully he speaks for the Canadian people.

The Liberals want us now to “Choose (our) Canada”. Ok, I choose the Canada where we respect those that vow to defend us (military), properly equip those that try to protect us (police, customs agents), thank those that try to help us (whistleblower legislation), and do it all without stealing our money. There is only one party that has promised to deliver on all these, and that’s the Conservative Party of Canada.

You can view the attack ad, plus John Duffy vs. Mike Duffy, here.

English Debate #2 recap

2006-01-09T22:52:00.000-05:00

Well, an exciting two hours of television is done, and it’s time for the pundits to talk about who won and who lost.

It started off poorly for Mr Dithers, saying “my vision of government ethics is honesty… it is also about telling the truth”. For most of us, those are the same thing.

Layton made the next odd statement, in saying “I think a big part of (the lack of civility in the House) is not having enough women in Parliament”. I guess he’s never heard Landslide Annie talk. Civility isn't a gender issue - it's an individual issue.

The blockbuster of the evening – Martin committed to removing the notwithstanding clause of the constitution. More on this in a bit.

Martin dithered again on handguns, saying, “we have 500,000 handguns in the hands of collectors that are one break in away from being used in a crime”. I thought that after he stated he would ban all handguns, he relented and said that collectors and target shooters would be allowed to keep their handguns. Following that quote, he said again he would ban all handguns.

After admitting that doctors offices are privately run, Martin stated that, “any money the federal government is putting into health care is going into public health care.” Maybe for him – he whips out his Visa when he goes to his family physician, but for most Canadians, our provincial health care system pays for our visits to the family doc.

The tax questions went better then I was expecting. Harper made a very good point – the 30% of the lowest income Canadians will not benefit from any income tax cut.

Martin stated that he “(doesn’t) know any country that can touch Canada in what we’re doing”. Well, he sure wasn’t talking about health care – we’re ranked 30^th. He wasn’t talking about cleaning up the environment – our greenhouse gas emissions are going up. He wasn’t talking about the economy – our unemployment rates are higher then the OECD average – and higher then the individual rates of Japan, the UK, and the USA.

The national unity question – Martin was stammering and stuttering worse then we have ever seen. He seemed genuinely afraid to answer direct questions from Gilles Duceppe – or from Harper or from Layton, when it comes to national unity.

The biggest part of the debate, as I mentioned before, was Martin promising to withdraw the notwithstanding clause. This would, to use the left’s term, Americanize our constitution, and gives judges the final say on the law. This works for the Americans – they have congressional oversight on the appointment of judges. As we have seen – if one of the parties is very uncomfortable with a judge, they will ensure that he or she does not go through the nomination process. In Canada, the Liberals have embraced the appointment of judges by the Prime Minister alone, without any meaningful input by Parliament. This, when combined with removing the ability for Parliament to overrule the judges, gives the Prime Minister the powers of a dictator. The laws of Canada will no longer be up to the elected representatives of the people, they will be up to the Prime Minister and his group of cronies.

This frightens me. The PMO already has too much power – and this removes any potential oversight by Parliament. If the Prime Minister wants something, under Martin’s plan, it will be done, and anything that goes to the Judges will be ruled on, essentially, by the Prime Minister’s closest friends.

To wrap up – the clear looser was Martin. He couldn’t stand up to Duceppe and the separatists, he couldn’t stand up to his own promises, and he couldn’t stand up to his record. The Winner? Duceppe did ok, but it was pretty clear that this was a throwaway for him – tomorrow’s French Language debate matters. Layton kept stammering about a third option – better then Ed Broadbent, but it was a one-hit wonder. Harper… he did well. He looked and sounded prime ministerial – no huge bombshells, but he remained solid. With Harper seeming more and more to be the man to beat, that pretty much counts as a win.

English Debate #2 Preview

2006-01-09T16:25:00.000-05:00

Well, it’s two weeks until E-Day. The polls are looking good, and the Conservative campaign is running smoothly – no musing about majorities (by the Conservatives, anyways, reporters are a different story), no candidates shooting their mouths off – life is good. It is anybody’s game at this point – and the debates could end up tipping the scale.

Here is a preview of tonight’s English language debate.

The SSM issue will come up again, taking the form perhaps of, “Mr Harper, why do you keep bringing up SSM as an election issue”. Martin and Layton will imitate the bobble-head dolls, and throw their two cents in on the Charter of Rights. I’m going to predict a draw on that topic, with a possible Harper edge if he can back Martin into a corner on how giving the same rights is discrimination.

We will see accountability come up here. Look for Duceppe bashing Martin, Layton with the thumb point and Ed Broadbent’s name being uttered once or twice, and Harper laying out the Conservative’s accountability act (with probably a bit of Liberal-bashing). Duceppe and Harper will come out winners on this issue, with bonus points every time they make Martin start to stutter.

Justice will be talked about a bit. This one will end up a Layton/Harper draw, as both seem to have a pretty clear plan. Martin will take a bit of heat for the disagreements between he and Irwin Cotler on the issue of mandatory minimums, although he will fight back with some Harris-bashing.

Health Care… well, Health Care will be talked about. The NDP have wavered a bit on the issue of privatization, I don’t see Layton bringing a perfect performance to this issue during the debate. Martin and Harper will end up neck and neck on this issue – expect to see Martin try to close with accusing the Conservatives of wanting to establish two-tiered health care, probably at the end of the health care session or during closing statements, when Harper doesn’t have a chance to immediately refute the statements.

Taxes will be mentioned… I hate to say it, but Martin’s gonna win it. While the Conservative position makes perfect sense (we are implementing our own tax plan, not theirs), the optics just aren’t there. Martin will call us the tax-raising right-wing hidden agenda rednecks, to some (albeit limited) success.

All in all, I expect to see a close debate, with a slim Harper win. The expectations for Martin are so low right now, as long as he doesn’t start drooling on the podium he’ll at least stay at the front of the pack.

The Comedy that is Liberal

2006-01-08T19:53:00.000-05:00

Wow. Now I’ve seen everything. The Liberals are trying to argue that the Conservatives’ budget numbers aren’t up to snuff. That’s hilarious. No, really, the party that has underestimated the expected surplus in every budget in this millennium is complaining that another political party cannot budget properly.

And, to add fuel to the fire, Ralph Goodale took a break from leaking sensitive government material to suggest that a Conservative government would have to cut programs in order to realize their vision of a smaller government, without running a deficit. Well, no sh*t, Sherlock. Definition of smaller: “Being below the average in size or magnitude, Limited in degree or scope”. A Smaller government, by definition, would be, well, smaller. Jeez, Goodale (or somebody in the Liberal war room) took their smart pills today.

On another note, the Liberals are beating the values drum again. Martin stated that, “Fundamentally it will come down, I believe, to the very deep value differences between the two parties… And those value differences become more and manifest with every day” Judging from scandal after scandal after scandal from the Liberals… yeah, there are some value differences there. Conservatives would treat taxpayer dollars with the same consideration as they do their own, Liberals can’t tell the difference between taxpayer dollars and their own.

Martin went on today to say, “I believe that both Kyoto and the wider environmental agenda is very, very much in line with where Canadian thinking is. Mr. Harper doesn't agree. I think Canadians are going to take that into account”. Ahh, the Kyoto drum again. The Conservatives don’t support Kyoto – that’s pretty clear. That isn’t to say that the Conservatives don’t support the Environment – rather, the Conservatives want to support the Environment in an economically feasible manner. Instead of buying hot air credits from Russia (which will do, say, our smog problem, a crapload of good), the Conservatives want to improve the environment by increasing the amount of ethanol in our gasoline, and increasing the usage of mass transport. The Liberals… well, they’re content to talk about Kyoto while seeing our greenhouse gas emissions go up. I don’t agree with Kyoto but, if somebody is going to talk the talk, they should walk the walk. Kind of like cutting the GST, right Paul?

I'd suggest that the Liberals be made into a TV Movie that could count towards the Canadian content requirements - but... that won't work, because of star candidate Ignatieff and Canada Steamship Lines.

Yet another Liberal Scandal

2006-01-06T22:08:00.000-05:00

On the heels of ITscam (Goodale-gate? Finance Fraud? Suggest your snappy name now!), and Options Canada, comes yet another scandal. Angry in the Great White North provides an excellent play-by-play of the Liberal Government paying a Liberal lobbyist to lobby a Liberal Government. And, part of that lobby fee just may have ended back up in the LPC’s coffers!

I’m still trying to get this straight – the Justice Department paid the Coalition for Gun Control to hire a lobbyist to lobby the solicitor general, the Treasury Board, and the Privy Council. That Lobbyist is a Deputy National Director of the federal Liberal Party, and is a senior consultant with lobby company “Capital Hill Group”. The Capital Hill Group, by the way, donated over $135,000 to the Liberal Party between 1993 and 2003.

I always thought that part of the $69,200 that Ministers were paid in addition to their parliamentary pay was in order to lobby their fellow cabinet members. Shouldn’t the Minister of Justice, instead of paying over $100,000/year for a professional lobbyist, have been talking to his colleagues in Cabinet?

This scandal a day proposal has some pundits wondering, should the RCMP set up a branch office at the Liberal Party of Canada’s headquarters? This should get support from all parties, not only does it help to get Canadian’s money back, but it also cuts down on greenhouse gas emissions as they wouldn’t have to drive from RCMP Headquarters to LPC Headquarters.

In True Liberal Form

2006-01-05T22:52:00.000-05:00

The education announcement made today from the Liberals is barely a promise of anything. Sure they promise wads of cash to students, but this was already promised in their last budget! Only a small fraction of this was new money, the rest is just an implementation plan for the money they already promised. I don't understand how the Liberals can think they can announce the same thing over and over and try to fool us.

At least on CH News tonight I got to have my say. As they reported the announcement they said something like, "However university students are skeptical of the plan," and there were 4 quotes from students. My quote was on what my priority would be and I said, "we need across the board tax cuts."

If you teach a man to fish…

2006-01-05T14:08:00.000-05:00

The Liberals have finally come out with their education plan, just shy of a month after the Conservatives. The Liberals have focused on giving out bags of money to students – I guess they must be more trustworthy then parents (heh). Let’s compare the two plans

University/College (non-trades education)

Conservative: Tax deduction on books, which can be transferred to parents (to a maximum of $500 per year). Improvement to Student Loans, including lowering the parental contribution rates (so students can pay for their own education rather then relying on mommy and daddy). Exempting the first $10,000 dollars in scholarship or bursary income from taxation (helping those keeners who do well in school and qualify for many scholarships, plus work part-time).

Liberal: Pay half of the student’s undergraduate tuition during their first and last years, to a maximum of $3,000 per year. Expand some grants and create some new scholarships.

Ok, well, the Liberals are putting out more money for university/college. Ideologically, I’m not a huge fan of giving away a University education, but if you go for that kind of thing, the Liberals are giving more money.

Trades

Conservative: Allow for a tax exemption for purchased tools. Provide a $1000/year grant for apprentices in their first two years in an apprenticeship program. Provide a tax credit incentive for employers to create more apprenticeship positions.

Liberal: “work to increase participation in apprenticeships by making employment insurance more accessible and setting a benchmark for the number of apprenticeship graduates”.

Honestly, I’m not sure what the Liberal plan will do for people wanting to go into the trades. The Conservative plan is pretty straightforward and easy to understand.

All in all, the Conservative plan (for the most part) addresses the issues through tax incentives, whereas the Liberals hand out money. University will end up costing a bit less (probably) under the Liberal plan – I don’t necessarily think that is a good thing (devaluation of education – a bachelor’s degree is already nearly worthless in and of itself, this will make it more so; plus there is no external motivation to succeed at University when it’s being handed to you), but that’s where things stand.

Green Party Policies Reviewed

2006-01-04T10:35:00.000-05:00

Well, I decided to look at the Green Party’s platform – they are trying to bill themselves as the environmentally-sensitive right-wing alternative. Let’s look at some of their policies (from their policy document) in detail:

“Rescind all uranium-mining permits and prohibit the export of fissionable nuclear material.” Thereby trying to put Saskatchewan into the have-not category.

“Improve Canadian energy security by implementing a plan to address the economic consequences of higher oil prices.” Sounds like the NEP to me – Good bye Alberta’s prosperity, and with the first policy there goes Saskatchewan’s two major natural resources.

“Shift taxes on fossil fuels to earlier stages in the production cycle to encourage competition among companies to lower operating costs while reducing emissions.” Don’t these oil companies already have a reason to try to lower costs – so that they can maximize the profits for the shareholders?

“Begin a partial, gradual, revenue neutral tax shift from income, consumption and business taxes to resource use taxes, pollution taxes and land value levies reflecting corporate profits.” So, if I generate my own electricity, deal with my own wastewater, produce little garbage etc., I don’t pay taxes yet get the benefits of taxpayers? (police/fire/ambulance, roads/sidewalks etc.)

“Develop tax incentives for companies to meet the highest standards of gender and pay equity.” So… the pay equity, sure, but what do they mean about gender equity? Are they talking about taxing companies based on the proportion of women to men?

“Introduce laws guaranteeing a proportion of seats for women in government appointed bodies.” Even if there are more qualified men? Why not, ‘introduce a law guaranteeing the best suited individuals are appointed to government appointed bodies’?

“Recognize and value the unpaid work of women through reforms to our tax system.” I have no problem recognizing the work that women do that is unpaid (although I would think a feminist would cringe at this thought, because it seems to reinforce the idea that there are “woman jobs” and “man jobs”), but, let’s also recognize the work that men do that is unpaid. If we are going to give a $1.00 tax credit for every dish washed, let’s give the same credit for every cubic meter of grass cut.

“Decriminalize non-compliance and eliminate registration fees with the national firearms registry for firearms designed specifically for hunting…” See, that’s a misleading one. Many firearms used for hunting aren’t necessarily “designed specifically” for it. The classification “designed specifically” could also apply to some handguns or other restricted/prohibited firearms.

“Introduce a law mandating cinemas and video chains to have 20 per cent Canadian content.” And watch the cinemas and video chains go out of business because they are being forced to make 20% of their content less profitable. This will work if a corresponding law is passed mandating that 20% of the movies watched by individuals are of Canadian content – in fact, if the Canadian Content was of higher quality (as judged by the viewing public), then more people would go to those movies/rent those movies, and this law wouldn’t be necessary.

“Use the full force of the Canada Health Act, federal spending power and the notwithstanding clause of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to oppose any steps that open the way to two-tier health care in Canada.” Wait a minute, I thought the left hated the thought of the notwithstanding clause. So, I guess sports teams won’t be able to have their own physicians – professional athletes who are injured and require reconstructive orthopaedic surgery will have to wait a year and a half, just like the rest of us.

“Increase taxes on tobacco products, alcohol and junk food.” I can see the tobacco (although I disagree with the sentiment that the Government has to step in to protect me). I disagree with the alcohol because of the multitude of studies that have shown that a daily consumption of a small amount of alcohol is good for the health, and disagree with junk food because it is a discriminatory tax. “Junk Food” typically provides more calories per dollar spent then “good foods”, therefore unless this is combined with a reduction in the price of healthy food – this could make it difficult for low income Canadians to get the caloric intake they need.

“Implement a managed reduction in the standard workweek to thirty-five work hours per week.” Either we’ll see paycheques go down (because people are working less) – or businesses start to go under because their productivity has decreased to the point of not being profitable.

“Combat racism in hiring practices and give greater recognition to foreign qualifications.” So, would that include when public works forbade the hiring of white males? Let’s combat racism and sexism in hiring by ensuring the most-capable person is hired to do the job, not the person that will make the workplace the appropriate colour mix or the proper usage of bathrooms.

“Propose a reform of the UN Security Council, eliminating vetoes and expanding membership.” Yeah, because those on the security council (who would have a veto over this decision, I would think) will really want to give up their power. We can propose it… and then listen to the laughter as the policy is voted down. A nice “feel-good” useless policy there.

“A” For effort for the Green party – they almost tried to move to the right of centre, but in such a manner that shows why they have not won any seats yet in Canada, and will not form Government for a long, long time.

Best. Ad. Ever.

2006-01-03T22:53:00.000-05:00

If anyone had not seen Stephen Taylor's blog post on this... using footage from the old Liberal attack piece that aired during the 2004 election, here is a great video that somebody came up with:

http://www.f1blogs.com/attack-ad-remix.wmv
(right click and go to "Save As" if this does not work)

Liberals trying to get "Tough on Crime"

2005-12-31T19:34:00.000-05:00

Wow, looks like the Liberals are willing to declare war! Oh, wait, it’s a war on guns. Yup, Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin, Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty, and (Liberal) Mayor David Miller agreed to, as CTV puts it, “use all levels of government to bring about tougher sentences, tougher bail conditions and the full force of the RCMP and Justice Departments.” In fact, “They also spoke of increasing mandatory jail sentences specifically for gun-related crimes.”

Wait a minute, where have we heard about increasing the sentences (and mandatory minimums) on gun crimes before? Oh, right, from the Conservatives.

Bill C215, tabled by Daryl Cramp (Prince Edward – Hastings), reads in part

“(3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to an additional minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of

(a) five years if the firearm is not discharged in the commission of the offence or during flight after committing the offence;

(b) ten years if the firearm is discharged in the commission of the offence or during flight after committing the offence; or

(c) fifteen years if the firearm is discharged in the commission of the offence or during flight after committing the offence and a person, other than the offender or a party to the offence, is thereby caused bodily harm or death”

It goes on to clarify that those are consecutive times, not concurrent times, with the original offence.

So, defender of our streets Paul Martin must have supported this, right? Nope. Harold Macklin, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, stated, “ … the manner in which Bill C-215 proposes to realize that objective raises serious concerns. The most glaring concern is the proposal to add a sentence on top of a life sentence in the case of murder committed with a firearm.” (and if Life in prison meant Life in prison, that’d be almost a decent point, but Life doesn’t mean Life). This one died on the order paper – it squeaked through second reading 149-148, with all the Conservatives, all the NDP, and 34 Liberals supporting (Paul Martin not among the supporters)

Come on, Paul, if you’re going to try to pretend to be the defender of our streets, put your vote where your mouth is.

Toronto is "Innocent"?

2005-12-28T00:05:00.000-05:00

“Toronto has finally lost its innocence”, said Det. Sgt. Savas Kyriacou of the Toronto Police. With no offense intended to my friends from Toronto, didn't that ship sail a long time ago? Yet another crime committed by an illegally-carried (and likely, illegally-possessed) firearm, that our precious firearms registry didn't prevent (just like, oh, the other 52 shootings in Toronto over the past year).

The Liberal solution is, in a word, asinine – they want to make illegal guns illegal. That's like me saying, “there are a whole lot of murders happening, so let's make it a crime to commit the felony of murder”. It makes no sense. We don't know yet if the crimes were committed by an adult or youth (the fact that no specific age or name has been released leads me to believe that the individual arrested was a youth), but given the state of our justice system, if it was a youth he/she will probably get off with a few hours of community service, and a stern lecture from a judge.

Toronto's mayor is marching right along with his Liberal friends. CBC reports that Miller, “... said the provincial and federal governments needs [sic] to do more to help get guns off the streets.” Sure – let's do that. The guns on the streets, by and large, aren't ones that law abiding citizens own. Statistics Canada (or any other such group) hasn't done any research that I can find to show where these firearms uesd in crime are from – I'll bet strongly that the majority are prohibited (under C-68) firearms that were smuggled across the border.

Getting a gun (or ammunition) isn't as easy as the left (such as, for example, Michael Moore) want us to believe can be done legally. Watching that movie, we saw Michael walk into an Ontario Wal-Mart, and buy some ammunition. Shows that “Canadians are peaceful, even with guns”, or some such BS like that. Well, either Michael and Wal-Mart set something up to fake the purchase as demonstrated, or Michael (and Wal-Mart) broke the law. You need a possession/acquisition license (PAL) or possession only license (POL) to buy ammunition (or guns) in Canada. He may have applied for, and received (well in advance of his trip to Canada), a non-resident temporary borrowing license for non-restricted firearms (hunting/target rifles, shotguns; unless the gun looks scary, then it'll be considered restricted) The other possibility is that he brought a firearm with him, declared it at the border (answering, by the way, less questions then a Canadian wanting to get a gun), and filled out a Non-Resident Firearm Declaration form.

That being said, the limitations that we have in Canada haven't stopped crime – they have, in fact, increased it. Read through criminologist Gary Mauser's “The Failed Experiment”, published by the Frasier Institute. That will also show what can happen if we go further with the prohibition of guns, looking at Australia and England's prohibition and the resulting increase in crime.

You want to stop crime? Let's get more police officers on the street. Let's make sure they have the equipment they need to do their job, which often includes tasers. Let's make sure that our border is secured – more men and women patrolling it, and equipping them properly – if we want them to stop a gun smuggler, they may want to be armed themselves. Let's get some tough sentences – life in prison meaning just that, mandatory minimums for violent crime, reforms to young offenders, consecutive sentences rather then concurrent, to name a few possibilities. Let's crack down on the criminals, rather then those of us who just want to enjoy a nice day at the range.

Balanced Poll

2005-12-26T20:47:00.000-05:00

On globeandmail.com right now there is this poll question, "A number of people were shot at a major retail site in Toronto on Boxing Day. Is a federal ban on handguns an appropriate approach to curbing such crimes?"

What a loaded question! The initial statement makes people lean a certain way. If the question was asked, "In other countries that have instituted a handgun ban, gun crime has actually increased. Is a federal ban on handguns appropriate?" Or, "Most gun crime happens with unregistered firearms that are illegally purchased on the black market. Should the federal government ban the registered handguns that law abiding citizens own?"

Clearly the two questions I made up are biased, even though they are true. When the Globe and Mail decides to start the question with a preamble that will produce certain results, they clearly aren't trying to gauge their readers' true opinions on the subject.

Victimless Crime?

2005-12-12T02:06:00.000-05:00

The one thing missing from this whole Goodale scandal is the victims. Clearly there was someone that broke the law here, and it seems to have come from the Finance Minister's office, but I think the reason there isn't all that much outrage is that no one really gets hurt from insider trading. When insider trading happens there is no real loser, even though there is a winner.

Let's say a stock is going to go way up once information goes public (everything works in reverse if stock will go down). On an efficient market, such as the TSX, there are always buyers and sellers at the given market price. So when the insider decides to buy extra shares that he knows will soon go up, the seller actually is doing what they would be doing regardless. Again, the seller would have sold their shares regardless of the insider. So what impact did the insider have? Well he actually, very slightly, rose the current market value of the stock. As there is more buyers than sellers at the market price the market price rises. The market price is the equilibrium price that is arrived at by balancing the buyers and sellers that have the same knowledge base (in theory). So when the insider has this advanced knowledge, there is nothing the stock can do but go up since there is an extra buyer. I understand everyone hates the ideas of these powerful insider traders stealing money from the common folk, but I just don't agree that it really harms them. Any crime where you cannot mention a victim should not be a crime, no exceptions.

So now that I argued why Martha Stewart really didn't do anything all that, I will go on to explain why Ralph Goodale did. There is a big difference between a private citizen knowing something about a company or a government official knowing how new legislation would change stocks. That private citizen would have found this new information from a completely legitimate source, just one that not enough people (deemed by insider trading laws) also had access to. With Goodale, he made the information himself, he didn't get this information from talking with anyone or hiring a private research company, he is in government and chose this new legislation. This is a vastly different situation. He took advantage of his role as the Finance Minister to affect his personal situation. By only informing a select group of people about the upcoming annoucement there was an opportunity cost to every Canadian that weren't in Goodale's inner circle. There was no productivity increase in any of these companies whose shares went up, it was purely that a more beneficial tax system for them raised their value. With regular insider trading, any new information is heard by many different people at different times before it is deemed that it is public knowledge, but in this situation Goodale created the gain for the companies by his role as the Finance Minister, and then abused his power by telling only a select group of people before the rest of the country. Shame on you Mr. Goodale. This announcement should have been made after the close of trading, as it was, but the leak was a pure abuse of power that the Canadian public trusted him to have.

As Unqualified As You Can Get

2005-12-11T17:42:00.000-05:00

After seeing Aaron's post, I was shocked who got nominated for the NDP in Etobicoke-Lakeshore. Liam McHugh-Russell had to be the worst student official I have ever come into contact with. In his role as the University of Waterloo VP Education, his goal was to keep tuition low, which is fine enough, but he wanted to keep tuition low regardless of quality of education. While I never had a smear campaign against me like Aaron did, I will recount one anecdote.

In my 2nd year of university, while Liam was VP Education, Liam decided to speak at a Mathematics Society council meeting. At this meeting he wanted to address the problem of Wilfrid Laurier University's proposed BBA (Bachelors of Business Administration) tuition deregulation. The reason this mattered to the UW students was that there is a joint double degree program where you can get a BBA from WLU and a BMath from UW in 5 years. I am a student of this program, so this is why Liam's comments came to my attention. At the meeting he said (paraphrasing), "I want to hear about how if your program was deregulated, you would not have chosen to come here. I want to hear about how if your program was deregulated, how you would not be able to afford to come here. I just want to hear feedback. Even if you want to send emails that say 'I hate Laurier' that's fine." He wasn't interested in any type of feedback so he can see how to best represent the students, he just wanted to get negative comments from double degree students so he can use us as quotes as evidence to his conclusion that he came to before talking to anyone. So I sent him a fairly lengthy reply to this saying that I was completely in favour of deregulation, and that I expect him to apologize for insulting WLU in his official capacity when there are a number of joint students that he represents. I never got a response to my e-mail. At the time I wasn't involved with any conservative campus club or political party, so he didn't ignore me for any reason other than I disagreed with his conclusion that double degree students were against deregulation (and for the record, every double degree student I talked to was either in favour or indifferent to deregulation).

This has to be one of the only ridings where I would actually prefer the Liberal candidate to the NDP due to Liam's extreme lack of qualifications. Plus him running pisses me off since there is a weak dipper candidate so the center-left votes may go to the grits. I'm hoping that John Capobianco can clean house here.

Is There Anyone the Liberals Actually Like?

2005-12-11T16:04:00.000-05:00

Over the past three days, the Liberals have managed to insult, oh, nearly half of Canada’s population.

It started on Friday, with the finance ministry’s communications director, John Embury, calling Canada’s Association for the Fifty Plus Associate Executive Director Bill Gleberzon “old and confused” for having stated that he was contacted by Goodale’s office hours before the official income trust announcement. This leaves me asking, hey guys, do you think that all elderly Canadians are “confused”, or just the ones that you told about the income trust decision ahead of time. This was reported by CTV.

And then this morning/afternoon, two senior Liberal strategists opinioned that parents would be more likely to spend the $1,200 (Conservative) direct child care transfers on “beer and popcorn” then on quality child care. First came Scott Reid (Martin’s Communications Director) on CBC, and then Martin’s senior advisor John Duffy backing it up on CTV. This follows Ken Dryden stating that parents taking care of their own children does not constitute “child care”
So, by Liberal logic, seniors = “old and confused”, parents = selfish… I suppose they haven’t insulted parentless 18-49 year olds, or children (except those that own firearms). But, never fear, the campaign is still young.

Federal Involvement in Provincial Jurisdiction - It Can be Done Well!

2005-12-09T11:13:00.000-05:00

Let’s start off by saying, education is a provincial matter. Any federal program dealing with education has to be very careful to ensure it does not infringe on provincial responsibility. That said, I think that the Conservatives are on the right track with yesterday’s release of an education plank of the policy.

This helps not only those attending universities, but those who are going into the trades as well. Harper announced a tax deduction for tools, an apprenticeship grant for apprentices, and a tax credit for companies who bring on apprentices (I think that one was a double-release from their small business tax announcement a couple days ago). This should help to attract more people into the trades and open up training spots for them – there is a shortage of skilled tradespeople in Canada right now, and this will address the issue to the best extent that the Federal Government can.

And then, we have the post-secondary education planks. A tax credit of $500 for textbooks is good – that’ll cover, oh, between a third and half of the cost of textbooks over a year, helping students without giving them a completely free ride. Working with the provinces to increase family income thresholds for student loans – absolutely good idea. I wanted to take out a loan when I was in University in order to pay for my own education (rather then live off my parents), but because my family income was too high (you only needed, at that time, a family income of around $50k or so for a single child not to qualify) I could not take out a loan. Yes, my parents could have afforded to help me out some – but, instead of living off them, I wanted to work it off myself. Exempting the first $10,000 in scholarships and bursaries from taxation – again, a good idea.

This goes about as far as the federal government can (and should) go with regards to education. It doesn’t infringe too far on the provinces, and instead of hauling bags of money around, it seeks to reduce tax burdens.

More on guns...

2005-12-08T02:07:00.000-05:00

In my rushed post here after first hearing about the proposed Liberal ban on guns, I forgot to mention possibly the most obvious argument against this. How much will this cost? Canada has about 1 million hand guns (from Coalition for Gun Control). I don't know what the average handgun's market value is, but from a search around Google it seems that if you are paying $300 you are getting a good deal. So there must be guns that are way more expensive than this too. If the government wants to pay the fair market value for handguns, a very conservative estimate would be $500/gun on average. So let's make my almost completed math degree come to use here with this equation:

$500/gun * 1 million guns = HALF A BILLION DOLLARS

This isn't counting any administration and enforcement costs, plus maybe my estimate of $500 was too low. Do they also pay the gun owners for their now useless bullets? I am not sure on how many bullets the average gun owner would have, but I think $30 worth would be fair maybe, which adds on another $30 million. Either this $30 million will be paid extra by the government to these people, or they will be forced to eat their loss which is completely unfair to them. Not to mention the costs and time these people went through to get certified and register their guns. The gun registry was supposed to cost in the low millions, and it ended up over a billion. If the initial projection for this is over half a billion already, how high will this go?

Get Your Hands out of my Holster!

2005-12-07T23:45:00.000-05:00

Ok, listen. I'm not a bad person. I work long hours during the day, pay my taxes on time, and except for a couple of photo radar tickets, stay well within the boundaries of the law. When I decided to take up target shooting a year or so ago, I went to the range a few times with a good friend, studied the manuals, and took the tests for the restricted and non-restricted firearms license. I passed both practical exams with 100% marks (had to load, unload, and show safe handling and firing methods with three restricted, and three non-restricted firearms). I passed one of the writtens with 100%, the other with 98%. I purchased my firearms (one handgun, one shotgun, and one rifle), registered them, and in the case of my handgun, received an Authorization To Transport (ATT) from the Canadian Firearms Centre (CFC) , to bring the package containing my handgun from the post office (attached to my apartment building via an underground tunnel) to my apartment. I then went down to the local CFC office, applied for and received, a long-term ATT to bring my handgun, “via the most direct means practical”, from my apartment to a firing range, port of entry into Canada, gunsmith, or gun store. That meant that I could not, on the way from my apartment to my range (½ hour north of the city) stop off at Tim Hortons for a coffee. I followed every rule to the letter, and right now have my trigger-locked handgun, rifle, and shotgun in locked containers that cannot easily be broken into.

However, according to the Liberals, I am now somehow a danger to others because of my hobby. Never mind that more people are killed by bathroom fixtures every year then firearms. Never mind that shooting a handgun at a range is safer then, oh, playing bridge (ok, that might be pushing it, but among sports, handgun shooting is one of the safest). They want to confiscate my guns, in the manner of the Nazis in Germany.

This isn't going to make a difference when it comes to gun violence. The guns used, for the most part, are unregistered to begin with, imported illegally from the United States, and many would already be prohibited under C-68 and C-10A. The NDP realize that this is a useless attempt to stop crime. The BQ... hard to say, they have loved C-68 thus far, I don't see them having too much of a problem with it (unless they end up having a moral objection to stealing private property).

All in all – hopefully Torontonians (because really, that is exactly who this is aimed at, let's not fool ourselves into believing this is attempting to do anything but save some seats from falling to the NDP primarily, a few [maybe] to the CPC) see through this BS, and realize that confiscating items which are not the problem, will not somehow be the solution.

Choice in Daycare

2005-12-07T23:44:00.000-05:00

Yet another election platform which demonstrates the difference between the left and right. With a $1,200 benefit for every child, parents will have a bit of help in determining how to take care of their child. The Liberal plan is to force parents who want assistance with health care to put their child in a public institution – let the brainwashing of the young start even before they enter school, I guess. This has the support of the NDP, and of the unions. The union support is very easy to understand – daycare for kids = more people working = more union dues = more money for Buzz.

The criticism of the Conservative plan is that $1,200 will not fully subsidize a daycare spot. Again, I fail to see the problem with that. By what right am I forced to fully support your child? If I have a kid at some point later in life, I will expect to pay for his/her care – that’s part of being a parent. The counter to this is, “children are an investment in our future.” I would tend to argue that, while the children of today will be supporting my old age security and health care in retirement, I should not be forced to make a given investment. It is like the government saying, “well, we know that you really want to invest in (for example) RIM, but you can’t; instead you have to buy Canada Savings Bonds to help out the country.”

Beyond parental choice, the Conservative plan actually makes sense. The Liberals have pledged, by my accounting 11 billion over 10 years (2005-2015). They haven’t provided any numbers which show that every child will receive a daycare spot. If the Liberals really want to provide universal daycare – I bet it’ll cost more then a billion and change per year. How much more? I don’t know, neither do the Government’s accountants. Frightening.

Health Care - Private is not Evil!

2005-12-07T23:43:00.000-05:00

Health Care is the hardest issue for Canadian politicians to discuss. If the third rail of American politics is social security, for us it is health care or, more specifically, the involvement of the private sector in health care.

On the political right of this issue is, of course, the Conservatives. Steven Harper, in his health care policy announcement here in Winnipeg on Friday, stated that he would not shut down private clinics – that shutting them down would not help cure the health care system at all. Makes sense, doesn’t it – the problem is not enough medical facilities, so the solution isn’t shutting facilities down. He also stated unequivocally that he would not allow for a parallel, private health care system.

The NDP is the next group, well to the right of the Liberal’s stated position. According to the CTV, Layton said that, “private clinics are a "fundamental aspect" of the health-care system founded by former Saskatchewan premier Tommy Douglas…” To be fair, he stated explicitly that no public money will go towards private clinics.

And then there are the Liberals. As of their last stated position, they were dead set against any private health care. That would include, I guess, the Victorian Order of Nurses, who since 1897 have been providing health care services to Canadians. Even worse is the Copeman Healthcare Centre, a new clinic in BC who, for $200/month (or $2,300 per year, children under 18 free) will provide private treatment, outside of the public system. Medically necessary services will be provided by their physicians (and paid for by provincial heath care); extra services such as comprehensive disease risk screenings (which would have to be paid out of pocket as they are not covered) are covered by that annual fee. Heck, they even provide house calls!

The left will say, “but… but… but… then the rich get better health care!” Yup… and I am missing the problem with that. The “rich” are a) still contributing to the public health care system through taxes, and b) are reducing the burden on the public health care system by getting their services elsewhere, thus improving the services that the rest of us can get.

Canada is only one of three countries in which individuals cannot legally pay for their own medically necessary health care – North Korea and Cuba are the other two. So, because we have “univeral” health care, we must rank highly on the WHO’s ranking of health care quality, right? Wrong. Canada ranks 30th in the world (as of 2000). To be fair, the US ranks worse (38th), however having a mix of private and public health care, the left’s accusations notwithstanding, is not stricly “Americanization” of health care. We could call it, “Europeanising” (France has the best health care system, according to the WHO, and a lot of other European countries rank higher then Canada), “Asianising” (Japan has the second-best health care system, or even “Colombianizing” (Colombia has the 22nd-best health care system). And yes, this study does also look at access to health care across the socio-economic spectrum (that is why the USA fell so low, because of poor access to health care for the poor)

No matter which model we follow, the fact remains that there are 29 better systems then ours. It would be nice to see a politician (of any stripe; blue, red, orange, green) stand up, admit that our system isn’t the best, and that improvement may (or will) involve private health care. Too bad the media will crucify that individual.

From our cold dead hands...

2005-12-07T22:13:00.000-05:00

Well I have actually never owned a gun, but a Liberal proposed ban on handguns really annoys me. The crime wave is happening with illegal guns, not the legal ones that are registered by the billion dollar gun registry. I hardly see how this will solve anything. Criminals already have shown they are willing to break the law by not having registered guns, why would anyone think that a ban on handguns will magically make them not have guns anymore?

This proposed ban reminds me of a conversation I had about 6 years ago, when the gun registry was going into place. My then girlfriend's father was explaining to me that he would not register his guns because then the government may eventually take them away. We had an argument about this, I was thinking he was crazy to even suggest that the government would do something like this. At the time I was thinking that he was completely paranoid. I guess he had reason to be.

I don't get this...

2005-12-07T18:25:00.000-05:00

Ok, so for years I have been hearing from the left that a consumption tax disproportionately hurts the poor because they spend a higher percentage of their income. Sure, this is true, someone making $30,000 does spend more of that then the person making $100,000. So now that the Conservative Party announces a plan to cut the GST the left is saying that this will help the rich because luxury items will cost less? So when for years the conservative parties talk about income tax cuts we get told that we are trying to help the rich, and now our consumption taxes are trying to help the rich? Please someone explain this to me because my head hurts.

More on child care...

2005-12-06T22:46:00.000-05:00

So the Liberals fight back with their ad hoc plan to throw billions more at the socialized child care. I don't think they even budgeted this or anything, but wanted to respond to Harper's plan with something bigger. Well, bigger is not better. Except if you ask left wing activists, oh and by chance, this article from CTV has.

Monica Lysack, Executive Director of the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada, "If we simply give the money to parents, we're saying 'Take the money, now it's your problem.' And I think that would be a really cowardly thing for the government to do."

I think she has a real point, if we allow parents to raise their own children, they won't be reliant on government for an aspect of their lives. The horror! This day care may not be far enough I fear, we need an department of child punishment too. When a child misbehaves the parent can fill out a standardized form and then 6-8 weeks later the government can let the parent know how to best discipline their child. We need to take the parent out of parenting!

Or... "Paul Moist, the national president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), says the Conservative plan is flawed because it would use public funds to open the door to "big box" commercial child care chains."

What don't you people understand, this will help the big evil corporations! Sure he may not be talking about the quality of care the children will receive, but don't forget that union workers can take these child care jobs that the government could create! Whenever we propose any new child care plan, we need to think of how it can impact our union workers, not those greedy fucking children/parents that want the best child care to meet their specific situation.

Baby Bonus

2005-12-05T23:58:00.000-05:00

The Conservatives annouced they want to give every family $1200/year for each child under the age of 6. This is certainly better than the idea of socialized day care that the Liberals and NDP want. If we are going to spend money to help parents raise their children, who knows how to spend the money then the actual parents themselves? This money can still go towards day care if the parents want to send their kids there. But maybe one of the parents wants to work part time then use the $1200 to help pay for a babysitter or one parent does not work and the $1200 will help a parent be able to afford to stay home. Socialized day care really won't be equal for all, many do not live in urban settings and will be paying towards the children in cities while their children recieve nothing. I will always favour giving the user direct payments to let them choose the service that best fits their need over the government providing a service that a family may or may not want.

The money will count as taxable income, but can be counted for either parent. So if one parent does not work and this is their only income, they will not pay any tax on this. This plan certainly helps the poor more than the rich, as the income will be taxable at the marginal tax rate of the lowest income earning parent.

Now this does not get to the real reason that people have trouble paying for child care, taxes are just too high. Consumption, income, payroll, and property taxes take so much of the income that every Canadian earns, it is no wonder they are reliant on the government to help take care of their children. This $1200 will be helpful, but I'm hoping we can reduce the tax burden to the point where it will not be needed.

I'm Back

2005-12-04T21:25:00.000-05:00

Well I've stopped blogging a while ago, mainly due to laziness. With the election on, I figured I needed to start up again.

So the NDP support private clinics? This is definitely a good thing. If Layton is talking about private clinics being a "fundamental aspect" of our health care system, clearly the Conservatives can't be attacked as long as we say we want to keep the public system running. Maybe something can be done to allow more private involvement in our system if the NDP support this.

The value of a Teacher

2005-10-14T08:52:00.000-04:00

Ok, this is going to be weird, but I’m actually in favour of a union! Specifically, I’m in favour of the BC Teachers Federation, in their ability to negotiate a settlement. As most of you have probably seen, they’re on an illegal strike right now, and as of yesterday’s court ruling, are not allowed to spend any money on strike pay, or to otherwise support the strike effort.

However, this goes beyond the right to strike issue they are, in part, fighting. I’m not in favour of their breaking the law – don’t worry, I’m not a Dipper. What I find disturbing is the government legislating a two-year “contract”. There isn’t even an adjustment for inflation. So, with this contract, the government has unilaterally decreed that teachers are now relatively less valuable then they were before. I cannot think of any common ideology that is opposed to the employer and employee negotiating wages and working conditions… except, I guess, the BC Liberals.

Mmmmm, Liberal Patronage

2005-10-13T10:24:00.000-04:00

So, Parrish isn’t going to run for re-election, eh? Well, she knew that she wasn’t going to run as a Liberal, right? They kept courting her, trying to get her to tone down a bit so they would have her back in caucus – but, she kept telling them to sod off (well, that is when she wasn’t asking them if she could come back). Heck, it even makes me have almost a little bit of respect for her. Almost.

Then again… remembering that this Liberal government has a habit of paying off people who do them favours, and thinking that if Parrish ran as an independent she might split enough Liberal votes off (with the NDP taking some of the Liberal Left), the Conservatives might come up the middle and take it. So, coming to a government near you, see Carolyn Parrish in “Patronage Girl”, another episode in the Liberano series.

Hands Off, Feds!

2005-10-13T09:11:00.000-04:00

First – an apology to anybody who wants to leave a comment, it now requires that pain-in-the-rear word verification. Too much spam.

On to business – Comrade Martin is up to his old tricks again, this time deciding that he has a right to sell Alberta’s oil – or, to not sell Alberta’s oil. Martin wants to get his fingers in the market again, and try to play the protectionist games that the Americans have been playing with Softwood Lumber. Klein isn’t completely happy with that – he wants the market to decide where the oil goes (imagine that – a capitalist wanting to let market forces decide how a product is sold!)

Come on – the Softwood Lumber sucks, and we are getting shafted by the Americans – but, does that mean we have to stoop to their level. How will we be able to claim the moral high ground in this dispute, if we start throwing illegal duties on goods?

The Americans are being hurt by their policies on softwood lumber, perhaps worse then we are. A new house in the States costs about $2,000 more then it would if the border were completely open (i.e. without duties). Soon enough, hopefully, the voters in the States will get tired of paying, and will demand change. Until then… we’re going to pretty much have to sit here and take it.

Liberals - "Me fail English? That's unpossible!"

2005-10-07T14:08:00.000-04:00

So, you’ve all heard that Paulie-boy Martin is planning on following Klein’s example, and distributing part of the surplus to Canadians, right? Well, at least he’s on the (almost) right track. He has stated that of a surplus, a third will go to debt repayment (basically the only money we pay down on the debt), a third to social spending (yet more social spending, another little rub ‘n tug for Layton), and a third back to taxpayers. Or… will that end up being changed, and just be to low-income Canadians (like the heating “rebates”, or the baby registry…)

And what the heck is up with those heating “rebates” anyways. Last time a Government tried doing this, the money went to people living in apartments who do not pay directly for their own heating… and to prisoners... and people in nursing homes. Pulling out the good old Dictionary, “rebate” means, “a deduction from an amount to be paid or a return of part of an amount given in payment.” Somehow, people will end up getting “rebates” for money not paid. I mean, I know this is the Liberals, but even they wouldn’t be so stupid as to try to get away with giving people money “back” when they haven’t paid any money to begin with, would they? Oh. Yeah… Never mind.

So, back to the cheques coming to us. It’s not a bad idea, in and of itself (before you all scream at me for giving Martin credit for having a not-bad thought, just wait). The only problem is, why so little? We have budget after budget with a huge amount of wasteful social spending… and this stuff is planned! Somehow, with an “unexpected” surplus, they will be able to spend it on social programs efficiently? My “BS sense” is tingling. I’d be happy getting nothing back from a surplus – if every penny went to deficit reduction. Think of it, we start paying the debt down dramatically… less tax dollars will then go to servicing the debt… and pretty soon, there is more money for the government to either

a) reduce our taxes (if Liberal, not bloody likely), or
b) increase social spending (there’s the Liberal’s first choice)

Personally, I’d rather not see that couple hundred dollars they might send me (well, as a refundable credit on my taxes, to be a bit more precise) right now, and in return pay a couple hundred bucks less taxes per year, for life. But then again, that’s just me, looking at the future.

The next (or the one after the next) Liberal Boondoggle

2005-10-07T09:42:00.000-04:00

What a summer it's been.

The last time I wrote, Barbie left the party, and we were headed for the Liberal budget being passed. Well, they got that one. They got their Same-Sex Marriage. And, if you believe some of the latest polls, they got themselves near to being able to get a majority in the next election. The Harper-bashing machines have been going almost nonstop... from some twit in Toronto to a few candidates in Quebec. The media hasn't helped much either, to be fair - one fart out of the GTA = Harper being called upon to resign.

So, there is the recap, now onto today's news story - from the Ottawa Sun, you and I will be paying to take Rick Mercer over to Afganistan. Accompanying our Chief of Defence Staff on a nice little trip to the desert will be Catriona Le May Doan, Guy Lafleur (maybe the Liberals want him to help out their hockey team; last game between the Conservatives and the Liberals, the Conservatives kicked some rear), and a few representatives from some companies wanting to bid on some defense contracts.

Now, while none of those are really... oh, I don't know, worthwhile bringing (with the possible exception of Mercer, for the journalism aspect), it's the select company representatives that really show a continuation of the Liberal games. I mean, come on, can you say unfair advantage? 10 or so hour flight, with plenty of time to talk up the CDS and his top staff... yeah, boondoggle waiting to happen.

Hell, Gordon O'Connor has another point, the liability issue. Afghanistan's a dangerous place (Carrolyn Parrish's desires notwithstanding), if somebody gets killed there, how much is the government going to be sued for? I mean, come on - if we kill off Catriona Le May Doan... puts us down to what, 5 possible gold medals in the winter olympics?

Benedict Barbie

2005-05-17T21:59:00.000-04:00

I think my blood pressure has calmed down enough in order to write this one without every second word being a curse. The chain-smoking and sip or two (or three, or four...) of wine may be helping that.

Ok, so Belinda leaving wasn't a complete surprise. Really, look at what she's been saying in the media over the past couple of weeks. Trying to patch the holes she's kicked in the party during that time, it's probably made full-time work for one or two OLO staffers.

And, if it was a matter of conscience, she would have sat as an independent, as Killgore has. I would have had a bit of respect for that - not a lot, but a bit. To join the Liberals, and take a nice plum cabinet post - smells like bribery.

I wonder how much of this was ambition. With the Liberals close to losing an election, Paul Martin's time as leader is drawing to an end. For him to go from majority, to minority, to defeat - while he doesn't have many scruples, I would think that even he will resign. I've got one hundred dollars that says that she runs for the Liberal leadership, when Paulie-Boy is gone. After how she behaved at the convention, and her comments over the past couple of weeks... her handlers must have told her that she needed to find another party to try to run.

Good Riddance.

On another front,

Some great coverage on CPAC today. During one of the prime-time shows, they had a Liberal (one of their ladies from Quebec, who bears a resemblance to Benedict Barbie), John Reynolds, and Judy Wasylycia-Leis from the NDP. During the show, former Ontario PC cabinet minister Bob Runciman was quoted, saying, "I think she (Stronach) sort of defined herself as something of a dipstick -- an attractive one, but still a dipstick -- with what she's done here today." The Liberal MP and the CPAC commentator asked Reynolds, "Shouldn't your party apologize for that comment?" When Reynolds replied, "He isn't one of our MP's, why should be apologize for what he said as a private individual", they kept pressing him, wanting Reynolds to... I don't know, I guess take some responsibility for what a former Provincial PC cabinet minister said. Great objective journalism, CPAC. You make me sick.

To close with another provincial Tory's comments, I leave you with Alberta MLA Tony Abbott's statement: "To me, what it is, it's a little rich girl basically whoring herself out to the Liberals"

Enough said.

Time to Take Action

2005-05-12T21:51:00.000-04:00

This evening, I decided that, instead of sitting here whining and complaining, I'd actually try to do something. Right now, the only person who can bring down the house (and respect this week's vote) is the Governor General. So, I Emailed her - and asked her to stop this madness. Then I thought - wait a minute, the Governor General only represents the Queen, so why not go all the way to the top? That's right, I Emailed (well, used a web-based form) the Queen of England, and asked her to instruct the Governor General to call an election.

To contact the queen, visit http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page3776.asp

To contact the Governor General, Email info@gg.ca, call her at 1-800-465-6890 (toll-free, of course), or fax her at (613) 998-1664.

Let's get off our rears (well, figuratively speaking, if nothing else) and do something.

To those of you in the Winnipeg Area, the Charleswood - St. James - Assiniboia EDA is having a rally/fundraiser on Saturday, May 14th, with Peter MacKay. It goes from 10:00 AM to 11:00 AM in Charleswood - for more information or to RSVP drop me a line at gregphelan@shaw.ca

Outrage!

2005-05-11T21:37:00.000-04:00

I try to keep my posts more factual-based, and less emotional, but I've had enough.

In any other country, there would be massive rioting on the streets. The Government stealing money from the people, ignoring democratic elections in favor of appointing friends (the recent Senate appointments) - and now, ignoring Parliament's wishes, and refusing to resign. In any "developing nation" (as is the politically-correct term for nations more commonly known as second and third-world countries), the citizens would be marching at the seat of Government, demanding the Prime Minister's/President's head, or the military would be executing a coup. Of course, our beloved Liberals have taken care to ensure that our military does not have the equipment needed to take over the local boy-scout troup, let alone the Government. I don't mean to speak ill of our military, they do the best that is humanly possible with what they have.
That is not to say that I think that we should riot, or that our Military should commit treason and take down the Prime Minister - but, such things have happened for much less.

To calm down a bit,
Tactically, a vote next week is not a sure thing. Two Conservative caucus members are quite ill; I have heard rumors that one is scheduled for surgery next Wednesday - which would pretty much make it impossible for him to get into Ottawa for a Thursday vote. Assuming only one of the two is able to make it, and assuming that the parties vote as they did last time around, the Conservatives need Kilgore to flip, and Cadman to vote with the Conservatives or not show up..

When Steven Harper, with Chatters and Stinson, accused the Liberals of trying to delay the vote in hopes that the Conservative numbers decline, the typical outrage came out. "Stephen Harper has hit a new low," said Benedict Brison. Prime Minister Jack Layton said, "I think it was quite despicable and a very sad day". Carolyn Parrish got her two cents in as well - no surprise there.

Hopefully, Canadians see through the Liberal arrogance (maybe I am hoping for a miracle, here) - of course the Liberals are trying to delay! They were trying to delay a vote of non-confidence (on a specific motion or via a money bill) past the by-election in Newfoundland/Labrador - but, that wasn't going to play. So, they moved up the budget - if they fail, they want to be able to campaign on their socialist ideals. And if a Conservative or two cannot show up - all the better.

Of course, even if he wins the vote on Thursday, the Prime Minister could go to the Governor-General, and ask her to dissolve parliament - and call an election for some-time in December or January (as he promised during his speech). At least that way, Big Paulie wouldn't be campaigning for the next half-year on your money (unless you donated to the Liberal Party, in which case my deepest sympathies, and please feel free to visit the Conservative Party Website to make a penance-contribution)

Health Care - Private does not equal Bad!

2005-04-26T12:45:00.000-04:00

A recent poll conducted by Leger Marketing shows that, on average, 52% of Canadians believe they should be allowed to pay for private health care, provided there is also free care available. Wait a minute, that means… GASP… maybe the Liberals won’t be able to turn the privatisation boogy-man on us this election. Saying “They want to privatise health care” isn’t a very effective smear campaign when the majority of Canadians want that.

Of course, the Liberals can say, “They want to Americanise health care”, and still get a bit of a gasp of disgust. And of course they do – this is Canada, after all, and the Ministry of Truth (aka. CBC) tells us that Americans are bad. This conveniently ignores the fact that the Americans aren’t the only ones with some private health care.

There is a middle ground between the Canadian system and American system, which will allow for maximum freedom in delivery of health care, while at the same time ensuring that everybody in Canada has access to health care, irrespective of their ability to pay.

Right now, approximately 30% of the health care system is privately run – mostly doctor’s offices, and some diagnostic imaging clinics. For the most part, they bill the Government for an approved amount for each service provided – with the exception of some work-related medical examinations, which must be paid out of pocket. This has happened under the Liberal’s watch (I guess they didn’t completely screw up) – yet, somehow, privatisation is “evil!”

We could allow for further privatisation of delivery, private hospitals and the like, with the Government paying a set amount – and then letting the individual hospitals, or even the individual doctors, decide what they want to charge. If they want to charge more then the government reimbursement – that’s fine, and it comes out of private money (either private insurance or out of pocket). If somebody cannot afford that – then they can go to a public facility. Of course, emergency care would have to be given by any hospital with an emergency room, irrespective of ability to pay (if I am hit by a car, and get taken to a private hospital, they can’t turn me away because I cannot pay them – they would have to treat for the government-approved rate, and when the situation is no longer critical, either get consent for further treatment at their rates, or move me to a public facility).

The critics say that this will lead to “two-tiered” health care, and they aren’t wrong (not that two-tiered is necessarily bad). However, this will lead to more resources in the medical system. The standards for physicians will not change – so while there might be better doctors, there will not be unsafe doctors. With privatisation, more resources will be available – the lengthy waiting lists suggest that there is a market for more physicians, more surgery beds, and more diagnostic tools, it is simply the capital cost which drives the Government away. Once resources go up, wait times will go down – which leads to a higher quality of service to all patients – private and public.

Spring Election - Dispelling the Myths

2005-04-24T19:20:00.000-04:00

As we enter the last week of April, talk of an upcoming Spring election is getting louder. The election call could come between May 3rd, and May 19th, for a June election. Of course, the Liberals are running around like chickens with their heads cut off, as evidenced by the Prime Minister's sob story on Thursday, in which he did everything but get on his knees and beg for more time. Here are some of the myths and mistruths surrounding the Prime Minister's address, and a potential (I daresay, probable) spring election.

Myth 1: The Prime Minister apologized for adscam

Complete and utter bunk. The Prime Minister stated, "I am sorry that we weren’t more vigilant" He didn't say that he was sorry for what happened, for his party stealing millions of our dollars, or for the basic lack of morality within the Liberal party.

Myth 2: The Prime Minister wants Gomery's report before an election

Actually, this one is half true, but it's more that he wants an election after Gomery's final report in order to delay the election, then he wants any information from Gomery's report. Paul Martin has claimed, time and time again, that he has cleaned up the "few" in the Liberal Party who stole money. Assuming that is true for the sake of argument (and only for the sake of argument, appointing somebody who has already scammed millions of Taxpayer dollars to the Senate doesn't sound like cleaning things up), then why bother waiting for Gomery's final report. What the report will do is give recommendations on how to clean up the mess - so, it should basically outline the steps that Martin has done to clean up his Party.

This isn't related to getting to the truth - the testimony before the commission will be complete by the end of May, and Canadians will be able to judge for themselves how worthy this government is to run the country. The Liberals want us to believe that we cannot judge this evidence for ourselves - as a Liberal cabinet minister said, "It it not the job of the people to judge, that is the job of Justice Gomery". How much more arrogance do you want?

Myth 3: A winter election is a "Good. Thing."

Putting aside the fact that pounding lawn signs in when it is -40 out will be unpleasant, waiting 8-9 months for an election is a horrible idea. That gives Paul Martin 7-8 months to campaign on your dollar. Instead of renting an aircraft (like he does during the writ period), he will be flying on Government aircraft, burning your fuel, and eating your food. He will criss-cross the country, trying to win support by pledging your money on projects that do not help the Canadian People - they just give money to those who he wants support from.

To survive that long, he will almost definitely require the support of the NDP - who have demanded, for starters, the elimination of the corporate tax cut in the 2005 Budget (a budget with already too few tax reductions), and increased poorly thought out social spending. Imagine how many poor ideas Jack Layton can whisper into Paul Martin's ear when Martin's government depends on him.

Myth 4: There will actually be this fabled "Winter Election"

Let's look at Paul Martin's record on promises, as presented at the Conservative Party Convention by Steven Harper. Paul Martin promised to fix the finances of the nation. Paul Martin promised to be the guardian of health care. Paul Martin promised a new commitment to our military. Paul Martin promised a commitment to our safety and security. Paul Martin promised a commitment to immigration. Paul Martin promised to protect the environment. Paul Martin promised to help us raise our children. Paul Martin promised to fix the democratic deficit. Paul Martin promised integrity in government.

Promises made. Promises broken.

Unless the polls show a significant advantage for the Liberals, why should we expect anything different this time?

Democratic Deficit : A Liberal's Best Friend

2005-04-05T12:57:00.000-04:00

Well, since I am working evenings today, I have plenty of time to watch CPAC (rather then just read the hansard, as I do when I work days). This morning's discussion is related to Glen Murray's appointment as Chair of the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy. The fourth report from the standing committee on Environment and Sustainable Developlent reccomends that the Prime Minister withdraw this appointment.

Now, I think it's pretty much clear that the chair doesn't need to have an in-depth scientific knowledge of all aspects of the environment. However, a very basic knowledge would be a good thing. The ability to answer high-schoolers questions about how something like carbon monoxide affects the environment would be a good thing. For $400/day, he bloody well should know some of the basics.

There will be those that will argue that no environmental knowledge is required for the job. Ok, I disagree, but lets move on. How long will Mr. Murray remain with this job? He ditched the City of Winnipeg partway through his term in order to run as a Liberal, how do we know this won't happen again. Assuming the round-table meets for only 20 (full) weeks out of the year, Mr. Murray will make $40,000, plus expenses. If his boyfriend (or are they married, now?) makes even half that, they are above the average salary for a Canadian family. Of course, that isn't quite as good as an MP's salary, so why would it come as a surprise to see Glen running on the Liberal ticket in a riding near you?

Let's look at the other recent evidence of the Democratic Deficit - the latest Senate appointments. Ignoring for a moment that the existance of the Senate itself in it's current embodiment is evidence of a democratic defecit, look at the people who were nominated. A scientist appointed as an NDP - who is not a current member of any (federal or provincial) NDP party. Two Progressive Conservatives - a party that no longer even exists. A Liberal who was booted from cabinet after awarding a Government contract to his ex-girlfriend, and then stepped aside in order to let Ken Dryden get a nice safe seat.

That last one (for those that do not know, I am talking about Art Eggleton) is very interesting. As we deal with the reminants of Adscam, and the resulting Gomry Inquiry (of which I will not comment, because I just don't need the legal hassle if the Liberal lawyers have a look at this), why would the Liberals bring yet another crook into their caucus?

Before I end this, I have to quote my MP, the Honorable Steven Fletcher, regarding a comment he made about Glen during the 2004 campaign: "I'd rather be paralyzed from the neck down than the neck up."

Circle of Life...

2005-04-04T17:12:00.000-04:00

Ok, so the Liberals get full standing at the sponsorship inquiry. I'm fine with that, they are on trial pretty much, they deserve to say their side.... but why in the bloody hell are the tax payers paying for their lawyers? These people are on trial for giving OUR money to their friends and they get to defend ourselves while paying Liberal-friendly law firms potentially inflated rates? I cannot be the only person that sees something wrong with this. Maybe if they claim legal expenses of too high we can have another inquiry into that, and we can pay for their lawyers again! If the grits want us to pay the bill for their lawyers, let's give them a public defender, they are apparently good enough for citizens of the country, good enough for the government party.

Note: A few people have mentioned to me about my lack of posting recently... I'm working full time while taking two distance education classes and finals are coming up for both of them! (As well, I think my social life and the amount of NHL games being played have some type of inverse relationship - all you artsy grad students out there, if you want to use that as your phd thesis study, go ahead.)

Convention Report

2005-03-21T23:48:00.000-05:00

Well, the convention has come and gone. As I sat on the airplane on the way back, I wrote the following wrap-up, with the intention of posting it as soon as I got in. Well, that plan got shot all to heck, so, here it is:

It is 3:30 PM eastern time, as I write this at 38,000 feet. The Conservative Convention is over, and I think it is safe to say that pretty much is going away at least somewhat unhappy. While we all had a few gains, we all had a few losses - such as life.

One of the closest issues at this convention was the future youth structure of the party. The YEs to Youth and Grassroots for Youth groups were both very active in the halls at the Palais de Congrés. A handful or two of votes gave the Grassroots for Youth group (which both Ken and I endorsed) the victory, rejecting the affirmative-action laden Yes to Youth proposal.

Traditional Definition of Marriage, as expected, passed without much difficulty. Despite her promises to the contrary, Belinda Stronach got up to speak in favor of Same-Sex Marriage, earning her a nice picture beside Craig Chandler - always a nice picture, somehow I don't think she'll be using that in the campaign brochure.

A shock came to many when Policy Resolution P-93, which prevents the Conservative Party from supporting any abortion legislation (not just from introducing) passed. This means that P-94, the policy to ban Partial Birth Abortion, was not discussed.

Other notable policy issues brought into the plenary and accepted include Parliamentary ratification of Supreme Court of Canada nominees, raising age of consent to 16, removal of the Millennium Scholarship program, sex offender registry, broad tax relief, multiculturalism and student loans. Delegates defeated a policy which would set fixed election dates.

The real fun was in the Constitution plenary. Peter MacKay got himself a lot of media play on Friday over a couple of motions which would have given larger EDA's (100+ people) more of a say then smaller EDA's. The first such resolution, C-11, would have given each EDA one delegate per 10 members (always rounding upwards), to a maximum of 10 delegates. The second resolution, C-45, would have changed the way that the leader is elected. Right now, each EDA is allocated 100 leadership points, which are portioned out to the leadership candidates proportionately to how the votes are cast within the EDA. C-45 would hae changed the point allocation to each EDA, so that each EDA would receive one point per vote cast, up to 100 points. MacKay did not like this (maybe because he sees his strong areas as being in the smaller EDAs). He did a very good job of scaring those in the party, that if we did not defeat these two resolutions, the party would split up.

Well, it's over for a couple years... sort of. Right away, I intend to start working on a youth structure which will be inclusionary without being full of affirmative action and such. In a year, the policy and constitution process will begin again, preparing for the 2007 convention. It's an endless cycle; with luck broken up by an election period, followed by a Conservative Government.

Unfair Pricing?

2005-03-16T13:42:00.000-05:00

A Liberal MPP, Lorenzo Berardinetti, is introducing a private members' bill into Ontario legilature to try and stop the 'unfair' pricing of charging a different price to men and women. It is true that for many things, such as for hair cuts, women do pay more than men. Why is this automatically thought of as unfair though? Sure, it sounds bad to say that you charge more to one group than another, but to call any price unfair in a free market is just stupid. I am not going to get into whether cutting a woman's hair has more costs than cutting a man's hair (even though it likely takes more time to cut a woman's hair), because it is equally stupid to suggest that companies should have a certain profit margin and anything higher is gouging the customers. Companies price discriminate because it is more profitable do to so, not to try and take advantage of a certain group. When you go to a movie theatre, notice that they may offer discounts to senior citizens or children. This is not because an old person watches the movie 40% less or that the theatre wants to be nice to these disadvantaged groups, but because seniors may not be as willing to go to movies without a lower price so the theatre lowers their admission price to try and maximize their revenue. I do not feel like I'm in any way taken advantage of by movie theatres by them making me pay the full adult fare because they don't actually make me pay that fare, I only have to pay it if I want to go to a movie. I happen to think the adult fare for movies are too high, even after the recent reduction to $10, so I choose not to go to movies and thus not have to be subject to their pricing. If there are enough people that share the same view as me and act upon it (saying the prices are too high while you are sitting in the theatre does not count) the prices will come down. The companies that provide hair cutting services charge these prices because it will yield the most profit, not because they want to treat men better. Women probably are willing to pay more because they value hair cuts more than men, for instance a friend of mine got her hair cut a couple weeks ago and is still talking about it because her hairstyle is slightly different. She paid close to $100 and was in the place for at least a couple hours getting a bunch of various things done. For me a hair cut is an inconvenience that has to be done, like shaving or referring to McGuinty as 'premiere'. So from this statistically significant sample of two people in Ontario, it is easy to see why women may pay more for a service that is the same in name only. Let's just say women pay $40 and men pay $20. Under the new legislation businesses cannot charge different prices to males or females. So any barber shop that has a $20/customer price and has 95% men clients won't be effected, and neither would the hair salon that charges $40/customer and has mainly women customers. The places that would be hurt most are uni-sex stores that try to serve the needs of both men and women. Depending on enforcement if this becomes law, it may not be profitable at all to have different prices for men and women if penalties are stiff enough to not have any store go against the law. If the store moves all prices down to $20, it would have no impact on the male market, but female customer base will increase. The store can now start to move prices up because the female market is putting the demand at above the store's capacity. So if the price gets moved to $30, half way between male and female market price, no males will go anymore since they can get hair cuts $10 cheaper, and they will be filled to capacity with female customers. But why would the company be satisfied with being filled to capacity at $30 when they can do it at $35, $37, or maybe even at $40? They would just become a female only store. Or they could leave their prices at $20, and any female that comes in wanting a hair cut may not be satisfied because they will not spend as much time on their hair cut as the $40 places.

Either way, the prices will go up to $40 or down to $20 for everyone, effectively eliminating all the uni-sex hair salons. But really, screw economics, it obviously doesn't have a place when we are talking about the public good, right? I assume this legislation will also target auto insurance? Males pay more than females, especially at a younger age. Nevermind that these egg-head actuaries can calculate that males are more expensive to insure than females, males and females need equal insurance rates for our unequal driving habits! (Wait, I shouldn't suggest that males and females are different. The president of Harvard can't even suggest that, at an institution that is supposed to encourage thought!) But really, the actuaries calculate that men are more expensive using really complicated math-type equations and formulas thingies, I mean we all hate math, right?

Convention 2005

2005-03-16T11:10:00.000-05:00

Well, in 24 hours (or thereabouts), the Conservative Party of Canada will be holding its first National Convention. I am fortunate enough to be a delegate from my riding, and am looking forward to the experience.

First of all, there will be drinking. Lots and lots of drinking. I plan on visiting multiple hospitality suites, as well as the local clubs. If I remember correctly (from my visit to Montreal a couple of years ago), there are 4 or so strip clubs within a two-block radius of my hotel. It’s gonna be fun!

Of course, there are serious matters to discuss; and there will be some contentious issues discussed. The biggest will be abortion, same-sex marriage, and the youth structure. I think that my stance on marriage has been pretty much beaten to death, so time to go into the other two hot topics.

There are two resolutions to be discussed on abortion – one prohibiting our party from supporting any restriction on abortion; one bans abortion during the third trimester. The first is horrible policy (who knows what will come up in the future, in between policy conventions), and the other is unconstitutional. During the 1988 Supreme Court of Canada decision on abortion, the Justices speculated about what could be done in order to protect the foetus. The then Chief Justice, as well as another Justice, who wrote a concurring opinion, said that a ban on late-term abortion, with an exception for the life of the mother, would possibly be constitutional. Nothing else would be, in their opinion, acceptable. I have no opposition in principle to protection of the foetus during the latter stage of pregnancy – at that point it is usually viable outside of the womb – but, not at the expense of the mother.

The other contentious issue is the youth system. There are three options – two structures, and the status quo. One option reeks of affirmative action for youth, and appoints provincial PC party youth leaders as an interim council, the other is simply a piece of crap that may very well have been written on a paper napkin. I am voting for the status quo – we can wait 1-2 years to get something good. Once we put a structure in the constitution, we are stuck – it’s going to take a double-majority to change, which makes it difficult (at best) to fix. If we start with nothing, and spend a couple of years working hard on it, I firmly believe that we can come up with a structure that will be suitable to most.

To those of you going to Montreal, I look forward to meeting you there. To those that aren’t, I’m sure you’ll see a glimpse of me at some point on CPAC (because I know everybody watches that 24/7 during convention time). Until then, happy St. Patrick’s Day.

Jetsgoing... going... gone.

2005-03-13T21:04:00.000-05:00

And then there were two... Canada-wide air carriers, that is. After losing 55 million or so in the past 8 months, they finally pulled the plug. Now people are crying that the Government should step in and make sure these airlines are being run properly. Once I get over my initial nausea at this idea (does that sound a bit like the plot line for Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged?), I wonder, what can the Government do?

The first step in Jetsgo's downfall (according to documents filed in support of their bankruptcy claim) was WestJet's moving their Ontario hub from Hamilton to Toronto Pearson. Here is what I find funny about Jetsgo's appeal – they say that this move happened in April, 2004; and then 4 lines down, they state, “Petitioner (Jetsgo) first discovered WestJet's actions in or about August 2004”. Maybe that's why Jetsgo lost so much money, nobody was able to open their eyes and see all the WestJet aircraft flying around Pearson.

Actually, they filed a “me-too” lawsuit against WestJet, following Air Canada's lead in suing WestJet for accessing their database, and I am guessing that's what they discovered during August 2004. Jetsgo's assumption is that WestJet ran at a loss in order to drive them out of business, and call the evidence the $65 million dollar loss that they say WestJet filed. Of course, if this was true, then WestJet's load factor (percentage of revenue seats filled) would have gone up, rather then down. Also, the loss was partially due to a large write-down of aircraft, as WestJet is getting rid of their old 737-200 series aircraft earlier then expected.

So, knowing the causes for the demise, what could the Government have done? Told WestJet not to make Toronto Pearson a regional hub? Mandated that WestJet not sell fares for less then Jetsgo could afford? Given Jetsgo unlimited money to squander.. I mean.. to run their business with?

As I said after I flew Jetsgo for the first (and only) time, “Jets Don't Go”. As the lady said to her family (while waiting during a 6 hour delay), “Jetsgo will sell you a ticket for any time, but just won't fly you there”. I wonder how many people purchased tickets on Thursday night/Friday Morning, after Jetsgo decided to close, but before they shut down the website. Taking money with the promise of providing a service, yet not intending to provide that service... sounds like fraud, doesn't it?

CNN!!!

2005-03-11T01:36:00.000-05:00

I take everything back that I ever said about CNN that wasn't nice. Let's count the number of times I was mentioned on Fox News Channel... zero. CNN count, ONE!!!!!!!

Scroll down in this transcript of CNN's Inside Politics to find this quote that was said on air:

SCHECHNER: Over at my favorite blog name of the day, real quickly, want to give you that, it is Canadian Honky-Tonk Bar Association. And the quote was: "This may be some by-product of a Norway versus Sweden feud that I'm not aware of."

I'd like to thank Japnaam Singh for his comment informing me of this!

Equality of the sexes

2005-03-10T10:40:00.000-05:00

Women have fought so hard over the years for equality. Now their last step can be reached: if cartoon images of women can just be shown puting together IKEA furniture?

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/03/10/ikea.norway.reut/index.html

IKEA only shows males or people where sex is unclear in their manuals, but they say they do it for business purposes. Apparently some Muslims don't agree with women putting together a shelving unit, so IKEA attempting to not piss off any customers smartly designed their manuals. This is absolutely crazy to try to force IKEA to offend certain customers, just as I would think it would be insane if IKEA showed women and Muslim's complained. This does not need legislation, if you are honestly upset that women do not have the same access to fictional manual labour, don't buy IKEA goods.

This may be some by-product of a Norway vs. Sweden feud that I'm not aware of, but please, don't take it out on a private business! How about we settle this like mature adults, Jello-wrestling contest between the hottest blondes of each country!