As I watched what appeared to be a panicked Stephen LeDrew on CP24 ask anyone who would accept a microphone in their face if they considered a potential Fantino victory in Vaughan to be a “Fantino Victory” or a “Conservative Victory” I knew that the spin was going to be in full effect on Tuesday regardless of the result.
I like Stephen LeDrew, however when it comes to him reporting on politics it’s hard for me to forget for a moment that he was President of the Liberal Party of Canada for many years, and his coverage of the Vaughan By-Election was just another reminder.
Perhaps I am naïve, but any victory regardless of whom the victory is attributed to that adds another seat to the government side of the aisle is a Conservative Victory.
I found it very confusing and odd that Liberal strategist spent the better part of Tuesday mocking the small margin of victory that Fantino enjoyed in Vaughan, and that left me scratching my head.
Vaughan was pretty well the safest non-416 or 514 riding the Liberals have, it was a riding that the leader of the party could stop into once on his way to a battleground riding knowing that it was in the bag, the sort of ridings that parties that hope to govern need.
It has been won by the Liberals with 50-60% of the popular vote since the merger of the two Conservative Parties. Perhaps once again I am naïve but when you win a riding that is considered to be a Liberal Stronghold by even a single vote that is considered a huge victory, especially considering that Vaughan wouldn’t have normally entered the discussion for the potential top 50 ridings the CPC would be targeting in the context of an election.
What is also interesting is that in what is about as close to a head to head Liberal and Conservative battle (as the NDP was a non-factor) the Liberals still lost, and that really does take away much of the creditability associated with the argument that the NDP is stealing the Liberals votes.
In a head to head battle between the Tories and the Liberals,
New Democrats stay home.
On October 15th 2008 the Conservative Party of Canada was 12 seats away from a majority government; since that time they have added 3 Conservative MP’s at the expense of the opposition side of the floor in by-elections
I think most Conservative supporters could easily list off the 9 or 10 ridings needed for a majority which could very easily go blue in the next election; I would be interested to see if Liberal supporters can list off the 70+ seats they need.
Now of course as is always the case after by-elections we hear every analysis defending their party of choice with the words “Voter Turnout”.
Well my friends let be very clear,
Voter Turnout excuses are the mating call of the loser.
Where was the discussion of voter turnout when the Liberals retained a pair of ridings with less then 30% voter turnout in 2008?
Wasn’t a factor, because the Liberals won.
Willowdale was retained in by-election by the Liberals with 24.4% voter turnout, and they had no issue retaining the seat in an election later that year.
As a matter of fact, every single riding that has been won in a by-election since 2004 by a party has retained that riding in the next general election.
The Liberals winning Winnipeg North may have changed the story, but it doesn’t change the political reality the Liberals are facing.
They had an easy and safe riding in the 905 belt;
They lost it because the Conservatives were able to run the right candidate. The Conservatives are also +3 (having won 4 of 7) in By-Elections whereas the Bloc is -1, the NDP is -1, and the Liberals are sitting at neutral.
If the Liberals cannot pull out a victory in a riding that Paul Martin and Stephane Dion where able to retain by simply flying over it on the way to other ridings during General Elections in a by-election where all they needed to do was focus on three ridings,
What’s going to happen under this leader when the Liberals who are 1/7 under Iggy have to contest 308 ridings at once?
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Sorry Jack, The Trap Wasn’t Meant For You…
Within this very blog I have praised Jack Layton for his leadership of the NDP since 2003. While I may not agree with his policies or stances more often then not I can respect someone who has been so successful within the political arena.
Only the Conservatives and the NDP have seen consistent growth in terms of seats and popular vote since the 2004 election.
The NDP in 2004 was a party of cities, Toronto, Hamilton, Windsor, Halifax, Winnipeg, and Vancouver with a few sprinkles of rural and suburban ridings mixed into the equation. They were a party of 19 seats.
As of the 2008 election the NDP was a party of 37 seats. (36 currently due to the current vacant state of Winnipeg North) Where has this growth come from?
We often hear about the great growth in Ontario and the nearly legendary tale of Thomas Mulcair winning an honest to goodness seat for the NDP in the 514. What we don’t seem to hear about is Sudbury, Thunder Bay, Kapuskasing, Timmins, Northern British Columbia, Newfoundland, Northern Canada.
These are the areas that have vaulted in NDP from a party of 19 seats to one of 37.
Early this week an Ipsos poll was released that showed NDP support had fallen to 12% nationally. I am of the mindset that one poll can be wrong, or that one pollster can have a method of data collection that at some times can show either unrealistic drops or gains to particular parties so I didn’t think much of it.
However today’s EKO’s poll shows there may very well be some reality in that 12% as they have shown the NDP support to be @ 13.5%.
What I find off however is how this is being reported, an implication that the drop in support is due to Jack Layton allowing a free vote among his MP’s as it pertained to the long gun registry and how that somehow alienated urban voters?
I hate to say it;
But when it comes to the long gun registry urban voters don’t really give a poop. I mean they do, any issue where you can stick it to Harper is painted as a life and death struggle to snatch away power from the evil right wing overlord currently running the country…
However, the importance of that struggle only lasts a newscycle.
The Liberals threw a party to celebrate that Micheal Ignatieff was able to whip his MP’s into voting party lines and for once the entire party actually listened, heck they should have thrown a parade.
Yet no one in Urban Canada cares anymore, the vote is over, the registry is saved, and now they can fake outrage over the next “evil” Conservative plot.
However, in rural Canada where this issue actually affects the day to day lives of those Canadians they have had it.
The Conservatives had promised to do something about this long gun registry since 2003, and when they finally got into power in 2006 it only took them about 3 and a half years but FINALLY the time had come to get rid of this utterly useless long gun registry once and for all.
The NDP’s growth in Rural Canada came from a very simple principal from the old CCF, and that is respect your constituents wishes and represent them when you take your seat in Ottawa.
When a series of rural NDP MP’s opted to change their vote as it pertained to getting rid of the long gun registry all it did was reinforce a mentality that the NDP is run by the 416 for the 416.
I don’t envy Jack Layton,
The Conservative’s baited a trap for the Liberals, and sadly it was the NDP that got caught within it.
Should be interesting to see how Mr. Layton will attempt to get out of this one.
Only the Conservatives and the NDP have seen consistent growth in terms of seats and popular vote since the 2004 election.
The NDP in 2004 was a party of cities, Toronto, Hamilton, Windsor, Halifax, Winnipeg, and Vancouver with a few sprinkles of rural and suburban ridings mixed into the equation. They were a party of 19 seats.
As of the 2008 election the NDP was a party of 37 seats. (36 currently due to the current vacant state of Winnipeg North) Where has this growth come from?
We often hear about the great growth in Ontario and the nearly legendary tale of Thomas Mulcair winning an honest to goodness seat for the NDP in the 514. What we don’t seem to hear about is Sudbury, Thunder Bay, Kapuskasing, Timmins, Northern British Columbia, Newfoundland, Northern Canada.
These are the areas that have vaulted in NDP from a party of 19 seats to one of 37.
Early this week an Ipsos poll was released that showed NDP support had fallen to 12% nationally. I am of the mindset that one poll can be wrong, or that one pollster can have a method of data collection that at some times can show either unrealistic drops or gains to particular parties so I didn’t think much of it.
However today’s EKO’s poll shows there may very well be some reality in that 12% as they have shown the NDP support to be @ 13.5%.
What I find off however is how this is being reported, an implication that the drop in support is due to Jack Layton allowing a free vote among his MP’s as it pertained to the long gun registry and how that somehow alienated urban voters?
I hate to say it;
But when it comes to the long gun registry urban voters don’t really give a poop. I mean they do, any issue where you can stick it to Harper is painted as a life and death struggle to snatch away power from the evil right wing overlord currently running the country…
However, the importance of that struggle only lasts a newscycle.
The Liberals threw a party to celebrate that Micheal Ignatieff was able to whip his MP’s into voting party lines and for once the entire party actually listened, heck they should have thrown a parade.
Yet no one in Urban Canada cares anymore, the vote is over, the registry is saved, and now they can fake outrage over the next “evil” Conservative plot.
However, in rural Canada where this issue actually affects the day to day lives of those Canadians they have had it.
The Conservatives had promised to do something about this long gun registry since 2003, and when they finally got into power in 2006 it only took them about 3 and a half years but FINALLY the time had come to get rid of this utterly useless long gun registry once and for all.
The NDP’s growth in Rural Canada came from a very simple principal from the old CCF, and that is respect your constituents wishes and represent them when you take your seat in Ottawa.
When a series of rural NDP MP’s opted to change their vote as it pertained to getting rid of the long gun registry all it did was reinforce a mentality that the NDP is run by the 416 for the 416.
I don’t envy Jack Layton,
The Conservative’s baited a trap for the Liberals, and sadly it was the NDP that got caught within it.
Should be interesting to see how Mr. Layton will attempt to get out of this one.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Why is the Left Afraid of Free Speech?
I recall in University a professor made a comment that has stuck in my head for years,
“Free Speech is only acceptable as long as you are agreeing with my point of view, otherwise you need to be silenced immediately”
It was clearly a joke and he was simply making a commentary on the dynamic of the University classroom, however it’s a line that has stuck in my mind for a long time and always seems to spring to mind during certainly times.
I read that Margaret Atwood has signed a petition to stop Sun TV News, or as every media outlet has dubbed it “Fox News North” even though it is not affiliated with the Fox News Channel.
The term “Fear Monger” was perhaps most used during the reign of George W. Bush in reference to him and the Republicans, however I find that those on the left have done a very effective job of using fear for their own agenda’s as well, I would argue that they have done a better job of it then the Republicans or the self proclaimed “right” has done over the last year.
There has been an outcry to not allow for Sun TV news to be given a license to broadcast in Canada because of its potential “right wing slant”.
Perhaps I am the last realist left, but the days of a creditable down the middle newsman reading the news of the day directly into a camera are dead and buried. News like any other TV program now is a product, and a product that is worth countless dollars to the company that is broadcasting it.
I find Fox News no different then MSNBC except for the fact that their brand of zealotry is for different ends of the political spectrum, yet I hear more cries about the bias and general evil as it pertains to Fox News then I do MSNBC.
Bias exists within news, this occurred the second that Social Commentators were given two hour long programs on news channels under the illusion that they were reporting news.
CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, CBC Newsworld, CTV News, and everything in between have all found themselves in this same situation. The only difference as it pertains to someone’s opinion of how either Glen Beck or Keith Olbermann report the days events on their program has solely to do with the viewers own political bias. If you hate Beck and love Olbermann chances are you have an Obama/Biden bumper sticker on your Prius, and if you hate Olbermann and love Beck chances are that you have a Bush/Cheney 2004 sticker on the gun rack in the back of your pick-up.
(Please take note of the above sarcasm)
Both represent what “News” has degraded to over the course of the last decade, and neither offer a down the middle view of any issue, and neither is worse then the other.
However I assure you that someone will attempt to sway me one way or another, but based on my opinion of the situation they are both zealots for their own cause and someone you agree with is easier not to dislike then someone you disagree with.
The issue I have with various Canadian media outlets and “personalities” in attempting to censor Sun News TV is that regardless of how they frame the argument the fact is that they are attempting to censor news, and determine what should be reported on and what should not.
I recall a time where I could tune into the news and get the story, most of the story from both sides.
Now I need to watch Fox, CNN, MSNBC, CBC, and CTV as well as read online to get all angles of a particular story before I can draw my own conclusion.
Reality has become nothing more then CSI: News.
The viewer needs to spend a long period of time in order to get enough information so that they can have the entire story and then piece together all of that information to figure out just what the actual whole story is.
The Toronto Star, love it, hate it, or otherwise be indifferent to it, is not a balanced down the middle newspaper, nor is the Toronto Sun.
If the Toronto Star opted for an all news channel would we see the same degree of outcry against it?
I think we all know that we would not.
I fail to understand why people like Margaret Atwood who has enjoyed the benefits of living in a nation where the opinions of all can be stated freely are now in favor of censorship?
Because her political alignment is not in agreement with that of the Sun News TV folks?
I think I would have a lot more respect for the argument if someone was simply honest about their reasoning behind it.
The reality is that to make such bold conclusions about a form of media no one has even seen yet seems to be nothing short of using fear as a means of forwarding your own politics,
But what do I know?
I am of the mindset that the market should be allowed to decide for itself.
Let the folks at Sun News TV spend the millions of dollars needed in order to set up this station and broadcast it,
If there is no such market for their branding of news in Canada then they will crash and burn and the market would have silenced that particular slant.
Attempting to stop it before it has even broadcast news story one leads me to believe that there is a fear that there may actually be a market for news told from a different angle, and if that is the case there is no argument against this sort of station other then:
“Free Speech is only acceptable as long as you are agreeing with my point of view, otherwise you need to be silenced immediately”
I don’t feel that Canadians need to be told what is within their best interests, I have faith that Canadians have the sense and the intelligence to make those choices on their own.
The outcry against Sun TV News seems to be made up of propaganda and opinions, and I find it hard to take such criticism seriously when the network is yet to broadcast a single news story or even announce the bulk of its staff or content.
There appears to be a lot of fear mongering occurring against something we haven’t even seen yet, and I tend to be against any form of filtering information that is provided to the public so they can make their own choices,
Yet once again we see a vocal minority trying to play father knows best with the majority of the population.
Tragic, but true.
“Free Speech is only acceptable as long as you are agreeing with my point of view, otherwise you need to be silenced immediately”
It was clearly a joke and he was simply making a commentary on the dynamic of the University classroom, however it’s a line that has stuck in my mind for a long time and always seems to spring to mind during certainly times.
I read that Margaret Atwood has signed a petition to stop Sun TV News, or as every media outlet has dubbed it “Fox News North” even though it is not affiliated with the Fox News Channel.
The term “Fear Monger” was perhaps most used during the reign of George W. Bush in reference to him and the Republicans, however I find that those on the left have done a very effective job of using fear for their own agenda’s as well, I would argue that they have done a better job of it then the Republicans or the self proclaimed “right” has done over the last year.
There has been an outcry to not allow for Sun TV news to be given a license to broadcast in Canada because of its potential “right wing slant”.
Perhaps I am the last realist left, but the days of a creditable down the middle newsman reading the news of the day directly into a camera are dead and buried. News like any other TV program now is a product, and a product that is worth countless dollars to the company that is broadcasting it.
I find Fox News no different then MSNBC except for the fact that their brand of zealotry is for different ends of the political spectrum, yet I hear more cries about the bias and general evil as it pertains to Fox News then I do MSNBC.
Bias exists within news, this occurred the second that Social Commentators were given two hour long programs on news channels under the illusion that they were reporting news.
CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, CBC Newsworld, CTV News, and everything in between have all found themselves in this same situation. The only difference as it pertains to someone’s opinion of how either Glen Beck or Keith Olbermann report the days events on their program has solely to do with the viewers own political bias. If you hate Beck and love Olbermann chances are you have an Obama/Biden bumper sticker on your Prius, and if you hate Olbermann and love Beck chances are that you have a Bush/Cheney 2004 sticker on the gun rack in the back of your pick-up.
(Please take note of the above sarcasm)
Both represent what “News” has degraded to over the course of the last decade, and neither offer a down the middle view of any issue, and neither is worse then the other.
However I assure you that someone will attempt to sway me one way or another, but based on my opinion of the situation they are both zealots for their own cause and someone you agree with is easier not to dislike then someone you disagree with.
The issue I have with various Canadian media outlets and “personalities” in attempting to censor Sun News TV is that regardless of how they frame the argument the fact is that they are attempting to censor news, and determine what should be reported on and what should not.
I recall a time where I could tune into the news and get the story, most of the story from both sides.
Now I need to watch Fox, CNN, MSNBC, CBC, and CTV as well as read online to get all angles of a particular story before I can draw my own conclusion.
Reality has become nothing more then CSI: News.
The viewer needs to spend a long period of time in order to get enough information so that they can have the entire story and then piece together all of that information to figure out just what the actual whole story is.
The Toronto Star, love it, hate it, or otherwise be indifferent to it, is not a balanced down the middle newspaper, nor is the Toronto Sun.
If the Toronto Star opted for an all news channel would we see the same degree of outcry against it?
I think we all know that we would not.
I fail to understand why people like Margaret Atwood who has enjoyed the benefits of living in a nation where the opinions of all can be stated freely are now in favor of censorship?
Because her political alignment is not in agreement with that of the Sun News TV folks?
I think I would have a lot more respect for the argument if someone was simply honest about their reasoning behind it.
The reality is that to make such bold conclusions about a form of media no one has even seen yet seems to be nothing short of using fear as a means of forwarding your own politics,
But what do I know?
I am of the mindset that the market should be allowed to decide for itself.
Let the folks at Sun News TV spend the millions of dollars needed in order to set up this station and broadcast it,
If there is no such market for their branding of news in Canada then they will crash and burn and the market would have silenced that particular slant.
Attempting to stop it before it has even broadcast news story one leads me to believe that there is a fear that there may actually be a market for news told from a different angle, and if that is the case there is no argument against this sort of station other then:
“Free Speech is only acceptable as long as you are agreeing with my point of view, otherwise you need to be silenced immediately”
I don’t feel that Canadians need to be told what is within their best interests, I have faith that Canadians have the sense and the intelligence to make those choices on their own.
The outcry against Sun TV News seems to be made up of propaganda and opinions, and I find it hard to take such criticism seriously when the network is yet to broadcast a single news story or even announce the bulk of its staff or content.
There appears to be a lot of fear mongering occurring against something we haven’t even seen yet, and I tend to be against any form of filtering information that is provided to the public so they can make their own choices,
Yet once again we see a vocal minority trying to play father knows best with the majority of the population.
Tragic, but true.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Forget Your Damn Principals, Iggy Wants to Form a Government.
“Ignatieff said the Liberals share the objectives of the Greens and the NDP on the environment but insisted that voting for those parties meant Canadians will get "four more years of Stephen Harper."”
Source:
The above is something that I have seen implied, danced around, and other wise discussed but not discussed by Liberal supporters since 2006.
When a political party basically comes out and implies that you need to sell out your principals and go with us because we are the lesser evil you have reached a point where you as a party are simply out of ideas.
As I have mentioned on this blog, the NDP has seen growth in terms of seats and popular support in every election from 2004 onward, the Liberals on the other hand have seen retraction in both seats and popular vote in every election from 2004 onward.
I find it a little pompous, arrogant, and generally silly that the party that has “abstained” the Conservatives into a defacto majority government since late 2007 can imply that they are the party that can “stand up” to the Conservatives.
As I have said repeatedly in the past, I liked Paul Martin (pre-minority government) I thought he was a good leader who had clear ideas and the 2003 Liberals under Paul Martin was the last time I as a voter had any idea what the Liberal Party of Canada stood for.
Michael Ignatieff has been on a tour all summer long, meeting voters, talking policy, and trying to get Canadians to vote Liberals.
Yet here we are at the tail end of summer and I still have no idea what the Liberals stand for in terms of Economic Policy, Social Spending, Health Care, Afghanistan, Arctic Sovereignty, or Taxation.
All I know after a summer long bus tour is:
Conservatives = Bad
Liberals = Good
NDP + Green = Conservatives = Bad
This isn’t an election for student council president in high school, yet the simplicity of the message leads me to believe that the Liberals either have no policy or that they think I as a voter am far to stupid to actually understand whatever policy they may have.
What’s worse is that all summer I have watched Liberal MP after Liberal MP imply that Harper is a bully, yet here we are leading into the fall session of Parliament and the leader of the Liberal Party is basically attempting to bully loyal Green/NDP supporters into voting Liberal because they are the “only way to stop Harper”.
That coupled with forcing rural MP’s to vote party lines rather then constituents desires on Bill C-391 which appears that it will pass even without any support from the Liberals is just playing out the same image that the Liberals have been trying to distance themselves from since Ignatieff was appointed leader.
We are the party that knows better then you.
Considering they have had zero influence on policy over the last four years, and the country is still standing maybe Canada can exist without the Liberals?
Perhaps its time the Liberals realized that and starting asking Canadians for supporter rather then bullying them into it.
Just a thought.
Source:
The above is something that I have seen implied, danced around, and other wise discussed but not discussed by Liberal supporters since 2006.
When a political party basically comes out and implies that you need to sell out your principals and go with us because we are the lesser evil you have reached a point where you as a party are simply out of ideas.
As I have mentioned on this blog, the NDP has seen growth in terms of seats and popular support in every election from 2004 onward, the Liberals on the other hand have seen retraction in both seats and popular vote in every election from 2004 onward.
I find it a little pompous, arrogant, and generally silly that the party that has “abstained” the Conservatives into a defacto majority government since late 2007 can imply that they are the party that can “stand up” to the Conservatives.
As I have said repeatedly in the past, I liked Paul Martin (pre-minority government) I thought he was a good leader who had clear ideas and the 2003 Liberals under Paul Martin was the last time I as a voter had any idea what the Liberal Party of Canada stood for.
Michael Ignatieff has been on a tour all summer long, meeting voters, talking policy, and trying to get Canadians to vote Liberals.
Yet here we are at the tail end of summer and I still have no idea what the Liberals stand for in terms of Economic Policy, Social Spending, Health Care, Afghanistan, Arctic Sovereignty, or Taxation.
All I know after a summer long bus tour is:
Conservatives = Bad
Liberals = Good
NDP + Green = Conservatives = Bad
This isn’t an election for student council president in high school, yet the simplicity of the message leads me to believe that the Liberals either have no policy or that they think I as a voter am far to stupid to actually understand whatever policy they may have.
What’s worse is that all summer I have watched Liberal MP after Liberal MP imply that Harper is a bully, yet here we are leading into the fall session of Parliament and the leader of the Liberal Party is basically attempting to bully loyal Green/NDP supporters into voting Liberal because they are the “only way to stop Harper”.
That coupled with forcing rural MP’s to vote party lines rather then constituents desires on Bill C-391 which appears that it will pass even without any support from the Liberals is just playing out the same image that the Liberals have been trying to distance themselves from since Ignatieff was appointed leader.
We are the party that knows better then you.
Considering they have had zero influence on policy over the last four years, and the country is still standing maybe Canada can exist without the Liberals?
Perhaps its time the Liberals realized that and starting asking Canadians for supporter rather then bullying them into it.
Just a thought.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
If the Liberals Cry Wolf and Everyone is Around; Does Anyone Hear it?
If I hear the world “Militarization” one more time this week I may very well scream, there is a difference between a build up of equipment and a replacement of material that is so old it belongs in a museum.
Canada has decided to order 65 Lockheed Martin F-35 aircraft for around 8.5 Billion dollars total, these aircraft will largely replace and compliment the fleet of the 100 or so Hornet CF-18’s that were originally purchased starting 1982.
In a nutshell multirole aircraft which was purchased nearly 30 years ago is starting to be replaced.
This isn’t even a discussion about if you are pro or con whatever mission our Canadian Forces are currently engaged in. It’s a reality that our Forces have been on the ground somewhere in the world every day for the last few decades. They are there, and if you agree, disagree, don’t care or otherwise it doesn’t change the fact that they are in harms way currently, and based on the track record of either political party they will be in harms way again.
If we are asking our forces to do a mission, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to provide them with the material in order to do so.
Our soldiers were sent to Afghanistan in 2001 in equipment that was procured when Diefenbaker was Prime Minister, you with think there would be some shame held by the political party who was in power in 2001 who sent our troops to Afghanistan in combat equipment that is nearly the same age as our current Prime Minister.
You would however be wrong.
When Canada opted to replace our archaic armoured vehicles in 2007 we saw the same “outrage” we are seeing today.
The question was raised in 2007 as to why Canada needed these new armoured vehicles, the Liberal supporters seemed to almost imply some sort of “hidden” agenda.
When the answer was very simple;
Q: Why did Canada need new Armoured Vehicles?
A: Because the Liberals under a majority government in 2001 sent our troops into a combat zone in material that was not designed to protect soldiers from roadside bombs an IED’s.
There isn’t much that really pisses me off more then when politicians of any stripe politicize our men and women in uniform.
Our Hornet CF-18’s in nearly 30 years old; they were purchased to replace the CF-104 Starfighter and CF-101 Voodoo aircraft which were 20 years old. I don’t think that it can be argued that we as a nation have got our money’s worth out of the Hornets.
I also have very little issue with opting for the Lockheed Martin F-35’s for a few reasons
1) They were jointly developed by Canada
2) Lockheed Martin uses a lot of Canadian subcontractors
3) The US Military is buying 2000 of them, so getting parts shouldn’t be that difficult.
I am not an overly complicated man, but I do feel that if we are asking our troops to do a job with a maple leaf patch on their shoulders at a minimum we shouldn’t be sending them into battle in Sea King Helicopters that were purchased in 1964, which are FINALLY being replaced with Sikorsky CH 148’s as of 2007, but should have been phased out in the early 1990’s till of course the Liberals once again opted to play politics with our armed forces by canceling the contract to replace them in 1993 slashing the DND budget;
Then of course sending our troops to Somalia, Rwanda, and Bosnia for their troubles, within four years of axing the purchase of needed equipment.
I don’t care if you are in favor of the mission in Afghanistan or not, taking out your “politics” on our Forces by clamoring about the replacement of 30 year old jets is nothing short of villainous, especially when anyone with any common sense knows that the jets are WAY overdue for a replacement.
Using the safety of our troops as pawns in an attempt to garner support for party X or Y is nothing short of hitting bottom.
But based on the last few polls, I think the Liberals already know that.
Canada has decided to order 65 Lockheed Martin F-35 aircraft for around 8.5 Billion dollars total, these aircraft will largely replace and compliment the fleet of the 100 or so Hornet CF-18’s that were originally purchased starting 1982.
In a nutshell multirole aircraft which was purchased nearly 30 years ago is starting to be replaced.
This isn’t even a discussion about if you are pro or con whatever mission our Canadian Forces are currently engaged in. It’s a reality that our Forces have been on the ground somewhere in the world every day for the last few decades. They are there, and if you agree, disagree, don’t care or otherwise it doesn’t change the fact that they are in harms way currently, and based on the track record of either political party they will be in harms way again.
If we are asking our forces to do a mission, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to provide them with the material in order to do so.
Our soldiers were sent to Afghanistan in 2001 in equipment that was procured when Diefenbaker was Prime Minister, you with think there would be some shame held by the political party who was in power in 2001 who sent our troops to Afghanistan in combat equipment that is nearly the same age as our current Prime Minister.
You would however be wrong.
When Canada opted to replace our archaic armoured vehicles in 2007 we saw the same “outrage” we are seeing today.
The question was raised in 2007 as to why Canada needed these new armoured vehicles, the Liberal supporters seemed to almost imply some sort of “hidden” agenda.
When the answer was very simple;
Q: Why did Canada need new Armoured Vehicles?
A: Because the Liberals under a majority government in 2001 sent our troops into a combat zone in material that was not designed to protect soldiers from roadside bombs an IED’s.
There isn’t much that really pisses me off more then when politicians of any stripe politicize our men and women in uniform.
Our Hornet CF-18’s in nearly 30 years old; they were purchased to replace the CF-104 Starfighter and CF-101 Voodoo aircraft which were 20 years old. I don’t think that it can be argued that we as a nation have got our money’s worth out of the Hornets.
I also have very little issue with opting for the Lockheed Martin F-35’s for a few reasons
1) They were jointly developed by Canada
2) Lockheed Martin uses a lot of Canadian subcontractors
3) The US Military is buying 2000 of them, so getting parts shouldn’t be that difficult.
I am not an overly complicated man, but I do feel that if we are asking our troops to do a job with a maple leaf patch on their shoulders at a minimum we shouldn’t be sending them into battle in Sea King Helicopters that were purchased in 1964, which are FINALLY being replaced with Sikorsky CH 148’s as of 2007, but should have been phased out in the early 1990’s till of course the Liberals once again opted to play politics with our armed forces by canceling the contract to replace them in 1993 slashing the DND budget;
Then of course sending our troops to Somalia, Rwanda, and Bosnia for their troubles, within four years of axing the purchase of needed equipment.
I don’t care if you are in favor of the mission in Afghanistan or not, taking out your “politics” on our Forces by clamoring about the replacement of 30 year old jets is nothing short of villainous, especially when anyone with any common sense knows that the jets are WAY overdue for a replacement.
Using the safety of our troops as pawns in an attempt to garner support for party X or Y is nothing short of hitting bottom.
But based on the last few polls, I think the Liberals already know that.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Why Card Carrying Liberals Hate Me
I am a mercenary politically;
This idea of blind faith towards the actions of a party simply because you have their logo on a card laminated within your wallet is utterly silly to me.
I think Harper is doing the best job out of those who could potentially have the job, and I think that Tim Hudak may get me to vote Liberal in Ontario for the first time.
It’s all about policy to me,
I already know I am a bad Canadian because I approach every party’s platform with the approach of “what is best for my family” rather then “what is best for Canada”.
Talks of a merger between the NDP/Liberals is one subject I wasn’t going to comment on, simply because I am sure thousands of people who voted Martin in 2004 are making the same sorts of comments I would.
Unless all of a sudden the NDP moved hard center and dumped half their policy and caucus I would find it hard to see a situation where I would support them within the context of an election.
Layton has done perhaps the best job of any of the opposition leaders in their role as opposition to be vocal and against legislation tabled by the Government.
As the leader of the 3rd Opposition Party he has served his role well.
However, as a Minister of Finance or Foreign Affairs in the context of a merged Liberal/NDP party…
Scary stuff.
The NDP with power is something that we cannot afford as a nation, I look at Greece and the mess they are in because of a social safety net so expensive it collapsed their nation and I envision what could happen to Canada if we opted to move forward with even 20% of the NDP’s platform.
However I read an interesting article on CBC’s website which simply left me stunned
“He said Apps told him the NDP would have to comply with three conditions: renouncing socialism and embracing a mixed-market economy; accepting Michael Ignatieff as leader; and having senior party "saints" such as former federal NDP leader Ed Broadbent and past Saskatchewan NDP leader Roy Romanow promote the merger.”
Source
Maybe I am missing something here,
Perhaps the Liberal Party of Canada has some sort of dirt on the senior folks at the NDP but after reading that my first thought was:
“Are the Liberals delusional?”
Let’s have a look at the support of both parties over the last four elections:
NDP Support:
2000: 13 Seats, 8.51% Popular Vote
2004: 19 Seats, 11% Popular Vote
2006: 29 Seats, 17.48% Popular Vote
2008: 37 Seats, 18.18% Popular Vote
Liberal Support:
2000: 172 Seats, 41% Popular Vote
2004: 135 Seats, 36.73% Popular Vote
2006: 103 Seats, 30.23% Popular Vote
2008: 77 Seats, 26.26% Popular Vote
Do you see that pattern?
The Liberals had about 32% more support then the NDP in 2000,
Now it’s an 8.08% difference between both parties as of 2008.
Some polls show the NDP just outside the Margin of Error of the Liberals in terms of national support.
Maybe I am naïve here, but shouldn’t the NDP be dictating the terms of this agreement to the Liberals?
Because I hate to say it, the Liberals need the NDP a lot more then the NDP needs the Liberals.
Don’t get me wrong, the idea that the terms of a merger are basically along the lines of the NDP having to give up everything that makes it the NDP has some appeal to me, whenever you eliminate a left of center party you reduce the likelihood of left of center policy.
I just don’t see the reasoning behind this for the New Democrats.
An NDP/Green merger makes more logical sense.
That combine force based on the “second choice” polling could potentially leapfrog the Liberals.
Based on the Globe and Mail Article breaking down the Numbers the NDP/Liberal Party could potentially lead to a Conservative Majority.
Source
Which is all fine and good, but I really would like someone from the NDP to discuss this in the same manner in which “insiders” of the Liberal Party have been.
There is no love loss between me and the NDP, and the idea of them dissolving themselves into Liberals is interesting,
But where is the pros for the New Democrats?
This idea of blind faith towards the actions of a party simply because you have their logo on a card laminated within your wallet is utterly silly to me.
I think Harper is doing the best job out of those who could potentially have the job, and I think that Tim Hudak may get me to vote Liberal in Ontario for the first time.
It’s all about policy to me,
I already know I am a bad Canadian because I approach every party’s platform with the approach of “what is best for my family” rather then “what is best for Canada”.
Talks of a merger between the NDP/Liberals is one subject I wasn’t going to comment on, simply because I am sure thousands of people who voted Martin in 2004 are making the same sorts of comments I would.
Unless all of a sudden the NDP moved hard center and dumped half their policy and caucus I would find it hard to see a situation where I would support them within the context of an election.
Layton has done perhaps the best job of any of the opposition leaders in their role as opposition to be vocal and against legislation tabled by the Government.
As the leader of the 3rd Opposition Party he has served his role well.
However, as a Minister of Finance or Foreign Affairs in the context of a merged Liberal/NDP party…
Scary stuff.
The NDP with power is something that we cannot afford as a nation, I look at Greece and the mess they are in because of a social safety net so expensive it collapsed their nation and I envision what could happen to Canada if we opted to move forward with even 20% of the NDP’s platform.
However I read an interesting article on CBC’s website which simply left me stunned
“He said Apps told him the NDP would have to comply with three conditions: renouncing socialism and embracing a mixed-market economy; accepting Michael Ignatieff as leader; and having senior party "saints" such as former federal NDP leader Ed Broadbent and past Saskatchewan NDP leader Roy Romanow promote the merger.”
Source
Maybe I am missing something here,
Perhaps the Liberal Party of Canada has some sort of dirt on the senior folks at the NDP but after reading that my first thought was:
“Are the Liberals delusional?”
Let’s have a look at the support of both parties over the last four elections:
NDP Support:
2000: 13 Seats, 8.51% Popular Vote
2004: 19 Seats, 11% Popular Vote
2006: 29 Seats, 17.48% Popular Vote
2008: 37 Seats, 18.18% Popular Vote
Liberal Support:
2000: 172 Seats, 41% Popular Vote
2004: 135 Seats, 36.73% Popular Vote
2006: 103 Seats, 30.23% Popular Vote
2008: 77 Seats, 26.26% Popular Vote
Do you see that pattern?
The Liberals had about 32% more support then the NDP in 2000,
Now it’s an 8.08% difference between both parties as of 2008.
Some polls show the NDP just outside the Margin of Error of the Liberals in terms of national support.
Maybe I am naïve here, but shouldn’t the NDP be dictating the terms of this agreement to the Liberals?
Because I hate to say it, the Liberals need the NDP a lot more then the NDP needs the Liberals.
Don’t get me wrong, the idea that the terms of a merger are basically along the lines of the NDP having to give up everything that makes it the NDP has some appeal to me, whenever you eliminate a left of center party you reduce the likelihood of left of center policy.
I just don’t see the reasoning behind this for the New Democrats.
An NDP/Green merger makes more logical sense.
That combine force based on the “second choice” polling could potentially leapfrog the Liberals.
Based on the Globe and Mail Article breaking down the Numbers the NDP/Liberal Party could potentially lead to a Conservative Majority.
Source
Which is all fine and good, but I really would like someone from the NDP to discuss this in the same manner in which “insiders” of the Liberal Party have been.
There is no love loss between me and the NDP, and the idea of them dissolving themselves into Liberals is interesting,
But where is the pros for the New Democrats?
Why News Can Only Be Bias, If its Bias Toward Me...
Just a quick hit:
Source
Why is it then when I need to "lefts side" of the story I can pick up any number of papers, read any number of columnists, and watch any number of Canadian Media Personalities.
Yet the idea of having something similar for the right is an abomination?
Maybe I am just a simpleton,
but I think giving Canadians all the angles and letting them decide for themselves isn't that horrid of an idea?
But what do I know...
A new, all-news network directed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's former chief spokesman could soon be coming to Canadian living rooms.
Quebecor Media Inc. has filed an application for an English-language TV news network with the CRTC, the federal broadcast regulator.
Liberal Heritage critic Pablo Rodriguez reacted with caution to the proposed network.
"Competition is always welcome. Normally when you have good competition, it's the consumer that benefits," Rodriguez said in an interview.
"But I would be wary of having a channel like Fox News that's driven by ideology."
But New Democrat MP Charlie Angus reacted to Quebecor's bid with guns blazing.
"One of the problems they're going to face is that there is actually an obligation in Canada — unlike the United States — to have some balance [in news reporting]," said Angus.
"Having Kory anywhere near the project kind of blows that obligation out of the water."
Angus said he fears the Conservatives will bend to Quebecor's policy demands "and in return he'll let the Kory Tenecykes treat the service as in-house media for the Conservative machine."
Source
Why is it then when I need to "lefts side" of the story I can pick up any number of papers, read any number of columnists, and watch any number of Canadian Media Personalities.
Yet the idea of having something similar for the right is an abomination?
Maybe I am just a simpleton,
but I think giving Canadians all the angles and letting them decide for themselves isn't that horrid of an idea?
But what do I know...
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Why I am Content Being a Hypocrite
Before I move forward, I would like to introduce myself as a hypocrite.
In October 2001 when Canada was deciding to what degree it would aid NATO in the US led invasion of Afghanistan I was among the 17% of those who opposed the mission.
My logic was pretty straight-forward,
The problem with the western world fighting a war in the middle east which is a region the average CNN or CBC Newsworld watcher will only see in news footage is that there is an utter lack of understanding of that part of the world.
Afghanistan has been a nation ripped to pieces by communists and drug lords in recent history and various war mongers for centuries before that.
The Greeks, The Persians, The Mongols have all held a piece of Afghanistan at one point or another and right up to the day before NATO stormed in it was a “country” in the most basic geographical term, but in reality it was a series of tribes and nomads that were loosely controlled by one tyrant or group of tyrants.
Simply said;
Going in an getting rid of the Taliban was going to be easy, the years that would follow of the western world trying to build a unified country in a location where no truly unified country has every stood was going to cause the masses at home to get bored,
Then force us to do just what we damned the US for doing in the 1980’s.
Leaving a population to get slaughtered while we watch at home on our TV’s and then wonder decades later why those children who watched their parents get slaughtered when we left are so intent on destroying us.
I knew our troops would do good work, even though they didn’t have the proper funding or equipment
But at the same time I fear another situation where a bunch of college kids spending their parents money would spit on them upon their return because they felt their textbook knowledge of a situation was enough to entitle them to feel they were “correct”.
When the Liberal Majority Government decided to move in,
I became a hypocrite and supported the mission.
Regardless of my opinion of the long term success or support of this mission the reality is that as messed up as the nation of Afghanistan was, we went in and turned it upside down and the first lesson my parents taught me as a child was that if I made a mess, I need to clean that mess up.
At a minimum we owe it to the people of Afghanistan,
And watching the left try and explain to the Canadian population years later that “It was screwed up already, so there is no point in fixing it”
Is going to lead to those same folks on the left screaming about our terrible domestic policy decades later because we “Abandon” a people and turned them against us…
Same story, just different people telling it at a different time.
In 2006 when the Liberals left office,
All of a sudden there was an interesting shift. As expected the 82% of Canadians in favor of going into Afghanistan in 2001 shrank to around 50%,
Then a strange thing happened.
The Liberals started painting Harper as a “War Monger”.
How dare you spend money to upgrade our military troop carriers that are nearly 40 years old!
How dare you give them the resources to fight a war they should have been given before they started the war!
I recall poor Gordon O'Connor (The then Minister of Defense) trying to justify the purchase of these armoured troop carriers on one of the political talk shows,
I found it iinteresting, because had I been in the seat my answer would have been
“We are replacing troop carriers that were originally procured under the Diefenbaker government which they do not have armour on the underside to protect against roadside bombs, had any government had any commonsense over the last two decades we would have had them already"
However he explained how versatile they were, and how they could be used on any terrain not just deserts.
Which prompted to opposition to demand to know just where the Conservatives were planning to invade next that they needed these “versatile” vehicles.
I will admit it was brilliant, the Liberals were able to deflect what was nothing short of embarrassing cuts to the Military, despite the fact that the Canadians forces were on the ground somewhere dangerous in every year the Liberals were in power over the last two decades.
They attempt was made to make this “Harper’s War”, to make him George W. Bush Lite.
Not a bad political move.
They fought and demanded that no soldiers would stay in Afghanistan beyond 2009, and the Conservatives fought even to get a commitment till 2011, and agreement was reached with the clear understand from the Liberals that 2011 was "The Line"
Yet today, Liberal MP Bob Rae had this to say:
"We have an obligation to see this thing through,"
"The door is open to serious discussion in Canada — and between Canada and NATO — about what the future looks like."
NDP MP Jack Harris said this:
"All Canadians do not want to see the sacrifice that has been made be for naught and we do have obviously a considerable amount of humanitarian concerns and institution-building concerns about Afghanistan,"
Source
What is this crazy talk? It’s Harpers War?
Isn’t that guy supposed to be evil?
While I find it interesting to see the Liberals and the New Democrats admit that they have made a massive error in judgment when it comes to foreign policy over the last four years, I was left to wonder why?
Don’t get me wrong, I will vote either party (by either I mean Liberal or Conservative, the two that may win) depending on what’s in my families best interest, but this Ignatieff guy makes me want to burn my University degrees because he gives the educated such a bad rap.
I just find that this new incarnation of the Liberals don’t do anything unless there is a reason for it,
And how about that, it seems that in the States the approval rating of the Afghan War has gone from the 30’s to the 50’s since Obama took office, and that news came out earlier this week.
Now I get it;
Our mission, our troops, and our commitment to those people meant nothing when it translated to a few votes from burnt out hippies and philosophy majors.
However, now the tide is turning and it seems that every Liberal and New Democrat that voted against increasing funding to the Military, or in the case of 1993 – 2006 voted in favor of decreasing it
Are now running to be able to pose in a photo with our men and women overseas who have been doing great work over there for the entire mission.
Isn’t it amazing that we can go from the leader of the Liberal party saying this in 2007
"A Liberal government led by me will unequivocally commit to ending Canada’s mission in Kandahar in 2009 and we will inform NATO of this deadline right away to ensure they find a replacement for Canada,"
Source
To the defacto leader of the Liberals calling for a potential extension beyond 2011 just a few years later…
I was once asked by a friend who I worked with (for the Liberals Ironically Enough) on a local campaign in 2004 what it would take for me to vote Liberal again,
I think the simple answer for today would be this:
Stop taking both sides of every issue and hoping that the voter is too stupid to realize it.
In October 2001 when Canada was deciding to what degree it would aid NATO in the US led invasion of Afghanistan I was among the 17% of those who opposed the mission.
My logic was pretty straight-forward,
The problem with the western world fighting a war in the middle east which is a region the average CNN or CBC Newsworld watcher will only see in news footage is that there is an utter lack of understanding of that part of the world.
Afghanistan has been a nation ripped to pieces by communists and drug lords in recent history and various war mongers for centuries before that.
The Greeks, The Persians, The Mongols have all held a piece of Afghanistan at one point or another and right up to the day before NATO stormed in it was a “country” in the most basic geographical term, but in reality it was a series of tribes and nomads that were loosely controlled by one tyrant or group of tyrants.
Simply said;
Going in an getting rid of the Taliban was going to be easy, the years that would follow of the western world trying to build a unified country in a location where no truly unified country has every stood was going to cause the masses at home to get bored,
Then force us to do just what we damned the US for doing in the 1980’s.
Leaving a population to get slaughtered while we watch at home on our TV’s and then wonder decades later why those children who watched their parents get slaughtered when we left are so intent on destroying us.
I knew our troops would do good work, even though they didn’t have the proper funding or equipment
But at the same time I fear another situation where a bunch of college kids spending their parents money would spit on them upon their return because they felt their textbook knowledge of a situation was enough to entitle them to feel they were “correct”.
When the Liberal Majority Government decided to move in,
I became a hypocrite and supported the mission.
Regardless of my opinion of the long term success or support of this mission the reality is that as messed up as the nation of Afghanistan was, we went in and turned it upside down and the first lesson my parents taught me as a child was that if I made a mess, I need to clean that mess up.
At a minimum we owe it to the people of Afghanistan,
And watching the left try and explain to the Canadian population years later that “It was screwed up already, so there is no point in fixing it”
Is going to lead to those same folks on the left screaming about our terrible domestic policy decades later because we “Abandon” a people and turned them against us…
Same story, just different people telling it at a different time.
In 2006 when the Liberals left office,
All of a sudden there was an interesting shift. As expected the 82% of Canadians in favor of going into Afghanistan in 2001 shrank to around 50%,
Then a strange thing happened.
The Liberals started painting Harper as a “War Monger”.
How dare you spend money to upgrade our military troop carriers that are nearly 40 years old!
How dare you give them the resources to fight a war they should have been given before they started the war!
I recall poor Gordon O'Connor (The then Minister of Defense) trying to justify the purchase of these armoured troop carriers on one of the political talk shows,
I found it iinteresting, because had I been in the seat my answer would have been
“We are replacing troop carriers that were originally procured under the Diefenbaker government which they do not have armour on the underside to protect against roadside bombs, had any government had any commonsense over the last two decades we would have had them already"
However he explained how versatile they were, and how they could be used on any terrain not just deserts.
Which prompted to opposition to demand to know just where the Conservatives were planning to invade next that they needed these “versatile” vehicles.
I will admit it was brilliant, the Liberals were able to deflect what was nothing short of embarrassing cuts to the Military, despite the fact that the Canadians forces were on the ground somewhere dangerous in every year the Liberals were in power over the last two decades.
They attempt was made to make this “Harper’s War”, to make him George W. Bush Lite.
Not a bad political move.
They fought and demanded that no soldiers would stay in Afghanistan beyond 2009, and the Conservatives fought even to get a commitment till 2011, and agreement was reached with the clear understand from the Liberals that 2011 was "The Line"
Yet today, Liberal MP Bob Rae had this to say:
"We have an obligation to see this thing through,"
"The door is open to serious discussion in Canada — and between Canada and NATO — about what the future looks like."
NDP MP Jack Harris said this:
"All Canadians do not want to see the sacrifice that has been made be for naught and we do have obviously a considerable amount of humanitarian concerns and institution-building concerns about Afghanistan,"
Source
What is this crazy talk? It’s Harpers War?
Isn’t that guy supposed to be evil?
While I find it interesting to see the Liberals and the New Democrats admit that they have made a massive error in judgment when it comes to foreign policy over the last four years, I was left to wonder why?
Don’t get me wrong, I will vote either party (by either I mean Liberal or Conservative, the two that may win) depending on what’s in my families best interest, but this Ignatieff guy makes me want to burn my University degrees because he gives the educated such a bad rap.
I just find that this new incarnation of the Liberals don’t do anything unless there is a reason for it,
And how about that, it seems that in the States the approval rating of the Afghan War has gone from the 30’s to the 50’s since Obama took office, and that news came out earlier this week.
Now I get it;
Our mission, our troops, and our commitment to those people meant nothing when it translated to a few votes from burnt out hippies and philosophy majors.
However, now the tide is turning and it seems that every Liberal and New Democrat that voted against increasing funding to the Military, or in the case of 1993 – 2006 voted in favor of decreasing it
Are now running to be able to pose in a photo with our men and women overseas who have been doing great work over there for the entire mission.
Isn’t it amazing that we can go from the leader of the Liberal party saying this in 2007
"A Liberal government led by me will unequivocally commit to ending Canada’s mission in Kandahar in 2009 and we will inform NATO of this deadline right away to ensure they find a replacement for Canada,"
Source
To the defacto leader of the Liberals calling for a potential extension beyond 2011 just a few years later…
I was once asked by a friend who I worked with (for the Liberals Ironically Enough) on a local campaign in 2004 what it would take for me to vote Liberal again,
I think the simple answer for today would be this:
Stop taking both sides of every issue and hoping that the voter is too stupid to realize it.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Why I am Unpopular At Work
900 million bucks for security at a G20 conference! That seems like a lot of scratch to protect a bunch of suits?
The talking point of the last few days on every call in show, and nearly every political television program has been the cost of the G20 conference in Toronto.
The Liberal supporters have even gone as far as to call it Harper’s “Billion Dollar Boondoggle”.
Public sentiment when it comes to politicians is often pretty straightforward, we don’t like em, we don’t want to be inconvenienced by em, and we don’t want to spend money on em.
With that in mind even the original 160 million dollar budget would have been enough to annoy most Canadians.
Now we have watched the cost go from the budgeted 160 million to over 900 million (which for the sake of shock-value we can round up to a BILLION dollars, even though for some reason 900 million sounds worse, but what do I know?)
Why has the cost gone up?
My first guess would be that the firebombing of the RBC branch in Ottawa and targeting of civilians’ who happen to work for “evil” corporations may have raised the stakes a little bit,
The fact that the amount of protestors that are estimated to descend on the city of Toronto is around 10,000, to put that number into perspective there are 5,800 sworn in members of the Toronto Police.
Coupled with the fact that some of these Anarchist Groups have promised “militant” protests aimed to “humiliate the security apparatus” according to yesterday’s Toronto Star.
Let me be the first one to say that spending 900 million on anything that doesn’t play the Dallas Cowboy’s at least once a season is simply beyond me, but to attack the government for this is about as short sided as it gets.
Is the threat posed by these protestors real?
I believe it is; and going after a bank branch with a firebomb leads me to believe that these folks mean business.
So what is the correct response in the face of these threats?
The summit could have been canceled?
Maybe I am just old school, but bowing down to a vocal minority of protestors and giving into what they want generally breeds more of this sort of behavior.
If firebombing buildings and promising violence gets them their way just once, we open a door that we may never be able to close.
To me canceling the summit in the face of a bunch of whiney 20 something’s and some burnt out hippies is not an option, especially less then a month out.
Which leaves us with two choices:
We take all measures to adequately protect our guests,
or we don’t.
Those who are threatening violence are getting off far too easy in the media and amount angry Canadians.
The money that needs to be spent is because of the violence that has been promised, not because the government has decided to waste money on items that are not needed.
I would imagine that 99% of people think I am totally nuts in the fact that I am not foaming at the mouth over this money being spent,
However I am one of the few believers that the G20 has done some good work, and I am damn proud that we are on an international stage hosting 19 leaders of the world…even though it’s in Toronto…
The talking point of the last few days on every call in show, and nearly every political television program has been the cost of the G20 conference in Toronto.
The Liberal supporters have even gone as far as to call it Harper’s “Billion Dollar Boondoggle”.
Public sentiment when it comes to politicians is often pretty straightforward, we don’t like em, we don’t want to be inconvenienced by em, and we don’t want to spend money on em.
With that in mind even the original 160 million dollar budget would have been enough to annoy most Canadians.
Now we have watched the cost go from the budgeted 160 million to over 900 million (which for the sake of shock-value we can round up to a BILLION dollars, even though for some reason 900 million sounds worse, but what do I know?)
Why has the cost gone up?
My first guess would be that the firebombing of the RBC branch in Ottawa and targeting of civilians’ who happen to work for “evil” corporations may have raised the stakes a little bit,
The fact that the amount of protestors that are estimated to descend on the city of Toronto is around 10,000, to put that number into perspective there are 5,800 sworn in members of the Toronto Police.
Coupled with the fact that some of these Anarchist Groups have promised “militant” protests aimed to “humiliate the security apparatus” according to yesterday’s Toronto Star.
Let me be the first one to say that spending 900 million on anything that doesn’t play the Dallas Cowboy’s at least once a season is simply beyond me, but to attack the government for this is about as short sided as it gets.
Is the threat posed by these protestors real?
I believe it is; and going after a bank branch with a firebomb leads me to believe that these folks mean business.
So what is the correct response in the face of these threats?
The summit could have been canceled?
Maybe I am just old school, but bowing down to a vocal minority of protestors and giving into what they want generally breeds more of this sort of behavior.
If firebombing buildings and promising violence gets them their way just once, we open a door that we may never be able to close.
To me canceling the summit in the face of a bunch of whiney 20 something’s and some burnt out hippies is not an option, especially less then a month out.
Which leaves us with two choices:
We take all measures to adequately protect our guests,
or we don’t.
Those who are threatening violence are getting off far too easy in the media and amount angry Canadians.
The money that needs to be spent is because of the violence that has been promised, not because the government has decided to waste money on items that are not needed.
I would imagine that 99% of people think I am totally nuts in the fact that I am not foaming at the mouth over this money being spent,
However I am one of the few believers that the G20 has done some good work, and I am damn proud that we are on an international stage hosting 19 leaders of the world…even though it’s in Toronto…
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Why I am Unpopular at Cocktail Parties
The topic du jour around most glasses of wine and fine cheeses over the last few weeks has been Arizona’s “controversial” immigration law.
Needless to say I have never seen Godwin’s Law invoked as quickly as I have in these last few weeks. Everyone in Arizona’s government are evil, they are passing a law that “everyone” is against…
The problem is that over 50% of Arizona voters are in favor of the legislation, so even if it was made a ballot issue it would most likely pass.
Damn that Democracy! It’s getting in the way of the minority acting as though it’s the clear 90% majority.
I have heard both sides of this debate (as usual) give me the most ridiculous examples that they try to pass off as the “norm”.
The Democrats would lead me to believe that the police will walk up to tables in food courts around Arizona pull aside the girl lunching with her friends with the brown skin and demand she supply proof of citizenship.
Whereas the Republicans are paining a Mad Max sort of situation of illegal’s pouring in over the border with heavy artillery.
As per usual the reality falls somewhere in the middle.
As I understand the situation, it’s already illegal to be in the United States illegally.
The problem seems to be that only ICE agents are able to stop people and demand proof of citizenship.
The trouble is there are only something like 2000 ICE agents for 3169 km of border.
I have watched the Democrats defend the “need” for illegal workers as they do jobs that Americans “Don’t want”. Perhaps that can be sold to folks in Washington, they are about 1500 miles away from the border, but if the voters of Arizona are in favor of this legislation then perhaps the people in the state where illegal workers are doing jobs that “Americans don’t want” don’t agree that they are jobs that are unwanted?
This is typical of the political landscape of large nations,
If it’s not happening in my backyard then what do I care?
Regardless of your stance on this legislation, this is what happens when a nation’s government starts to tolerate “acceptable crimes”.
Washington in general, and the Democrats in particular don’t want to lose the support they have in Latino vote rich areas, at the same time they don’t want to further push some Southern border states away, especially not with the midterms looming in November.
This legislation is a product of frustration, the people of Arizona rightly or wrongly so are in favor of this rather harsh measure, but with that said are they not simply asking for the enforcement of a law that is already?
This has become a situation where Washington has allowed a law that is popular with some and unpopular with others to go unenforced so they could secure support from both sides.
Now the issue has been forced,
And I have to wonder what the solution is?
The people in Arizona are not “racist” they just want a law enforced, and if Washington feels that law is unjust then they need to address it rather then painting the people of Arizona as being backward.
Needless to say I have never seen Godwin’s Law invoked as quickly as I have in these last few weeks. Everyone in Arizona’s government are evil, they are passing a law that “everyone” is against…
The problem is that over 50% of Arizona voters are in favor of the legislation, so even if it was made a ballot issue it would most likely pass.
Damn that Democracy! It’s getting in the way of the minority acting as though it’s the clear 90% majority.
I have heard both sides of this debate (as usual) give me the most ridiculous examples that they try to pass off as the “norm”.
The Democrats would lead me to believe that the police will walk up to tables in food courts around Arizona pull aside the girl lunching with her friends with the brown skin and demand she supply proof of citizenship.
Whereas the Republicans are paining a Mad Max sort of situation of illegal’s pouring in over the border with heavy artillery.
As per usual the reality falls somewhere in the middle.
As I understand the situation, it’s already illegal to be in the United States illegally.
The problem seems to be that only ICE agents are able to stop people and demand proof of citizenship.
The trouble is there are only something like 2000 ICE agents for 3169 km of border.
I have watched the Democrats defend the “need” for illegal workers as they do jobs that Americans “Don’t want”. Perhaps that can be sold to folks in Washington, they are about 1500 miles away from the border, but if the voters of Arizona are in favor of this legislation then perhaps the people in the state where illegal workers are doing jobs that “Americans don’t want” don’t agree that they are jobs that are unwanted?
This is typical of the political landscape of large nations,
If it’s not happening in my backyard then what do I care?
Regardless of your stance on this legislation, this is what happens when a nation’s government starts to tolerate “acceptable crimes”.
Washington in general, and the Democrats in particular don’t want to lose the support they have in Latino vote rich areas, at the same time they don’t want to further push some Southern border states away, especially not with the midterms looming in November.
This legislation is a product of frustration, the people of Arizona rightly or wrongly so are in favor of this rather harsh measure, but with that said are they not simply asking for the enforcement of a law that is already?
This has become a situation where Washington has allowed a law that is popular with some and unpopular with others to go unenforced so they could secure support from both sides.
Now the issue has been forced,
And I have to wonder what the solution is?
The people in Arizona are not “racist” they just want a law enforced, and if Washington feels that law is unjust then they need to address it rather then painting the people of Arizona as being backward.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
When is being "right" at the expense of being right, Wrong?
I hate war.
I hate losing young men, who die in the service of this nation in order to do some degree of good in a part of the world that the vast majority of the Canadian population will never visit within 1000 miles of.
It turns my stomach a little bit when I watch those on the left make an attempt to make politicians who are right of center in their political leanings either war mongers or somehow guilty of war crimes.
The concept that anyone in power regardless of political stripe takes any sort of pleasure in sending soldiers into harms way is perhaps the greatest slander and most epic insult that can be volleyed onto a person.
It implies they are somehow subhuman, when in reality we know that regardless of who makes the discussion; it’s never easy.
As I sat watching the Sunday talk show circuit that pits a left of center and right of center rhetoric machine against each other in an attempt to see who can make the most fantastic and utterly ridiculous claim against the other side, and comment was made that stuck with me.
“You need to do the RIGHT thing”
I don’t recall which side it came from, nor could I pick the guy who said it out of a line-up but it caused me to dwell on the word “right”
What is the “right thing”?
As a Canadian the topic that is most discussed when the matter of war is raised is that of the ongoing Afghan War,
I have watched the typical partisan ballet;
The Liberals who entered this conflict in 2001 where in favor of the conflict till January 24th 2006 which interestingly enough is the first day that the Conservatives took power in Canada.
After that every attempt was made to paint this as “Harper’s War” and to make out anyone who was the Minister of Defense as some sort of trigger happy war monger.
If you took a poll today it would swing a few percent one way or another but both sides tend to hover around the high 40’s or low 50’s depending on the poll, which as far as I am concerned pretty well puts us at a tie.
In 2001 when Canadians were asked if we should go into Afghanistan after the September 11th attacks, the numbers were in the high 70’s to low 80’s in terms of percentage.
This is where the “right” thing comes into effect,
30% of Canadians have gone from pro to con over the course of the 8+ years this conflict has raged on.
What I have ask them is very simple:
What do we owe the Afghan people? Should we not finish the job?
We walked into their country with our NATO allies, we kicked the Taliban to the curb, we beat back insurgents in the streets, we have got them to a point where they have at least the most rudimentary democracy in place, and then we lost interest, because we started losing soldiers.
I can’t blame Canadians for wanting to take our troops out of harms way, but at the same time I have to wonder why we are so quick to be willing to trade lives.
How many Afghan lives are worth that of one Canadian?
It may sound like a harsh question, but its one that the Liberal Party of Canada and the New Democrats, as well as BQ have indirectly asked me as a Canadian to decide.
How many Afghan Civilians do I feel are worth the life of a single Canadian troop?
There are two ways to approach that simply morbid question;
You can be right; or you can be politically right.
The see the difference I can cite a very simple example.
In the early 1990’s the UN sent a Peacekeeping team into Somalia to attempt to stop a pending civil war, this mission ended after the Battle of Mogadishu when news footage of the dead U.S. soldier being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu found its way back to the people of the United States in 1993.
Public opinion of the conflict in Somalia plummeted, and President Bill Clinton did the politically right thing and pulled out the US soldiers from the Somali mission after 19 US soldiers were killed during the Battle of Mogadishu (31 for the entire mission), which resulted in the collapse of the mission, and Somalia falling into a continued state of Civil War.
The Somali Civil War still rages on, and has resulted in the death of about 400,000 people, with well over a million displaced from their home.
The question of how many Somali lives are worth a single American life was answered:
31 Americans died,
The American people wanted out.
They got out
400,000 Somali's are dead
400,000 / 31 = 12,903 Somali’s died in exchange for every US solider that did.
But;
Bill Clinton was re-elected in 1996 by one of the largest margins every won by a Democrat in a Presidential election.
He made the “right” call, politically speaking, he was “politically right”.
But that call resulted in the deaths of thousands upon thousands of Somali citizens,
The question then becomes, was it the “right” choice?
Was there any obligation to finish what they started?
George W. Bush is often called a War Monger because he oversaw the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and Stephen Harper is often call the same for his support of the Mission in Afghanistan, but it should be noted that roughly 8,309 civilians have been killed in Afghanistan since October 2001, with estimates as high as 16,000, Iraq based on IBC’s numbers have experienced 104,119 civilian deaths (as the high estimate, roughly 96,000 as the low)
Even if I am being generous; the inaction in Somali led to roughly 4x more civilian deaths then the direct action of invading two nations.
But there seems to be this mentality that if its not on CNN then it didn't really happen. If a child is murdered in Africa, and various international news agencies don't bother to cover it, does it count? Clearly to those on the left, it does not.
As a fairness test;
If I stand by and watch a man drown or;
If I drown a man,
The man is just as dead at the end of the day.
I understand that politicians can draw a line between civilians who die when we are watching, and then those who die when we are not.
I however, do not.
Civilian death seems to be different depending on your party line; and while that may pass salt in Washington or Ottawa, it doesn’t work with me.
If we held the withdrawal from Somalia to the same loose international legal standard that is being used by pundits to damn all Conservatives, Republicans, and Labour Party Members over Iraq & Afghanistan; Would Bill Clinton not be subject to the Yamashita standard?
I don’t think so; but he was a Republican I can assure you that it would at least be a hot topic of debate on the Sunday talk circuit.
Why is the opposition in Canada in such a rush to potentially have our own withdrawal which could potentially lead to civil war weighing on our conscience?
Will it win them an election?
Perhaps.
Damning our troops and the government who supports them may be “politically right” but I have to wonder what the consequences of being “politically right” would be for the average Afghan?
We went in there, and we need to finish the job.
Scoring points off our troops who are in harms way every day from the confines of the Parliament buildings may score you political points;
But I still have a hard time as an average Canadian when I am asked to indirectly answer how many Afghan lives are worth that of a single Canadians?
Because that is what a withdrawal, and calls for withdrawal basically amounts to.
And that is when bring “right” vs. “politically right” becomes the choice of every Canadian.
I hate losing young men, who die in the service of this nation in order to do some degree of good in a part of the world that the vast majority of the Canadian population will never visit within 1000 miles of.
It turns my stomach a little bit when I watch those on the left make an attempt to make politicians who are right of center in their political leanings either war mongers or somehow guilty of war crimes.
The concept that anyone in power regardless of political stripe takes any sort of pleasure in sending soldiers into harms way is perhaps the greatest slander and most epic insult that can be volleyed onto a person.
It implies they are somehow subhuman, when in reality we know that regardless of who makes the discussion; it’s never easy.
As I sat watching the Sunday talk show circuit that pits a left of center and right of center rhetoric machine against each other in an attempt to see who can make the most fantastic and utterly ridiculous claim against the other side, and comment was made that stuck with me.
“You need to do the RIGHT thing”
I don’t recall which side it came from, nor could I pick the guy who said it out of a line-up but it caused me to dwell on the word “right”
What is the “right thing”?
As a Canadian the topic that is most discussed when the matter of war is raised is that of the ongoing Afghan War,
I have watched the typical partisan ballet;
The Liberals who entered this conflict in 2001 where in favor of the conflict till January 24th 2006 which interestingly enough is the first day that the Conservatives took power in Canada.
After that every attempt was made to paint this as “Harper’s War” and to make out anyone who was the Minister of Defense as some sort of trigger happy war monger.
If you took a poll today it would swing a few percent one way or another but both sides tend to hover around the high 40’s or low 50’s depending on the poll, which as far as I am concerned pretty well puts us at a tie.
In 2001 when Canadians were asked if we should go into Afghanistan after the September 11th attacks, the numbers were in the high 70’s to low 80’s in terms of percentage.
This is where the “right” thing comes into effect,
30% of Canadians have gone from pro to con over the course of the 8+ years this conflict has raged on.
What I have ask them is very simple:
What do we owe the Afghan people? Should we not finish the job?
We walked into their country with our NATO allies, we kicked the Taliban to the curb, we beat back insurgents in the streets, we have got them to a point where they have at least the most rudimentary democracy in place, and then we lost interest, because we started losing soldiers.
I can’t blame Canadians for wanting to take our troops out of harms way, but at the same time I have to wonder why we are so quick to be willing to trade lives.
How many Afghan lives are worth that of one Canadian?
It may sound like a harsh question, but its one that the Liberal Party of Canada and the New Democrats, as well as BQ have indirectly asked me as a Canadian to decide.
How many Afghan Civilians do I feel are worth the life of a single Canadian troop?
There are two ways to approach that simply morbid question;
You can be right; or you can be politically right.
The see the difference I can cite a very simple example.
In the early 1990’s the UN sent a Peacekeeping team into Somalia to attempt to stop a pending civil war, this mission ended after the Battle of Mogadishu when news footage of the dead U.S. soldier being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu found its way back to the people of the United States in 1993.
Public opinion of the conflict in Somalia plummeted, and President Bill Clinton did the politically right thing and pulled out the US soldiers from the Somali mission after 19 US soldiers were killed during the Battle of Mogadishu (31 for the entire mission), which resulted in the collapse of the mission, and Somalia falling into a continued state of Civil War.
The Somali Civil War still rages on, and has resulted in the death of about 400,000 people, with well over a million displaced from their home.
The question of how many Somali lives are worth a single American life was answered:
31 Americans died,
The American people wanted out.
They got out
400,000 Somali's are dead
400,000 / 31 = 12,903 Somali’s died in exchange for every US solider that did.
But;
Bill Clinton was re-elected in 1996 by one of the largest margins every won by a Democrat in a Presidential election.
He made the “right” call, politically speaking, he was “politically right”.
But that call resulted in the deaths of thousands upon thousands of Somali citizens,
The question then becomes, was it the “right” choice?
Was there any obligation to finish what they started?
George W. Bush is often called a War Monger because he oversaw the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and Stephen Harper is often call the same for his support of the Mission in Afghanistan, but it should be noted that roughly 8,309 civilians have been killed in Afghanistan since October 2001, with estimates as high as 16,000, Iraq based on IBC’s numbers have experienced 104,119 civilian deaths (as the high estimate, roughly 96,000 as the low)
Even if I am being generous; the inaction in Somali led to roughly 4x more civilian deaths then the direct action of invading two nations.
But there seems to be this mentality that if its not on CNN then it didn't really happen. If a child is murdered in Africa, and various international news agencies don't bother to cover it, does it count? Clearly to those on the left, it does not.
As a fairness test;
If I stand by and watch a man drown or;
If I drown a man,
The man is just as dead at the end of the day.
I understand that politicians can draw a line between civilians who die when we are watching, and then those who die when we are not.
I however, do not.
Civilian death seems to be different depending on your party line; and while that may pass salt in Washington or Ottawa, it doesn’t work with me.
If we held the withdrawal from Somalia to the same loose international legal standard that is being used by pundits to damn all Conservatives, Republicans, and Labour Party Members over Iraq & Afghanistan; Would Bill Clinton not be subject to the Yamashita standard?
I don’t think so; but he was a Republican I can assure you that it would at least be a hot topic of debate on the Sunday talk circuit.
Why is the opposition in Canada in such a rush to potentially have our own withdrawal which could potentially lead to civil war weighing on our conscience?
Will it win them an election?
Perhaps.
Damning our troops and the government who supports them may be “politically right” but I have to wonder what the consequences of being “politically right” would be for the average Afghan?
We went in there, and we need to finish the job.
Scoring points off our troops who are in harms way every day from the confines of the Parliament buildings may score you political points;
But I still have a hard time as an average Canadian when I am asked to indirectly answer how many Afghan lives are worth that of a single Canadians?
Because that is what a withdrawal, and calls for withdrawal basically amounts to.
And that is when bring “right” vs. “politically right” becomes the choice of every Canadian.
Conservative Supporters are Paranoid & Crazy...
I often sit on the sidelines and enjoy watching my friends who cover the right and left spectrum of politics argue back and forth about the fairness of media.
The Conservative supporters have this conspiracy theory that the "left wing" media is out to get them, and the Liberal and New Democrat supporters simply laugh and say that they are crazy, and that reporting the truth does not constitute bias.
As I was thumbing through the Globe and Mail website the other day, I came across this interesting article that caught my eye.
The headline was:
With the little blurb online before the article saying:
Neat! I had to read more!
This revelation was made based on a Nanos poll which basically asked based on the following institutions do you feel they have too much power, the right amount of power, or not enough power, or unsure.
The results from the poll which is displayed within the very article shows the following when asked about the office of the Prime Minister:
Too Much Power: 41.6%
The Right Amount of Power: 40.4%
Not Enough Power: 9.3%
Unsure: 8.7%
Perhaps I fell asleep in grade school when they taught the class how to add, but based on the Nano's poll I see it as 49.7% of Canadians feeling that the PMO has either the right amount of power, or not enough...
That is a higher figure of Canadians believing that the headline of the article is incorrect, then correct.
But again, what do I know?
Have a look at the article yourself and make your own judgment.
I guess maybe there is something to the old saying:
"It's not paranoia if they are really after you"
The Conservative supporters have this conspiracy theory that the "left wing" media is out to get them, and the Liberal and New Democrat supporters simply laugh and say that they are crazy, and that reporting the truth does not constitute bias.
As I was thumbing through the Globe and Mail website the other day, I came across this interesting article that caught my eye.
The headline was:
PMO has too much power, poll finds
With the little blurb online before the article saying:
More than 40 per cent of Canadians put Prime Minister's Office ahead of Senate as institution most deserving to have its wings clipped
Neat! I had to read more!
This revelation was made based on a Nanos poll which basically asked based on the following institutions do you feel they have too much power, the right amount of power, or not enough power, or unsure.
The results from the poll which is displayed within the very article shows the following when asked about the office of the Prime Minister:
Too Much Power: 41.6%
The Right Amount of Power: 40.4%
Not Enough Power: 9.3%
Unsure: 8.7%
Perhaps I fell asleep in grade school when they taught the class how to add, but based on the Nano's poll I see it as 49.7% of Canadians feeling that the PMO has either the right amount of power, or not enough...
That is a higher figure of Canadians believing that the headline of the article is incorrect, then correct.
But again, what do I know?
Have a look at the article yourself and make your own judgment.
I guess maybe there is something to the old saying:
"It's not paranoia if they are really after you"
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Damn You, and Your “Responsible” Budget!
Let me be clear, I don’t have anything against the Liberal Party of Canada.
Historically they have done some pretty interesting things, and had some very interesting leaders, who have benefited this country for electing them.
However, this incarnation of the Liberal Party of Canada just gives me the creeps.
I hate appointed leaders, nothing makes me more angry then party brass around a board room table anointing the leader of a political party that is suppose to represent Canadians especially when that leader shouldn’t buy the support of other leadership hopefuls in 2006.
I wasn’t thrilled when Harper ran in 2003, as a merged party shouldn’t have either of the former parties’ leaders running the show,
I wasn’t thrilled at the 11 month delay in 2006 which basically gave the Conservatives an unelected majority government while the Liberals samples eight potential leaders
And I wasn’t thrilled that Ignatieff was anointed rather then elected.
But in the first two cases, at least the unwashed masses got to have some input into selecting their leader, and the problem with men in smoke filled rooms selecting a leader is that those men rarely if ever understand the plight of the working class stiffs like me.
Last year was like watching a tennis match at the US open when it came to where the Liberals stood on issues.
March 2009 – We will support this reckless spending the government is putting forth, but we want them to submit reports as to where the money is going…
You know, do what a government is legally required to do anyway when it comes to spending tax payer money…
They even went as far as to create a cute “onprobation.ca” website to show us how they were like vigilant hawks who would strike down at anyone who abused us minions as we toiled in the fields.
But of course they lost interest in actually doing the job of the opposition party of Canada, and went back to whining that being in opposition is beneath Canada’s natural Governing Party, as the website now simply re-directs to the Liberal Party home page and has down so for several months…
So much for that….
September 2009 – They voted against legislation that would have made the Home Renovation Credit Law,
Yeah, you know that credit they supported in March that most of us spent when it was warm in summer so we could do the work on our “honey do” lists like replace tiles, have the roof fixes, finish the basement…basically all the stuff that most sane Canadians don’t wait till Fall to get started on when the credit is set to expire in February.
Because now, they are against reckless spending…
Yet they are not interested in keeping the Conservative accountable for this reckless spending they are now against, which they were for in March when they were in favor of the reckless spending in the first place…
Get all that?
As I sat there within thousands of dollars of renovation materials receipts in my hands for the first time in a long time I actually cheer the NDP as they did the right thing and supported passing the legislation the Liberals should have passed in the first place.
I wrote my MP, and I tend to never do that because writing my MP is like going into Best Buy and complaining to the guy who sells TV’s that I am unhappy with the quality of company XYZ’s TV’s, he may smile and nod, he may even show some apathy for my situation, but at the end of the day he/she has no real power to make any real choices because they have to pull the party line anyway.
My Liberal MP replied to my frantic “Ummmm dude? I spent a few grand doing work around the house under the promise I would write some of it off, and you supported that in March, and now you are punking me?? Really? REALLY???”
His response was basically;
The legislation has passed, and the reno credit is law.
When in reality,
The legislation had passed despite his party not supporting it, and had the legislation been voted down we would have hit the polls, and I may have never seen my credit ever again.
I may vote Liberal in the future, but never ever ever again will I vote for him.
Taking bread out of my mouth is one thing,
Offering me bread, putting butter on it, handing it to me, and trying to slap it out of my hand as I put it in my mouth is another.
Now here we are in February 2010;
The Conservatives have leaked parts of their budget.
No Tax Cuts
No New Spending
While I am disappointed that the Reagan approach to cut taxes to stimulate spending which historically increases government revenue anyway (also used successfully in Ontario by Mike Harris)
I am pleased that spending is under control,
But of course, that is terrible.
It’s being called a do nothing budget…
This is the problem with the opposition parties,
There is no right answer.
And in a minority government that creates a real legislative quagmire.
We have been in election mode since the day after the 2004 election, every political party wasting time in Parliament hoping for a soundbyte they can use in a election which could happen any day…
This of course at the expense of governing.
The Liberals are now against restraint,
The same fiscal restraint they were for when they opted to stop supporting the budget they supported in March in September.
They want to spend billions on daycare, they feel that not spending money that we don’t have is “doing nothing”,
As a normal Canadian who actually has to work for a living at a honest to goodness job, I call not spending money that I don’t have something very different,
I call it “reality”.
But what do I know?
Historically they have done some pretty interesting things, and had some very interesting leaders, who have benefited this country for electing them.
However, this incarnation of the Liberal Party of Canada just gives me the creeps.
I hate appointed leaders, nothing makes me more angry then party brass around a board room table anointing the leader of a political party that is suppose to represent Canadians especially when that leader shouldn’t buy the support of other leadership hopefuls in 2006.
I wasn’t thrilled when Harper ran in 2003, as a merged party shouldn’t have either of the former parties’ leaders running the show,
I wasn’t thrilled at the 11 month delay in 2006 which basically gave the Conservatives an unelected majority government while the Liberals samples eight potential leaders
And I wasn’t thrilled that Ignatieff was anointed rather then elected.
But in the first two cases, at least the unwashed masses got to have some input into selecting their leader, and the problem with men in smoke filled rooms selecting a leader is that those men rarely if ever understand the plight of the working class stiffs like me.
Last year was like watching a tennis match at the US open when it came to where the Liberals stood on issues.
March 2009 – We will support this reckless spending the government is putting forth, but we want them to submit reports as to where the money is going…
You know, do what a government is legally required to do anyway when it comes to spending tax payer money…
They even went as far as to create a cute “onprobation.ca” website to show us how they were like vigilant hawks who would strike down at anyone who abused us minions as we toiled in the fields.
But of course they lost interest in actually doing the job of the opposition party of Canada, and went back to whining that being in opposition is beneath Canada’s natural Governing Party, as the website now simply re-directs to the Liberal Party home page and has down so for several months…
So much for that….
September 2009 – They voted against legislation that would have made the Home Renovation Credit Law,
Yeah, you know that credit they supported in March that most of us spent when it was warm in summer so we could do the work on our “honey do” lists like replace tiles, have the roof fixes, finish the basement…basically all the stuff that most sane Canadians don’t wait till Fall to get started on when the credit is set to expire in February.
Because now, they are against reckless spending…
Yet they are not interested in keeping the Conservative accountable for this reckless spending they are now against, which they were for in March when they were in favor of the reckless spending in the first place…
Get all that?
As I sat there within thousands of dollars of renovation materials receipts in my hands for the first time in a long time I actually cheer the NDP as they did the right thing and supported passing the legislation the Liberals should have passed in the first place.
I wrote my MP, and I tend to never do that because writing my MP is like going into Best Buy and complaining to the guy who sells TV’s that I am unhappy with the quality of company XYZ’s TV’s, he may smile and nod, he may even show some apathy for my situation, but at the end of the day he/she has no real power to make any real choices because they have to pull the party line anyway.
My Liberal MP replied to my frantic “Ummmm dude? I spent a few grand doing work around the house under the promise I would write some of it off, and you supported that in March, and now you are punking me?? Really? REALLY???”
His response was basically;
The legislation has passed, and the reno credit is law.
When in reality,
The legislation had passed despite his party not supporting it, and had the legislation been voted down we would have hit the polls, and I may have never seen my credit ever again.
I may vote Liberal in the future, but never ever ever again will I vote for him.
Taking bread out of my mouth is one thing,
Offering me bread, putting butter on it, handing it to me, and trying to slap it out of my hand as I put it in my mouth is another.
Now here we are in February 2010;
The Conservatives have leaked parts of their budget.
No Tax Cuts
No New Spending
While I am disappointed that the Reagan approach to cut taxes to stimulate spending which historically increases government revenue anyway (also used successfully in Ontario by Mike Harris)
I am pleased that spending is under control,
But of course, that is terrible.
It’s being called a do nothing budget…
This is the problem with the opposition parties,
There is no right answer.
And in a minority government that creates a real legislative quagmire.
We have been in election mode since the day after the 2004 election, every political party wasting time in Parliament hoping for a soundbyte they can use in a election which could happen any day…
This of course at the expense of governing.
The Liberals are now against restraint,
The same fiscal restraint they were for when they opted to stop supporting the budget they supported in March in September.
They want to spend billions on daycare, they feel that not spending money that we don’t have is “doing nothing”,
As a normal Canadian who actually has to work for a living at a honest to goodness job, I call not spending money that I don’t have something very different,
I call it “reality”.
But what do I know?
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Beer and Popcorn Version 2.0
I am a simple man.
I believe that that I shouldn’t buy what I can’t afford (but at times I do)
I believe that if the economy is bad, it may not be the best time to make that huge purchase
I believe that being careful with taxpayer dollars is not just a courtesy, it’s a responsibility.
Most of all, I believe that no one is better suited to raise your own kids then you are.
In 1993 when a national daycare program was being touted, I will admit to feeling a knot tighten in my stomach. I have resided myself to the fact that I will spend my entire working life paying off a debt and interest on a debt that I had influence on as I was either not born, or was unable to vote.
While it doesn’t sit right with me it’s a reality.
My parents and grandparents screw me, all of our parents and grandparents did because they opted for instant gratification rather then responsibility.
When another money pit like national daycare was discussed in the early 1990’s I wondered how much of a hole would be left for my children and my grandchildren?
The problem with a multibillion dollar nationalized program is that it needs to be funded year after year after year.
If the economy is good, if the economy is bad, it doesn’t matter its billions of dollars that gets thrown into this hole so that a select few can benefit.
And I can assure you I will not be one of those select few, but I will certainly pay the price for those select few.
Its not that I dislike or look down upon low income Canadians, it’s more a matter of enough being enough.
I am not some evil billionaire twisting my moustache in my castle complaining that the tax hike be it via my income taxes or an increase in the GST will cost me an Ivory backscratcher,
I am an upper middle class Canadian who is going to have to funnel more money that I have worked for away from my RRSP’s, from my kids sports, from my rainy day fund, or from something else that I have worked hard to be able to have so that we can have a national day care program when we should be paying off the debt.
In Quebec there is a two to three year waiting list for their Provincially Subsidized Daycare.
Yet there seems to be this mindset that the program is some sort of Shangri-La?
Paul Martin already spent over a billion dollars in national daycare in 2005.
How many spots did it create in the nine Provinces without a program?
Zero.
Jack Layton, Gilles Duceppe, and Stephen Harper spent nothing and created the exact same amount.
I am so tired of the opposition playing to the squeaky wheel, and yeah that may make me a bad Canadian but I am so damn tired of being the forgotten majority.
It’s my damn tax dollars you are using to buy votes in the 416, 514, and 604 area codes,
And I have had enough.
While I don’t approve of all of the spending that the Conservatives have moved forward with,
At least they trust me enough to know what’s best for my children.
The Liberals called that “Beer and Popcorn” money,
The Average Canadian Family called that money “Winter Boots”, “Spring Coats”, “Running Shoes”, and “A Hockey Net”.
Now once again I have the Liberal Party of Canada (Along with the NDP, but that is to be expected) telling me that Canadian Families are not as well suited to care for their children as government workers are.
Great Plan!
Raise the taxes of the middle class,
Force both parents to work,
Require them to put their kids in the care of a stranger (If they can find a spot)
And call that job creation.
The solution is simple.
Allow Canadians to Income Split.
Why are you forcing Canadian Parents to work when at least one within most households would love the opportunity to actually RAISE their own children?
Give me the means to keep more of my salary so that rather then lining up to drop my kids off with a government employee, myself or my wife can be there with our own children.
Realize that I am the most qualified to care for my children, realize that I know what is best for my own children, and allow me to do so.
I believe that that I shouldn’t buy what I can’t afford (but at times I do)
I believe that if the economy is bad, it may not be the best time to make that huge purchase
I believe that being careful with taxpayer dollars is not just a courtesy, it’s a responsibility.
Most of all, I believe that no one is better suited to raise your own kids then you are.
In 1993 when a national daycare program was being touted, I will admit to feeling a knot tighten in my stomach. I have resided myself to the fact that I will spend my entire working life paying off a debt and interest on a debt that I had influence on as I was either not born, or was unable to vote.
While it doesn’t sit right with me it’s a reality.
My parents and grandparents screw me, all of our parents and grandparents did because they opted for instant gratification rather then responsibility.
When another money pit like national daycare was discussed in the early 1990’s I wondered how much of a hole would be left for my children and my grandchildren?
The problem with a multibillion dollar nationalized program is that it needs to be funded year after year after year.
If the economy is good, if the economy is bad, it doesn’t matter its billions of dollars that gets thrown into this hole so that a select few can benefit.
And I can assure you I will not be one of those select few, but I will certainly pay the price for those select few.
Its not that I dislike or look down upon low income Canadians, it’s more a matter of enough being enough.
I am not some evil billionaire twisting my moustache in my castle complaining that the tax hike be it via my income taxes or an increase in the GST will cost me an Ivory backscratcher,
I am an upper middle class Canadian who is going to have to funnel more money that I have worked for away from my RRSP’s, from my kids sports, from my rainy day fund, or from something else that I have worked hard to be able to have so that we can have a national day care program when we should be paying off the debt.
In Quebec there is a two to three year waiting list for their Provincially Subsidized Daycare.
Yet there seems to be this mindset that the program is some sort of Shangri-La?
Paul Martin already spent over a billion dollars in national daycare in 2005.
How many spots did it create in the nine Provinces without a program?
Zero.
Jack Layton, Gilles Duceppe, and Stephen Harper spent nothing and created the exact same amount.
I am so tired of the opposition playing to the squeaky wheel, and yeah that may make me a bad Canadian but I am so damn tired of being the forgotten majority.
It’s my damn tax dollars you are using to buy votes in the 416, 514, and 604 area codes,
And I have had enough.
While I don’t approve of all of the spending that the Conservatives have moved forward with,
At least they trust me enough to know what’s best for my children.
The Liberals called that “Beer and Popcorn” money,
The Average Canadian Family called that money “Winter Boots”, “Spring Coats”, “Running Shoes”, and “A Hockey Net”.
Now once again I have the Liberal Party of Canada (Along with the NDP, but that is to be expected) telling me that Canadian Families are not as well suited to care for their children as government workers are.
Great Plan!
Raise the taxes of the middle class,
Force both parents to work,
Require them to put their kids in the care of a stranger (If they can find a spot)
And call that job creation.
The solution is simple.
Allow Canadians to Income Split.
Why are you forcing Canadian Parents to work when at least one within most households would love the opportunity to actually RAISE their own children?
Give me the means to keep more of my salary so that rather then lining up to drop my kids off with a government employee, myself or my wife can be there with our own children.
Realize that I am the most qualified to care for my children, realize that I know what is best for my own children, and allow me to do so.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Love Politics, Yet Hating On Playing Politics
Watching the folks in Ottawa over the last few weeks is like watching a slowly escalating neighborhood battle grow into something outlandish over something that started as a result of something trivial like little Billy stepping on Ms. McGillicuddy's daisies.
Stephen Harper opted to prorogue Parliament and give all MP’s a few more weeks off then they would have otherwise enjoyed under the cloak of “It’s the Olympics Dude!!!”
Needless to say, the opposition has hit the spin cycle over these 18 or so days of lost legislating. So much so that they will waste three days of time debating a bill which will stop the government from every doing anything like this again…
While these entire matter is beyond stupefying, I hate being treated like I am an idiot and it seems that this is what all the parties in Ottawa seem to be doing right now.
Treating me and every voter in Canada like they are utter morons that have no idea how the political system works…
And the best part is that it’s working.
Why did Stephen Harper Prorogue Parliament?
Answer: Because as of January 6th 2010 the Conservative Party of Canada had the means to do something that no Conservative government has been able to do for decades.
That of course is end the Liberal majority in the Senate of Canada.
Now for those who don’t follow let me give you a quick breakdown as I understand it:
1) House of Commons introduces legislation, the bill is debated and fought over for weeks and sometimes months, voted on, if it passes, read again, voted on, if it passes, read again, voted on, and if it passes goes upstairs to the guys who sit in the red chairs (IE the Senate of Canada)
2) The Senate of Canada (That is made up of Senators who generally represent political parties) that is an unelected body looks at the legislation, goes bugeyed over it, they debated, send it to committee change it, send it back to the Commons to vote on it again, if the Commons says no, the Senate votes on the same bill they got in the first place, and if it passes it gets signed by the Governor General and becomes law (or its left to sit around till the end of the Senate session and dies on the floor so it needs to go thru Step 1 and 2 again)
Mr. Harper is pretty ticked that his legislation gets passed through the Senate at a much slower pace then it did when the Liberals were the largest party in the Commons and I would imagine he seems to believe the Liberals are playing partisan games with legislation.
You can form your own opinion on if that is true or not, but from best I can tell when a new session of Parliament begins the first few weeks are normally spent introducing legislation that died on the Senate floor because they opted not to get around to passing it.
Now of course the opposition has a different spin on the issue:
They are saying “Dude!!! We want to work and you are stopping us from working, and you are running from an investigation on Afghanistan”
Why is the opposition screaming about the Prorogue of Parliament?
Answer: Because it’s an issue that people actually seem to show some sort of interest in. Mr. Ignatieff is enjoying an approval rating that if memory serves is nationally around 20%.
Not exactly the type of number you want to see when your party is polling at 30% nationally, it basically means that in a best case 33% of the people who support your own party don’t approve of you as a leader.
We have watched this poor guy scramble to get a little love, he tries so hard to be likable but at least to me comes off a little creepy.
It’s all about politics.
They are saying Democracy is being hijacked because of the 18 or so days they will not be sitting in the Commons, yet they will waste the first five opposition days arguing about all the great things they could have done in those 18 days rather then actually doing them.
This is what makes me so apathetic towards politics;
We should as citizens of this nation know how our Parliament works, but we don’t and we allow that ignorance to be abused by politicians.
I think that abuse reached a boiling point (for me anyway) when I watched Bob Rae at an Anti-Prorogue Rally in Toronto…
As I recall he may have established one of the longest Prorogues in Ontario Legislature history from December 1994 to April 1995.
He didn’t even bother with a budget that year…
Along with two other rather lengthy breaks in Parliament as well.
The reality is that the right of the governing party to Prorogue Parliament has been a right since 1867, and I am a little stunned that the folks in the media have only realized this going into 2010.
Shouldn’t you be required to be well versed in civics to be a political reporter?
I hate political parties that prey on voters who are not informed with misinformation in an attempt to secure support, and the Liberal Party of Canada carting out Bob Rae to lecture the Conservatives on the practice of Proroguing Parliament…
Isn’t that sort of like carting Alfonso Gagliano to give the government a lecture on the prudence of treating tax payer money with respect?
I didn’t mind Iggy,
But I really don’t understand why the Liberal Party of Canada isn’t attempting to win over support with policy rather then propaganda?
Where is my alternative option?
I watch the Tories introduce legislation, and watch the opposition say they are opposed to it before the bill is finished being read, with zero alternative presented by the opposition other then “It’s Bad”
Okay, it’s bad, I get it.
So can you show me the better alternative?
Oh…You don’t have one?
This concept of parties’ campaign slogans being something along the lines of:
“Vote for us: We don’t have a plan, but hey…we’re not the Conservatives”
May excite some voters in some circles, but for the folks like me…well I need to vote for something not against something.
Stephen Harper opted to prorogue Parliament and give all MP’s a few more weeks off then they would have otherwise enjoyed under the cloak of “It’s the Olympics Dude!!!”
Needless to say, the opposition has hit the spin cycle over these 18 or so days of lost legislating. So much so that they will waste three days of time debating a bill which will stop the government from every doing anything like this again…
While these entire matter is beyond stupefying, I hate being treated like I am an idiot and it seems that this is what all the parties in Ottawa seem to be doing right now.
Treating me and every voter in Canada like they are utter morons that have no idea how the political system works…
And the best part is that it’s working.
Why did Stephen Harper Prorogue Parliament?
Answer: Because as of January 6th 2010 the Conservative Party of Canada had the means to do something that no Conservative government has been able to do for decades.
That of course is end the Liberal majority in the Senate of Canada.
Now for those who don’t follow let me give you a quick breakdown as I understand it:
1) House of Commons introduces legislation, the bill is debated and fought over for weeks and sometimes months, voted on, if it passes, read again, voted on, if it passes, read again, voted on, and if it passes goes upstairs to the guys who sit in the red chairs (IE the Senate of Canada)
2) The Senate of Canada (That is made up of Senators who generally represent political parties) that is an unelected body looks at the legislation, goes bugeyed over it, they debated, send it to committee change it, send it back to the Commons to vote on it again, if the Commons says no, the Senate votes on the same bill they got in the first place, and if it passes it gets signed by the Governor General and becomes law (or its left to sit around till the end of the Senate session and dies on the floor so it needs to go thru Step 1 and 2 again)
Mr. Harper is pretty ticked that his legislation gets passed through the Senate at a much slower pace then it did when the Liberals were the largest party in the Commons and I would imagine he seems to believe the Liberals are playing partisan games with legislation.
You can form your own opinion on if that is true or not, but from best I can tell when a new session of Parliament begins the first few weeks are normally spent introducing legislation that died on the Senate floor because they opted not to get around to passing it.
Now of course the opposition has a different spin on the issue:
They are saying “Dude!!! We want to work and you are stopping us from working, and you are running from an investigation on Afghanistan”
Why is the opposition screaming about the Prorogue of Parliament?
Answer: Because it’s an issue that people actually seem to show some sort of interest in. Mr. Ignatieff is enjoying an approval rating that if memory serves is nationally around 20%.
Not exactly the type of number you want to see when your party is polling at 30% nationally, it basically means that in a best case 33% of the people who support your own party don’t approve of you as a leader.
We have watched this poor guy scramble to get a little love, he tries so hard to be likable but at least to me comes off a little creepy.
It’s all about politics.
They are saying Democracy is being hijacked because of the 18 or so days they will not be sitting in the Commons, yet they will waste the first five opposition days arguing about all the great things they could have done in those 18 days rather then actually doing them.
This is what makes me so apathetic towards politics;
We should as citizens of this nation know how our Parliament works, but we don’t and we allow that ignorance to be abused by politicians.
I think that abuse reached a boiling point (for me anyway) when I watched Bob Rae at an Anti-Prorogue Rally in Toronto…
As I recall he may have established one of the longest Prorogues in Ontario Legislature history from December 1994 to April 1995.
He didn’t even bother with a budget that year…
Along with two other rather lengthy breaks in Parliament as well.
The reality is that the right of the governing party to Prorogue Parliament has been a right since 1867, and I am a little stunned that the folks in the media have only realized this going into 2010.
Shouldn’t you be required to be well versed in civics to be a political reporter?
I hate political parties that prey on voters who are not informed with misinformation in an attempt to secure support, and the Liberal Party of Canada carting out Bob Rae to lecture the Conservatives on the practice of Proroguing Parliament…
Isn’t that sort of like carting Alfonso Gagliano to give the government a lecture on the prudence of treating tax payer money with respect?
I didn’t mind Iggy,
But I really don’t understand why the Liberal Party of Canada isn’t attempting to win over support with policy rather then propaganda?
Where is my alternative option?
I watch the Tories introduce legislation, and watch the opposition say they are opposed to it before the bill is finished being read, with zero alternative presented by the opposition other then “It’s Bad”
Okay, it’s bad, I get it.
So can you show me the better alternative?
Oh…You don’t have one?
This concept of parties’ campaign slogans being something along the lines of:
“Vote for us: We don’t have a plan, but hey…we’re not the Conservatives”
May excite some voters in some circles, but for the folks like me…well I need to vote for something not against something.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
