Striving Against Opposition

The NDP on "Defense"

2007-04-13T00:07:00.000-06:00

I was watching Mike Duffy Live earlier on CTV Newsnet and they had a segement with Dennis Coderre the Liberal defense Critic, and Dawn Black the NDP defense critic regarding the announcement that Canada was purchasing 100 tanks from the Netherlands and leasing 20 from Germany. I always find the panel segments on this show a bit tiresome when they have a government representative on earlier, and the opposition later given that the opposition has the benifet of responding to what the government has said in full while there is never any refutation of the opposition.

Needless to say its a shocking moment when Denis Coderre is coming acrose as the reasonable fellow on camera. After all his unbiased point of via involves participating in Hezbollah demonstrations, however, Dawn Black managed to make Coderre look like the voice of reason. Given that her reaction to the purchase of tanks was to suggest that the tanks would do "nothing to help secure Vancouver for the Olympics, or fight flooding, ice storms in Quebec or snow storms in Toronto." She also suggested that Afghanis draw no distinction between the Russian occupation of Afghanistan and the UN's eviction of the Taliban. She also rather shrilly called for more development work to be done, because Afghanis need clean water and food but for all troops to be withdrawn immediately, presumably because soldiers aren't suposed to be fighting wars they're suposed to be used to shovel the walk if it snows in Toronto.

I'm not sure what world the NDP are living in, if they believe that development work can continue with any sort of sucess if there isn't a commitment made to the physical security of Afghanistan. You can't send in aid workers and not protect them or people will die, only it will be the aid workers not soldiers trained to deal with the conflict in question. It seems hypocritical to call for the government to do more on the humanitarian front, while failing to acknowledge that achieving peace is necessary for many of those advances. You'd think that a group of people that cherish every suposed "human right" imaginable would see the value in fighting the most backward, violent and oppresive regimes ever seen in the modern world. If you don't find the Taliban objectionable..who is really? But apparantly the NDP only wants poverty to end and peace to spring into existance through the magical waving of some sort of wand rather than through hard work. I'm told they'd also like a Unicorn and and a choir of winged faeries to seranade them.

Beyond that I'm not entirely sure what purpose possessing a military would serve if we're not suposed to commit it to the pressing conflicts of the world. Apparantly these days even the blessing of the UN, which apparantly sanctifies any other cause in the eyes of the left isn't good enough. The fact a few lives are tragically lost means we should do absolutely nothing. Our military is apparantly to be kept at home for the occasional bought of sandbagging, firefighting and snow shoveling. Clearly its for those dangerous tasks that we train them to use guns, fly planes and drive tanks. Its unforunate that some soldiers lose their lives fighting for their country, but joining the military is premised upon those risks. All our soldiers are volunteers and they know the risks involved with their decision. Their bravery is commendable and they undertake to preserve and spread some of the most noble principles of our society. However, the NDP apparantly believes the military is some sort of multi-billion dollar Odd Job Squad and the freedom of other people and nations is worthless.

These days rather than calling for the damned and hungry of the world to "arise" and "cast off their chains", the NDP wishes them well provided doing so doesn't really require any sacrifies or participation on our part.

Danny Willians - Not about to let the truth get in the way of a good argument

2007-04-05T00:25:00.000-06:00

Cudos to the Canadian Press for this story.

I've spent the last week or so watching Danny Williams perform his song and dance over equalization. Essentially Williams is angry because somehow, in some vague manner that he really can't describe in any detail - Newfoundland got the shaft. How you might ask? Well Stephen Harper broke his commitment, he went back on his word. Now the natural question is what was the consequences of this? Danny Williams isn't saying - but surely it must be DIRE, given that Williams has felt the need to run ads in newspapers across the country and vent bile and bitterness on national television right?

"Newfoundland and Labrador will end up getting $5.6 billion more under the federal government's proposed equalization formula than under the status quo, says a Memorial University professor.

In the first attempt at crunching the numbers, Memorial University economist Wade Locke - one of the province's leading experts on offshore revenue deals - has found that if Newfoundland were to stick with the Atlantic Accord and the old equalization formula until 2020, it would receive $18.5 billion in combined revenues.

But if the province follows an optimal strategy - where it would leave the accord in 2009 and opt into a formula where a fiscal cap is implemented and 50 per cent of non-renewable natural resource revenues are included - it would receive $24.1 billion over that same period, Locke said".

Yes, damn that rascally Harper - increasing your equalization payments to the tune of 5.6 billion additional dollars. If your looking for sympathy from the rest of Canada Premier Williams, that's the tune of the world's smallest violin playing.

The Iranian Mullahs Need to Go

2007-04-03T23:24:00.000-06:00

The current situation with Iran by its own admission invading Iraqui territorial waters and kidnapping 15 British soldiers is unacceptable. Its bad enough when the Iranians are developing nuclear weaponry, funding terrorism and organizing holocaust denial conferences. Now they're engaging in kidnapping and attempting to provoke a war. I've always been of the opinion that Iraq was the wrong middle eastern country to invade. Iran is twice as crazy and out of control as Saddam ever was. The fanatics in control of Iran need to be stop, thrown down and brought to heel. At this point the Iraquis can fight their civil war - the Iranians are a large part of the problem there to begin with funding, supplying and covertly fighting in Iraq.

Iran's actions currently constitute an act of war. As a result the only responsible course of action is to cease the earnst hand wringing that's currently occuring as a "diplomatic solution" is being sought. Kidnapping is not a diplomatic matter, its not a terse note sent between countries to express disatisfaction. This was deliberate, dishonest, agregious and entirely unacceptable. Iran must return these hostages immediately, or the only rational recourse for the UK and all of NATO is to go to war with Iran. There is no middle ground.

I support Ted Morton

2006-11-30T05:27:00.000-07:00

I voted last Saturday and shall vote this Saturday for Ted Morton. Three candidates remain in the Progressive Conservatives Party's race for the Premiership, Morton, Dinning and Stelmach. I contend that Ted Morton is superior to either of those options.

As it currently stands, the PC Party of Alberta is an organization upon the brink of collapse. Its lack of ideas, direction and energy left it staggering through the last election like the walking wounded. Taking but a brief look at the numbers will very easily explain why the Progressive Conservative Party lost ground in the last election. It was not that former PC voters went over to the Liberals or the NDP - their numbers have essentially been static in provincial and federal elections. The PC Party lost 200,000 votes because many Conservatives in the province chose to vote for the Alberta Alliance to protest the party's poor performance or they simply stayed home.

"During 2001, in the provincial election, 627,252 people voted for PC Alberta. Contrast that with 358,193 people who voted Lib/NDP. I'm counting the Libs and the NDP as a single block for several reasons, which will become clear later on. In the 2004 provincial election, 416,886 people voted for PC Alberta, compared to 352,566 who voted Lib/NDP.Going federally, in 2004, 786,271 people voted for the CPC. Contrast that with 401,745 who voted Lib/NDP. In 2006, 931,701 voted CPC, compared to 386,608 for the Lib/NDP." http://noisefromtheright.blogspot.com/2006_09_01_archive.html

Essentially the threat to the Progressive Conservative Party is not the growth of its opponents, as they are for the most part static. The parties on the left can attract between 350,000-400,000 voters to the polls. Whereas the provincial and federal conservative parties can field anywhere from 500,000 (counting PC and AA votes in the last election) - to 900,000 voters.

In the last provincial election the Progressive Conservative Party lost ground not because the NDP or the Liberals had done anything different or special. The Progressive Conservative Party lost ground because it lost touch with the grass roots of the party. It lost touch with the ideals, the priorities the aspirations and beliefs of the average conservative voter. Conservative parties and Alberta have thrived when they've been populist, but run afoul when they smacked out of elitism and faux conservatism.

The route to victory for any conservative in Alberta, is not to try to convert Liberals and dippers. Rather the route to victory is to appeal to the majority of the province, with its populist, capitalist and conservative outlook. Tapping into that sentiment is the difference between Kim Campbell's campaign and Preston Manning's.

Only one man of those remaining captures that spirit - Ted Morton.

Ted Morton had the energy, ideas and policy to reinvorgate the Alberta Progressive Conservative Party and lead us into the future as a strong and proud province. Ted's firm stance in favour of provincal rights, working towards a more assertive Alberta, reforming health care and leading the province into reclaiming jurisdiction over services such as policing and a pension plan will provide a needed injection of policy into the listless provincal Tory void. His commitment to a referenda promoting saving 30% of future fossil fuel revenues for the future, will also establish a needed commitment to our future and also indicates Ted's deep commitment to democracy.

Ted Morton is uniquely positioned at this point in our provinces history to lead our province forward. He can bring disenchanted conservatives in the Alberta Alliance back to the fold, and sooth the conserns that the Party under Ralph had began to list to the left spending money like it was going out of style. He can also bring many disaffected conservative voters who chose simply to stay home or to participate solely in the federal party to the PC cause, which is invaluable as the need to fundraise and recruit volunteers is ever present in politics.

Two men currently are the alternatives to Ted Morton, one is Jim Dinning and the other is Ed Stelmach. I like Ed Stelmach. By all accounts is a decent guy and he's been a good MLA for a number of years running and I've read some interviews with him and he sounds like a humble and honest fellow. I'm happy there are guys like Ed Stelmach in politics, and he'd be a great deputy Premier or Minister of Something in a Ted Morton government. Likeability and the lack of anything offensive about him are one thing, but Stelmach doesn't provide the needed sense of Zeitgeist to the PC Party. The charisma, the ideas and the direction aren't coming from Ed, he's a competent manager and a good MLA but he's not the man to lead the charge for renewal. Although he is preferable to Jim Dinning.

Speaking of Jim Dinning he's the remaning candidate for premier. Dinning has been running to be Premier of Alberta for the last decade and at the moment he appears to be seeing all his dreams slipping away from him. Over the last number of days he's been ranting and raving and making the whole leadership campaign about Ted Morton. If you changed the name Jim Dinning to Paul Martin and Ted Morton to Stephen Harper, I feel like I'm living through a rerun of the last federal election. Apparantly Ted Morton has a dragon in his shed, whose going to consume small children while reading passage from the book of Revelations - Jim Dinning is not allowed to make this stuff up.

Jim Dinning has the same, I'm everything to everyone campaign platform as Martin did too. Jim Dinning loves puppies, rainbows, and candy and doesn't seem to propose any substantive change. Not to mention the rather infamous fact that Jim Dinning wrote a 25,000 cheque to the Paul Martin leadership campaign and attached a personalized love letter to dear old Paul. While Nancy McBeth whose last forray into electoral politics saw her running against the PC Party as leader of the Alberta Liberal Party is also a big Jim Dinning supporter. Heck he even ran he campaign against Ralph Klien for the PC Leadership. Dinning's apathy towards meaningful change, and his apparant fondness for all things Liberal will only antagonize the rank and file of PC party support.

The only difference between a Jim Dinning PC party and a Kevin Taft Liberal Party would be the names. That's not acceptable to me, and that's not acceptable to a whole lot of others Conseratives in this province. Hence on Saturday its Morton for premier - everyone get out and vote Ted needs your support to lead this province forward.

Whither Individual Responsibility?

2006-11-23T04:05:00.000-07:00

Canada as a country is beset by many problems, however, arguably none bedevils this country like the decline in individual responsibility. I could direct this particular line of thought towards the infantalizing qualities that bloated social programs have insidously inflicted upon the country. Yet while those are detrimental, wasteful and often misguided in their intentions its the constant news stories of kids in their early teens committing crimes which I happen to find chilling.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Edmonton/2006/10/25/2124271-sun.html

http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=228adfcf-add4-497e-8709-9666c832ad03&k=39677

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2006/11/08/wpg-shooting.html (scroll down towards the bottom)

http://www.cjob.com/news/index.aspx?src=loc&mc=local&rem=50989

Youth violence has become a serious problem in this country. I've posted links to instances in both Edmonton and Winnipeg, as they happen to be the cities I know best. However, kids under the age of 18 are committing murder seemingly over the most frivolous of things and truthfully out legal system seems woefully inadequate to deal with it. The Young Offenders act is one of those sorry manifestations of the philosophy of Jean Jacques Rousseau that Liberals love to embrace. Rousseau's claim to fame is that man himself was perfectable but it was bad systems of governance and social order that sullied his nature. Essentially - its society's fault, not the kid's fault but that their parents, community etc have failed them. Leading to the misguided notion that the response for the most part should be a slap on the wriste and a stern and earnest talking to, suggesting one not assault or murder any further people as that's undesirable behaviour.

I'm not entirely dismissive of environmental reasons for deliquent and criminal behaviour. I accept that broken homes and abusive parents can produce some screwed up kids. However, I refuse to accept that such a background as a "troubled teen" constitutes a get out of jail free card, or warrants the few years of jail time that teenage murderers recieve. Truthfully, its a farce that such outcomes aren't abnormal in what's entitled the "justice system".

Fundamentally, I consider the problem to be two fold with youth crime. Firstly, many of those committing offenses don't respect the legal system, the rule of law and the standard of behaviour expected of decent citizens. Secondly, they aren't afraid of the consequences of their actions, either in so far as getting caught or what they'll be subjected to should they be caught. To put it succiently the administration of justice in Canada needs alot less of Jean Jacques Rousseau and alot of more of Thomas Hobbes.

Hobbes' characterization of the human instinct, with its animalistic passions and nasty demeanour if not kept in check is likely far closer to the mark than the noble savage corrupted by the system that Rousseau espoused. He of course advocated the need for the corressive power of the state to keep peace and order where otherwise there would be chaos.

Being naturally inclined towards libertarianism I find it odd to find myself pitching for more government and more cohersive government at that. However, I've always found the cries for a privatized police force from some corners of that movement to be dogmatic and ill considered and a departure from thinkers such as Locke and Nozick. At this point in time, the state is failing in its one fundamental responsibility - maintaining the safety of its populace and subsequently in its administration of justice.

I applaud the efforts of Vic Toews to lower the age at which teenagers will be tried as adults serious criminal acts. However, I'm inclined to believe that more wide ranging action is necessary than that. I've never seriously understood how the claim could be presented that anyone over the age of ten short of mental defects could be unaware that murder and the like were fundamentally wrong. The reprehensibility of murder is culturally ubiquitious.

Beyond charging violent offenders as adults at a younger age, its necessary to raise the minimum sentence for violent crimes. I'd also suggest raising the maximum and denying parole for violent offenders. Aside from that the practice fo trebeling time served pretrial should be reduced to being credited on a one day to one day basis.

Increasing criminal sanctions applicable to youthful violent offenders (and violent offenders of all types for that mattter) is a very useful starting point to a comprehensive approach to turning the tide against the leniancy that has allowed this particular virus to incubate. Other measures are also necessary, including a substantial increase in policing across the country. Throwing the book at offenders is only useful, insofar as the offenders are caught. Furthermore, a substantial increase in law enforcement presences in communities will act to discourage those contemplating crimes due to the increased likelihood of being caught.

Finally, I lay alot of the blame for youth violence at the hands of the educational system. There are many fine teachers and would be teachers out there, I know I'm related to some of them. However, the educational system is first exposure that most kids have to the state and authority figures aside from their parents. As such schools play an important part in instilling children with the necessity of following the rules and discouraging anti-social and violent behaviour. Teachers, and principals for the most part are afraid of dealing with hostile parents and as such for the most part are notioursly lax in dealing with school yard bullies and misbehaving children. At this formative period children learn that the system coddles them and there aren't serious consequences for breaking the rules and one can get away with most anything. Schools need to take their disciplinary role seriously, and take stern action with misbehaving students and expell bullies. The need for the education system to eliminate the free pass, where one has to work hard not to pass one's academic course work also undermines the sense of responsibility that our education system needs to instill.

In short it should be a priority for Canadians to see that young offenders are punished more seriously in a court of law, that a larger police presence deters possible offenders, and that our educational system instills in deliquent youth a grudging respect for the system. Some of the people one reads about in the paper are likely lost causes, no alteration of procedures or deterents would set them on the straight and narrow. The sad fact is some people must be incarcerated to protect law abiding citizens from comming to harm and we shouldn't feel any compunction about doing so. However, many youthful offenders could likely be kept within the bounds of the law if fear and respect for the justice system were restored. Its time to start ingraining people at a young age with the concept that they are responsible for their actions.

Why We Fight

2006-09-18T03:32:00.000-06:00

For quite a while I've felt disinclined to return to the small podium or soap box that is this blog and speak my mind upon the happenings of the day. Why? School, sports, and the daily grind of life have played their part, and perhaps the presence of a Conservative government ensconed in office have at once both distracted me and convinced me that the effort was perhaps not needed. However, of late the calls for Canada to retreat from Afghanistan have stirred a visceral enough reaction within me to cause me to seek to write once more.

With the death of each soldier in Afghanistan some suposedly sagely, hand-wringing potificator will declare Afghanistan a quagmire and call for a withdrawl of Canadian forces from the country. The effete latte sippers of the world find it horrifying that are soldiers aren't playing a traditional "peace keeping role" but are actually engaging in an armed conflict. Amidst this Liberal leadership candidates squabble among themselves over whether they should adopt a rational outlook upon a conflict they took Canada into or join Jack Layton's "Peace in our time" crowd.

The basic facts of Afghanistan are that the Taliban regime embraced, aided and abeted Al Quiada. Al Quiada made a direct attack against Canada's ally the United States. The United States having been attacked by Al Quiada called upon its allies, NATO, to aid it in invading Afghanistan and seeking to destroy the Al Quiada and Tailaban forces present there. NATO efforts have been sanctioned by the United Nations as being appropriate.

One would think that an unprovoked attack on our ally leading to our mutual defense treaty obligations being called upon would suffice to justify our presence in Afghanistan. However, for those looking for further reasoning we also know that should the Taliban not be defeated Afghanistan will revert to its previous status as a failed state which harboured terrorists with an agenda of spreading terror among western nations. As a western nation our own security is threatened by the free operation of groups such as Al Quaida within a country such as Afghanistan. Furthermore, beyond the fact that the continued existance of a Taliban dominated country is determinal to our own security they were a morally repellent regime. All the virtues that your average pacifist embraces multiculturalism, education, women's rights, and gay rights were all crushed under the heel of the Taliban.

Canada fights the Taliban for a self interested reason, preventing terrorists from using it as a safe haven. However, it would be wrong headed not to consider bringing democracy to the country and ending what was in truth a barbaric regime that was a pestilence upon its own people can only be seen as a positive externality. People have a say in their own future, women have rights, children are going to school - these are all good things. Preserving our own security and spreading liberty to what had been one of the darker reaches of the world is a just and good undertaking.

What then motivates those who want to see only loss and futility in our endeavours in Afghanistan? For some perhaps there is no more complex an explaination in play than that Afghanistan is far away, nor do they see the very real threat of terrorism looming on the horizon. While the news of every casulty that the Canadian forces suffer is sensationalized by the media as those a detonated mine killing three Canadian soldiers were Augustus' lose of six legions beyond the Danube. Others have developed a rather chronic self-loathing towards Canada and western civilization as a whole. In our country this self-loathing is coupled with a virulent strain of anti-Americanism.

Terrorism is a very real threat foreign and domestically. Those who subscribe to radical Islam are by their own repeated declarations our enemy. They deem our culture decadent, label us all infidels and part and parcel of the evil they deem the west to be. Their hatred is not specific to the United States or Israel, its directed against all those who fall within western civilization. We deal with those inspired by hatred and zealotry. Those promoting neutrality, accomodation and negotiation with such groups as the Taliban embrace the most willful ignorance or cynicism in misleading the naive. The Taliban, Al Quaida and others of their ilk are our enemy. They have no want but our ultimate destruction and for an Islamic Caliphate to dominate the entire world. There is no accomodation that can be made with them, no manner in which our differences with them can be worked our or some sort of compromise establish. They are our enemy and they must be destroyed. Ignoring the barbarians massing on the frontiers of civilization as they are not yet at the city gates was a losing proposition for the Romans, and would prove no less so for Canada and the rest of the west.

As Harper rightly keeps our military on the field, the simply fact the war continues is trotted forward by many among the chattering classes as evidence that somehow "we're losing in Afghanistan". I dare say that if one consults any historical tome one might readily decipher that its not unusual for wars to be lengthy affairs that last a number of years. Nor would any reasonable assessment of a conflict be considered a losing effect where the Taliban have suffered thousands of casualties and find themselves forced to retreat. Evidently suffering a few dozen casualties and not having had this war wrapped up by the end of hockey season clearly indicates that we're engaged in a losing effort.

Some, most often those on the left, find the war noxious because in a conflict between nations that are primarily of European ethnicities and nominally Christian and a Muslim nation populated by those of a different ethnicity there is no question in their mind that the Western nation is somehow at fault. In their way of thinking the West is always at fault. Every war is some sort of imperialist and oppressive adventure that's preying upon some hapless and justified underdog fight off occuping forces. This simply ignores the facts that led to our current situation, the United States were attacked. They in concert with their allies responded and with more a more evenhanded and merciful approach than our enemies would ever adopt.

Western civilization and Canada in particular are worthy of defense. Both share uparreled freedom, culture and a high standard of living. Western Civilization has created the freest, most just, most affluent, most technologically advanced societies known to man. Our scientific, artistic, literary, scholarly and military accomplishments are unparralled. There has been no civilization greater than that of the West. Canada's own contributions to that legacy range from penicillian to the Group of 7, and from hockey to decentralized government to allow for coexistance between French and English. We value freedom, justice and knowledge.

The Taliban and others of their beliefs, reject democracy. Beyond that they reject such things as the freedom of speach, and freedom of religion. Democracy, free speach and religious freedom being the trefica of the west. They do not believe in our open society. They believe fervently in Allah, and that all non-believers are inhuman and lesser than they. Non-believers to the radical islamist are to be converted, subjucated or destroyed. Filmaker Theo Van Gough a scion of the famed artist was murdered in the streets of Amsterdam for having made a film critical of their religion. Expressing disagreement with a film through murder summarizes radical Islam's position on free speach. Their women are treated like chattels which exist to bear their children and nothing more, while their children themselves are simply filled with poisonous hate and propaganda.

In Afghanistan Canada fights an enemy repugnant to our entire way of life. We fight the good fight. We fight for our right to exist, and our freedoms against an enemy that wishes dearly to take them from us. There should be no doubt in the justice of our position, no wavering in our resolve. Somewhere in the soul of our nation lies the courage that took Juno Beach. On this day and all days forward we must call upon that courage, for too paraphrase the Roman orator Cato the Taliban Delenda Est.

I for one welcome David Emerson

2006-02-16T02:34:00.000-07:00

I've gotten a little tired of the whole outraged waving of hands, clawing of eyes and tearing of hair. The horror, one of the best MPs on the Liberal side of the house jumped off a sinking ship. While Harper made a move to further court Quebec by temporarily appointing a senator and putting him into cabinet. Sacrilege! Hersey! Rampant abandonment of principle! Harper's clearly lost his mind, abandoned his base, etc etc etc..

Quite frankly these are knee jerk reactions and I have trouble taking them with any great deal of seriousness. Evidently some members of the party think they could run the party and the government better than the Prime Minister who picked up the pieces of a Canadian Alliance party in dissarray, merged it with the Progessive Conservatives. Thereafter held Paul Martin who was touted to win a majority as large as that as Mulroney or Diefenbaker to a minority, and a year and a half later formed a minority government of his own. Yes, all the evidence of past behaviour CLEARLY shows that Stephen Harper is given to whim and caprice and has absolutely no identifiable plan and at the moment he's mostly just going out of his way to tick people off.

Now lets be perfectly clear what this is actually all about. David Emerson and Michael Fortier have one thing in common. They are both extremely well connected and well respected businessmen. For the last decade Paul Martin had Canada's business community firmly in the court of the Liberals. If we want a majority the corporate community is a group of people we want to "come home", David Emerson crossing is a visible sign of that, and elevating Fortier is a further olive branch. It also happens to address some regional criticisms that were leveled, but honestly I think that's entirely secondary to the consideration that we need big business to get on board. After all, we get relentlessly accussed of being their toadies so they really ought to be onside if we're going to take that sort of flak on their behalf.

Chantel Herbert gets it right. Our Prime Minister is in this for the long term and already at work building a majority coalition. Sadly, some people refuse to look past their superficial outrage over suposedly democratic concerns. Rather people changing their minds is how governments change. If more Liberal supporters and members of parliament find the leftward drift of their party both odious and unsavoury, I welcome their conversion to the proverbial side of angels. Just as I welcome David Emerson to our party and believe strongly that he has a lot he can contribute to our party and to the cabinet with his wealth of experience and talent.

As my last post indicates Conservatives have to realize this is simply a singular battle, not the war. We've two years to basically campaign for a majority. Conservatives need to remain united in that goal as we are likely sooner rather than later to become aware than many of the things we long to see implimented in government can neither be done within a two year span, nor can they be done when we must rely upon the NDP, the Liberals or the Bloc. This is a team sport. We must stick together. That means people who should know better than to run their mouth off to the media and stir up controversy should keep quiet or be subjected to a nomination challenge by members who recognize that criticism should be kept internal to party not issued forth daily to CTV.

Lets win the war, not just the battle.

2006-01-16T01:38:00.000-07:00

Now, we're mostly Conserveratives here in the blogsphere and to some degree there is an echo chamber for our debates. However, when one enters into the wider world its rather clear that "staunch" conservatives are a minority. There are a goodly number of small c conservatives and small l liberals. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

The primary disadvantage for conservatives is that far more people in Canada after decades of Liberal rule self identify as Liberals than do as Conservatives. This makes there electoral floor larger than ours. Look at their polling numbers right now, they're currently on pace to their WORST result EVER. Which is to say that a Liberal campaign which is completely inept and bumbling will garner more votes than the Reform and Alliance ever did. Whether one happens to like that realization or not, those strictly speaking are the facts.

Now working from this disadvantage one needs to be aware that Conservatives have to approach implimenting change in a cautious and gradual manner. Impliment the parts of our agenda which are now public consensus, and build a level of trust with the electorate. That also happens to involve cleaning up the government and dealing a rather resounding blow to the Liberal party's crony infrastructure. Implimenting some tax cuts, and several other of our big ticket campaign promises.

In an age of cynicism if Conservatives can convince Canadians that we are the party that they can trust, and that will do the right thing for Canada then you have the political capital to broach political topics like real and substantial electoral reform. I realize that after more than a decade in the opposition, its easy to forget that Rome wasn't built in a day and that we must walk before we can run.

We want our time to be now. However, I think Conservatives right now need to be patient. Right now our focus has to be upon coalition building and selling the Conservative brand. If we want an electoral victory to be anything more than a flash in the electoral pan, then we need to start where Canadians are and slowly cause where they are to drift to the right.

The Liberals and the NDP have been nudging the country to the left for decades, we aren't going to be able to burst into Ottawa and undo all of that in the space of a couple monthes. What we can do is defang leftist lobby groups whom are reliant on the government for their funding, make inroads into traditonally Liberal ethnic groups, gain the credibility of experience and incumbancy. We can keep the economy humming along, and probably improve it with our tax policies and by making a few more payments on the debt. We can also halt the line on the social agenda of the left, although undoing what is done is unlikely to be palatable to a population reluctant to revisit social issues.

We can begin to undo decades of Liberal appointments, with Conservative appointments to various troublesome Liberal instutitions such as the CBC. While we all have damned the CBC as the mouthpiece of its Liberal masters, it should be clear that the CBC is the mouthpiece of the state. We simply have to make it clear that the state is under new management and we expect it to act accordingly.

The Conservative party itself cannot alter the moral trajectory of the country, that's up to Conservatives in their private capacity. We lack the foundations, the think tanks, media and organizational backdrop that the GOP does to the south that have offered an constant stream of alternative culture to former liberal dominance. What the Conservative Party itself can do is neutralize the current Liberal advantage and begin to empower the Conservative brand itself and alter the focus of government onto priorities that the lot of us and most other Canadians aren't likely to find offensive. Canada is more conservative than it thinks, but less Conservative than your average Conservative activist. That said we can follow fiscal conservative and keep in moderation on various social fronts and safely stay in power.

Harper is aware of this, and has advocated a gradual approach in the past. As a result, we'll see a cautious Conservative government which passes through policies it knows will be winners in view of establishing the party as the objective is firstly and foremostly to displace the Liberal party as the default government. In order to do that we must work with the people we have, not the ones we wish we had. Idealogical purity doesn't win elections, however, in order to ultimately nudge Canada's political landscape to the right in a last fashion we first need to win and build the foundations for lasting sucess while we do so. This election is a battle, and a chance to begin to win a war we've been losing for the better part of the last century.

The French Debate

2005-12-15T20:43:00.000-07:00

I watched the debate tonight in French, I tend to think the translation don't give you the best feel for it. You get an artificial translation that doesn't give you an accurate representation of their performance. On the whole, I tend to think the French debate had the outcome you would expect of it. Gilles Duceppe was the clear winner. He started off fairly strong, and after the first hour he was simply dominate. He responded clearly and forcefully to Paul Martin's accusations about seperatism and the illegitimacy of his presence in Ottawa forcefully and firmly. As a francophone he has a clear advantage. He consistently went after Martin over the sponsorship scandal, and called him fundamentally dishonest. He also made hay out of the fiscal imbalance. I'd rate Duceppe's performance as an A-.

I thought Paul Martin started off fairly strong, but he faded down the stretch. Paul Martin had a night were he was all hat, no cattle. I liked his vocal tone, he was animated and sounded passionate. Points awarded for that, and I think at the begining that was carrying him. However, as the two hour debate went onwards he developed a terribly annoying habit of frantically waving his hands which took away from his delivery. However, Martin's problem wasn't so much style as substance. He was clearly reading talking points from cue cards. He'd accuse Stephen Harper of implimenting two tier health care a moment after Harper actually explained his position. He went after Duceppe as well, but it was simply pointed out that Duceppe couldn't call a referendum. He also was evasive on the subject of the fiscal imbalance and I thought that left the door open for Duceppe and Harper. I'd give Martin a C+.

Stephen Harper started off fairly poorly. He struggled in the french language for a while. Hour one he got ambushed with what was pretty much a cheap shot with a question on how he'd feel about one of his children being gay. However, hour two was much better for Harper than hour one. If your going to start off slow, its preferable that you finish strong and I think Harper did that. Once he seemed to get more comfortable having spoken French for a while I thought his performance improved substantially. He was on a bit of a roll for the better part of the last hour, and I thought he handled taxes and the fiscal imbalance rather superbly especially after Martin's evasion on the question left the door open to him. Harper was fairly consistent in his objective which was to convey the Conservative's policy platform. I think Harper turned things around sufficiently that he warrants a B rating.

Jack Layton was on fire to start off the debate. For one hour, I was projecting Layton to be the surprise winner. He'd taken his bouncy demeanour that he had last year in the debates and toned it down to the point where he was simply being positive and engaging. His french was fairly solid, and he seemed to have concise to the point answers. However, the problem for Layton was this was a two hour debate, not a one hour debate. He had a tremendous first half, and then absolutely dissapeared. It seemed like he was prepared for the topics that came up at first, and later he was struggling with his French. He seemed tentative and hesitant. If I was an NDP supporter I'd feel let down, as it seemed he was poised to be the winner and then simply tanked it. I'd give Layton a C, a B+ for hour one and a D for hour two.

Rex Murphy on the Montreal Environmental Conference

2005-12-08T18:35:00.000-07:00

You can find a transcript of his segment called "Maybe Kyoto is Japanese for Hypocracy". After all they're nothing like flying to Montreal on an old jumbo jet to spout pollution off into the environment, to attend a conference which will generate further environmental waste and spout off abunch of hot air. All the while criticizing those horrible Republicans for their environmental recording and failing to drink the Kyoto coolaid when they're environmental record is better than your own.

I hope Karl Rove makes a commercial out of Paul Martin's speach, with a nice moving graphic showing America's rate of emissions going down and Canada's going up with another line plotting environmentalist rhetoric steadily rising.

Adler goes after the pious healthcare fascists

2005-12-08T17:11:00.000-07:00

Greg at Political Staples provides readers with a link to a recording of Charles Adler from yesterday up at Proud to be Canadian.

Everyone from Manitoba, and I am origionally until I was called to the Conservative mothership in Alberta, knows that Chuck is one heck of a rabble rouser and not afraid to let his knuckles drag for the right cause. I do say that in the most affectionate way as a libertarian and a democrat myself. However, when you listen to his national broadcasts you tend to hear a kinder, gentler Adler as after all you wouldn't want to be too "scary" for those delicate people in Ontario. But this is Adler at the top of his game, full of righteous indignation and biting logic and expounding upon the totalitarian nature of the pious socialist health care corner, who not only want to make you pay taxes for universal health care but to prevent you from spending your money on additional services if you so choose. He puts the case forward as well as anyone could, check it out.

My election prediction

2005-12-03T01:56:00.000-07:00

My cautiously optomistic prediction will be a reasonably strong Conservative Minority.
Conservatives: 126Liberals: 98NDP: 26Bloc Quebecois: 58

I'm basing this prediction on Stephen managing to find 22 seats in Ontario that he can turn our way, expecting the party to come our +2 seast (Cadman is dead, Kieth Martin hopefully dies his overdue political death) in BC, +2 in Alberta (Go home Anne), losing one seat to the NDP in Saskatchewan - I don't think we can expect to win both the races we won by a whisker, Manitoba no change, Quebec..also known as the Tory dying ground nil here, Atlantic Canada - I'm optomistically expecting us to be +4 across the 4 provinces there. I think we can win Efford's seat in Newfoundland, pick up one in New Brunswich lacking the health care dynamic which was going on there provincially last election, gain one to two seats in Nova Scotia and if we're lucky one in PEI.

From the last election that would amount to 37 fewer Liberals. Four more Bloc Quebecois members, as well as 7 more members of the NDP. Most importantly 27 more Conservatives than were elected in the last election. This seems doable to me, provided that the CPC or the NDP doesn't completely run themselves into a wall.

The GST Rollback - Consumption vs Income Taxes

2005-12-03T01:34:00.000-07:00

I've got a degree in Economics up on my wall so I supose that makes me "an economist" and according to the Liberal Party my opinion is decisive on how taxes should be cut. Thus I supose the time is right for me to now return from the blogging wilderness to chime in with my much vaunted opinion on the matter. (Quickly thereafter returning to being swamped by law school) I'll personally defer to the Milton Friedman who said "I'm in favour of cutting any tax, any time, for any reason whatsoever."

Although, that's probably Milt taking his own position to the extreme. Their is something to be said for the efficiency of consumption taxes as opposed to income taxes. I think its terribly misleading to say they're the preference of all economists. Ironically they're the preference of all free-market economists whom Liberals routinely ignore. You see most left leaning economists labeling it a "regressive" tax that "disportionately" affects the "less priveleged". Its a flat rather than progressive tax. This is why in the past both the Liberals and the NDP have proposed scrapping it. And really any reduction of a flat tax will have the greatest proportional effect at the bottom, and the larged dollar figure directed towards the top. This is always going to be the case as people don't have the same amount of money to begin with, no matter how many NDP supporters secretly pine away for an egalitarian society.

The Liberal talking point about the GST reduction affection those who spend more recieving more money in return is true. But then again this is true with any across the board tax reduction. Tax cuts return money that people already had, as opposed to increasing their prexisting store of wealth.

However, a two percent reduction in the taxes applied to your consumption will affect those who
consume a higher proportion of their income as opposed to "saving it". The rate at which people save increases with their income. Hence the less income you have, the more this tax will impact you. Furthermore, everyone consumes - not everyone pays income tax. If you want to make an argument that not everyone consumes, I supose your pitching your tax plan to a hermit. I find it dubius that they're a constituency whose vote you can really get out to begin with.

I'd be rather skeptical anytime the Liberals suddenly embrace the same economists that they
spurn on any other public policy issue. Although its ironic that perhaps the debate has been framed with the Tories taking up the leftist/social justic tax cut and the Liberals with the libertarian cut. Although arguably the entire debate falls right of center as the true lefties wouldn't cut any taxes at all.

Whether cutting the GST or Income Tax is preferably really depends on what your trying to achieve. If your attempting to increase investment, savings, and productivity - it would be more effective to lower income taxes. On the other hand if your goal is simply to remove excess tax, and return it in the most just manner knocking back the GST is as if not more effective in doing that.

From a purely moral perspective there really is a certain disingenius tone to having the Liberals lead by a silver spoon shipping magnet claiming that a Conservative tax cut is going to result what Scott Reid suggested were "the Conservatives upper class constituency who were going to spend it on luxury automobiles" or something to that effect. Perhaps that's how Paul 'Plutocrat" Martin would spend his GST reduction, on the other hand I think I and most other Canadians are likely to see the price of gas, their phone bill, their internet bill, and their cable bill drop a few bucks every month with the GST reduced as opposed to rushing out and buying a Porsche because of the 2% saving.

Its too bad that when a chance for a real debate emerges, you often find that it just as swiftly decends to ridiculous metaphors and hyperbole. That said the prospect of a Conservative victory warms the cockles of my soul, and I smile a little more at the thought of Paul Martin and Scott Reid no longer annoying me with their presence on national television. Hope springs eternal.

The Role of the Courts

2005-10-19T21:21:00.000-06:00

I write this a day after I listened to a lecture by and thereafter spoke to Peter Hogg, Canad'a leading constitutional expert. Hogg spoke primarily on the evolution of section 15 and the line of cases that had led to its most recent interpretive requirements. Perhaps more interestly two hours later, he spoke on the private medical insurance decision rendered by the Supreme Court later on. Hogg served as council in both the Same Sex Marriage reference and in the Chaouli (I've no idea how that's spelled) decision. While both these talks were interesting, I found speaking with him afterwards rather more interesting.

I spoke to afterwards about the confirmation process for justices in the Supreme Court. He was rather skeptical about the mail in recommendations and thereafter non-binding shortlisting that was currently being introduced. I suggested that a rigorous parliamentary confirmation process comparable to that in the US might be more desirable. He agreed that transparancy dictates that bringing the justices before Parliament is infinitely more desirable, and that by and large concerns about it destroying independence and becoming some sort of side show as for the most part that hasn't been the case elsewhere. However, he did express the concern that we'd find more consensus candidates appointed and wouldn't have gained some justices from unconvential backgrounds and dispositions. Hogg thought a diversity of perspectives was a valuable thing for the Supreme Court. I pointed out that less "colorful" candidates wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. Were we to have justices in the John Roberts mold, judges and lawyers whom had a solid legal pedigree, moderate political stances and a great deal of experience - I would suspect that there would be a great deal less room to criticize the Court.

Hogg mentioned his concerns about the pervasive influence of lawyers and the courts. He stated that over the last 20 years since the Charter had been instituted, the courts had not only had a much wider perview, but he'd observed judicial restraint and deference to the legislature had erroded. He noted that the ingrained deference and attachment to precedent had significantly deteriorated, and that while the Charter is often the target of claims of activism it occurs in every other facet of our law as well. I asked his opinion on what should be done to counteract this and he responded that he had no idea. He thought perhaps the problem began in law school with the focus upon the decisions of appellate courts, when in practice most lawyers spend their time working with contracts, statutes and mediators. Although whether that emphasis will be corrected is highly uncertain.

Distracted

2005-10-14T16:39:00.000-06:00

I've been distracted for the last week or so by a dispute which has arise with an organization sullying my good name. As a result my thoughts have been elsewhere. A post unrelated to this topic will follow today or tomorrow.

Stephen Taylor's Cannes Film Festival Entry

2005-10-07T02:17:00.000-06:00

Okay ...maybe it won't make it to Cannes but this video will leave you laughing at John McCallum's pathetic antics and feeling vaguely sorry that one of Canada's leading economists has now become a third string political hack. Follow the link there to download the video and watch Harper and my old MP Brian Pallister embarass the Minister of National Revenue.

My hockey pool picks

2005-10-05T23:41:00.000-06:00

I joined a hockey pool through my university faculty, and just because I feel like bemoaning fate I'll disclose who the players are.

Markus Naslund F Vancouver Canucks - in my opinion the best player in the NHL right now. Foresberg is getting fragile with a questionable back, and Ignla isn't going to look nearly as good this season with so much more open ice. Jerome is the hockey equivalent of a running back who can take it right up the gut, but now the rules are slanted to make it easier to dance around the outside so to speak. From the highlights flying high in the game opener.

Alex Tanguay F Colorado Avalanche - he was a leading scorer a few years ago and biting at Naslund's heels for the lead. However, after watching Colorado and Edmonton WHERE WAS THIS GUY. He was INVISIBLE! If he doesn't turn around the fantasy GM may be fired by the fantasy ownership. However, at least he sucked while playing against Edmonton.

Mats Sundin F Toronto Maple Leafs - left the game with an injury around his eye today. Tanguay is invisible and Sundin is hurt the Fantasy draft gods spite me! But come on he's on the Leafs first line and in the new NHL they can't lose 5-0 all that often.

Shane Doan F Phoenix Coyotes - just a big solid power forward he puts in around 20-30 goals in the net a year. I think he's going to be a solid pick unless he's injured, and he's hanging around Gretzsky that has to have some sort of halo effect.

Daniel Briere F Buffalo Sabres - I've been impressed with Briere in what I've seen him play in the World Cup, he simply seems like a tremendous hockey player who flys under the radar as the Buffalo Sabres don't exactly get alot of tv time in Canada. I'm fairly sure he was a good decision.

Rick Nash F Columbus Blue Jackets - one of the best young forwards in the game today. Who knows how well this guy can do with a stronger supporting cast? I'm confident in this pick too.

Miroslav Satan F New York Islanders - how can you not have a player in your pool whose last name is "lord of darkness". I jest, he's a tremendous offensive talent and although by all accounts a jerk off the ice perhaps he and Yashin can have a "players no one really likes on a personal level but are damn good hockey players" thing going. Additionally, I have a soft spot for Miroslav Satan since I recally scoring so many goals with him while playing NHL '98 back when he was an Oiler (alas another one that got away).

Chris Pronger D Edmonton Oilers - this guy is going to be running our power play so I'm optomistic about his season this year. He seems the sort of player that can be that solid base and log a lot of minutes.

Peter Sykora F Anahiem Mighty Ducks - your fast, smooth skating European goal scorer type. I figured he'd be money in the new NHL. We'll see.

Peter Bondra F Atlanta Thrashers - pretty much same deal as Sykora.

Brendan Morrow F Dallas Star - another former Oiler we couldn't hold onto. He's a consistent performer so I'm fairly confident in taking him in my pool.

J.P Dumot F Buffalo Sabres - I had no idea who this guy was, but his stats looked okay so I picked him at random. So far it looks like an inspired choice as he has the first goal of the season.

Oilers 4 - Avalanche 3

2005-10-05T23:11:00.000-06:00

The stars have aligned themselves in Alberta and for a brief moment the world is fair and just. The Edmonton Oilers pick up 2 points and a huge win over perenial favourites the Avs. Just to make the win a bit sweeter Calgary gets pummeled 6-3 by that offensive powerhouse the Minnesota Wild.

This is the first full game of the new season I've seen, and I'm completely sold on the new rules and the CBA. The pace of the game is so much quicker, and hasn't lost the hard hitting that gets the blood pumping. It still seems unusal to me to see the scores rolled through as 3-1, 5-3, 5-3, 5-3 but I'm sure I'll get used to it. Although the one rule change I'm rather dubious of is awarding a penalty when you put the puck up over the glass in the defensive end. It seems such a trivial thing to award a penalty of, when most of the time its simply a matter of inches along the glass.

For those who didn't catch the game there have been questions raised as to whether Shawn Horcoff is ready to carry the load as a first line center. In the past he hasn't broken 20 goals a year, but the media has noted he was huge in the Swedish elite league last year. Admittedly I'm never sure what to make of a report that someone played well in Europe, after all we always hear that David Hasslehoff is big in Germany. However, with two goals and an assist Horcoff seems to be stepping up to the plate and simply took it too the Avalanche whom aren't on my list of patsies. Is he a first line center? So far so good.

Ales Hemsky didn't manage to find the back of the net, but man alive does he ever have jets! He streaked down the wing and found open ice that made a couple defensemen look silly. Hemsky seems to have the speed of an uninjured Bure or Seleane but whether he'll develop the midas touch around the net those two were noted for is a question mark.

Special teams has been a worry for Oiler fans as honestly last seaon and in the preseason they were absolutely terrible. The power play looked shakey at the begining of the game, and if it was a football game I'm pretty sure they should have just declined the penalty or taken an offsetting minor. However, their third crack at it seemed to have Pronger taking charge and organizing the effort and the fourth power play resulted in a Stoll bullet from the point. As for the penalty kill they didn't give up a goal on the penalty kill and it looked fairly solid. As drudge would say "developing...."

Ty Conklin will continue to torment Oiler fans for the next couple games with anxiety attacks any time the opponents put the rubber on the net. Letting in 3 goals with less than 20 shots isn't going to win alot of games. Fortunately the Oiler defense were absolutely rock solid and minimized the scoring chances on Conklin but whether the Alaskan can get the job done remains to be seen. A couple of the goals he didn't have a chance on, one was deflected off the defenseman's shin pad, and another was snuck across the crease on a defensive break down to be banged home. However, the stats don't look good, but its a w and you take what you can get.

I didn't hear "Cory Cross gets beaten on the far side" tonight which is strangely reassuring. In fact I didn't hear his name all that much, which is pretty much want I want from a defensiveman low on the depth chart. You know generally if you hear his name he just bungled something up, so his invisibility is a bonus.

A Neitzschian knot

2005-10-05T02:15:00.000-06:00

Its been said that until recently history was the study of dead white guys, one might add that philosophy is the study of the writings of dead Greco-Roman, British and German guys. I strongly suspect that were it not for the harsh economic imperatives of life I'd be off in a library surrounded by various texts and engaging in frivolous academic debate about what a particular philosopher "really meant". But being no Pannish figure or perhaps I could rely more so upon the assurance that my parents didn't raise a fool, I wasn't even prepared to make philosophy my minor. Economics and political science being far more practical as many economists are gainfully employed. While as the head of the philosophy department at the U of M remarked while lecturing "with my philosophy degree if I wasn't doing this, I'd be pointing out that this pair of running shoes also comes in a high top." On the other hand I've climbed the ladder of practicality even further to law. Make no mistake about it - lawyers are the professional equivalent of the Borg. Resistance is futile - you will need us in some capacity eventually. Run, hide, shake your fist.....we are borg.

But I digress, I studied political philosophy through both the political science and philosophy departments which was a wonderful theoretical analysis exercise and exposes one to a range of viewpoints that you might otherwise be unaware. Sadly, I'm not probably better versed in Marxist principles than the twits who set up tables at campus group recruiting days. Yet as one shifts through the sand of misguided and debunked theories there are some luminaries of the past whom reading sheds light on our present state of affairs.

Although some might think it strange - Neitzsche in my mind is the most relevant of all deceased commentators on the current state of western civilization. The man was raving mad at the end of his days, which was apparantly the result of having contracted a venerial disease but I feel no particular need to rehash comments about the fine line between genius and madness.

One of the central topics of Neitzsche's writing was the advent of nihilism. The belief in nothing, essentially the belief that all things were equal and that nothing was exclusively better than any other. A lack of any moral direction and any firm belief in anything and a prevailing skepticism about all things. This of course was written in the mid to late 1800s. I find myself taking this perspective and analyzing its relevance today and the empty relativism that gets bandied about is in truth nothing more than nihilism. The fact that there are simultainously crudes for pot and against tobacco in the works and embraced by the same political parties - again nihilism.

I could probably stretch the idea and say our current Sienfield government "the government about nothing" was vaguely nihilistic in that Paul Martin has spent every moment since he became Prime Minister attempting to be on both sides of every issue save for the desirablity of his removal from office. Paul returned to his past decisive form to clearly state "please don't fire me, I'm really sorry" on national television.

Yet a better example is the prevailing disconnect among the average person whom sees politics as being all the same, all politicians are crooks and it doesn't really matter all that much which of them gets in there. That mood of dissapointment, futility and indifference between alternatives seems to dove tail rather nicely with what Neitzsche concieved. We're a country underwhelmed by scandal, and where morality has become ethreal, where that line in the sand is a whisp that dances farther and farther away to the tune of whatever lobby group strikes the fancy of our childlike elites. One moment gay marriage is fashionable, soon we here that Belgium is adopting poligamy - I'm now waiting for constitutional scholar Peter Hogg to step forward and debase his intellectual incumin in exorting the supreme court to bring in poligamy as "we aren't going to win the gold medal on this one, Beligum and the Netherlands are already ahead of us."

Tolerance is nothing more than code for nihilism. Its a failure to be able to distinguish between the merits of competing views, its a smashing of the moral compass and a loss of direction for a society. The exclusion of the ability to distinguish that which is more worthy from that which is not colors much of our public debate. Every instance you hear some pinko NDP supporter raging against corporation and whatever percentage of the population owns x amount of wealth and demanding transfers in wealth - consider on what level it makes sense to demand such legalized theft 1) your a greedy jerk who just wants free money 2) your of the delusional persuasion that your mere existance entitles you to wealth as your no better or worse than anyone else - even if you work 2 monthes a year before collecting EI as opposed to working an 80 hour week.

Ironically it falls now primarily to the Catholic and evangelical churches, Neitzsche's favourite whipping boys, to fight some insurgent action against the collective moral shrug that has over taken western civilization. It may be Kissenger's rear guard against inevitable defeat, or simply preserving the library through a dark age for a resnassaince. Which leaves someone as agnostic as myself in an odd position, believing in truth leaves me the strange comrade in arms of organizations whom beyond my believe in enduring and factual truths I don't necessarily have a great deal of agreement with. Which puts me in a strange position perhaps somewhat akin to Christopher Hitchens. I'm not a subscriber to religion...but at least they believe in something.

Ressurection

2005-10-05T01:54:00.000-06:00

For any of the squeemish sort inclined to flee the room the moment religion is mentioned, I'm not about to talk about Calvary Hilll or any such thing. My blog was dead, now it is not. *cough* I swear I mean it this time. There is simply so much to talk about these days be it a golden handshake for everyone's favorite gum expensing civil servant or the impending glory of the Edmonton Oilers season* And yes, while I've been pulling an Andrew Coyne and vanishing for long periods of time inexplicably I was watching the basketball playoffs, CFL football, playing video games, reading novels, working summer jobs and getting back into the groove in law school. But the last month or so has involved me putting on my political hat again, with all the conspiring, muttering and scheming that accompanies that - so of course I began to miss my soap box. So back by popular (my) demand my musings on life, politics and sports!

* Presuming one of there goaltenders recalls the object of hockey is to keep the puck out of the net.

Back in Black

2005-06-23T23:03:00.000-06:00

So I said I'd resume posting a month and a few weeks ago, and its a Thursday night not a Monday..well I had a bit of a vacation. In any event while I've been catching up on my reading, watching some TV, playing video games and catching some cinema, the Good Ship Tory seems to have run aground. With the defection of intellectual heavy weight Belinda (Just call me Barbie) Stronarch, we lost a tight vote to disolve parliament and hold an election while we had the momentum on our side. This will be her most significant impact on politics ever, stiffling at least momentarily needed change. On the other hand the IQ of the Conservative Caucus has likely skyrocketed since then.

The polls seem to be back where they were at the begining of this sponsorship mess which tells me a number of things a) we really need to fire our communications people, our message is not being sold. We need some innovation in that particular area, hell at this point bring in the guys from Axe Bodyspray and we'd be doing better at getting our message out than we currently are. b) Most voters have the memory of a goldfish when it comes to political scandals. I've said it before and I'll say it again, we need to fight the Liberals on the issues not just wave the bloody sponsorship shirt. Were I in Stephen's place I'd talk less about corruption and more about the fact that there was more than 9 billion dollars in surplus, and that the Liberals and NDP in their infinite wisdom don't happen to think any of that belongs back with the people who make it.

I personally would love to make the next election about the arrogance of a government who thinks they know how to spend people's money better than the people themselves whom they "claim" to represent.

As Monty Python would say "Now for something completely different"...

The NBA playoffs came to a dramatic finish with the San Antonio Spurs edging the Detriot Pistons in game 7 of the NBA finals. The first 4 games were blow outs, but the last three games of that series have been some of the most amazingly competitive basketball you could ever hope to watch. Congradulations to all those athletes who made a series that the "media didn't want" into "must see tv".

On another note...

If you see one movie this summer see Batman Begins - I can't decide whether Christian Bale out does Val Kilmer in making Batman darker and edgy, that comparison is something I'd consider too close to call. In any event, the story takes Batman where Batman should be - a slightly warped, twisted, dark path, a truely Gothic Gotham punctuated with a measure of sardonic humor. Michael Caine is outstanding as Alfred, on the other hand I'm fairly sure you could ask Michael Caine to play virtually any party and he'd nail it. While having Liam Neeson in the part of the villian and Morgan Freeman as Batman's equivalent of Q made the casting simply outstanding.

While I'm plugging movies, I don't think its still in theaters but when it comes out on video do see Kingdom of Heaven. The battle sequences are stunning, and the medieval pagetry and turmoil of warring armies is incredible. That and the middle eastern cinematography provides a stunning backdrop to the movie. If you like sword, this movie is for you.

And finally, I promise the next post will follow this one far more quickly than this one the last.

Alright..school's out for summer! Regular Blogging to resume as of Monday

2005-04-29T17:45:00.000-06:00

I tappered off there for a while and have only chimed in when I had a few spare moments. But I'm off to Manitoba over the weekend, so once I'm home regular blogging will resume from Manitoba! And believe me I have rage and bile directed towards the socialist machine at the moment - 49% of all income earned goes to taxes! ABSOLUTELY ridiculous.

Paul Martin and his Love affair with Alfonso Gagliano

2005-04-27T18:09:00.000-06:00

(via the Shotgun)

Paul Martin knew nobody in Quebec, he was on the outside and didn't talk to anyone who had anything to do with it...

They how does he explain this video!

A political obituary: RIP Finance Minister Paul Martin

2005-04-27T17:23:00.000-06:00

Paul Martin, former finance minister famed for reducing the deficit, fighting spending, cutting taxes and overall financial rectitude. He died yesterday in an orgy of spending, some would say he passed away after selling his soul to the socialists. The former finance minister is survived by spineless Prime Minister Dithers, who is lacking in scruple and principal, willing to do anything to desperately cling to power and a party fallen into disrepute. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce and Canadian Council of Chief Executive Officers released statements mourning the previous finance ministers passing, saying it was a "sad day for the business community that Paul Martin had been part of for so long" but they stated they would continue to push for economic growth and tax reductions wherever they could be found "because that's what our Finance Minister would have wanted us to do."

So long Finance Minister Martin, I'm sure you'll be remembered fondly. I'm sure Mr.Dithers and his new socialist compariots will be able to explain to Canadians why they said no to 340,000 new jobs in Canada. I'm sure the business community will understand a highly nuanced answer to their current "et tu bruti?" Just like I'm sure Dithers can explain selling out his past, while Jack Layton tries to explain why he's suddenly "cool with corruption". "Hey a few more billions in social programs - what was that I was talking about before..corruption..ah forget about it. What's a few hundred million in graft? We're all socialists here now right?"

Apparantly there is no one including himself that Paul Martin won't sell out in order to cling desperately to power. While Smirkin' Jack has simply shown that the scent of corruption from vote buying, can be fanned away as long as each of his MPs has their vote bought at 250 million dollars a piece in spending. Buying votes to try and slither through a vote buying scandal - isn't it ironic?

Election Buzz - Good time to be a Tory?

2005-04-24T01:43:00.000-06:00

I think the most apt metaphor I've heard yet is that an election, like a war often starts because once the mechanisms to begin it have been put in place their very momentum drives towards the logical conclusion. Once the trains are schedualed it seems a bit late to be going back.

Mps are talking to their constitutents right now - at least the Conservative ones about whether they would like an election or not. But really, does anyone believe the question isn't whether "would you like an election now?" but "would you be terribly upset if we had an election now?" Its a slaes pitch as much as it is a consultation.

I'm quite certain that if Martin tries to make an issue out of the timing of the election, he'll find the impracticality of having an election in late December/early January thrown in his face, the litigous cloud hanging over the Gomery commission and the fact all the witnesses will be heard and Canadians can come to their own conclusions as a result. On the whole, I don't think "we didn't need to have an election yet" is not a very good election issue. I think it also becomes a whore election issue when its held in contrast to "there was systematic corruption and theft within the Liberal Party".

And really, politics tends to be a bloodsport. Hence if your opponent is down you kick him - repeatedly. Right now the Liberal party is suffering from disunity and low moral. If you speak to its active supporters alot of them are pondering sitting the election out, their dishearted - they don't want to go get yelled at while knocking on doors. You hear alot of people who casually describe their political leanings as liberal say - but "not that kind of liberal" While in parliament, in some appearances Paul Martin is looking 80 years old. While if you watch question period many liberal Mps seems to have all the joy and vigour to them of a convict on death row. Where it a military engagement you'd think they were about to break and run seeking to save themselves.

On the other hand, has Stephen Harper ever appeared more confident? Has he ever appeared more in control of the situation? He's even showed some passion in decrying the activies of the government. His personal popularity is growing in the polls, regarding both his desirablity as a prime minister and his trustworthyness. While his part now cruises around 35-36% in the polls which constitutes a strong minority and begins to knock on the door to a majority depending on how the chips fall. Harper is looking Prime Ministerial,and he's been quite adept at inocculating himself at many of the extremist changes leveled at him.

Ipsos Reid in their polling for Canwest is indicating the Paul Martin's televised remix of his litany of excuses just may backfire.

As part of the survey, 377 of the 2,000 interviews were conducted on the evening of Martin's nationally televised address. The poll found that of those interviewed that night, there was a "spike" in support for the Conservatives. Bricker cautioned that because of that smaller one-night sample size, the results can only be considered "in a directional nature."

While Team Martin while it still expected to cruise to power announced a number of "star candidates". The Globe and Mail reports today that this time around its "Team Tory" or "Harper's Heroes" if you will that are announcing a slick starting line up.

Last week there was already the announcement that former Quebec Liberal cabinet minister Lawrence Cannon was planning to run in the Quebec riding of Pontiac. This is a riding the Conservatives have polled strongly in before, with a high profile candidate I can only expect we'll be very competetive there. Given that the riding is partially encompassing Gatineau I sincerely doubt it will go to the seperatists, which I think gives us a fairly even shot at it.

While Mike Harris' old front bench seems to be lining up to make the shift to federal politics. Tony Clement is set to take another run at things, since Ontario seems to be comming around. I'm glad to hear this, I genuinely felt bad for Tony. After he lost his provincial seat, the federal leadership campaign, and then the federal seat it really seemed that an articulate and intellegent guy like him deserved better. Good to see he's going to get another kick at the can.

John Baird had already announced his intent to transition to federal politics. While yesterday he was formally joined by Jim Flaherty - a former Harris cabinet minister and two time provincial leadership contender. Flaherty has cabinet minister material written all over him. He may even have some coat tails in Ontario.

Elsie Wayne aka Halifax's Raging Granny is pondering comming out of retirement to continue her distinguished tenure of public service. A Mulroneyite Mp Barry Turner is feeling nostalgic about his brief stint as a parliamentarian and pondering a come back.

Heck Blair Lancaster, a former Miss Canada is intending to run for us. This will only continue the trend if she should win of Conservatives Mps being able to claim "we're prettier than you."

Former Global news anchor Peter Kent is likely to run in Toronto for us. While across the country Russ Courtnal who has a bit of experience playing right wing is seriously weighing considering a move into politics.

Now seriously who wouldn't like to see Russ Courtnal as Minister for Ameteur Sport? How many ministers could we send out to sports functions were people would get their autographs?

Reynolds is indicating that there are going to be more prominent candiates comming forwards. While the Liberals so I've heard are simply going to keep the same candidate of record, unless they drop out. Anyone with a Conservative inclination is now smelling blood in the air and throwing their hat in the ring. While whom have the Liberals announced?

I rather expect we'll see a number of Liberal Mps decide "they'd like to spend more time with their families" or are suffering from "nagging health problems" and various other reasons to take early retirement as opposed to venturing into the next electoral campaign.

It's a good time to be a Tory.

Bye, Bye Mr. Liberalman Guy

2005-04-22T17:41:00.000-06:00

I'd like to start off my assessment with a musical response watching last night's video. That's right kids, hum along to the tune of American Pie.

Bye, bye Mr. Liberalman Guy
You took your party to the people
But their pity ran dry
Now those good old boys
Those conservative guys
are singing this will be the day that you die!

Paul Martin

Well after the musical interlude you can graspe the substance of how I feel about Paul Martin's video presentation. To be fair the video itself was very good. Martin's demeanour seemed sincere, and his delivery of his speach was good. Stylistically, Martin gets full marks. The problem is, that a speach cannot subsist on style alone. While Paul Martin may try and plead with people not to punish the Liberals for the sponsorship scandal, the simple fact of the matter is - the Liberals stole money from the Canadian taxpayers and rna election campaigns with it.

You can sugar coat that all you want, but the fact of the matter is - it happened, and its absolutely disgusting. I don't think Martin's mea culpa where he admitted that he was negligent in not having seen what was happening to the money helps him politically. It may preserve people's good opinion of him - i.e. he was only incompetent not criminal. However, I don't think it does anything for the Liberal brand at all.

In fact I think the entire exercise of going on national television during prime time to bring the sponsorhip scandal to people's attention as some sort of national crisis was about the worst thing Paul Martin could have done. Perhaps, he's made it slightly more difficult for Harper to call an election. But not really, Martin is essentially promising a Decemeber election - that's premised upon legal action by Chretien not interferring in the Gommery report. I think if you asked people "Would you rather have an election in June or in Decemeber" they'd pick June. Furthermore, I don't genuinely think outside of political junkies that many people ever truly get fired up about an election. They just reluctantly shuffle out when they have too.

Furthermore, I think some people are going to be turned off that Martin went off TV to do some shameless self promotion. It wasn't the nation's business, it was rather transparently an attempt to save his own hide. Which is typically liberal, completely unable to distinguish between the national interest and the interests of the Liberal Party.

Stephen Harper

Some people have criticized his delivery from last night. I thought he did okay. It wasn't a knock it out of the park, ooze JFK style charisma speach, but what he did do is he looked like a leader. More importantly he moved back and forth between english and french fairly smoothly. He also made a pitch directly to Quebecers. I think that alone accomplished a lot for him. Firstly, he presented himself as a younger, reasonable figure. He didn't seem scary at all. He also demonstrated his billingualism which helps dispell the accusation that he's some sort of crazy westerner - as everyone knows crazy westerners ne parle pas francais.

On the substance he came out swinging in rejecting everything Paul Martin had to say. Well, you'd pretty much expect opposing from the opposition wouldn't you. He hammered home his points fairly ruthlessly, and I was pleased to see him making his pitch to Quebec rather strenously. Conservatives have been gaining some traction there, and its important to try and lure every federalist voter away from the BQ. I don't care if they vote for us, or for the NDP but if the Bloc polls at 60% that would be very..very bad for the country. I think his call for federalist voters to rally around the Conservative party and for Canadians as a whole to do so, went along way to difusing the Scott Brison "we are the cause and solution to this national unity crisis" argument. It was ridiculous to begin with but Harper's statement that "the Liberal Party can no longer go to Quebec with clean hands to represent the federalist cause" had a ring of truth to it. I personally think it will help us in Ontario. Ontario always seems nervous about upsetting Quebec, kind of like whipped boyfriend desperately afraid to upset his girl so they vote Liberal to "keep the country together"...well that argument is no longer on the table for the Liberals. I will feel my dose of gleeful spite if that begins to work against them.

But it's no secret I'm a Conservative. If Stephen Harper came out there and offered a Dean scream, and yelled "I hate the Liberals I want them all to die!" I would be "You tell them Harper!"

Gilles Duceppe

Duceppe scares me. He is far too good at what he does, which unfortunately is work to promote the disolution of the country. Stylistically he delivers his message with a passion the other leaders seem to lack, he seems genuinely enraged and indignant and its rather infectious. Furthermore, he stays perfectly on message. I kind of wish he was on our side instead of a seperatist and a quasi-communist. You have to stop yourself from nodding along as he makes his points..he's developed into a terribly effective politician.

Jack Layton

Alright..I can't stand Jack Layton. He comes across as slimy, insincere and on some sort of happy pills to me. But if you can get past that, and the fact he's a flaming socialist I guess your okay. I know I wouldn't consider voting for him unless my other options were Mao Zedong, and Joe Stalin, but if your into the "lets spend money on everything imaginable" mindset and think money grows on trees rather than being produced by trade and industry Jack probably sent out good vibes to you. He talked about all the pet lefty projects. On the other hand, he dissed Liberal corruption but came out and said 'let's make a deal'. That seems rather unprincipled to me. On the other hand I think socialists are thieves so they may not have the same perception as I do.

Reader's Digest Version: Martin shouldn't have given his opponents a platform on prime time to bash him. Nor should he have drawn more attention to the sponsorship program. I'm predicting this desperate gambit blows up in his face.

Pope Benedict XVI

2005-04-21T13:34:00.000-06:00

And now the world has a new Pope. Cue the screaming from the leftist masses, as it turns out to be a "ultraconservative pope." Worse still he's an "ultraconservative European", after all they could have dealt with a conservative if he was from some sort of different background. However, a conservative European, which seems to be a semi-endangered species, outrages the poor lefties of the world. Benedict XVI is essentially the antithesis of what liberals wanted coming out of the papal elections. They wanted a pope who was liberal and south american or african, or at least a liberal. Instead they got the man the Italian newspapers have dubbed the "German shepard", a play upon the guardian roll he's played over his church's doctrine. Benedict XVI is far less likely than John Paul II was to budge on changing church doctrine in any substantial way.

This doesn't effect me terribly much one way or another. However, I have been amused by the beating of chest, the tearing of hair, and rending of garments among the supposedly Catholic left. Apparantly the fact their leader isn't going to enact policies that validate their personal beliefs and wants upsets them. Not previously knowing anything about Benedict XVI if his election reduces Andrew Sullivan to hysteria and outrages the folks at Democratic Underground - the Pope's stock is rising in my eyes.

Apparantly the left everywhere was expecting the new Pope to come out and proclaim himself in favour of all their pet religious causes - after having been given a makeover by the guys from Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. The chance of that happening when a lot of elderly Catholics appointed by a prior conservative Pope are deciding who suceeds him? Nadda, but evidently hope springs eternal and all that.

But the whole the Pope is a Nazis thing is rediculous. You can't blame the guy for having been born in Germany. He was forced to attend a manditory youth organization. He was later conscripted, and then deserted. He didn't kill anyone, and there is no indication he's even the least bit anti-semetic.

As to his being a NeoCon, and his appointment somehow orastrated by President Bush and Karl Rove... I'm really not going to dignify that with a comment. I think my laughter will suffice.

Regarding all the pet peaves of the left, the lack of female priests, celibacy, abbortions, condoms, and the church's dim view of homosexuality for the most part they're faily silly. If you want to see female priests there are any number of prodestant demoninations that can accomodate you.

If you think its wrong that priests can't marry, unless they are Eastern Rite, how is that any of your concern anyhow? If they could would you suddenly be signing up to be a cleric? No - didn't think so. Although it is strange that the Eastern European priests are allowed to marry while the others cannot.

Abbortions are up to the individual involved. Whether the church approves or not is irrelevant. They may be necessary, but it would be silly to expect the church to deem them morally laudable.

As to the charge that the Pope is causing millions to die in Africa from aids because he tells people that its wrong to use contraceptives, that seems to ignore the fact he also tells them not to have sex outside of marriage. I'm of the impression they problem wouldn't need to be wearing condoms if they stopped having sex outside those paramaters. On the other hand, most people certaintly don't listen to that advice, I'm not sure why the left thinks that everyone in Africa responds robbotically to pronouncements on condoms but not on sexuality in any other way shape or form.

As to whether the church should send out feel good vibes to homosexuals, well they have this thing called the bible which isn't particular keen on homosexuality. Considering that particular book is what they base their faith on, it might be a bit odd to just ignore its stance on the issue.

The great danger in making any of these changes is that the Catholic church would in substance become no different than Anglicans or various other prodestant denominations such as the United Church of Canada. Well, the decorating in the Catholic Church might remain more gothic until the new female priests descided it should be in pastel. But in all seriousness, all of these positions have been adopted by existing prodestant denominations. If you want them so badly - why aren't you in one of those churches? Or better yet - why are those churches hemoraging people?

The argument always presented is that the Catholic church is becoming a relic, making itself irrelevent, and people will stop going unless they do x,y,z and change almost entitely. Every church following that prescription is becoming irrelevent as it is. Thus its difficult to pin down how that's suposed to help.

When religion becomes nothing more than a wishy washy hour or so a week of sitting down and being told some entity loves you and forgives everything you've ever done wrong, it entirely defeats the point. If its morally okay for you to do everything you want to do, what guidance are you suposed to draw out of that? There isn't any, its simply there to soothe your conscience. There's really no point, if you just want to do whatever you want athesim is the logical alternative. If your going to make religion an empty shell, why even bother?

The problem for many on the left is that they suspect that their belief system is actually immoral, and they really want someone else, in this case the Catholic Church to sign off on it for their own feelings of validation. That seems to be something its not prepared to do - good.

A Conservative Majority Government?

2005-04-16T23:23:00.000-06:00

Standing at 36% in the polls according the latest Ipsos Reid poll done for CTV, the Conservative Party seems to be inching towards majority territory. The Ipso Reid Poll places the Liberals at 27% in the polls, while the NDP trails at 15%, while the Green sit back at 7%.

What isn't mentioned is that would leave the Bloc at 15% nationally! Which is well.. something resembling 60% in Quebec...

I tend to think that's a bit high, so for the sake of argument I've elected to list party support as Conservative 36%, Liberal 27%, NDP 16%, BQ 13% and Green 8%.

Why? The remainder of the Ipsos poll seems to conflict with its national numbers. 36 +27 +35 + 7 = 85%

At the same time they give the regional data for Quebec as being 41% BQ, Liberal 25, Conservative 16%, NDP 8%, Green Party 6%.

So for the sake of some sort of logical consistency, I've shuffled the numbers and I put the BQ at 13% national, directed 1% towards the NDP as I thought they seemed to be quite substantially down in this survey and 1% to the Greens as they seem to be catching a lot of Liberal support. That decision is admittedly somewhat arbitrary, but I think it entirely possible.

Next I went to the UBC seat projector, splitting the 9.7% Liberal freefall between the Conservatives, the Bloc and the Greens (and arguably the NDP as I left them higher than Ipsos did), what results is A CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY GOVERNMENT.

According the the UBC projections a 160 seat, five seat Tory majority would be the result at the polls. The Bloc Quebecois recieve 67 seats to become the Official Opposition, while the Liberals drop to 3rd place hanging onto only 52 seats, while the NDP increase their seat share significantly recieving 28.

This prediction has the Conservatives sweeping through Western Canada like some sort of angel of vengence and picking up 81 seats, however, I'd expect we'd recieve a few less than that . (the model gives us a few that are within a couple percent.) According to this prediction the Western caucus of the Liberal Party would be Ralph Goodale and Stephen Owens. In Manitoba the projections are predicting the political deaths of Reg Alcock, Anita Neville and Raymond Simard.

Those three ridings are Liberal strongholds, I have difficulty believing as a former Manitoban that we can knock of Reg Alcock..and the idea of Saint Boniface going Conservative is a bit hard to swallow too. Anita Neville on the other hand is a weak MP, I can see a strong campaign knocking her off. None the less, perhaps a massive shift in voter intentions will turn most of the province that sweet, sweet Tory blue.

Saskatchewan leaves only Goodale as the sole non-Tory. While our Saskatchewan troopers seem to manage to ward off the socialist hordes in the province much better than than do provincially.

BC is rather interesting, we take the Liberal's lunch money there as they bleed support to the right and to the left. Its nice to see three way lefty vote splitting in BC - I knew vote splitting would be good for us someday. I can see Jack Layton starting up the Unite the Left conference sometime after this election if the Greens keep polling so high. None the less, the Dippers pick up some Liberal seats, and so do we. Cadman wins in a walk if he remains. Oh yes and in turncoat news - Keith Martin may well be knocked off by the NDP - huzzah!

Back in Ontario, as many as 66 seats go our way, with another 4 or 5 going NDP, while the Liberals fall to 28 seats in Ontario mostly in the Toronto area with Scarborough seeming to be the Liberal stronghold every other regional centre seems to be penetrated at least partially by the CPC or the NDP.

Quebec - if the Bloc have crunched numbers like these its no wonder they seem to have a hard on for an election. The model is predicting the Liberals reduced to 8 seats in Quebec. With the Bloc Quebecois winning the remaining 67. Such Liberal cabinet ministers as Liza Frulla, Pierre Pettigrew and Jean Lapierre could be suffled off this electoral coil.

The CPC seems to have a strong chance of winning the ridings of Louis - Saint Laurent which is our Quebec lieutenant Josee Vanier's riding in Quebec City, and a riding just outside Hull - Pontiac which is essentially split three ways between the Liberals, Conservatives and the Bloc according to these projections. Were I Stephen Harper I would have a small army of volunteers invading these two ridings and be there personally on a very frequent basis. Both of these ridings went PC under Mulroney, and Pontiac has gone Conservative under every Conservative administration since Diefenbaker in the late 50s except for Joe Clark (he doesn't count anyway). These two ridings are musts for us.

In the Atlantic provinces, PEI looks like it will cough up a seat or two for us, Lib 2, CPC 2. While it would seem we pick up 1 extra seat in Newfoundland 4 Lib 3 Cons, while in NS a few more seats gained with Scott Brison may well be regretting jumping on the wrong bandwagon at the wrong time. (Conservatives 5, Lib 3, NDP 3) While in NB we gain some ground as well. (Conservative 6, Lib 3, NDP 1).

While the North splits with the Yukon and Nunavut going Liberal and the NWT going NDP.

To get an idea of the margins involved in this projection the Conservatives are predicted to have 115 safe seats! The Bloc to have 55, the Liberals 21 and the NDP 15.

Read that again closely - there are only 21 safe Liberal seats according to projections based on their current share of the vote. Even being generous and saying there are at least another dozen or two safe Liberal seats - that puts three quarters of the Liberal's current seat share in play.

Is it just me or is Paul Martin starting to look an aweful lot like John Turner - all hype no performance? Not to mention facing the potential of an ignoble end.

Update - Just a thought here but it seems to me like the CBC poll that put the NDP at 24% is looking fairly rogue. I haven't seen another poll yet putting them nearly that high. I'm going to predict they slide in somewhere between 16 and 20% in the polls. I think right now Jack Layton's biggest opponent is not necessarily Paul Martin - but the Green Party. Really..in a perfect world (if your a Dipper) those are your people.

But if the NDP and Greens slip the far left, I'm happy that we don't have to break out the "socialist hordes will eat your children" chant.

Lower Taxes = Growth, High Taxes = Stagnation

2005-04-15T02:32:00.000-06:00

Larry Kudlow at the NRO has an excellent article called Evidence, Evidence and more Evidence. Far too many on the left fall into the knee jerk position that punishing people for earning money is *good*. From a moral point of view, expropriation is good why? The rational the left relies upon is that "its better for everyone", which really is a utilitarian argument to simply justify theft. What else can taking your money, without your consent and offering nothing of benifet to you in return be called other than theft?

Some on the left will claim that these projects are "social insurance" that everyone has the potential to benefit from. Okay, then tell me why everyone has to pay for projects that benifet solely minority groups? That's not helping the majority. Nor is health care spending structured into the form of insurance where one person is paying into his own ability to claim, he's paying into everyone's ability to claim in this specific instance and essentially relying on future generations to continue to do so.

Now for all their pet projects various leftists will assert that high taxes are good, and start wagging fingers at people whom have reduced taxes like Mike Harris as being irresponsible, reckless extra. You might want to notice that the statistics they never point to is that post-tax cut revenue in Harrisite Ontario was higher, than pre-tax cut revenue. Hmm..you might just say that the problem wasn't cutting taxes, it was that Harris continued to spend more money rather than showing restraint.

Nor does the left like to hear about this little thing called the Laffter curve, which illustrates that the higher levels of taxes result in decreasing revenues and lower taxes result in increasing revenues. Why? Compliance and increased private investment. If taxes are raised to an absurdly high level all sort of legal maneuvers can be attempted to skirt around high taxes. For example I might choose to run part of my company out of the Bahamas, or take up residency there to avoid paying taxes, or various rules apply to corporations, trusts and tax exemptions can be finegled to evade the long arm of Revenue Canada and the IRS. Seriously, who do you think is better at that game accounts and attornies billing at 800 dollars an hour or a 9-5 government employee whose waiting to retire.

Its rare for me to post an article in its entirity but I'll post the Kudlow argument below, it gives concrete examples of what is a simple economic truth - low taxes are good, high taxes are bad. IT IS NOT BETTER FOR EVERYONE TO HAVE A PUNITIVE TAXATION SCHEME, its STIFLES GROWTH, it makes EVERYONE POORER and LESS LIKELY TO BE EMPLOYED. Jack Layton if your out there, take a read of this - you might learn something.

Evidence, Evidence, and More EvidenceLower tax rates spur economic growth.

An opinion piece by reporter Anna Bernasek in last Sunday’s New York Times actually argues that there’s no real evidence that lower tax rates spur economic growth. Bernasek finds a couple of economists to back up her idea before concluding that tax “reform based on a notion that taxes are bad for the economy is just that: a notion not backed by strong evidence.”

Let me beg to differ in a very strong way.

Before making her strange assertions, Bernasek should have referenced the work of Harvard economists Martin Feldstein and Greg Mankiw, along with numerous articles published by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Then there’s the work of Columbia economist Glenn Hubbard and Princeton economist Harvey Rosen. These are no small thinkers when it comes to tax theory. Each has found a high correlation between lower tax rates and higher economic growth.

Then there’s the Nobel-prize-winning Edward Prescott of Arizona State and Robert Mundell of Columbia. Add two more sound minds to the lower-tax, higher-growth list. Sure, the above economists have been Republican advisors at one time or another, but Bernasek could have found a trove of data contrary to her thesis had she looked to the “non-partisan” OECD, IMF, or Congressional Budget Office.

Then there’s the real-world evidence. Let’s start overseas.

Margaret Thatcher’s tax cuts had made Britain the strongest European Union economy until Ireland passed it with even lower tax rates. Russia and almost all the former Soviet bloc countries in East Europe have moved to low flat-tax-rate systems. Western Europe, until recently, has not. Consequently, their economic growth rate has fallen 25 percent behind the pace set in the U.S. over the last decade.

A recent BusinessWeek article notes that only last year “Germany was among the ringleaders of an effort to force low-tax countries like Estonia to raise their rates.” Now Germany is joining the race to cut taxes by slashing their corporate income tax. BusinessWeek continues, “Chances for just such economy-boosting tax cuts are looking better.” (My italics.)

Back at home, real-world evidence throughout the 20th century shows a stark contrast between high- and low-tax policies. In the 1920s, the Harding-Coolidge-Mellon tax cuts produced the Roaring Twenties. But repeated tax increases by Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt produced and prolonged the Great Depression.

John F. Kennedy vowed to get the economy moving again after the sluggish growth of the high-tax Truman-Eisenhower years. JFK made good on his promise when he lowered the top income-tax rate from 91 percent to 70 percent. The result was the 1960’s boom. Twenty years later, Ronald Reagan turned stagflation into the 1980’s boom by slashing the top personal tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent.

President Clinton, you might recall, raised taxes in his first term, but lowered them in his second term, contributing to a burst of investment and growth. Note the difference. In his first four years, the economy increased at a 3.2 percent annual rate. But his next four years produced a 4.2 percent economic pace.

Are we to throw out all this overwhelming historical evidence? Hardly. More likely, former-Sen. Connie Mack, the head of President Bush’s tax-reform commission, will recommend a new tax plan for the U.S. that will borrow heavily from the path-breaking flat-tax-reform work of Steve Forbes, Dick Armey, and Art Laffer. No amount of academic-style econometric finagling can take away from the historical evidence that flatter and simpler taxes are the best way to maximize our economy’s potential to grow.

To think otherwise only defies the laws of common sense. Higher after-tax returns to work, investment, and entrepreneurial risk-taking will promote more employment, more capital formation, and more wealth. If it pays more to produce then people will produce more. As Dr. Laffer put it three decades ago, when you tax something more you get less of it. When you tax something less you get more of it. Higher after-tax rewards always generate a greater supply of work effort and investment capital.

In our capitalist free-market system, strengthening the link between effort and reward has proven to work time and again. I respectfully disagree with Anna Bernasek and the New York Times. More tax freedom will always fuel our free economy.

— Larry Kudlow, NRO’s Economics Editor, is host of CNBC’s Kudlow & Company and author of the daily web blog, Kudlow’s Money Politic$.

Thanks Larry for telling it like it is.

Manitoba Liberal Party Considers Name Change

2005-04-11T13:00:00.000-06:00

In more news related to Liberals trying to..distance themselves from Liberals, the Manitoba Liberals are considering changing their name.

Although the Manitoba Liberals aren't much of a force in provincial politics, I can't help but relish the thought of all three prairie provinces having no party that dare claims the name Liberal. Perhaps, one day here too Liberal will be thought a slur and a curse word. This may be far too early for such speculation, but one can dream.

Ekos Poll - CPC 36.2% LPC 25% (There is a God)

2005-04-11T03:12:00.000-06:00

At this point aside from triumphalism, feelings of complete validation and verbal fist pumping I don't know what to say. Well actually I do - this is the best non-sexual thing ever! The Liberals are spiraling downwards towards oblivion and finally the Conservative cause has some wind in its sails. This is simply fantastic, finally we may see what Canada so desperately needs - Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

I think many of us harboured the belief that perhaps Eastern Canada would simply continue to shrug their shoulders and say "Well, that's just politics for you." But no, it would seem that the foul stench of corruption and the listlessness of a tired and completely uninspired Martin government has caused them to see the light!

That's right, it is has been said vote for integrity and a tax cut and lo but yea shall be saved.

Perhaps I should have been slightly more upbeat about this rather than harbouring my doubts. When the normal appologists for the Liberal Party waffled uncomfortably and were speechless. To see Kinsella at a loss, and the Calgary Grit thoroughly discouraged is a rare sight (although CG must be used to being rejected politically..living in Calgary).

All my fellow conservatives out there, irregardless of your stripe - I direct you to the latest Ekos poll and suggest you thank whatever form of diety, entity or universal truth you deem appropriate - either that or simply feel really smug that the Liberals finally seem to have found enough rope to hang themselves.

Find the details at the Star - here, here and here. Heck find it in french here.

Nationally its the CPC at 36.2%, the LPC at 25%, the NDP at 20.5% the Bloc at 12.5% and the Greens at 5%

A regional breakdown has us at 40% in Ontario, with the Liberals at 33% NDP 21%.

In a spectacular development Conservatives are in second place in Quebec! No..your not misreading that SECOND PLACE IN QUEBEC. Although its a distant second.

Dans la belle province

BQ - 54%
CPC - 18%
LPC - 15%
NDP - 10%

This means we have a real shot at electing some MPs from Quebec, and even stealing some of the federalist vote back from the Bloc if we can prove ourselves to them.

In Alberta Liberal support has fallen to 10%, I think all Alberta can join me now is telling Anne McClellan to start cleaning out her desk!

In less good news the NDP seems to have surged ahead in BC, Saskatchewan and Manitoba they're at 37%. Which likely means we picked up only some of the Liberal vote and alot of the Liberal vote flipped to the NDP most likely the Liberal urban vote. On the other hand - Liberals are still experience political death so I'm okay with that.

This poll has Conservatives up 10% since Feburary and the NDP up 5%. While the Liberals have taken a beating down from 40% or so to 25%.

The Gomery Inquiry and Sponsorship Scandal

2005-04-09T22:04:00.000-06:00

I outlined my reaction and a few thoughts moving forward in my past post on the subject. At the moment I simply wish to take the time to offer a sincere thank you to Captain Ed of Captain's Quarters, who set the ball rolling in bringing the relevations of the inquiry to the public's conscience. He did so in defiance of a law gagging the media, but then again the law of Canada is not the law of the United States. However, his firm belief that people have the right to know and the importance of freedom of expression is heartening and reassurases me that the internet is not simply a means of dispensing pornography and cheap junk via ebay.

For those of you whom have not had the opporunity to puruse the media's coverage of the Inquiry's recent relevations. I'd direct you to CTV 's summary here and the CBC here. While the fellows at PolSpy have a rather extensive series of links found here.

To add to the humiliation of the Liberal Party of Canada, the Alberta Liberal Party which essentially involves the same cast of characters as the Liberal Party of Canada (Alberta), has a leader whose opennly musing about changing the party's name to distance the provincial party from the federal party. There is a great deal of irony in wanting to distance yourself..from yourself, but it seems in keeping with Martin's strategy of being a "new" Liberal government even if there seemed to be a lot of continuity. Changing the party's name is just taking that cynical ploy one step farther.

While it would seem the one of Edmonton's Liberal MPs David Kilgour is contemplating retirement or defection. I find this wholly understandable as Kilgour is actually a fairly decent guy - for a Liberal. Admittedly that's likely because Kilgour is a Liberal by convience or coincidence as much as anything else, having run afoul of Mulroney over his opposition to the GST and was kicked out of the PC caucus. I had the opporunity to listen to Mr. Kilgour speak perhaps a month ago, and he spoke about involving Westerners and those from the east more in government and broadening the decision making process beyond the interests of the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal axis. He also spoke of democratic reform and senate reform. I being slightly incredulous upon hearing a Liberal say any such thing inquired why he sat as a Liberal MP supporting those who perpetuate the establishment he'd just spoken out against. His response "I really don't have any good answer to that, it's something I struggle with." If Kigour either retires because of this or becomes the first PC-Liberal-Conservative MP by crossing the floor, power to him. It will be the response of a decent man to indecency in his own party - and a travesty far worse than the GST.

A New Hope - Scandle, Gomery and Beyond

2005-04-09T21:36:00.000-06:00

With the sponsorship scandal rocking the nation - there is now hope. Hope that Canadians will take a hard look at the Liberal Party and the mealy mouthed homilies they muttered for years. Even the most cynical or naive among us, cannot say that the Liberal party which claims to "care" and "represent Canadian values" has not severely compromised itself by illustrating systemic corruption, deciet and woeful arrogance. Those who once claimed that even if a program was horribly ineffective "it sent the right message", must now ask themselves whether an ineffective program here which pilfered their money and which ultimately has sent one message - that the Liberal Party believes the people of Canada are guilable sheep whom can be bought off and brainwashed with their own money.

The Gomery Inquiry has begun to probe the seedy underbelly of Canadian politics and revealed palm greasing, wardheeling, graft, corruption and criminality that one normally associates with the politics of more than a hundred years past, or in a more modern context it alludes the imagery of organized crime. Fake invoices, and brown envelopes full of money being paid in order to recieve favours, and phone calls demanding money to "protect the contract" as it were. These despicable practices should shock and dismay every honest, hardworking Canadian taxpayer.

This is not a partisan issue, this is an ethical issue. Its an issue which calls into question the lawfulness, the integrity and virtue of the Liberal Party of Canada as an entity. Systematic corruption and participating in the defrauding of Canadian taxpayers, is not solely an issue for Conservatives to gnash their teeth about. This is a non-partisan issue. If you've voted Liberal in the past - your party has betrayed you. If your political inclinations lean to the left, examine your options in other parties that can accomodate you in that regard. Whatever you ideology the public purse is a fundamental trust - a trust that has been violated.

This violation of our trust as voters, taxpayers and Canadians cannot be tolerated. For too long we've warily trod down the path and mumurred something vaguely distaneful of the integrity of politicians as a class. There must be a higher standard, faith in government, democracy and elected office demands it - not only demands it, but requires it. There has to be a renewal of the relationship between the body politic and the citizenry for disgust and voter apathy have frayed that relationship.

In the wave of angry that rolls forwards from the details of Brault's testimony and the grissly portrayal of the complete malfeasance of people who claimed "they were going to clean up Ottawa", we must not only punish the offenders - but engage Canadians in dialogue to see good goverance emblazoned as a fundamental of our political process and strive for the reforms and an openness and transparancy which will prevent this from ever happening again.

As Canadians we need to demand better of our government, as Conservatives we need to prepare our selves to do better as a government. We need to not only to win the trust to govern, but if and when we do so to act in such a fashion as to difuse the dissallusion of so many Canadians and restore faith in the democratic process.

Had a theological discussion the other day

2005-04-06T12:28:00.000-06:00

That was a rather odd event in and of itself, given that I fall into the agnostic way of thinking. But I supose I can be drawn into any somewhat intellectual discussion readily enough. I honestly have some difficulties with the notion of any supreme being that predetermines events or influences them as I've never felt it completely reconcilable with free will. That aside from the consideration that the prevalence of evil seems to suggest a less than perfect design to the world.

That would simply be my personal existentialist musings on the matter. Likely others will disagree. However, free will is to me the most keystone of declaring any action right or wrong without it - everyone can claim they are a victem of predetermination. Yes, that means you Paul and Scott - I don't buy it.

As for free will, I wonder if there are any blogs about it? That might be something to search for, well that and Gomery testimony.

Kyoto Provisions to be Severed from the Budget Bill

2005-04-05T19:42:00.000-06:00

This is starting to read like a children's novel "See Paul Run." "Run, Paul, Run."

The Liberal withdrawl of the environmental regulations is an indication that right now they're playing for time. Right now the relevations being leaked out of Gomery, by people watching on television at the public theatre and being published on the internet by "the blog that may not be named" have Liberals across the country running scared.

The provincial Alberta Liberal Party is going so far as to float the idea of a name change to distance themselves from their federal counter parts. But we can still only dream of the day when "liberal" becomes a slur in Canada like it is the in the US.

However, the new Liberal Party line is they're "victems in this too." My response is - what a load of guano. You've been victemized by you're members alledgedly participating in defrauding the taxpayers of their money? Considering the money seems to have found its way into Liberal Party coffers I'd say "benificiary" rather than "victem" seems a more apt characterization of their place in this particular scheme.

Scott Brison, aka the Turncoat Kid, is trotting out to threaten the Conservatives with the sacred 'national unity' card. Now aside from the irony of Scott Brison lecturing anyone on the moral implications of working with people who mean to turn their back on their compatriots, alledgedly by criticizing the Liberal Party we're undermining federalism and promoting seperatism.

Just for Scott I'm recommending our Quebec slogan be "Le meme federaliste gout, mais sans les volereus".

Apparantly, we can't point out that being corrupt and stealing from Canadians is bad, because that would fuel seperatism. Well *obviously* we should just let the Liberals carry the federalist torch in Quebec. After all their great ideas about funding cultural events and ad agencies have really got that seperatist problem under control.

But really, the sponsorship program seems to have characterized every Liberal program within the last half a dozen years. An ill thought out program, that was founded more on a good feeling than any sort of plan. "Hey lets sign Kyoto", or "lets put in a Gun Registry" or "let's create a national day care system" or "let's tighten up border security".

Now you see the Liberals have yet to realize that a "plan" isn't like fries. It isn't an optional thing to go along with the idea you have - its ABSOLUTELY INTEGRAL. Whether your empty gesture makes you feel good and "sends the right message" is completely irrelevent - results matter.

And as Canadians the only results we seem to be seeing, are intellectual bankruptcy, self-service, and political lethargy all gift wrapped in leftist political blather.

Question Period Exchange Between Harper and Martin

2005-04-05T03:27:00.000-06:00

You tell me which party and which leader looks like its winning. Follow this link and click on the link on the side bar to Harper Grills Martin.

I simply have a few observations before I head off to bed. Firstly, the Conservative caucus seems to be fired up and ready to go to war. The Liberal caucus on the other hand seemed fairly sedate about the whole exercise.

Martin's suggestion that not all Liberals should be tarred with the same brush, is going to be rather hard to manage. The brand is being damaged. For more and the latest details on that, you'll want to consult the US blog that heralded "Canada's Corruption Scandal Blown Wide Open". (they can't outlaw google) I consider this a positive development. The national unity scare mongering is just that. Scare mongering. If you also check out the click with the interview with Brison who seems to be touting the party's new line. Which is essentially, we're the victem too...umm really and you can't talk about how corrupt we are too forcefully as it might drive the country appart.

After all it was those clever Liberals who were keeping the country together with that sponsorship program of theirs. I'm sure that is why we don't have any Bloc Mps in the house today...hmmm wait that doesn't seem to be quite right does it?

Anyhow, returning to the Question period exchange Harper lobbed the Kazemi ball into Martin's court after making a snide remark that it would be up to the police, judge and Canadian people to determine the guilt of the Liberal party. Martin went on defending the Liberal party and hystically claims they called the inquiry.

Thereafter Harper said "Again the prime minister is defending the Liberal Party when he should have been defending a Canadian."

Ouch..

I'm not sure who taught Stephen to be mean since the debates in the last election but I like it. If he simply says something which completely cuts Martin to pieces like that in a debate we could be having a "You had a choice!" moment.

The Passing of the Pope

2005-04-02T22:12:00.000-07:00

The Pope John Paul II was a very noble and holy man. In a world that can increasingly be described as nihilistic he has been recognized as a moral giant, and a voice for an objective morality so many people refuse to even believe exists. He lived through the Nazi occupation, and later the communist tyranny that took root in Poland and he opposed dictatorship and oppression where he found. He's a famed world traveler, a philosopher, a prolific writer and a unique individual. I'm not a catholic but the pope was someone that so many outside his own faith respected immensely.

The Globe has the best story on it I've read yet. Find it here.

Gommery Inquiry and a Looming Election

2005-04-02T21:24:00.000-07:00

The media is now abuzz with the rumours of a possible election. Reading the story on CTV earlier this afternoon I was left wondering what could possibly have emerged that was new and so terribly damaging that the Bloc Quebecois was predicting it would win every seat in Quebec and the Conservatives huge gains in Ontario and Atlantic Canada. Due to a publications ban which is suposed to be in force for another two monthes, the details of Jean Brault president of Groupactione cannot be published.

However, the joys of the internet are such that a US blogger, Captain Ed Morriessy, has broken the story and published an accounting of the testimony. ( search for "blog" "Gomery" "scandal")(ed. note the account has been mentioned on CTV, however, as is the case here details of the testimony aren't discussed as they are subject to publican ban. This mention is nothing more than a reference to a publication not a publication of any details in an of itself. )

If this is true, this testimony is the closed thing to divine intervention Conservatives can hope for. I'd buy advertizing time and run clips of this testimony. Hell, I'd put the entire testimony online in video form and let the media pick it up and go back to flaying the Liberals for there sins. Some people thought the Sponsorship Scandal a thing of the past, while its about to prove the gift that keeps on giving. But I encourage you to visit Captain's Quarter's and decide for yourself.

You might very well see Jim Travers prediction that Paul Martin will go down in the history books as "The Man Who Never Really Became Prime Minister" come true. (My mind boggles..how often can I direct readers to the Star with approval?)

Getting on my Soap Box

2005-03-26T17:31:00.000-07:00

I'd like to take this time to halt my entirely self serving semi-hiatus from commenting on political affairs to focus on my studies, to tell the various people whom are freaking out across the blog sphere about various aspects of the conservative policy platform to a) stop whining b) chill out.

Not being a hardcore social liberal, or a social conservative but vacilating somewhere in between those poles I thought the convention went pretty well and took a middle of the road approach. On the other hand I'm seeing some blogs issuing angry harrangues about how the CPC has "joined the culture of death". No, no we haven't. If private members want to work towards putting forward a bill on abortion that's still their thing. There are more pro-life members of the CPC than any other party. Harper just said what he's always said before, the party has no policy, its a matter of individual conscience.

Seriously though, pro-life people need to take their rhetoric and tone it down a few notches. Now this comes from someone whose often accused of issuing forth Cross Fire like responses to various comments. I'm not immune to falling into partisan and somewhat condescending rhetoric, but "babykillers" is probably not something that you want to throw out there to begin with. It may feel good but its not goin to change anyone's mind. But I digress, what I'm saying is that essentially your pretty much where you were before, a supportive caucus but its not any part of party policy, so calm down eh? Not wanting to make anti-abortion part of party policy and to thereafter have to try and defend everyone who starts waving pictures of mutilated fetuses and shouting "baby killer", isn't exactly all the stern a rebuke. Its some basic political self-preservation, where we get to have our cake and eat it too.

As for the social liberals who are kicking up a fuss over the party reaffirming its opposition to gay marriage - seriously this is a "conservative party" what the hell were you expecting? Honestly, when a "conservative party" take a more left wing approach to an issue than arch liberal John Kerry, its to the left of the issue of Tony Blair, and is basically copying the solution of the socialist government of France - where do you people get off complaining about this? How much less conservative could we really be with out position supporting civil unions?

The "ooh but its a question of human rights and the courts said so, its about treating citizens equally" response is essentially a heaping pile of dung. Marriage is a human right? Says who? The gay rights lobby, and a bunch of liberal partisans who are looking for some trendy cause. The rest of the world save two silly European countries disagrees, I don't happen to see any UN Convenant of how "gay marriage is really a human right" being drafted. The majority of Canadians don't think gay marriage is a human right, although they don't really have anything in particular against gays so they're willing to allow them the tax and pension benifets of a civil union.

Quite frankly I'm sick and tired of hearing how everything is a right. My response at this point is "f*ck you, its a bloody privelege not a right". The whiny, irresponsible nature of so many people who graspe and things that exist and trumpent their entitlement to it has gotten out of control. At this point I wouldn't be entirely opposed to shipping each and every one of you whiny hardcore social liberals off to a third world dictatorship and thereafter let you all argue with them about your "human rights". Their a polite fiction based on what society deems appropriate, nothing more, nothing less.

I don't find various Courts of Appeal stacked with Liberal partisans to be the supreme arbitrators of what is or is not right. I'll leave social consensus to society itself rather than in the hands of an olijarchy. As a law student, I'm personally repulsed at how section 7 with its "fundamental principles of justice" and "equality rights" seem to be interpreted in whatever arbitrary and fanciful notions a judge seems to deem fitting at any point in time. Its the fundamental problem with our legal system today - entirely too much judicial discretion. The British system with its traditional role of having parliament as the final arbirator of the law by simply overriding the courts with a new statute, allow it clean up any of the messes the courts make with abuse of that discretion is highly preferable to the nonsensical mess the Charter has made of Canada. To all of you lefties - the Charter isn't even a Canadian invention. Its a knock off of the American Bill of Rights, and like most things we copy from the Americans we didn't do nearly as good a job with it.

Social change shouldn't be being imposed top down by elites in any case, it should come from the ground up. It should be a choice made by people. And if the people disagree with you, well then that's just the way democracy work - too bad.

So if social liberals are mad that alot of us don't buy the whole gay marriage as a human right thing - tough. If your going to run off, cry, not vote, quit the party, join the liberal party or whatever - to be blunt I really didn't like you much to begin with so don't let the door hit you on the way out.

As for some of the 16 year olds running to the media to cry and saying how they are going to take out liberal memberships because they don't have a formal youthwing in the conservative party - I hate you too. Yea, I didn't forget about you guys. While I'm directing my angst against various factions that are currently aggrivating me, I will now publically state that if your allegiance to the Conservative policy is so shallow that whether or not you get some sort of council or are able to set up clubs to flood conventions with automatic delegates a la Mulroney in '83 with charm schools and driving schools suddenly having Conservative Campus clubs - then you don't belong here in the first place. Come back when your finished with puberty and have an actual interest in conservative ideas.

That really applies to all the single issue whiners. If your allegiance is that shallow - I sincerely dislike you and wish bad things to happen to you. If you can't shallow your pride, and take a little water in your wine and see that while there might be a few things in our policy you disagree with there are a tremendous number of proposals that will be good not only for you but for Canada and Canadians - then your a petty, small person. No one gets everything they want, everything that came out of the conference is sure as hell better than what the red light district Liberals seem to be advocating, and only a child believes they get everything they want. If you haven't figured that out from the last decade of Liberal rule..perhaps you should now.

And that concludes my denounciations for this afternoon.

Who would you be in 1400 AD?

2005-03-23T00:03:00.000-07:00

(via Curt at North Western Winds)

The Usurper
You scored 63% Cardinal, 20% Monk, 32% Lady, and 54% Knight!

You have both the lust for war of the Knight and the wicked morals of the Cardinal. You are truly a dangerous one who likes power and will stop at nothing to get it. If the king dares stand in the way of your ambitions you will have no qualms about removing him from the throne and placing yourself there instead.

You scored high as both the Knight and the Cardinal. You can try again to get a more precise description of either the Cardinal or the Knight, or you can be happy that you're an individual.

Apparantly I'd be a bit of an self-interested rogue, well I am in law schoo...

The Convention

2005-03-22T00:54:00.000-07:00

There was alot of hype going into this event about how the party would gel or whether it would implode due to its own internal ideological divisions, quite frankly I was never worried. I wrote a paper in 2002 in a poli sci class where I pointed to the leadership of the two conservative parties as being the principal dividing force between them, and indicated that they were fairly close on alot of issues. I also noted that Stockwell Day and Joe Clark were unlikely to bring the parties together, however, that there were factions in both parties acknowledging the need to work together and resolve their differences to defeat the liberals.

To be a touch smug I reiterated this opinion a year later after my Canadian Political Parties professor suggested the ideological divide was too deep to be bridged. I noted in turn that people like Peter MacKay didn't seem to have any problem working with Canadian Alliance Mps such as Chuck Strahl during the DRC evident, and that there was a certain amount of concilliatory sentiment that existed between suporters of each party. I also argued broad areas of agreement and a desire for victory and for the proverbial "half a loaf rather than none" could overcome areas of disagreement between members of the former parties. My professor has had to rewrite his lectures on the Conservative party, while I get to stand by all my previous comments.

I didn't attend the Conservative convention in Montreal (I was an alternate), but I know alot of people who did. From that alone I felt that the votes to be cast were in extremely good hands. I wasn't particularly worried about the outcome for a moment.

I'm a Conservative who believes that the government is taking too much money from my pocket to pay for non-sensical and inefficient shcemes of dubious value.

I also feel I'm more likely to take a keen interest in arranging my own affairs than a bureaucrat in far off Ottawa, and I'll likely do a far better job in seeing such things attended too.

I think that the government stiffles business with punitive taxation measures, excessive red tape and a potpurri of other regulatory hurtles.

I think the gun registry isn't accomplishing anything, and a crazy drug dealer in a small town north of Edmonton here just proved that with a machine gun tragically killing four brave Mounties.

I think our military deserves the equipement it needs to complete the tasks we set for them and should be an institution in which Canadians can take pride in.

I think spurning our allies on Ballistic Missile Defense to score some cheap political points, hurts our trade interests, our diplomatic credibility, and our relationship with the united states - especially when its not clear what if anything we would have actually had to do other than say "great go ahead we're with you on this one".

I think the definition of marriage is a social issue, not a legal issue. I'm also fairly ambivalent about abortion - not a huge fan but its probably for the best for some people in certain circumstances.

I think the senate has become a relic which needs to be rethought and re-energized to bring it into line with a modern, democratic tradition.

These are things I believe to be true, and they are believes that are shared by the broad cross section of conservatives. They are also beliefs which were confirmed by the party and became party policy. Dare I even suggest that these beliefs are those of Canadians in general?

Stephen Harper recieved a sound endorsement, recieving the support of 84% of the delegates at the convention. I personally found some of the media attention trying to play up some sort of leadership jockeying running up the convention extremely distasteful. I do not think there was ever any question that Stephen had the competence of the party's membership, and if there was it show not be put to rest. However much Chantal Hebert protests that Stephen Harper will never win , and however much The Globe and Mail's Brain Laghi may be dreaming of some form of the PetLinda entity to sieze control of the party - its not where conservatives are and its not where most of us are looking to go.

Despite Peter MacKay making an ass of himself on Friday, and playing into the hands of a media looking desperately for a conflict the convention was about Conservatives comming together and affirming their similarities. It was about burying the hatchet that has been taken up in intermural warfare since..well Diefenbaker. The leader (click on the media link), members of our caucus, delegates and yes..even the media! (Gasp! find it here , here and here) have reported the general good will and positive feelings that have come out of the convention. The party has come together, moved beyond PC or Alliance, our agenda is out there in the open, its moderate, its centre-right and it speaks to the concerns of Canadians. (Question Period and Politics with Don Newman seemed to latch onto the terms moderate, mainstream and clear policies with Scott Reid predictably sounding like a complete hack trying to disagree)

And to the Liberals - we're coming for you, the gloves are off.

I'm alive really..just a lot of stuff going on

2005-03-21T23:11:00.000-07:00

School, other commitments, trying to catch up on readings from school, and me generally feeling kind of weary and ready for the summer at the moment have contributed to some apathetic blogging which will probably prevail for another month or so. Noting up law textbooks is not conduscive to indepth political analysis..although you do learn alot of things.

The Weekly Standard - The Not so Great White North

2005-03-15T00:55:00.000-07:00

The weekly standard has in its own rather tongue in cheek fashion rather thoroughly chastised Canada as a nation. The entire article tends to rather fondly poke fun at our country mostly for well deserved conciets and silly Canadianisms. But really do give it all a read as I burst out laughing several times along the way. After all any article that starts like this:

WHENEVER I THINK OF CANADA . . . strike that. I'm an American, therefore I tend not to think of Canada. On the rare occasion when I have considered the country that Fleet Streeters call "The Great White Waste of Time," I've regarded it, as most Americans do, as North America's attic, a mildewy recess that adds little value to the house, but serves as an excellent dead space for stashing Nazi war criminals, drawing-room socialists, and hockey goons.

And hits a high point here:

Equal outrage was caused when Conan O'Brien showed up to help boost tourism after the SARS crisis. Along for the ride came a Conan staple, Triumph the Insult Comic Dog, who in dog-on-the-street interviews relentlessly mocked French Canadians. When one pudgy Quebecer admitted he was a separatist, Triumph suggested he might want to "separate himself from doughnuts for a while."

Canadians seethed--though polls show they pride themselves on being much funnier than Americans (don't ask me why, when they're responsible for Dan Aykroyd, John Candy, and Alan Thicke). One MP from the socialist New Democratic party called the show "vile and vicious," and said it was tantamount to hatemongering. Historians believe this to be the first time a member of parliament has so categorically denounced a hand puppet.

I've never heard everything that's wrong with the NDP aside from being socialist elucidated so succictly - ah we all know who the 'Silly Party' is in Canada. Although I'm still waiting on the Jack Layton and Kermit the Frog debate where they can both discuss how "its not easy being green".

Power Corp, oil for food and a lack of degrees of separation

2005-03-13T23:12:00.000-07:00

This story hasn't recieved alot of play in the mainstream media, but it was originally broken by the Western Standard. It linked to by some bloggers then, but there are those of us whom are too cheap to well..pay for that sort of access. Thus its also come up on the Toronto Free Press site and you can acess it here. Just to give you all a taste

Just a month before the Canada Free Press revealed that Volcker, a former Federal Reserve chairman, is a member of Power Corp.’s international advisory board–and a close friend and personal adviser to Power’s owner, Paul Desmarais Sr.–a U.S. congressional investigation into the UN scandal discovered that Power Corp. had extensive connections to BNP Paribas, a French bank that had been handpicked by the UN in 1996 to broker the Oil-for-Food program. In fact, Power actually once owned a stake in Paribas through its subsidiary, Pargesa Holding SA. The bank also purchased a stake in Power Corp. in the mid-seventies and, as recently as 2003, BNP Paribas had a 14.7 per cent equity and 21.3 per cent voting stake in Pargesa, company records show. John Rae, a director and former executive at Power (brother of former Ontario premier Bob Rae), was president and a director of the Paribas Bank of Canada until 2000. And Power Corp. director Michel François-Poncet, who was, in 2001, the vice-chairman of Pargesa, also sat on Paribas’s board, though he died Feb. 10, at the age of 70. A former chair of Paribas’s management board, André Levy-Lang, is currently a member of Power’s international advisory council. And Amaury-Daniel de Seze, a member of BNP Paribas’s executive council, also sat on Pargesa’s administrative council in 2002.

Lloyd Axworthy speaks out on missile defence to confirm he's still an idiot

2005-03-12T03:12:00.000-07:00

(via Babbling Brooks )

Now I missed Lloyd Axworthy's comments on missile defense last week because, I was worried far more about my birthday and all the alcohol consumption related to that event. However, the Babbler has brought the former foreign affairs minister's little open letter to Condi to my attention. The Babbler gives me an opporunity to do something I haven't done since I left Winnipeg - bash Llyod Axworthy. As a result I have my own open letter to Lloyd.

Dear Lloyd,

Apparantly you've taken time out of your busy schedual overseeing the University of Winnipeg's administration and organizing its "radical speaker series", its "no blood for oil protests" and all the other things that pass for an education there to comment on ballistic missile defense. While I'm surprised that you've noticed any current event c,onsidering intellectually you seem stuck in the 1970s its also nice to see that you remain just as useless in commenting on diplomacy, as our foreign minister Pierre Pettigrew is at practicing it. However, I will grant that Pierre does have much better hair.

I realize it might be highly inconvient for you to deal with such petty things as facts Lloyd, after all that does tend to get in the way of all that bashing of your oppenents as religious zealots and wasteful spenders. It seems to me that this was the last test of the Missile Defense program and it was...sucessful. So Lloyd you might want to get your facts straight before you start pointing fingers. As for wasteful spending - where the hell were you on the gun registry Lloyd? Where are your editorials and letters to the editor condemning a system that works zero percent of the time and has cost billions of dollars?

Lloyd perhaps it might also be worth pointing out that the US probably wouldn't be wracking up those multibillion dollar decifits if it didn't have allies, whom thought the US should have to always do all the heavy lifting in foreign policy. While they of course would stay aloof before they rushed in to try and claim some credit towards the end. Between Canada and Europe security mooching seems the order of the day, essentially relying on the Americans to protect us and essentially subsidizing our bloated welfare states with their commitment to the free world and their military. Indeed, if we all took a more active roll in protecting ourselves and liberty as opposed to looking down our nose at those who did and scorning the expense they go to to protect not only themselves but us as well, I seriously doubt the US would be running deficits at all in fighting the war on terror. But while we're speaking of decifits Lloyd where was your concern when your good buddy Pierre Trudeau was saddling my entire generation with a huge debt load and high taxes? Apparantly debt it a-okay when it goes to fund selfish and unsustainable social programs but bad when it frees people from the yoke of tyranny - you leftist hypocrit.

Oh and the world's oldest democracy is going to learn something from Canada's parliamentary tradition of a corrupt one party state where power is centralized in the hands of the PMO, and where Supreme Court and Senate appointments are made solely at the discretion of the prime minister - heck our Senate isn't even elected. The notion that America can learn anything except perhaps what not to do is a ridiculous assertation. Your calling America a one party state Lloyd - that's the pot calling the kettle black or more likely the pot calling the white china set black.

You assertation that somehow the fact a Republican ambassador doesn't find the Liberal party's drivel all that compelling is due to the influence of think tanks in Calgary and neo-cons seems to be nothing but a way to slide in the anti-Alberta bigotry for no apparant and or logical reason. You would think a Republican Ambassador just may have been right wing without any help from us, and had the silly idea that the Canadian government would behave reasonably instead of like the spoiled children that Liberals for the most part are.

Oh and certainly what we need Lloyd rather than a government that's willing to actually stop tyranny and implement democracy is "more international agreements". So Lloyd how have those international agreements been doing at stopping the hundreds of thousands of people living in the Sudan from dying? Why don't you ask those African Christians whether they would prefer some soldiers to protect them from dying, or for you to host a conference and sign an agreement saying how concerned you are about their situation?

And Kyoto is such a stellar example of an international agreement isn't it Lloyd.?A bunch of dithering socialist bureaucrats got together and figured out how they could essentially waste billions of dollars, hold a bunch of meetings and accomplish absolutely nothing - clearly paving the way for more studies, meetings and conferences right? Tell me what other motivation could anyone possibly have for an accord that completely exempts the world's fastest growing economies, has wildly inaccurate economic projections, is based upon shaky science and EVEN if it worked it would only delay 0.5 degree celcius climate change for 6 years. We get all that for billions of dollars, you know what Lloyd you keep your international agreement I'll buy an air conditioner if this global warmer thing ever happens.

As for providing leadership on disease, disasters and that ilk Lloyd, maybe you haven't realized it but the war on terror and the larger war for the continuation of western civilization happens to be keeping the Americans just a little bit busy. While your sitting with your other champange socialists soaking up a government pension I'm not convinced you ever did anything to actually merit, the Bush Administration happens to be engaged in reforming the Middle East and ending the threat of Islamist terror. Strangely that somehow misses your list of priorities, nor do you seem to think that putting up defenses when unreliable countries like China, North Korea and Iran have or seek nuclear weapons might just be a reasonable idea.

As ever you remain a tawdry, tedious and complete fool with ideas so "soft" you might want to seriously look into those internet pharmacy adds for viagra and see if they come in an intellectual form.

Yours in complete hostility,

Chris

David Frum dinner in Edmonton to support Laurie Hawn

2005-03-10T22:56:00.000-07:00

Laurie Hawn who has a wonderful blog called Strong and Free , is the candidate of record for Edmonton - Centre and got within a whisker of inflicting Anne McClellan upon me as a professor at the Faculty of Law - in that respect I'm one of the casulties of Laurie's potential sucess. However, he's working hard right now to see that Landslide Annie, is buried by a landslide of Conservative support and I wish him all the best in that regard. We need more strong voices to speak up for the importance of Canada's military and our role in the world and Laurie's background as a colonel in the airforce gives him the background, experience and inclination to do just that. I'd also like to thank him for hosting an entertaining and informative evening, which I thoroughly enjoyed.

As I mentioned in the title David Frum was the keynote speaker for the evening. As one might expect from someone whose wrote speaches for the president in the past Frum was an engaging speaker. He spoke primarily on the role of Canada in the world, and stressed our relations with the US as being our most important relationship diplomatically. He rather accurately stated that our relationship with the US is "Very good, but its very good at a time when very good isn't good enough", and stressed the fact that the restrictions on the border are costing both the American and Canadian economies money although more so the Canadian economy. The delays at the borders are costing millions upon millions of dollars and the fact we haven't been working on the problems presented by American security concerns has been hurting our trade. Frum pointed to the rather different notions of the Canadian - American relationship on opposite sides of the border. He stated that to Americans there were a list of problems where action needed to be taken and a desire to work towards a solution. While in Canada it isn't a problem solving exercise its a opera or a theatrical production where all sorts of irrelevant considerations are entertained which really aren't pertinent to the issue, missile defence being a prime example of that sort of behaviour where some strange assertion of differentness seems to have overridden good public policy, and good diplomacy.

Frum was asked what he thought the Conservative Party needed to do to bring itself to government, and his chief advice was to talk about the problems Canadians were facing rather than talking out our own internal problems. He said that we all needed to move beyond factionalism and talk about lowering taxes because real income has stagnated in Canada over the past 15 years, while following well below the purchasing power of our American counterparts. He also stressed the need for the Conservative party to pursue some private involvement in health care as its not right to seek to stop people from paying for an operation if they can afford it and it will shorten the line.

I also through happy coninsidence was seated right next to Vitor Marciano, you really ought to check out his blog What it takes to win. He's currently running to be a national councilor for the Conservative Party. If your a voting delegate at the conference in Montreal and your from Alberta, I'd encourage you to vote for Vitor. Few people I've met have shown his kind of dedication and commitment to furthering the conservative cause, he ardently believe both Canada and the party can do better and he's infectiously affable, you really can't help but like the guy if you meet him. At any rate it's always great to be in good company to discuss blogging and politics, and Vitor was at a table with myself some members of our U of A campus conservative club and from his own EDA so it was entertaining dinner conversation. Although I must insist that I'm not seriously hoping that any of the delegates to the Montreal convention from my EDA have anything bad happen to them as the first alternative delegate - I'd send them a very nice get well card while I started packing my bags.

While speaking of people seeking election and throwing out endorsements like my personal cudos carry much in the way of weight, I had to chance to speak to Ted Morton at the dinner as well. He was in attendance and he's fairly opennly letting it be known now that when Ralph decides to step down as premier he means to run. I had the opporunity to speak with him for a few moments and he's working at building an organization and thought that as Conservatives we've all invested alot of time and effort into the federal party but we can't afford to put all our eggs in one basket and there is alot we can do right here in Alberta. He also mentioned that he's sure if we simply send the right signals to the people who voted Alberta Alliance in the last provincial election they will all come back home to the PC party.

All in all an exceptional evening.

Retrospective Link - Rick Mercer on the Liberal and Conservative Conventions

2005-03-10T22:50:00.000-07:00

Rick Mercer may be a shill for the mother corp and try to tell us all to drive our car less and meet that "One Ton Challenge", but that does not preclude him from being funny. He does tend to take shots at every target which presents itself to some degree and his take on the Liberal and Conservative conventions is (click on the clip labelled Conservative convention) bound to make you laugh no matter which side of the fence your sitting on. As a taste "the only principle that the Liberal Party has is that they would sell their own mothers in order to stay in power. Somewhere in a dusty room they have a plaque with it written in Latin "we will sell out mothers to stay in power." "

Birthday and Various Social Obligations

2005-03-10T22:43:00.000-07:00

I turned 22 on March 6, and in the days leading up to that and the days following I've had too much to drink, too little rest and studied less than I should. Unfortunately blogging really didn't get done in that time period either. Its difficult to find the inspiration to form a coherent political opinion while hung over and or exhausted. However, starting now I'll get back to my usual repetoire of commentary, links and good old fashioned liberal bashing. - Chris

Bobby Clarke still remembers he's from Flin Flon

2005-03-03T17:27:00.000-07:00

Bobby Clarke has stated that Bob Goodenow is ruining the game of hockey.

"He's done nothing but take from the game and now he's fighting for power," Clarke told The Canadian Press.

"He doesn't want to lose power, he doesn't want to lose his control over the players and he doesn't want to lose as much of the control he's had over the game over the last 10-12 years. But when he had that power, he ruined it."

"Someone has to grab Goodenow by the throat and tell him, 'Look after the Canadian cities, the majority of the players still come from Canada,'" Clarke said. "It's our sport and, to me, Goodenow has shown no interest in helping build the game and helping sell the game. "

Its unfair and wrong to lay all the blame at Bob Goodenow's feet. Gary Bettmen and the ownership of the NHL developed a plan where they were going to expand and develop a viewing audience in the American television market which never materialized, while the salaries spiked as if they had. In that sense the owners are at fault for the precarious state of the Canadian franchises as much as the union.

On the other hand Goodenow and the union have been completely unreasonable and didn't even bother to engage in serious negotiations until the 11th hour. They don't have anything resembling a realistic outlook on the finances of the NHL and they seem to be hell bent on creating a league where the Canadian teams will fold and teams in Miami with empty stands will continue to lose hundreds of millions of dollars a year. In that respect I feel quite comfortable standing shoulder to shoulder with Bobby Clarke and saying "j'accuse". If you still hockey's beating heart the rest of the body is not far from death.

Horror Stories from the Failure of Multiculturalism

2005-03-03T16:56:00.000-07:00

(via Freedominion)

"The Whore lived like a German"

The article linked to above discusses honour killings among fundamentalist muslim families in Germany. Apparantly there have been at least six documented cases in the last year. By "honour killings" essentially it means the Muslim kills a female family member who attempts to assimilate into German culture. Often they employ a younger son whose a minor whose sentencing will be more lenient because he's under 18.

I really can't stand to see the free will of anyone being so casually raped in this manner. People have a right to live their own lives and for whatever harping the left does about right wing Christian fundamentalists, they seem to be rather defeaningly silent on the fundamentalism which is not simply mildly silly but violent, virulent, hateful and deadly. Admittedly there are a few exceptions Christopher Hitchens and a few like him have managed to prove that a few on the left are not so blinded by the pieties of multiculturalism that they will not condemn this sort of behaviour.

Furthermore the statistics this article cites are simply depressing - no one should experience this sort of coercion in their life regardless of ethnicity or nationality.

The Turkish women's organization Papatya has documented 40 instances of honor killings in Germany since 1996. Examples include a Darmstadt girl whose two brothers pummelled her to death with a hockey stick in April 2004 after they learned she had slept with her boyfriend. In Augsburg in April, a man stabbed his wife and 7-year-old daughter because the wife was having an affair. In December 2003, a Tuebingen father strangled his 16-year-old daughter and threw her body into a lake because she had a boyfriend. Bullets, knives, even axes and gasoline are the weapons of choice.
....
Astonishingly, the first extensive data the German government collected about the lives of Turkish women was published last summer, as part of a study done by the Ministry for Family Affairs. The study showed that 49 percent of Turkish women said they had experienced physical or sexual violence in their marriage. One fourth of those married to Turkish husbands said they met their grooms on their wedding day. Half said they were pressured to marry partners selected by relatives and 17 percent felt forced into such partnerships.

Or simply people relating antedotes like this

One of the unsettling truths about Hatin's death and the plight of many Muslim women is that it took the comments of three Turkish boys and the outrage of a male school director to get people to notice. When the murder first happened, it sent no shock waves through the mainstream German press. It only became big news when a group of 14-year-old Turkish boys mocked Hatin during a class discussion at a school near the crime scene. One boy said, "She only had herself to blame," while another insisted, "She deserved what she got. The whore lived like a German." The enraged school director not only sent a letter home to parents, but also to teachers across Germany. The letter ignited a media fury. Less known, however, is that the letter also hit a nerve among educators. "Teachers from across the country wrote back saying they had had similar experiences," Boehmecke said. They reported Turkish boys taunting Turkish girls who don't wear headscarves as "German sluts." "That's the part no one has written about. Clearly there is huge potential for similar violence across Germany," Boehmecke said. "Not just in the big cities, but all over. It's a problem many politicians haven't been willing to face."

If this is multiculturalism, my vote is cast in favour of cultural imperialism and assimilation. I'm reminded of the British constable's reaction to the intent of some Indiansintention to throw a man's wife on his funeral pyre. They stated it was "their custom" and he replied "its our custom to hang people for doing that." All cultures aren't equal, we should not condone barbarity.

Insert Lame Excuses for Low Blog Productivity here

2005-03-03T16:54:00.000-07:00

I've been rather busy with attempting to buckle down for school and I read a couple of books I got for my birthday. (reviews are forthcoming) The next couple weeks will be busy for me however, I'll endeavour to keep updating the blog every day or two.

Red Ensign #16 at The Phantom Observer

2005-02-28T18:08:00.000-07:00

The Phantom Observer has raised the Red Ensign Standard today.

There is such a thing as a Canadian vision. We had it, years ago in the era of St. Laurent and Diefenbaker and Pearson ......

when our flag was not a Maple Leaf, but a Union Jack with a Coat of Arms.

When we looked on America as a senior partner and not a rabid elephant. When we could persuade the world that we could keep the peace, and they believed us.

In the past thirty years, we lost that vision, mired in little arguments about provincial power, spending money, and social rights. Politicians left and right caused the people to lose faith in them ... and thus the vision faded.

Spot on PO, spot on.

The Conservative Response to the Budget

2005-02-28T16:45:00.000-07:00

Bob Tarantino at Let it Bleed has been displeased with the Conservative response to the budget. I tend to agree with Bob on a great many things, but my analysis of the situation and his analysis of the situation and an appropriate course of action tend to diverge rather substantially.

Bob's suggesting that we should have shrouded ourselves in secrecy and pretended to deliberate heavily to create a media stir about whether we would choose to defeat the budget or not, thus getting ourselves some free publicity, seeming to be in control etc.

I'd commend this course of action if we were actually considering defeating the government. However, we're not. We know not, the Liberals know that, and the press knows that. We're not going to defeat the budget going into our first policy convention and only 8 monthes after the last election. Rather than causing suspense and interest its just as likely that we would have been accused of playing games with the budgetary process when we really weren't going to defeat the government.

I'll agree that Harper should have done more to stress the negatives in the budget. However, to be honest my first reaction was nearly exactly the same "Well, that wasn't as bad as I thought it would be." A more appropriate statement from the leader of the opposition would have been "I'm concerned with a number of spending priorities in the budget as they seem to allocate money without any plan on how to spend it, however, I am pleased to see the Liberals have included a number of our priorities in an effort to keep Parliament functioning." I think that's the message Harper has been trying to get across, although perhaps not as effectively as he, I or the Conservative Party at large would like.

Furthermore, I think the braintrust about the Leader are likely aware that Canadians aren't interested in another election at the moment, and we don't seem to have a golden issue to use as a stick to beat the Liberals over the head with so our approach has seemed to be of the tact that we're a reasonable party who wants to see Parliament work to govern Canadians, rather than the hardline, contrarian ideologues we're sometimes made out to be. This tactic makes sense to me, but how effective it is eh..too soon to tell. Would having gone into cloak and dagger mode been more effective - hard to tell but I doubt it. I don't think its as much of a no-brainer as Bob makes it out to be.

On the other hand, the Ballistic Missile Defense announcement being confirmed the day after rather effectively killed any budgetary afterglow in the press so for what solace it might be for those who disagree with my point of view - the Liberals aren't doing much better.

Ballistic Missile Defense Redux

2005-02-28T00:53:00.000-07:00

In all fairness to my last post on the subject it was dripping with sarcasm and contained a fair degree of frustration with the abject stupidity of the government's decision. We had a chance to play nice with the Americans which cost us exactly nothing, all we had to do was sign on the dotted line, but instead we chose to scorn them. The decision was based on two things a) anti Americanism b) irresponsible pacificism and the hate on many on the left have for all things martial.

This is largely veiled by talk of how expensive the sytem is or how ineffective it is. This is generally hypocricy and malarcky. Its a pretext for anti-Americanism and and do nothing pacificism. Of the tests run so far for ballistic missile defense, which is admittedly still being tweaked 5 out of 6 tests over sea and 5 out of 8 from land have been effect. Even the CBC acknowledges this. As to whether its expensive its estimated to cost the Americans 10 billion dollars. That is a great deal of money without question, on the other hand what would it have cost us? Nothing, or perhaps a few hundred million if we INSISTED on chipping in or putting missiles on Canadian soil which was never likely to happen. We were asked for moral support and to contribute a few scientists and military officers as we normally do in continental defense - essentially falling into our respective Saturday morning cartoon roles of Canada a Pip and America as Hercules. Leaving the Americans to do all the heavy lifting while we piped up in our squeeky voice to cheerlead and tag along.

In this case we chose refuse to score free diplomatic points with our ally and promote good will and understanding in security measures. Our yes, no, maybe, no position and all the dithering that preceded has simply reinforced the notion that we are an unreliable and profoundly silly nation which doesn't take its own defense or soveirgnty seriously

On the other hand, we're quite willing to throw billions and even upwards of 10 billion dollars towards the mythical goal of halting climate change. The Kyoto Accord has become some sort of alter for the left to worship at and it demands its sacrifices. Like any other idol it seems to have rather spotty results for all the sacrifices being deirected towards it. If you look at goal of the Kyoto Accord its to prevent a 0.5 degree increase in temperature which would last for about 6 years before the predicted trends over took it anyhow. Not to mention the fact that its debatable whether human activity has had any influence on climate change. Even if you accept that there is man made climate change is there any point in an treaty which requires India and China to do nothing which have the world's fasted growing economies, quickly growing amounts of polution and half the world's people?

What's the point? Kyoto is a meaningless gesture for those on the left to feel like their "sending the right message."

Me, I'm on the right, I'll take "it works at least half the time so far, but we're working on that."

Pope declares "Left liberalism" new "ideology of evil"

2005-02-26T16:54:00.000-07:00

No seriously..I'm not making this up. The Pope explicitly states that gay marriage is part of a "new ideology of evil".

"It is legitimate and necessary to ask oneself if this is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man," he writes.

He also has nice things to say about the left's other hobby-horse abbortion.

"There is still, however a legal extermination of human beings who have been conceived but not yet born," he writes.

"And this time we are talking about an extermination which has been allowed by nothing less than democratically elected parliaments where one normally hears appeals for the civil progress of society and all humanity," he writes.

Now, I'm not Catholic but you have to like the Pope. After all I'm genuinely in favour of any particular individual that was so hated by the former Soviet Union that they actually plotted to assassinate him. He also strikes me as a fairly wise man. However, looking at what he's said he's basically declaring the socialist-secular humanist-cultural relevist faction "evil" - not just wrong, not misguided, not delusional, not silly - EVIL.

I'm okay with that. Hey Pope..we haven't had a Crusade in a while can we destroy the evildoers? Please?

As if this isn't a gift for name calling and comedians everywhere for example, who doesn't want to say "Hey, Joe Clark I just read the Pope's new book and he says your evil."

Ballistic Missile Defense

2005-02-26T15:13:00.000-07:00

After seeing the trade mark "Paul Martin Shuffle" where Paul takes two steps forward, two steps back and waffles all about it would appear "Our Glorious Leader" has come to a decision. Canada will not participate in ballistic missile defense.

Apparantly we cannot bow down to the "bullying Americans" by putting our name on the BMD letterhead, attend a few meetings and being consulted if there is a missile aimed at Canada. Yes, that really would sacrifice our soveirgnty wouldn't it? Being part of the decision making process about what to do if a missile gets lobbed at our country. On the other hand we can continue to be proudly Canadian by letting Americans defend our country for us - while we ridicule them for doing so!

After all how dare the Americans suggest we might want to be involved in defending a continent we simply happen to be a part of. We didn't ask to be part of North America - in fact we're considering asking for our half of the continent to be transfered to Europe..so there! We have several university departments already studying how we can make Canada drift away from America and attach itself to Europe as we speak..and believe me the grant money is flowing on that project.

How can we be expected to go along with a weapons program which requires us to do nothing other than sign our names, attend meetings and financially benifet from being in on the research and development contracts because it would make our largest trading partner and most important ally really happy? We're against it! Why...umm...because its not like Bush really wants to shoot down missiles he's secretly working on a Star Wars program - he has George Lucas developing special elite combat units with Jedi powers and light sabres. Canada stands strongly against the development of a Jedi Knight program and condemns America's participation in it - we know all about your secret Star Wars program Bush! We're not buying into this whole "defending ourselves against incoming missiles" malacky. NO BLOOD FOR LIGHTSABRES!

Steyn OnTV

2005-02-26T15:08:00.000-07:00

(via Free Dominion)
STOP whatever your doing, find an hour of your time and check out Mark Steyn on C-SPAN to see what the Right's favourite One Man Global Content Provider is thinking on various issues.

The Budget - The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

2005-02-24T14:16:00.000-07:00

To be fair the Paul Martin I didn't wholly despise of 5 years ago seems to have briefly popped up around budget time to make a few good decisions. This year's budget has some positive announcements regarding personal and corporate taxation and military spending, that while being wholly insufficient are a step in the right direction. A few of the other iniatives in the budget aren't terribly unproductive. Several of the decisions were patently stupid and a few more outrageously so. Thus I've broken down the budget into "the good", "the bad" and "the ugly".

The Good

Their were a number of initiatives which improved people's fiscal status. The foreign content restrictions on RRSPs were removed which were previously set at 30%. I'm in favour of anything which improves people's economic freedom, so again this is a small step in the right direction. While allowable RRSP contributions have risen to $22,000 a year from $18,000 considering Canada's low rate of saving this is also a fairly smart move. While over years people will recieve a tax break of $195 as the amount of non-taxable income rises to $10,000 from $8,000. I can't say no to a tax cut, however, one can wish that it was somewhat more substantial than the price of a PS2 over five years or the cost of airfare when WestJet has a seat sale.. Canadians face a crippling tax burden and the best you can come up with as a rebate is about $40 bucks a year over five years? Apparantly this is the 24 rebate designed to encourage people to buy that "extra case of Molson's a year". Tens of billions of dollars are being allocated and this is the best you can do!

Corporate taxes were cut by 2% to lower to 19%, and a surcharge was removed which was the equivalent of a 1.12% tax cut. Not a bad move cutting corporate taxes as encouraging private investment and business relocation in Canada brings jobs into the country and spurs on economic growth. However, we may now have a 4.5% tax incentive to business as opposed to the United States as is quoted in the budget. Accepting these figures we also must recognize that we have a geographical disadvantage and all sorts of regulatory disadvantages visa via the states. A corporation locating in the US is nearer its markets and in many cases the government regulations aren't nearly as intrusive as they are here in Canada. If we were serious about attractiving investment we would have slashed corporate taxes by 10% and reached an 11% level comparable to Ireland, which has successfully lured many businesses away from its European neighbours and experienced high growth as a result.

Defense spending is slated to recieve an additonal $12.7 billion dollars, to which I can only say about bloody time. However, unfortunately the money is coming in a trickle at first with only $1.1 billion coming in the next two years. Many military analysts have stated in the past that an immediate infusion of $1.5 billion was needed this year to simply stop the hemoraging and degredation of materials. Thus the relative sloth of this increase is worisome. Furthermore, I tend to be suspect of promises made far into the future and over this five year term its debatable how seriously we can take this Liberal pledge as its quite plausible they'll declare something else such as health care an "emergency for a generation" and loot any other commitments.

Research the government is granting $375 million to various councils to increase research being done in Canadian universities, knowledge is never a bad investment.

The Bad

Aboriginal funding , the budget offers up $735 million towards areas such as Aboriginal housing, education, and social programs on Aboriginal reserves over a five year period. This continues the fine Liberal tradition of throwing money at a problem and hoping it will go away rather than dealing with the problem itself. The problem is not that the federal government doesn't give enough money to Aboriginal reserves, its that Aboriginal reserves don't work. They cause more socio-economic problems then they solve, the Aboriginal community needs to be assisted in taking a step forward towards integration into the Canadian economy and the mainstream rather than being coddled further.

The Gas Tax for Cities a $600 million dollar committment to the cities which will grow to a $2 billion dollar commitment or 5 cents per litre of the gas tax. I'm really not sure if this arrangment is even constitutional. Cities are provincially created and controlled jurisdictions and derive all their powers from the provinces. This makes this sort of arrangement without a provincial blessing potentially subject to legal challenge should any of the provinces become jealous of their legislative integrity.

Sports Canada/Olympic Games/Paraolympic Games funding apparantly we're now committing another $429 million dollars to funding the venues and athletes who compete in sports which none of us watch and care about because losing horrible regularly in the Olympic is shameful too us. Quite frankly, I could take a little more shaming if this $429 billion dollars found its way into the "tax cut column". I really don't feel our pride as a nation has suffered a great blow if we lose at free style gymnastics, competitive trampolining, ball room dancing or whatever ridiculous "sports" the Olympics awards medals for.

Healthcare another $800 million or so dollars are to be thrown at the problem ontop of Martin's "concession for a generation" earlier last year. Again this money is being spent with no eye to actually resolving the fundamental underlaying problems plaguing health care. At best its fighting a rear guard action against inevitable collapse of the system lacking any institutional changes. Change is needed as we already spend more per capita for less performance than in many European nations.

The Ugly

Foreign Aid apparantly while we can only afford to cut the taxes of the middle class here in Canada by $200 over 5 years we can give away $3.4 billion dollars in aid to foreigners, doubling our budget to do so. Quite franklyI never signed up for the World Vision package of taxation. If there are people who want to give their money away to the less fortunate kudos to them, but don't do it with my tax dollars. This is "charity" not a legitimate government function that in any way serves my interest.

Heritage Funding another $1.6 billion dollars to support culture, heritage and sport. All of which goes vaguely to celebrations, artists and mulitculturalism. Quite frankly this is wholly unnecessary, if people care about what the elites have determined to be "Canadian culture" they will pay for it. If not they obviously don't care or consciously reject your notion of Canadian culture. Again cut taxes and I'll even promise to buy a Group of 7 print, rather than having this money spent on whatever suspect "cause" it finds it way too.

$5 billion dollars for the Environment considering there is still billions of dollars sitting in a government account from the Chretien budgets where money was vaguely allocated to combat "climate change" and that money has only gone into a few councils, studies and commercials is another 5 billion dollars REALLY necessary. Our environmental strategy currently seems to consist of hiring B level celebrities to exhort us to be more friendly to the environment. Maybe with this extra $5 billion we're going to hire someone whose actually famous like Bono to make a commercial about AIDS AND the Environment. Spend the money you've got sitting around before pilling more ontop of it in a politically correct and ill thought out gesture. Have a plan before you start throwing billions of dollars at a problem and in the meantime - take this $5 billion dollars and CUT TAXES.

$5 billion dollars for a "National Daycare Program" so far $700 million dollars is being rolled forth this year with no strings attached. Watch this money dissapear into the hunry maw of healthcare as fast as a cat can blink its eye. Now I tend to agree with the Klein plan for child care, give parents money for it and let them make their own decisions about how its spent. If a parent wishes to stay home and care for their child - good deal, or if they hire a grandparent, relative, neighbour or nanny this is all simmilairly acceptable. Furthermore, I couldn't care less if the kid is in a private or public daycare centre. Let the parents decide, they care more about their children than the government does when you come right down to it.

Furthermore, do I really need to point out the absurdity of committing five billion dollars to a program which doesn't exist yet? Do I also need to point out that the provinces, the vast majority of whom are currently in decificit positions, or whom are lingering near decifit positions will find 5 billion dollars split 10 ways, woefully inadequate to fund a whole new social program. Do I also need to mention that the federal government has absolutely no jurisdiction in early childhood education? Do I also need to mention that taking on an expensive new social program when your strapped for cash and the federal government isn't offering enough money would be something too stupid for even the provincial governments to do? We could avoid this entire problem by cutting people's taxes by another 5 billion dollars so they could afford to make their own provisions for childcare, heck, maybe so they could even afford to have and raise children.

The Daily Show on Blogs

2005-02-22T16:51:00.000-07:00

(Via Plum Blossoms and onegoodmove)

The Daily Show truly has its moments, even though too often it does seem a bit left wing for my tastes. I recall watching its election coverage when Jon Steward said "its hard to make people laugh when everyone feels like curling up in a corner and holding themselves" or concerning gay marriage he rattled through the rather lopsided victories of ammendments to forbid gay marriage and stated something to the effect of "I think I'm going to go cry now.."

However, liberal or not he is fairly witty. The bit on blogs is one of the finer moments for the show. Stephen Colbert announces his name is "really Ted Hitler" and he's murdered a panada, before denouncing bloggers for taking facts and organizing them and presenting them for general consumption. Yes..those lousy bloggers with their "facts".

You can find a clip of that segement here.

Joel Fleming on a tuition protest

2005-02-22T15:07:00.000-07:00

Joel Fleming who has a very witty and entertaining blog reports on the tenured and masters students representing the academic proletariat and raging against the "Rae Report". Apparantly even former NDP premier can repent and actually say "maybe we should charge people a little bit more in tuition". The former NDP premier is then savaged and the left blames the federal liberal government. I'm okay with that outcome, even if the leaps of logic there are a bit baffling. He mentions one of our inkstained malcontents offering up a little speach that went as follows.

A prof, who has run unsuccessfully as an NDP candidate, then gave a little speech:

"The Canadian public keeps electing a Liberal government. Wake up and smell the herbal tea friends."

Uhh, two points - one, as much I'm amused by the federal Libs getting attacked from the left, how exactly are they relevant to the Rae Review? Second, why do I have to smell the herbal tea? Is coffee suddenly an unsocialist beverage? I sure as hell hope so - the only thing that could make my daily (ok, twice-daily) double-double any sweeter, would be knowing that drinking it was pissing off socialists.

My reply to Joel is yes! Apparantly coffee is now too "exploitative" for the left unless its "fair trade coffe". I've considered going to one of the university coffee establishments here at the U of A which have their "Fair trade" coffee and asking for some "free trade coffee", why? I don't want any "hippy coffee, give me capitalist joe!" In fact I want "slave trade coffee" if possible. Preferably that which used enslaved children to harvest it with some oversear cracking a whip across their backs and exorting them to 'work faster for the great satan'. Well, I want that if its cheaper than free trade coffee anyhow. Now considering I don't even drink coffee, this is obviously a joke, mostly because I'd love to see the look on the face of the coffee vendors with their dreadlocked hair, and multiple piercings, all of whom look as if they haven't bathed recently, when I asked for coffee made for THE MAN not coffee to "share the wealth".

I personally drink Earl Grey Tea, why? Firstly, it tastes good. Secondly, its British, imperial, and has an aristocratic title, if some part of those three characteristics doesn't annoy all the right people then I'm not sure what will (aside from a request for slave trade coffee).

In Alberta the current push is "no tuition" apparantly because we have a bit of a surplus here students are entitled to most of it, or so the thinking goes considering our money just comes up from the ground. *sigh* The stupidity of the left is somewhat disheartening. They don't seem to realize that a prosperous economy is a precipitous thing. For example, Venezula has a great deal of oil but rampant corruption and mispending has resulted in it being abjectly poor. Furthermore, BC right next door is a case study in how to destroy a perfectly fine economy with stupid socialist policies in one easy decade.

Morally, middle class and upper middle class children really don't have a right to the income of the taxpayers as a whole. I'm willing to agree that universities do provide enough positive externalities that some subsidization is in order. But tuition freezes and making the system "free" put the burden on the back of the average working taxpayer rather than the person whose going to benifet from it. And tuition fees result in stagnant resources for students and limited spaces being available. If you mean to benifet from higher education by increased levels of income it really you whom should shoulder most of the burden for the costs of your education. Obviously there need to be assurances that education remains accessible with grants, bursuaries and no to low interest loans being made available to those whom otherwise could not afford to persue it.

Replacement Players in the NHL

2005-02-22T14:16:00.000-07:00

(Via All things Canadian )

The Sun Newspapers are reporting that the Edmonton Oilers have already inquired as to the willingness of their farm team's players to be utilized as replacement players. It would seem that 18 of 22 would be receptive to such an opportunity. I don't find this surprising in the least. My opinion is that for all the talk of union solidarity, it wouldn't last for more than a month. The players on the farm teams are dying for any opporunity to play in the big show as it were. They would all be willing to suit up if called up. Furthermore, the workhorses of the NHL the 3rd and 4th line players would start to wonder if a new season was called upon why they were sitting out and missing paychecks, albiet smaller ones so Sergei Federov could earn $10 million US rather than 6 or 7.

The first players back will be the ones who were marginal in the NHL to begin with and those with smaller contracts, whom can't absorb the loss of work for a long period of time. After that, it will be the vetran players who return. The players whom only have 2 or 3 more seasons left in them, and don't see the point in squandering them on the picket lines even if they do take a pay cut.

Inevitably once players begin to make their way back, the more moneyed players will return as they will be making less in Europe than they would be in the NHL. Furthermore, pride and greed will have exhausted themselves as a reason to hold out and they will simply return in a fairly non-challant fashion muttering bromides about "missing the fans", the "chance to play with such a great group of guys", "their family" or "feeling the itch to take another run at the cup". But that will all simply be a matter of saving face.

A Nightmare Scenario..

2005-02-22T13:48:00.000-07:00

Tech Central Station has an article on politics in Sweden (also known as the Greater Toronto Area Europe) It would seem that Sweden has finally accomplished what Toronto based pundits and media can only dream of.

Until recently, the Swedish political landscape has been more or less invariable since the 1920s. The social democrats have been in power since then, with a couple of brief interruptions of non-socialist rule (1976-82, 1991-94). The tax burden is now 51.4 percent, compared to the EU average of 41.5 percent. Sweden is now the only country where more than half of GDP is channeled through government. Denmark, the first runner up, falls just below 50 percent. Now there's a world record that ought to be shunned.
....
The center-right parties, on the other hand, usually run for election on lowering taxes. Not to lower them a great deal, but at least roll back the expansion of the last couple of years. At the end of World War II, Bertil Ohlin, leader of the Liberal Party and later Nobel laureate in economics, tried to explain that taxes were too high and needed to be lowered. The tax burden was 18 percent. The ambition is usually to reverse the last year or so of tax hikes. People who dared to suggest larger cuts; reversing, say, the last five or six years of tax hikes, were maligned as cruel, insensitive libertarians without any concern for the welfare of the people.

However, it was always clear that the opposition wanted lower taxes. The man on the street would be able to distinguish between the social democrats and the opposition; the ruling party wanted higher taxes or at least status quo and the opposition wanted lower taxes. Well, no longer.

The conservative party has grown impatient with its unpopularity. After the former party leader was kicked out a year and a half ago, his successor decided to give up the battle for ideas and move the party platform closer to the electorate. The ambition to lower taxes was one thing that was quickly toned down. So far, the move has been reasonably popular among the party members. Since the last election, the party has soared in the polls, up from 15 percent to about 25. No one seems to remember that the numbers were pretty much the same four years ago, when the party still fought for meaningful change.

That sounds like the sort of "Conservative" party that Belinda Stronarch wants to be leader of. A ho hum "us too" socialist party that would simply perpetuate the current intolerable status quo with its stiffling layers of bureaucracy, aversion to freedom and feudal levels of taxation. Sweden is the most contemptable of developed nations. Far too many elites have warm fuzzy feelings about a nation that perpetually hovers on the brink of bankruptcy.

A few thank yous

2005-02-20T16:48:00.000-07:00

My thanks go out to Glen Reynolds, the esteemed Instapundit for having linked to the last edition of the Red Ensign Standard. My gratitude is similairly extended towards all the members of the Brigade who linked to it as well. And yes, Doc. Monger your tardiness is forgiven.

A problem too few people have recognized

2005-02-20T16:21:00.000-07:00

There is a great article on Tech Central Station about the dramatically low birth rates in the European Union. This is a dire threat to the European's system of governance with their lavish subsidies, pensions, and benifets as a population shrinking with each passing year is not going to be able to maintain the welfare state. Thus when their fertility rate is only 1.34 and in and around that number there are good reasons to be afraid, be very afraid. The Europeans have tried to deal with the problem by proferring all sorts of benifets for child rearing, however, it would seem the continue decline in population would indicate that this regiment of subsidies has been entirely unsuccessful.

But here's the thing. Even though these countries introduced such grants to give people incentives for having children, their fertility rates have continued to fall and remain below replacement level.

According to the British Office for National Statistics, between 1970 and 2000 the total fertility rate for 15 EU countries fell from 2.38 children per woman to 1.48 - or by 38 percent. Belgium, where family allowances were first introduced in 1939, experienced a fall in fertility level of 26 percent. France, so generous in giving all kinds of allowances, has a fertility level 24 percent lower than 30 years earlier. In Germany the drop was 33 percent, in Ireland 52 percent, in the Netherlands 33 percent, and in Spain 58 percent, to a fertility level of 1.23 which is the lowest ever recorded in Europe and causes great concern.

The end result?

Today EU countries worry about low fertility rates because they see in them a threat to the system of pensions and allowances and to their dream of a "social paradise". Therefore they speak of making the elderly work longer or letting immigrants in. They do not perceive a real problem behind the current decrease in population. But it is of no importance that the pensions system will collapse, nor that the welfare state will have problems - in fact, all the better, for it will end sooner rather than later.

The real problem is that too few people mean slower development, fewer inventions, lower economic growth and poorer living conditions. For it is thanks to human beings that we have the internet and computers, washing machines and hair dryers, planes and cars, new and better drugs. Most of the things that make our life comfortable and long were invented at a time when population growth in Europe was at its fastest. Unfortunately, all those who - even in good will - support the family benefit philosophy act against the family itself. They act to the detriment of their own children, however few they will ever have.

This worries me as exactly the same analysis can be applied to Canada. Our fertility rate to my recollection is approximately 1.5. This is well below the replacement rate of two, and far behind the American rate of 2.4. Its a worrisome trend as the demographics of an aging population will ultimately make our current social services untenable and unsustainable, and they will direct affect our standard of living as it will remove the dynamicism of youth from our country. On the other hand I'm in the camp that won't shed many tears over the collapse of socialism. However, I'd prefer to see it phased out to do the least damage to those whose aged states renders them dependant upon it.

So basically, go fornicate and be fruitful your country needs you.

A digression to social commentary

2005-02-19T16:41:00.000-07:00

An article in Newsweek entitled Mommy Madness has been bandied about the blogsphere to some extent in the US. The article seems to be little more than a soap box for one woman to air her grievances regarding motherhood, the intransigence of males regarding child rearing, and the lack of assistance proffered by 'society'. Before I venture into bashing this article its most likely necessary to offer a few caveats. Firstly, there is no point calling me misognystic. I simply direct my contempt wherever it seems warranted, just as a direct my respect. I personally consider Margret Thatcher to be one of the greatest political leaders in modern history. Furthermore, being male I really don't have any idea but I tend to assume child rearing is challening and difficult and think alot of people do struggle with what is both a necessary and admirable venture. That being said...

I have no sympathy for the woman who wrote this article in Newsweek. Its simply a self centred airing of imagined grievances based upon self-imposed pretentious and unrealistic standards and expectations. The whole article is full of upper/upper middle class snobbery and I can only snicker at the "stress" that goes with not being sure you're child has the "best" piano teacher or does participate in activities x,y,z. It goes on to complain about how hard it is to juggle careers and children. This is quite true, however, when you read what sort of psychotic notion of parenting they have it would seem most of the misery they experience is purely self-inflicted. They are kids..you don't need to regiment their lives. Teach them to read, help them with their homework, sure have them play a sport and learn a music instrument but their life doesn't need to be coreographed and planned with detail normally reserved for a military campaign. Let them watch tv, play with their toys or run around outside...its what kids do. On the other hand just sitting kids in front of the Tv and turning it into the "babysitter" isn't a good idea either. But I'm fairly sure I watched about 3 hours of tv a day until I was 14 and I'm in law school, so I don't think it will rot their mind entirely.

The most amusing thing about the entire article is watching the author try and reconcile the notion that she can have everything she wants out of a career and a family. Sadly, that's not likely to happen, especially if you have unrealistic expectations about both. If your goal is to be "Corporate Princess" and "Supermom" you've created two conflicting goals and you're not going to satisfy either. To be cynical, life to some extent is a zero sum game, nothing is ever going to be perfect and its full of trade offs. The author's solution to this "problem" is state funded daycare...
this seems to be the same solution Canada's "luminaries" have come too. I shudder to think that the state which can't protect us from criminals, indulges itself in corruption and mismanagement on a regular basis thinks itself "competent" to look after children in their formative years. I tend to be following the party line on this one - cut taxes and let families deal with these trade offs as they think best. Rather than creating a program that creates the conditions requiring the program - try letting people deal with it themselves you lousy socialists with your one track mind forever seeking "more government". I'm only mildly optomistic about this program dying in its cradle because the provinces can't be so stupid as to be stuck with another "shared" program where Ottawa interfers and forces the province to pick up almost all the costs. I just don't see that happening when a majority of the provinces are already in deficit.

But back to the article Lileks of The Bleat absolutely savages this article. His response to it is absolutely brilliant, I'm posting alot of it below simply because I couldn't read it and not burst out laughing. In red is the text of the actual article and below it in italics is Lileks response..enjoy although I'd suggest reading the whole thing.

Women today mother in the excessive, control-freakish way that they do in part because they are psychologically conditioned to do so. But they also do it because, to a large extent, they have to. Because they are unsupported, because their children are not taken care of, in any meaningful way, by society at large. Because there is right now no widespread feeling of social responsibility—for children, for families, for anyone, really—and so they must take everything onto themselves.

Imagine that. You have to take the responsibility of your children on yourselves. The day I expect "society" to take care of my child in a meaningful way is the day I give society the right to take her away and do a better job if I don't schedule daily flash-card phonics sessions. I suspect that we are talking about two different groups - those mothers who genuinely need help because they made some horrible decisions and find themselves with many children and no fathers, and those who can't quite strike the perfect balance between Corporate Warrior Princess and UberSuperPerfectRoleModelLove-GusherMom, and hence get, well, excessive and control-freakish. I think the former group needs our help, and the second group needs a big frosty glass of chill-the-hell-out with a kicky pastel umbrella. Proof of the horrors of modern American life follows:

As I write this, I have an image fresh in my mind: the face of a friend, the mother of a first-grader, who I ran into one morning right before Christmas.

She was in the midst of organizing a class party. This meant shopping. Color-coordinating paper goods. Piecework, pre-gluing of arts-and-crafts projects. Uniformity of felt textures. Of buttons and beads. There were the phone calls, too. From other parents. With criticism and "constructive" comments that had her up at night, playing over conversations in her mind. "I can't take it anymore," she said to me. "I hate everyone and everything. I am going insane."

Well. It’s too bad Amazon cannot overnight a sense of perspective, because there are, in truth, tougher situations to find yourself in. I’d like to reserve “hating everyone and everything and going insane” for the moment when I’m fleeing the attack helicopters that have come to wipe out my tribe.

From my experience kids do not require their paper goods to be color-coordinated, unless that means everyone gets the same number of sheets of each color. Which, I hate to relate, can be arranged. And if you can't, and they complain, you tell them to deal with it. Likewise uniformity of felt textures, the absence of which has not caused any eye-gouging fights I’ve seen. But I’m a guy, and hence I will never stay up at night playing over conversations in my mind, something to which some women seem more prone than men. It's an instructive difference. It would seem to suggest an inherant dispositional characteristic that might not respond immediately to minor shifts in public policy.

In a related story Steve of Hog On Ice seems rather irked with something that crept into this Newsweek article a couple times. The notion that men and women are the same and that consequently "men aren't helping". Although he isn't responding to the lack of helpfulness directly..

One of the many unbelievably stupid things feminism teaches us is that men are just pretending to be men. Gays are real. Lesbians are real. Straight women are real. Transsexuals are real. Men, however, are putting on a macho act. Deep down inside, they, too, want to sit around babbling about nothing and watching "The View."

HAHAHAHAHA. Come on. I'd rather kill myself. The differences between men are women are chemical and impossible to change. If you spent a month on testosterone therapy, you'd start thinking and acting a lot more like we do. One of these days, some brave researcher is going to prove that butch lesbians have higher testosterone levels. Then he'll be fired and possibly crucified.

Harper's questioning the Liberal Human Rights Record has the Left up in arms, Mike Brock Fires back

2005-02-19T01:26:00.000-07:00

Apparantly the Liberal media is up in arms about Stephen Harper pointing out the failings of the Liberal Party's human rights record, when they attempt to trumpet it at every possible opporunity. Apparantly we're racists, bigots, intolerant, facists (pick your favourite lefty slander towards conservatives and insert here). My reaction is "they would say that wouldn't they", after all the Liberal Party of Canada and its cronies have never been known for letting facts get in the way of a good argument. But Mike Brock has a stinging rebuke, and I couldn't have said it better myself so I'll leave it to Mike.

Let’s see: Paul Martin campaigned on lies about the Conservative Party; he claimed we were planning on buying multi-billion dollar aircraft carriers, planning on embarking on some neo-fascist takeover of the world in cahoots with George W. Bush, and that we were going to essentially remove the underpinnings of Canada, resulting in some unimaginable and damaging shift in Canada's history that would be irreparable. Now he claims that we are plotting to use the notwithstanding clause of the charter to overturn a supreme court ruling which hasn’t even happened, and that we’re on a mission to curtail the rights of minorities while converting Canada into the planet's first Catholic totalitarian state's. Cheap politicking? How dare they accuse of that, when they've got the subject cornered a-la Warren Kinsella and David Herle?

So we point out their record on human rights, and we note that it was Brian Mulroney who offered a formal apology to Canada's Japanese community, after Pierre Trudeau outright refused to do so, and we're a bunch of cheap politicking racists. The rationalization abilities of the left in this country have no boundaries.

Stephen Harper's remarks on Same Sex Marriage

2005-02-19T00:31:00.000-07:00

After reading the Hansard of Stephen Harper's speach on Same Sex Marriage, I can only say that I am profoundly proud to call Stephen Harper the leader of my party. He's presented not only a coherent argument on the subject of same sex but brutalized the record of this embarassment of a government we have and its obfuscation and web of fallacies. The highlight reel follows...

On the Prime Minister's speach

The Prime Minister spoke at length, as we just heard, about rights in the Charter of Rights. I remind the Prime Minister that in our system of government, the Prime Minister does not decide or define our rights. The Prime Minister does not interpret the Charter of Rights. The Supreme Court of Canada does that. He asked the Supreme Court of Canada to endorse his interpretation and it just refused.

On the state of the government

What do we have today? We have no agreement on child care. We have a phantom deal on infrastructure. We have missing policy reviews on defence and foreign affairs. We have none of that famous fixed for a generation in health care. We have holes in federal agencies, the same old democratic deficit in the Senate, unaccountable foundations and, on the first day of a major environmental and economic accord to which the Prime Minister committed this country, we have no plan whatsoever and the Prime Minister does not speak about it. His only speech is on his new-found passion for same sex marriage because it is the only proposal of significance he has been able to lay before the House of Commons.

Traditional Marriage

It will come as no surprise to anybody to know that I support the traditional definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, as expressed in our traditional common law. I believe this definition of marriage has served society well, has stood the test of time and is in fact a foundational institution of society. In my view the onus is on those who want to overturn such a fundamental social institution to prove that it is absolutely necessary, that there is no other compromise that can respect the rights of same sex couples while still preserving one of the cornerstones of our society and its many cultures.

Up until a few years ago, even within the modern era of the charter, Canadian law and Canadian society took for granted that marriage was intrinsic, by definition, an opposite sex institution. So obvious was this that until now a formal marriage statute has never been adopted by Parliament. This view was not even restricted to the numerous faces and cultures that have populated our great country from all corners of the earth, though it has been a universal view among them.

He goes on to quote Anne McClellan in 1999 and adds that:

Today, for making statements that are identical and for identical reasons, members of the government side resort to terms like bigot, reactionary and human rights violators. The hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty of the government and some of its members at this point is frankly staggering.

Fundamentally, what has changed since the government, including the Prime Minister, voted for the traditional definition of marriage in 1999?

On this side, we do not believe that merely on the basis of lower court decisions, upheld only because the government refused to appeal, them that a fundamental social institution must be abolished or irretrievably altered. Only a free vote of the Parliament of Canada is an appropriate way to resolve such fundamental social issues.

On Civil Unions

At the one end there is a significant body of opinion, led today by the Prime Minister, which believes that the equality rights of gays and lesbians trump all other considerations, trumping any rights to religious faith, any religious expression or any multicultural diversity, and that any restriction on the right to same sex marriage is unjustifiable discrimination and a denial of human rights.

At the other end, there is an equally significant body that thinks that marriage is such a fundamental social institution, not only recognized by law but sanctified by faith throughout the world and throughout history, that any compromise in terms of recognizing homosexual relationships is unacceptable.

However, we believe that the vast majority of Canadians believe in some aspects of both and they are somewhere in the middle. They believe that marriage is a fundamental distinct institution, but that same sex couples can have equivalent rights and benefits and should be recognized and protected.

We believe that our proposals speak to the majority of Canadians who stand in this middle ground and frankly, who seek such a middle ground. Our proposal is that the law should continue to recognize the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, but at the same time we would propose that other forms of union, however structured, by appropriate provincial legislation, whether called registered partnerships, domestic partnerships, civil unions or whatever, should be entitled to the same legal rights, privileges and obligations as marriage.

On the Liberal's alleged human rights record

Quite frankly the Liberal Party, which drapes itself in the charter like it drapes itself in the flag, is in a poor position to boast about its human rights record. Let us not forget it was the Liberal Party that said none is too many when it came to Jews fleeing from Hitler. It was the Liberal Party that interned Japanese Canadians in camps on Canada's west coast, an act which Pierre Trudeau refused to apologize or make restitution for, leaving it to Brian Mulroney to see justice done. Just as it was Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Diefenbaker who took the great initiatives against apartheid, Mr. Diefenbaker with his Bill of Rights, and I did not see a notwithstanding clause in that. It was the Liberal Party that imposed the War Measures Act.

Today it is the Liberal Party that often puts its business interests ahead of the cause of democracy and human rights in places like China. Recently in China it was the member for Calgary Southeast who had to act on human rights while the Prime Minister went through the diplomatic moves.

The Liberal Party has spent years repressing free speech rights of independent political organizations from Greenpeace to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation that might want to speak out at election time. It has consistently violated property rights and has put the rights of criminals ahead of those of law abiding gun owners. The Liberal government has ignored the equality rights of members of minority religious groups in education in the province of Ontario even after international tribunals have demanded action.

On Liberal "Multiculturalism"

All religious faiths traditionally have upheld the belief that marriage is a child-centred union of a man and a woman, whether Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh or Muslim. All of these cultural communities, rooted in those faiths, will find their position in society marginalized.

I believe the Liberal vision of multiculturalism is really just a folkloristic one. The Liberals invite Canadians from cultural communities to perform folk dances and wear colourful costumes, but they are not interested in the values, beliefs and traditions of new Canadians unless they conform to the latest fashions of Liberalism. All races, colours and creeds are welcome in Liberal Canada as long as they check their faith and conscience at the door.

These ladies and gentlemen are the words of a leader. In the other corner we have Mr.Dithers.

The Empire Strikes Back! - Oil Traders curb stomp invading Green Peace Protestors

2005-02-18T21:54:00.000-07:00

(via Cold Fury)

This comes on the heals of Wal-Mart flipping the bird to its whiny unionizing employees, and its been a good couple of weeks to be a capitalist. Green Peace is a lot of whiny, snivelers who function on nothing more than pseudo-science and breaking the law. Strangely while the left complains about how "fascist" the right is, they seem to think themselves above the law. Kind of strange how that works isn't it? After all you don't see people on the right taking to the streets to try and forcefully coerce anyone from halting their peaceful activities. Yet the "environmentalist" (the active part of that appellation seems to be "mental") and anti-globalization ilk seems to think interrupting peaceful trade and commerce, vandalizing businesses and destroying property is just fine and dandy.

Apparantly Green Peace thinks it can force entry into the International Petroleum Exchange and disrupt its proceedings with sirens, horns and chanting and being physically dissruptive. Apparantly they didn't count on the traders there being young, male and pissed off. Let alone the traders kicking the snot out of these spoiled eco-brats and ejecting them from the building.

WHEN 35 Greenpeace protesters stormed the International Petroleum Exchange (IPE) yesterday they had planned the operation in great detail.

“We bit off more than we could chew. They were just Cockney barrow boy spivs. Total thugs,” one protester said, rubbing his bruised skull. “I’ve never seen anyone less amenable to listening to our point of view.”
..
Another said: “I took on a Texan Swat team at Esso last year and they were angels compared with this lot.” Behind him, on the balcony of the pub opposite the IPE, a bleary-eyed trader, pint in hand, yelled: “Sod off, Swampy.”
...

They made their way to the trading floor, blowing whistles and sounding fog horns, encountering little resistance from security guards. Rape alarms were tied to helium balloons to float to the ceiling and create noise out of reach. The IPE conducts “open outcry” trading where deals are shouted across the pit. By making so much noise, the protesters hoped to paralyse trading.

But they were set upon by traders, most of whom were under the age of 25. “They were kicking and punching men and women indiscriminately,” a photographer said. “It was really ugly, but Greenpeace did not fight back.”

Mr Beresford said: “They followed the guys into the lobby and kept kicking and punching them there. They literally kicked them on to the pavement.”
....
A spokeswoman from IPE said the trading floor reopened at 3.10pm. “The floor was invaded by a small group of protesters,” she said. “Open outcry trading was suspended but electronic trading carried on.”

It almost brings a tear to my eye. This is the kind of England that once stood astride the world as a colossus. Finally, whining and mob thuggery gets its just deserts a sound beating and ejection from the premises, let it be a lesson to those anarchic anti-globalization yahoos who think themselves above the law.

Earnscliff and the Finance Department

2005-02-16T13:00:00.000-07:00

Monty Solberg, the Conservative finance critic was quoted in the Sun as saying the following:

To illustrate the cozy relationship between the big Ottawa lobby firm Earnscliffe and the federal finance department, Solberg told the Commons, "the inbreeding between Earnscliffe and finance was like something out of the Ozarks. The only thing missing were the straw hats."

And we all know Kinsella, would agree with that.

Speaking of the Sponsorship Scandal

2005-02-16T12:54:00.000-07:00

I ran across this picture which I thought was amusingly accurate.

from Le Cornichon

Poetry from Portage - Brian Pallister on Gomery

2005-02-16T12:35:00.000-07:00

(via Phantom Observer)

Brian Pallister the MP for Portage-Lisgar is a guy who has alot of fun with his job. Anyone whose met the guy, let alone campaigned for him, will tell you the same thing. After all how many guys wax poetic on public inquiries?

We watched as Judge Gomery said not a peep,
While Jean deftly juggled his balls in his hand,
The former PM showed the meaning of cheap,
A petty and tacky, inelegant man.

Then came the new guy: once Treasury Board Chair,
The question,“That money, now where did it go?”
“I saw nothing, heard nothing, I wasn't there.”
And one never asks if they don't want to know.

Golf Amateurs do it, but Pros never try,
The Liberal game is improving your lie.

Jean meddled with BDC loans, we know why,
Sacked the president; he would have followed the rules,
But now the Shawinigan Street Fighter guy
Claims that ad scam was “hands-off” and takes us for fools.
The PM a detail man when things go well,
Micro-managed his way to the top of this town,
But when leadership's needed, he hides in a shell,
Knowing you cannot prove what is not written down.

Golf Amateurs do it, the Pros never try,
The Liberal game is improving your lie.

NHL Lockout Update - Season Cancelled.

2005-02-16T12:20:00.000-07:00

I was wondering if my gloom and doom prediction was going to be made to look foolish yesterday, when the NHLPA agreed to a salary cap of some sort. However, the league and the player's association evidently can't come to an agreement over the level of the cap so the season's cancelled. Although one has to think, did we really need to cancel a season when their now arguing over whether we should have a $49 million dollar salary cap or a $42.5 million dollar salary cap?

The players are looking terribly foolish in this, at least in my eyes. They've been chanting "No salary cap, not ever" since Semptember. Now they've changed their position to simply "we'd like a higher one than the league wants". Everyone could have been saved a lot of time, money and energy if the players had just taken that position in September rather than going through this prolonged bluff. Then the NHL would have had a CBA and a season and all the negotiations would have been over in October. I was sure the Oilers would make the playoffs this year and lose in the first round to Dallas too.

Red Ensign Standard #15

2005-02-14T17:53:00.000-07:00

Its been a busy couple weeks in politics, hence its been a few solid weeks of blogging from my collegues in the Red Ensign Brigade. Foreign policy has reared its head and Ensigners have chimed in with their opinions, while the war of words over same sex marriage has continued on albiet at times beginning to resemble a marathon. However, as issues wax and wan there has been a diverse range of opinions throughout the Ensigners.

The Brigade brings together a motley crew of Conservatives in their big and small C varieties, classical liberals, libertarians, moderates, and others whom are best described as right wing or simply malcontent. The golden thread that always unites this group is a profound sense of patriotism, a love of country - love of Canada and the most sincere desire and belief that Canada can do better.

Some of us have been accused of "hating Canada" in the past or labelled as "too pro-American". Yet those who bandy about such accusations fail to fully consider why we remain and work for change, nor do they consider why the idea of more individual freedom, and a nation standing for principal and upon its own two feet is considered "foreign". The idea of integrity, principal, decency, hardwork, freedom and individualism are not "new" to Canada. They are rooted in our past, they are very much part of our collective identity as Canadians. However much the accolytes of Pierre Trudeau wish to white wash over the matter and claim that Canadian identity is nothing more than a few pieces of paper, big government, politeness and everything and anything (multicultualism). That isn't Canada, it never was. Canada has , a history, a past, an identity and it has the Red Ensign. So we must as Burke advised make our maxim "nitor in adversum" (I strive against opposition).

The Red Ensign Standard #15

Rue at Abraca-Pocus has discussed the French Canadian celebration of La Candelora, the existance of this custom at the end of winter was news to me. Rue also ventured into a discussion of the sacred and the profane in the sense of the interaction between monotheisim and supersition.

Absinthe and Cookies is sold on the Fox show "House", points out the UN is "neo-prohitionist", and dares the UN to come get her drink.

Paul at Frozen in Montreal is rejoicing over Howard Dean becoming leader of the DNC. Paul and I seem to agree that that victory couldn't have happened to a more annoying guy. However, Dean does seem to be a bit of a rainmaker when it comes to getting money out of the white guilt crowd so I'm not sure how happy we should be about this yet. Paul also points out in Siberia a tiger and lion successfully mated to give birth to liger. Strange but true? Or simply a rumour that's found its way into the papers..time will tell.

Dirtcrasher at Antroblogogy finds the mob like behaviour at a new Ikea in England ridiculous yet amusing and also discusses ordinance.

John and Dusty at Argghhhh! are ontop of the Eason Jordan story and points out that the blog has primarily become a check upon the punditry and "experts", grasping at any inane statement they make with the tenacity of a bulldog. Dusty is feeling bellicose about the idea of Iran with nukes.

Damian at Babbling Brooks (the Babbler), has a round up and a few insights on Chretien's attempted slight of hand at the Gomery Inquiry. He urges us to keep our eyes on the ball, that millions of dollars were funnelled to Liberal allies in Adfirms who then kicked it back to the Liberal Party, and ignore Chretien's political theatre. Damian also points out that Hugo Chavez is just a younger Castro with oil. Nor does he buy the "suposedly" free and fair elections there where only 1% of the vote was monitored. He also accusses the left of being too willing to offer a free pass to anyone who hates America.

Chris and Dennis at Blue Tory (with Dennis being a silent partner in the blog) have noted the frivolous raising of the minimum wage here in Alberta (where things really are better). Chris of course points out that raising the minimum wage leads to fewer jobs. Chris also wonders how Steven Harper and Paul Martin shall fair in being reaffirmed in their positions as leaders of their respective parties.

Andrew at Bound by Gravity discusses the ethics of Wal-Mart, he believes their well within their rights to close a unionized store which compromises their profit margin. Andrew also makes the very valid point that should we really be trying to drive up the wages of a place like Wal-Mart so people try to make a career of bagging groceries? He implies - no, I concurr. Andrew also takes the criminal justice system to task for being far too indulge of obvious criminal acts.

Huck at BumfOnline compares Lincoln's idealism regarding slavery to Bush's regarding democracy. He also points outs that those persuing the ideal are so often slighted as being "simplistic" he notes that Lincoln suffered many of the same criticisms as Bush. I think Reagan might know a thing about that too. He also points out that the Gomery Inquiry is about to get down to following the money.

Bob and Dana at Canadian Comment relay Bernard Lewis' analogy about the spread of Wahhabism from Saudi Arabia. If the Klan or Aryan Nations controlled Texas and began to endow churches throughout Christendom...a harsh analogy but Bernard Lewis is one of the foremost middle eastern scholars. This seems to follow up a previous comment on the detrimental effect dictatorships have on the world.

The Candepundit remains dormant.

Chris at ChrisCam goes beyond simply condemning Jordan Eason and condemns the entire Davos Conference as an arrogant, elitist exercise. Chris also has mixed feelings over the latest forthcoming royal wedding.

Rebbecca at Doxology relays some facts regarding the definition of marriage, and also has a number of thoughts on Lent.

Darcy at Dust My Broom has an axe to grind with affirmative action programs, he also has a related and scathing post on minorities demanding segregated education.

Steve at Enter Stage Right considers the recent SES poll. He also notes Howard Dean's acclaimation as DNC chair and hopes he will provide a more reasonable direction for the Democrats than his predecessor. Although I wouldn't hold my breath waiting on that one.

Alan at Gen X at 40 has some ruminations on the future of hockey and more specifically Bettman's many failings. He's also a touch upset that the Chrieten government paid $13000 in fees to a consultant to purchase 480 neckties for $46,000.

James at Hammer into Anvil is on a simmilair line of thought expressing disgust with Liberal flunkies collecting outrageous fees to provide trinkets. He also dismisses the notion that Iraq is a "quagmire".

Hypothesis.ca was experiencing technical difficulties at the time the ensign was raised.

John the Mad has an insightful post on Lent. He also rages against the media's manipulation of the same sex marriage issue, and its transparent left wing liberal bais. Its a top notch rant, they don't call him "the mad" for nothing.

Just Between Us Girls is taking a break from blogging.

Keith at Minority of One has some thoughts on the history of blogs. He also speculates about Lansdowne Technologies having a sweeter deal with the Canadian government than Haliburton could ever dream about in the US. He also notes that the Canadian blogsphere seems to be leaning towards partisan strife.

Jason at Musings has considered the shaky situation with a nuclear North Korea and comments on the Wal-Mart closure in Quebec in response to unionization. Jason is up for an anti-boycotte, he doesn't really need anything from Wal-Mart at the moment but he's going to buy something as a show of solidarity.

Dr.Funk at Musings of a Canadian Slacker appears to be slacking not blogging.

Myrick considers how rich he on a global percentile.

Nathan of Nathan's Updates from Seoul has a photo tour of Gyeongbokgung as well as some pictures of the Catholic seminary in Seoul.

Curt at NorthWesternWinds has an interesting post on the Left's new view of the social contract. He also has some thoughts on the problem of "progress". Curt also directs us to Jason Kenney's remarks on human rights, and his distaste for the media toadying to Chretien. He has a priceless quote in this last post stating "Y'all need to get out more is all I'm sayin'. There's life outside of Starbucks, The Star and the CBC radio." So true Curt..so true and we all know exactly the sort of people your talking about.

Alan at Occam's Carbuncle mocks the rational for sex ed and decides that since teenagers are also committing crimes we ought to teach them the "right way to commit crimes". I think that's called social studies Alan where they exort students to join the Liberal Party of Canada. He's also a might bit irked at the provincial government's backslapping advertising over a smoking ban.

Nicholas at Quotulatiousness is in fine form mocking the pretentions of leftist European elitists, after all whom is more deserving of mockery than they? (Jack Layton aside) Nicholas also worries over bioengineering.

Ray at Raging Kraut stakes out a position on SSM, mostly because he's irked that its being used to distract from Adscam and its being rammed down the public's throat. He also has a poigant post on sailing.

Paul of Ravishing Light, turns out to be a former Wal-Mart employee and doesn't understand the fuss over how they treat their employees. He suggests that unionization is simply a socialist thrist for an ideological victory and cheers on the anti-boycotte. He also suggests that Rick Mercier used to be funny until he sold his soul to the government's agenda.

Peter at Rempelia Prime is a big fan of Ted Morton's Court Party thesis. He also notes that Jason Kenney needs a heavy dose of platitudes to sell his message in "Lemming World(Ontario)". He also has some arguments against SSM.

Rightjab is AWOL.

Jay at Shiny Happy Gulag writes a scathing polemic against extending the franchise to 15 year olds. He also rages against SSM and the seemingly endless stream of pet lefty causes. No one ever has to ask Jay how he really feels.

Ben at Skreet Skreet Skreet observes that Bin Ladin's film maker is sueing Michael Moore for using his footage. Does this remind anyone else of the old addage that "evil always turns against itself"? Ben also discusses a recent speaking engagement done by Stockwell Day which he attended.

Stephen Taylor produces some graphs concerning the partisan percentage of political donations given by the CBC board of directors and Via Rail's as well. Unsurprisingly those who recieve from Mother Government, give to Mother Government in monolithic proportions. Stephen also has a few snide words about "GI J...Hostage".

Striving Against Opposition has some of the latest cutting edge commentary on a series of Canadian and international events...(narcisim stiffled). In all seriousness if you want to see what I've been up too scroll down.

Chris at Taylor and Company offers a defense and explaination of social conservatism. He also discusses art.

Jay at the Freeway to Serfdom takes on the various abhorent policies of the Nanny State with his usual zealous libertarian angst. He also wonders how Germany manages to go on with its miserable state of employment and almost complete lack of individual responsibility.

Thomas at the Green Baron has gotten engaged. Congradulations Thomas.

Kate at The Last Amazon is disgusted with Famous Players wading into the SSM when people simply want to be entertained not preached at. She also offers a healthy dose of skepticism towards the current efforts to achieving some sort of progress in the Holy Land. I tend to concur, its too soon to say whether any genuine progress will be had.

The crew over at The London Fog can hardly contain their satirical glee in mocking the fact that 43% of Ontario couldn't determine what they liked most about Dalton McGuinty. They also are holding an intrablog debate on abortion, you can find the opposition too here and in support of here.

The Meatman at the Meatriachy exhorts us all to Wal-Mart solidarity to support that gleaming bastion of capitalism. He also points out that studies show the male brain is 4% faster. We're number 1, we're number 1...goooooo phallus!

The Monger casts Chretien in the role of a doctor and Canada in the role of a defrauded patient. He also directs us to the Christopher Hitchens top 10. Hitchens has to be everyone's favourite lefty, well at least those of us on the right. The good doctor also explains his deep and abiding hatred for Chretien.

The Phantom Observer brings us several amusing remarks from the House of Commons, found here and here. He also has some observations on the waxing and wanning of Canadian foreign policy (mostly wanning).

Ben at The Tiger in Winter is in Katmandu! He has updates on his trip here and here.

Tipper at Tipperography has her take on the forthcoming royal marriage. She also wades into current developments on the Israeli - Palestinian crisis and is mildly cyncial about what's currently going on.

Jaeger at Trudeaupia is bang on in his assessment that a "National Day Care Program" is nothing more than a liberal attempt to cultivate another group of dependents on a government program. Jaeger also snickers at Pettigrew being snubbed in Syria, another victory for soft power!

Temujin of West Coast Chaos describes his hatred of lottery tickets. He also humbly requests divine intervention in the destruction of the UN. Heck if God rid the world of the UN I'd be in church every Sunday giving thanks.

Happy Valentine's Day all, and I'm spent...

The NHL Season is Over - A topical take on what's wrong with the NHL

2005-02-13T19:29:00.000-07:00

Gary Bettman said the season was cancelled unless it was clear they were just ironing out the details for an agreement by sunday. Well, its Sunday and I haven't heard any rumblings about a deal to save the season nor have the papers been headlining "NHL Season Saved". Thus I feel reasonably confident that Gary Bettman will trot out tomorrow and announce the season cancelled.

The crux of this whole little Mexican standoff has been whether a salary cap should be imposed to to prevent salaries from balooning. The salary cap is basicaly a devise to save the owners collectively from their own stupidity. The fact that several owners are willing to pay lavish salaries for mediocre players and outrageous salaries for good players has distorted the economics of the game. A cap would constrain the big spenders *cough* New York Rangers *cough* from driving up the league's salaries and forcing everyone else to compete in a manner that's nearly bankrupted some of the small market teams, as well as many of the Sun belt teams.

The owners have come to the point where they've recognized they have a problem. This is good, recognizing you have a problem is always the first step to recovery. Their payroll expensives have become proportionately the highest among major sporting leagues.

The league's numbers indicate that 76 per cent of total revenues last season went to player costs. By comparison, the National Football League spent 64 per cent of its total revenues on player costs, Major League Baseball 63 per cent. About 58 per cent of the National Basketball Association's revenues went to play players.

This particular situation is a function of many other problems which I will outline below.

Television ratings in the US for hockey are also the lowest of the four big sports (baseball, football, basketball, hockey).

NHL: 1.1 rating on ABC, 0.47 on ESPN and 0.24 on ESPN2
MLB: 2.7 rating on FOX, 1.1 on ESPN and 0.6 on ESPN2
NBA: 2.4 rating on ABC, 1.3 on ESPN, 0.9 on ESPN2 and 1.4 on TNT
NFL: 9.0 rating on CBS, 9.9 on FOX, 7.1 on ESPN and 11.0 on ABC.

Consequently the tv rights for broadcasting NHL games in the US is the lowest.

NFL cashes in on per year: ABC (Monday night)- $550 million, FOX (NFC)- $550 million, CBS (AFC)- $500 million, and ESPN (Sunday night)- $600 million.

MLB has this: FOX- $417 million and ESPN- $141.8 million

The NBA cashes this: ABC/ESPN- $400 million and AOL Time Warner/Turner Sports- $366.5 million.

Now let’s turn our attention to the NHL: $120 million for their last contract with ESPN, ESPN 2 and ABC and this year, a whopping $60 million or half of what was made last year.

Tied in rather intimately with high percentages of revenue directed towards labour and low tv revenues is average player salaries.

NFL- $575,000 (although a lot of additional costs are tied up in signing bonuses)
MLB- $1,003,000
NBA- $2,366,000,
NHL- $1,795,000

Ticket prices are also comparable to other leagues, although the arenas are often not as large (at least not the size of either the NFL or MLB)
2002 figures in US$

NHL $49.86
NBA $50.10
NFL $53.64
MLB $18.86

Average attendance:

NHL - 16,533
MLB - 30,401
NBA - 17,050
NFL - 66,817

By way of a summary, what's wrong with the NHL? Too much money is being spent on players whom are not attracting people to the game. TV ratings are too low to support the level of salary that players are currently demanding. Hence the NHL's player costs have risen to an exorbitant 76% of total costs.

Solutions: The players who feel they would be underpaid under a salary cap could promise to make 3 more people for every one currently watching at home watch. (alright I can't even type that without bursting into laughter) Quite frankly players need to accept they are the poor relation in the major sports leagues and accept that they should be paid accordingly.

1) Salaries must be rolled back substantially. The number the players and NHL have been bandying about is 24%, personally I'd say 40% would likely be in order. Reducing player salaries by 24% would leave the average salary at $1,364,200 while 40% would leave player salaries at a much more reasonable $1,077,000.

2) A hard salary cap - cap the amount a team can spend at $30 million dollars US. Impose completely draconian penalties for violations.

3) Revenue sharing - baseball and football, both far more sucessful leagues than the NHL have revenue sharing systems as they recognize that the large market teams could not function without the small market temas to play against. Consequently I'd recomment at least 33% of the profit at the gate go to the opposition team.

4)Alter the rules of the game - get rid of the trap and obstruction. Its boring to watch, its bad for getting people into the stands and its horrible tv. Adjust the rules to make the game more fast tempo and high scoring.

5) Take a page out of Premier League Soccer's book and involve compensation for player development costs in both free agency and trades.

6) Salary arbitration should be eliminated as it would be incompatible for the most part witha salary cap, and has only done ill to the league.

7) Allow no signing bonuses and or performance bonuses save for winning and or making it to the Stanely Cup to be paid.

8) After doing 1,2,3 and 4 work at expanding the fan base in the US and building a television audience. Currently baseball is laying a beating on hockey in the ratings, there are twice as many baseball games as hockey games and baseball isn't an action packed thrill ride. Not to mention the fact that Football attracts 9 times as many viewers...

9) If the players refuse to recognize their current situation, bring in scabs from the AHL, Europe, and other minor leagues. The third and fourth line regular players will return to their teams almost immediately, while the first and second line players will not return immediately but faced with the decision of making next to nothing in the minor leagues and Europe they will accept the new reality of their situation.

10) Replace Gary Bettman with someone who actually is knowledgable about hockey, and for god's sake don't add any more expansion teams.

Side rant - We can put a man on the Moon but Pizza Hut can't get a Pizza to a University Residence because it doesn't have a Street Adress

2005-02-12T22:16:00.000-07:00

This is a diversion from politics and the exercise of my owner personal perogative to be slightly petty. Pizza Hut seems to be using a call centre to place their orders, they also seem to have a people in a call centre who don't have a clue as to what their doing. I live in a residence on a university campus and they can't get a pizza to me because I don't have a street adress.

Them:"Where is that then?"

Me: "It's on the university campus, and a service road leads from the street to it, it does not have a street adresss."

Them: "Where is the university? What's the university's adress"

Me: "You do realize that the university takes up a large number of city blocks and is fairly hard to miss don't you? I happen to be off X street on the campus."

THEM: "Hmm..we need to put in an exact street adress into our system. I'll ask the supervisor."

Me: "Fine"

Them: "Hello, this is the supervisor...our system can't accept an adress without a street number."

Me: "So your basically saying your system doesn't believe where I live exists."

Them: "No we believe you but we can't make our system work."

Me: "You do realize you have competitors who get here just fine and that by doing this your losing business."

Them: "We can't make our computers do that."

Me: "You have a store fifteen minutes from here..."

Them: "Sorry our computer program won't let us."

Me: "Fine, I'll go to your competitors since you obviously can't do something as simple as getting a pizza to where I live."

*Chris then hangs up and phones Dominos who CAN figure out how to get him his damn pizza. Capitalism works.*

Hey Stephen in the next election say "Jean Charest knows he has a silent partner in Paul Martin, I"ll look him in the eye and say no."

2005-02-12T21:06:00.000-07:00

Paul Wells, having recovered from cheerleading Chretien, returns to what he's really good at (and the reason we all like him) ridiculing Paul Martin. Wells brings to our attention the rank hypocracy that is involved in Paul Martin's rallying to the banner of public health care, from us "scary Albertans". Apparantly Ralph Klien running his jaw about how public health care isn't working is a dire threat to the system, while the Quebec government presiding over the formation of a parrallel private health care system isn't worth mentioning.

While this does seem consistent with Liberal beliefs regarding foreign policy (talking being far more effective than actually doing anything). Most of us have to wonder how wonder how King Ralph is so appalling in his prognostications while the end result is simply not worth mentioning because its in Quebec.

This is the sort of Liberal hypocracy which grates me and most of Western Canada. Its "okay" for Quebec, but wrong for anyone else. Everyone hates a double standard and there simply isn't anything else to call this.

Wells' reminds us of Paul Martin's campaign accusations against Harper being a "silent partner for Ralph Klein's health care reform."

Ralph Klein is "hoping he'll have a silent partner in Ottawa by the name of Stephen Harper, someone who will not speak up for the Canada Health Act," Martin told a group of health-care workers in Ontario on June 17.

"Well, unlike Stephen Harper, I do care. I will look Ralph Klein in the eye and I will say 'No.' Unlike Stephen Harper, I will defend medicare."

Kind of brings a tear to your eye, don't it.

Alright Paul, break out the warhorse. Guess what the dragon of private healthcare isn't found in Calgary or Edmonton, or even in "Scary Alberta" at all. It happens to be alot closer to where you live. Hey, its even in the city and riding you happen to represent. So go slay the evil, scary dragon of private health care Paul. Really, its in your neighbourhood. So seeing as "you care" do something about it!

Wells directs us to an article in the Montreal Gazzette, which outlines the extent to which private healthcare is flourishing within Montreal.

Montreal has become the private health-care capital of Canada, offering a wide range of diagnostic, surgical and therapeutic services to those patients willing to pay out of pocket to bypass the public system, a Gazette investigation has found.

A parallel health network for the well-heeled and well-connected has emerged in the city in the past five years amid swelling waiting lists in hospitals for MRI scans, orthopedic procedures, almost every type of day surgery, and a shortage of family doctors. Montreal, in effect, is now the mecca of private health in Canada, attracting patients from as far away as Vancouver Island.

"The province that's going to lead the change in the Canadian health system is Quebec, because it's the only province that has the autonomy to do it," said Brian Day, a Vancouver orthopedic surgeon and proponent of private health care.

"The federal government and (Prime Minister) Paul Martin will never hit on Quebec in the way that he will hit on Alberta and British Columbia."

Hippocrits..plain and simple. That's all Paul Martin and the Liberals are, every single one of them. This is simply the proof of it. They don't actually care about the health care system, unless they can exploit it to scare old people with bigotry towards Western Canada.

"Since nobody has clarified the situation, these private facilities are now increasing in number," said Normand Laberge, CEO of the Canadian Association of Radiologists. "Everybody is playing with words, pushing the envelope because the funding of the public system is put at the minimum."

I want this to be an election issue, I want to see the CPC making commercials about it. Expose these lying too faced hippocrits for what they are. A lot of swindlers who pretend to care, and then do and allow exactly what they said they were fighting against - free trade, health care, gay marriage.

Why is this happening - because "Jean Charest has a silent partner in Ottawa, Paul Martin, someone who will not speak up for the Canada Health Act."

We might as well go into the next election and have Stephen say "Well, unlike Paul Martin, I do care. I will look Jean Charest in the eye and I will say 'No.' Unlike Paul Martin, I will defend medicare."

The Toronto Star wonders why the Rest of Canada Hates Toronto

2005-02-12T18:52:00.000-07:00

The Toronto Star, engages in a bit of typical Toronto navel gazing and wonders why the rest of Canada hates Toronto. Reading the tone of parts of the piece probably answer the question in and of itself. To summarize 'Hmm..why could anyone possibly dislike people as wonderful as ourselves? What dated, misinformed and quaint ideas these people have..not liking Toronto.'

They don't seem to consider the possibility that as an entity being condescending to the rest of the country doesn't win you alot of popularity points. Nor does presuming that Toronto's news is "national" news, as many of the supposedly national newspapers do, score a lot of points with people who live elsewhere and for the most part couldn't care less what's going on there. Nor do the rest of us care much for people and media in Toronto attempting to shove their interventionalist, socialist agenda of suposedly "progressive values" a term which has ceased to have any meaning but "trendy leftist values" down our throats. Furthermore, the fact they believe their agenda is "Canada's agenda" and by extension Toronto is Canada, with all the arrogance that goes with that claim, explains the antipathy that much of Canada feels towards Toronto. Alot of us cheer against the Maple Leafs for good reason.

And to cover the rest of a litany of complaints I defer to the Arrogant Worms who have a nice summary in their song "Toronto Sucks".

I hate the skydome and the CN Tower too
I hate Nathan Phillips Square and the Ontario Zoo
The rents too high, the airs unclean
The beaches are dirty and the people are mean
And the women are big and the men are dumb
And the children are loopy cuz they live in a slum
The water is polluted and the mayor's a dork
They dress real bad and they think they're New York
In Toronto, Ontario

John Tory to Run for Ernie Eves old seat in the Ontario Legislature

2005-02-12T18:25:00.000-07:00

John Tory might finally become leader of the opposition in the Ontario legislature. Ernie Eves finally decided to return to private life after lingering for an inordinate period of time. Past leaders of the party tend to throw a shadow on the new ones, and lead to a certain amount of divisiveness in a party and its generally best if they slink off to some non-public role in the party. Although they generally remain popular enough that its great to trot them out for conventions to smile, wave and give a speach to the party faithful.

Although for the most part, its best to remember there is a reason why so many are former leaders - its not because they chose to simply retire, its because they failed somewhere along the lines. Ernie Eves isn't simply sailing off to his golden years, he's out as leader as he was a complete bust as leader. Any time you decided to throw out the fact you think your opponent is a "reptillian kitten eater", a remark as creative as it is bizzare, you are in trouble.

Now John Tory may have been the sort of fellow I wouldn't mind being mayor of Toronto, as compared to the raging socialists there he is Conservative. Although if it had been up to me he wouldn't be the leader of the opposition in Ontario. It would be nice if someone in more the Mike Harris mold picked up the Common Sense banner there from where its been left to fall and stormed the gates of that repulsive fortress of arrogant socialism that is Toronto and forced a pro-buinesss, pro-individualism and pro-personal responsibility agenda down their gagging throats.

However, John Tory won. He really can't be any worse than the social engineering and vaguely authoritiarian Liberal regime in charge of the place now. A group that's become so laughably control oriented that you can't even ride a bike without a helmet. Tory can't be THAT bad by comparison.

If nothing else Tory is the lesser of two evils, and he deserves his kick at the can. It would have behooved Eves to have stepped aside earlier so that Tory would have been in the legislature to direct the opposition to McGuinty's government. Well, at least he'll have his chance soon enough with the party's virtually tied in the polls. Ironically, the former mayoral candidate for Toronto shall now be representing a rural Ontario riding. Something of a change of venues for Tory, but if nothing else he has the right name to win and he seems to be fairly gun-ho about it. So best of luck to him, as even though I don't live in the province I loath anyone who ballons the state's influence as much as McGuinty is.

Wal-Mart puts the boots to would be Unionizers

2005-02-12T18:00:00.000-07:00

Hail Wal-Mart! Those about to shop salute you.

This is what I love to see, good old fashioned cut-throat capitalism looking after is bottom line, and sticking it to needless unionism which results in nothing more than laziness, overpayment for mediocre and lousy work and far more employees than are really necessary. Unionism became wholly unnecessary from 1960 onwards, it serves no purpose other than as a platform to attempt to extort higher wages than are deserved from business and government.

Now to be fair private sector unions may not be as wholly parisitic as public sector unions, but comparing the relative malignacy of parasites distracts from the fact "they are both parasites".

In a news release, Wal-Mart said it had told the United Food and Commercial Workers union during negotiations for a first contract that the store's financial situation was "precarious."
The company said the union's demands would have required more hiring and added hours.

Which is the completely predictable union demand "more money for less work." Look if you didn't want to work for a non-unionized store you should have gone elsewhere. Leave Wal-Mart, that shining beckon of capitalism alone you grubby, NDP voting wretches.

Really, look what the would be union has accomplished here, instead of more money and more jobs they' now have, no jobs and no salary. Essentially their worse off because of their efforts. Which is more or less what they deserve. If you want a relatively cushy job, go to college, don't work in Wal-Mart. Furthermore, for the love of god, its Wal-mart you're a cashier, stacking shelves or glad handing customers - don't complain about how hard done by you are. Wal-Mart isn't a bloody coal mine or a turn of the century factory, its a large deparment store. If your unhappy because your life involves working their rather than somewhere more glamorous and high paying, there is only one person to blame - yourself, not your employer.

UPDATE: Colby Cosh has a few exellent points to make on this situation as well. He isn't terribly impressed with socialist politicians condemning Wal-Marts actions, as he rightly points out that the entire purpose of a labour union is to act collectively to withhold your labour if you don't agree with the employer's labour policy. Turn around is fairplay, Wal-Mart is withdrawing its capital from the spoiled workers because they don't agree with the employee's labour policy.

Andrew Coyne's blog lives! And Coyne comes out swinging against Chretien

2005-02-12T17:29:00.000-07:00

Andrew Coyne who seems to be beset by a series of blog related technical difficulties, is back with more modest format. Let the blogsphere rejoice as one of its more prominent members return. Coyne's blog tends to be the point of origin for many other blogs at least in the Conservative ranks of the blogsphere (including my own humble prognositications).

However, the matter Coyne launches his return on is the rather suspicious self-characterization Chretien has laid out regarding the sponsorship program.

Chretien seeks to establish that while he knew about the sponsorship program's existance he really hadn't had anything to do with how it actually operated or exercised any oversite extra. However, Coyne makes the case about just how unlikely this really is. This "hands off" Chretien is the same Chretien whom got so very actively involved with securing funding, loans and grants for close friends and business associates? Who would not have payed any attention to a program he thought was part of his "number one priority" (I actually believe he had one..unlike Paul Martin). Coyne doesn't point this out but Chretien was REALLY interested in seeing Government of Canada logos and billboards all over Quebec as that was part of his job in the 1980 referendum and he believed it had been "key" to victory.

I think given evidence of his past conduct Chretien's testimony should be treated with a healthy dose of skepticism rather than with the adulation that the lefty blogsphere seems to be meeting it with. As I mentioned in my last post, Bob seems to have characterized their reaction perfectly.

Bob at "Let it Bleed" rebuts the Liberal Appologists

2005-02-12T17:06:00.000-07:00

This post at Let it Bleed has Bob summing up quite nicely my personal feelings towards the leftwing media's response main stream and blogsphere towards Chretien and Martin's testimony on the sponsorship scanal. Really, the begining of his post is priceless...

Now that the Liberal groupies have finally finished pleasuring themselves to climax over Ti-Jean's performance earlier this week (Ohmigod! He just showed us his balls! He's the greates... unnnrrnrrgrhhgh! ... damn, where are the towels?), we are being treated to the latest post-coital apologias. And, much like the earlier round, there's a certain... let's call it moronicity... to the whole exercise.

Generally Bob is simply on the mark on this one. The Liberals seem to have tried so many lousy angles at spin upon this matter, now their simply begining to cycle through them all over again and hopefully something works a second time or that people simply become tired of the whole thing.

The Liberals here seem to think saying "our corruption was saving the country" and that "other people bought logoed golfballs too" is some sort of persausive argument. Quite frankly, if you think your efforts to "save the country" by advertising Canada like it was a new brand of cola were successful you're delusional. Seperatism is still a Lucien Bouchard away from being on the cupse of breaking up the country.

People seem to forget that the referendum is in the bag more or less for the no side until Bouchard took over campaigning and managed to connect with Quebecers and inspire them to vote yes in larger numbers than previously imagined.

Secondly, do you really think that putting up a picture of the flag and the words government of Canada at various fairs and conventions in Quebec is really going to change people's minds? If Quebecers had the mindset of a grackle maybe they would say "ooh shiny, Canada good". But that's really not the case, and its the reason why we currently have 54 BQ Mps in Ottawa. The entire premise of the sponsorship program is insulting to the intelligence of Quebecers.

If you want to end the threat of Seperatism the only actual way to go about it is to a) placate seperatists with a devolution of powers that satisfy most of the nationalist voting bloc allowing them more control of their own affairs or b) rather than having a pathetic excuse for a national identity which tries to be all things to all people, give them something to identify with and which will bind their loyalty to Canada.

One of Conservatism's Founding Fathers: Benjamin Disraeli

2005-02-11T23:01:00.000-07:00

(via Burkean Canuck)

Russ, at Burkean Canuck has one of the more thoughtful blogs I've stumbled across, directed me towards an excellent article in the Weekly Standard on Benjamin Disraeli. Edmund Burke was clearly the philosophical father of the movement, but for all intents and purposes theory was put into practice under Disraeli. His interpretation of Conservatism is one which clearly affects us today and serves as the basis from which most Conservatives operate. Hence we could all do with a bit more knowledge into the life and works of Disraeli.

THUS DISRAELI FOUND HIMSELF in a position to rebuild the Tory party. How did he go about it? Reverence for tradition was central to Toryism and to Disraeli's own personality. He wanted his new-style Tory party to embody respect for tradition--wanted it to be new and old, to be a modern setting for ancient gems, a new crown displaying old jewels. This was a popular idea in 19th-century Britain, where "the future" and "the past" were both discovered, simultaneously.
...

The result was wildly successful, one of history's greatest public buildings. Disraeli aimed to accomplish something similar for the Tory party. His underlying thought, which defined Disraeli-type Toryism and reshaped conservatism for all time, was that the Conservative party was the national party. Sounds simple and is. But everything else followed. If you understood "national" properly, then (on the one hand) the Tories must be a democratic, "universal," progressive party that cared about the poor and working classes--since the party was national it must care for the whole nation, for all classes. But the Tories must also be a patriotic party that revered ancient traditions and institutions, again inasmuch as they were the national--and therefore honored profoundly the nation's heritage and distinctive character.

He put it like this:

In a progressive country change is constant; and the great question is not whether you should resist change which is inevitable, but whether that change should be carried out in deference to the manners, the customs, the laws and the traditions of a people, or whether it should be carried out in deference to abstract principles, and arbitrary and general doctrines.

Timmy the G decides to import deranged and fringe so-called "Conservatives" to substantiate his fascist allegations

2005-02-09T16:35:00.000-07:00

Since Timmy the G still seems hurt that I've declared that calling the Republican Party and the Right in the US in general "fascist, or becoming fascist" to be a way in which he's undermined his credibility, Timmy has sought out such "conservatives" as Pat Buchanan and Justin Raimondo to try and justify his statement.

Heh.

I firstly have to question Timmy's familairity with either Patrick Buchanan or Justin Raimondo. Patrick Buchanan is someone whose drifted off the Conservative radar in the United States. He lost the nomination for the Republican party and thereafter sought the nomination of the Reform Party in the US, which had previously been Perot's vehicle. Buchanan's views are hardly conservative, he's an isolationist, anti-war, anti-trade blow hard whom also happens to be have some "interesting" racial views. Undoubtably I'm not the only one who recalls Pat Buchanan's last campaign commercial where a person was dialing directory assistance and they recieved a numbered list of options in foreign languages, perhaps a dozen of them, and then a voice over was heard "Is this America?" Buchanan is a member of a navel gazing, xenophobic fringe which isn't affilated with the Republican party and isn't taken seriously by Conservatives.

Raimondo is an even more questionable Conservative and is one of Buchanan's ilk. He runs a site called www.antiwar.com , and seems to share many of Buchanan's views. However, if you'd like an assessment's of Raimondo's credibility he's recently written a book about how 9/11 was secretely masterminded by the Mossad who thereafter manipulated the US into invading Afghanistan and Iraq.

Right..it was all the JJJJEEEEEWWWWSSSSS.

I'm glad to see Timmy has gone to such "credible sources" and "reliable Conservatives" to try and justify his statements and defend his own "credibility". But evidently an unjustifable and derranged statement can only be supported by people simmilairly afflicted.

John the Reasonably Sane but Understanderably Angry on the Media and SSM

2005-02-09T16:14:00.000-07:00

I read John the Mad's blog quite frequently and he had a post a number of days ago which I've been meaning to draw attention too but given my somewhat busy schedual have been remise in getting around too. He commented in the thoroughly dishonest manner in which the Globe and Mail and certain other media outlets choose to deal with the issue of same sex marriage.

He mentions that the media has been doing everything in its power to play up the minor disagreement in the Tory causus at last count 95 Mps to 4, as a major "skism" in the party ranks which is tearing the Conservative Party appart. I've read so many articles about this, and quite frankly its been nothing more than exaggeration, fabrication and outright lies.

The media in many quarters seems to insist that the disagreement in the Conservative Party of 95 to 4 is greater or at least as great as that within the Liberal Causcus (if they choose to mention the Liberal Causus at all). Somewhere between 30 to 40 Liberal Mps are expected to vote against this, out of 134 Liberals. That's more than 25% of Paul Martin's party voting against his inititive, while only approximately 5% of the Conservative causus has indicated it is against its leaders stance. Which party is rife with dissent? Can anyone in the media count?

John also rages against the fact that the Globe doesn't seem to wish to credit the CPC with the fact that the majority of the public is on its side, and that people are clearly supportive of a referendum on the subject. The selecting reporting of the media and its role as appologist in chief for the Liberal Party of Canada, and big government in all its ways, shapes is forms is as tedious as it is irritating. The death of investigative journalism and anyting resembling impartial reporting of facts or the presentation of balanced views on a given issue or of political perspectives seems to be a thing of the past as the media plunges back to its role in the 1800s as party mouthpieces.

But I'd encourage you to go read the whole thing.

Victory is mine! Chris 1 - State 0

2005-02-09T16:07:00.000-07:00

As a means of explaining why I hadn't posted anything yesterday, I had a trial this afternoon and was preparing myself for that. Its a somewhat time consuming process, I printed up the necessary three copies of 4 different judgements which were the relevant caselaw, highlighted the relevant passages and went through a good amount of paper and ink in the process. But at the end of the day I was fairly confident in the case I was going to present.

However, after I managed to get my principal to court and stacked my authorities on the table before me, the crown had a conversation with the arresting officer and decided thereafter not to call him as a witness. Hence they had no evidence and the case was dismissed.

Well, its a W, although an anticlimatic one. As gratifying as it is to win, perhaps yet having the naivity of a first year law student I was looking forward to grilling the witness and speaking before the court. Everyone wants their "you can't handle the truth" or McCoy moment in the sun. Ah well, I won - yea me!

British Politics

2005-02-08T01:37:00.000-07:00

There is an election heating up in the UK, I can't claim to be more than an occasional and casual observer of British politics but there are few elections which really strike me as presenting two political options as utterly lacking as the current elections in the UK. I can't really claim to have a horse in that particular race. In one corner we have Tony Blair's Labour Party, or "new Labour", and by "new" it seems to mean "a reasonable foreign policy but with the same great big government taste", and Blair seems to be working to get Britain more deeply involved in the European Union. My general opinion is that the European Union has generally been good for one country, France, Britain has never benifeted fiscally from participating in the European Union. its simply a bad arrangement which Thatcher fought tooth and nail. I'd hate to see the UK the craddle of modern democracy pass that utterly wretched socialist constitution the EU has cooked up.

Labour has been engaged in all sorts of rampant stupidity in the UK, they've been introducing hate speach legislation to stiffle emerging criticism against muslims in Britain. Although apparantly Mr.Bean has lead the charge to at least soften that blow. The irony of Rowan Atkinson's whose character didn't speak in so many episodes of that show, becoming the champion of free speach is nearly overwhelming. But the fact its left to a comedian to champion the cause of free speach is a sad indictment of the political process in the UK to begin with.

Labour has apparantly also backed down on prosecuting people for shooting intruders who broke into their house in the middle of the night and had weapons/were threatening. Despite the fact that their opponents have been laying into them about it for a year about that, only recently did they decide they really hadn't meant for that ever to be illegal at all....

They also outlawed the fox hunt? What's up with that? What are stuffy old english families in the country side going to chase after on horseback with guns now? But in all seriousness doesn't the left have any respect for tradition and customs? (apparantly property rights and free speach are tolerated only when election time rolls around) Britain also has a terribly extensive system of cameras monitoring public places. Generally Labour's domestic policies are agregious leftist pap which treads all over individual rights and hasn't much use for logic or reason.

They finally seem to have acted on solving the longstanding immigration problem but Tony seems a bit miffed that the British Conservatives stole his thunder by producing their solution last week.

When you come right down to it, I would have no time for Tony Blair and his Labour party of big government socialists, if it were not for the fact that Blair was rather zealous in fighting the war on terror and supporting efforts to promote democracy in the middle east.

That is a rather substantial redeeming feature for an otherwise useless political party (which doesn't feel terribly comfortable doing the only thing its doing right).

The British Conservatives seem to be genuinely less agregious on all the domest UK fronts, however, they've rather opportunistically lumped themselves in with the pacificist anti-war leftist crowd (decidedly bad company to keep). Evidently their desperate for votes enough to distinguish themselves from Labour on the one thing that party is doing right. Hence the Howard Conservatives may well be a better choice for the UK itself but it would be detrimental to the world were Blair is at least enthusiastically backing democracy and a more muscular foreign policy. Its dissapointing to see Howard turning his back on the rather stellar record that Thatcher and the conservatives in the UK developed during the Cold War. At that time they were the party standing up for freedom and democracy abroad, while Labour lumped itself in with the leftist shrills.

I really wish they could both lose, and some party was running in the UK on Labour's foriegn policy and the Conservatives domestic agenda.

American Politics - Productive Democratic Navel Gazing

2005-02-08T01:23:00.000-07:00

When an election goes horribly wrong, and when you should have in your own mind won, parties and pundits seem to analyze, dissect, prognosticate and otherwise poke the corpse that was their election effort.

Quite frankly pundits are often dead wrong about what parties should do. That and they also tend to be terribly predictable in what they have to say "be less centrist", "be more centrist", "have a better candidate", "play more or less dirty during the campaign" etc.

However, James Carville and Stanely Greenberg of the late Clinton braintrust have been polling the proles and crunching numbers to analysize the state of the democratic party. What issues their weak on, where their strong and therefore extrapolating about how the Democrats should be tailoring their message.

You can find their report here, its fairly brief and an easy read (lots of graphs). I'd like to see the CPC do something simmilair as it strikes me as a very productive project to undertake.

The Gomery Commission

2005-02-07T22:57:00.000-07:00

Larry Zolf seems to have joined the cheerleaders of the ancien regime in saying how biased the Gomery commission is and how Chretien is going to wriggle out of it all because of that.

Chretien may elude responsibility, most likely because he really did leave the task to his various minions and it would seem fairly close minions at that but minions none the less. Furthermore, there usually is a reluctance to try and throw the book at former heads of state. A reluctance only Chretien himself seemed adverse too when he baselessly persecuted Brian Mulroney once Mulroney had left office.

Warren Kinsella (you'll have to scroll to find it, he doesn't bother with perma links) aside from ridiculing Judge Gomery in a way which is generally unbecoming of a lawyer, complains about the cost of the commission. This of course temps me to inquire, how much money was spent maliciously prosecuting Mulroney? Apparantly 12 million is an appropriate figure to chase unsubstantiated rumours fed to the police by a reporter..but 20 million is inappropriate to investigate money which WITHOUT A DOUBT was stolen.

As for Gomery being biased what are his alleged "offenses".

1) He appointed a Tory as chief counsil to the commission.

Somehow the prosecution as it were in this case is a known Conservative, so obviously he's biased. As far as I can tell, this was done to "remove" accusations of bias. If a known Liberal was appointed there would be accusations that someone was being sent in to do a half hearted investigation and questioning and the whole endeavour was a whitewash. Considering that Gomery likely wasn't pointed to the bench for his own "conservative" political views it seems fair enough to me. And its been pointed out elsewhere (Norman Spector who annoyingly doesn't use permalinks eithers so its debatable whether I'm referencing to something still there) that Chretien's own lawyer has served in a similair capacity while dealing with an inquiry into one of the scandals of the Mulroney years. He didn't feel in the least bit conflicted by his partisan affiliation at the time.

2) Gomery has said "millions of dollars were stolen, missappropriate or otherwise mispent" or something to that effect. That's biased? We didn't call an inquiry simply because there was a miscalculation in the math. Alot of money got funneled to ad agencies for their doing absolutely nothing. That's the reason for the inquiry, not a reflection of bias.

Gomery said making golf balls with the initials JC on them was "small town cheap". No kidding, that is terribly tacky and egocentric regardless of the size of the town its done in. Furthermore, doing so on the taxpayer's dime? That isn't cosher.

As for Guite being a "lovable scamp", apparantly Gomery hates the sin but loves the sinner. Who cares as long as he does his job properly?

All of these accusations of bias are baseless and nothing more than political maneuvery to try and cast doubt on the process. Gomery shouldn't even have appologized, as it was completely unnecessary.

Super Bowl Sunday

2005-02-06T14:42:00.001-07:00

Like most males I gathered around a television today and beheld the power of the amazing flicker box, as the Philidelphia Eagles and New England Patriots battled for the Vince Lombardi trophy. It was a decent game, the first half was terrible but it was close so it was watchable. The second half was a substantial improvement as more points went on the bored and the game stayed fairly close down to the wire. New England was the favourite going in so its not terribly suprising to see them win once more, but it was an impressive effort none the less.

What was up with Paul McCartney as they half-time show? Firstly, he's so old he can't sing anymore. Secondly, he might have been cool thirty or fourty years ago but serious..that's thirty or fourty years ago! Thirdly, hey jude? You don't listen to that in conjunction with football. It was horribly out of place.

Catching the Simpsons and American Dad afterwards was quite amusing. The Simpsons was actually funny for a change (they must have had a brainwave), and Seth MacFarlane's new show "American Dad" is possibly the funniest thing I've ever seen on television. Yes, it entirely lampoons America in slightly derogatory fashion but its so entirely absurd you can't really take it as serious social commentary. But I was broken up laughing through the entire episode.

Quiz - Which Canadian Supreme Court Justice Are you?

2005-02-06T14:42:00.000-07:00

Which Supreme Court Justice Are You?

You are the Honourable Mr. Justice Michel Bastarache. (90.4% match)

Born: 1947, Ville de Québec, QuébecAppointed: 1997Key word: "society"
When we live together as a society, sometimes the society has needs that need to be respected as well as the needs of the individuals within it. Sample opinions you wrote or co-wrote examine the boundaries that society must place on individual rights and freedoms for the common good: Sharpe (freedom of expression), Trinity Western (sexual preference), and Harvard College (right to patent inventions).

Score
Justice
90.4%
Bastarache
67.5%
Gonthier
67.4%
Major
64.8%
Iacobucci
51.7%
McLachlin
42.8%
Binnie
39.7%
LeBel
24.9%
L'Heureux-Dubé
13.4%
Deschamps
9.1%
Arbour

I'm really tired of Liberals saying "how would same sex marriage affect you, its none of your business"

2005-02-05T22:06:00.000-07:00

I'm really sick and tired of that dishonest and disingenious means of seeking to stiffle any dissent on whether homosexuals should be allowed to marry.

"What business is it of yours?" Implies because I'm not gay I shouldn't have any say in it, and "it doesn't affect me" because I'm not directly involved I shouldn't have an opinion.

You know what? Anyone mouthing that empty rhetoric can can take a long walk off a short pier.

I'm sick of hearing people flying this "libertarian flag of convience", they don't honestly believe that people shouldn't be able to meddle in other people's affairs. They just want to be able to close their mind and believe there are no consequences to this particular political cause. Nor do they actually believe that the state and society should shove off and leave people alone.

I'll take this argument as credible if and when each and every one of you who raises this argument is willing to say "Yes to private healthcare", "other people's health doesn't affect me so I shouldn't have to pay for it." When they're willing to say "other people's ownership of guns doesn't effect me unless they use them on me, so if you want a closet full of assault rifles knock yourself out." If they're willing to say "welfare, transfer payments, foreign aid? How does of the deprivation or suffering of others affect the people who actually pay for it, its none of their business, why should they pay?"

That's right if you want to play the Libertarian card, if your in for a penny, your in for a bloody pound. Sign on the dotted line to say "Yes, I'd like the majority of the state to be dismantled until it doesn't do much more than raise a military, a police force, a fire service, negotiate trade and alliances with foreign countries and build roads. The need for several of those services is also debatable."

Then I'll take your "its none of your business, and it won't affect you anyhow" lines seriously. Until then if I have to pay for all this mindless communitarian drivel which quite frankly "doesn't affect me", I'm going to say that SSM is bad for society on the whole and shouldn't be allowed to happen.

Now all you "Libertarians by convience", put up or shut up.

Superheroes a reflection on capitalism, global influence and conflicted misgivings?

2005-02-05T20:25:00.000-07:00

There is an interesting article over at Tech Central Station concerning the relationship of American and the other Anglosphere countries to Superheroes.

The article offers up a couple of parralells between superheroes and America that are quite entertaining, and something that strikes you as glaringly obvious once you consider it.

The superhero's solution to the problem of power is America's solution, also: we have created a second self. Domestically, we prefer a laissez-faire government that leaves us alone to pursue our own projects. But internationally, we recognize an obligation to confront threats to world peace -- and we detect that we are the only agent with the power and the will to do so. Thus, when evil looms large, America the tolerant and unimposing becomes America, the mighty and relentless. America, the purveyor of soft post-modern values, becomes America, the exporter of surly pre-modern men with rifles. The government that leaves you alone becomes the government that pulverizes you with its super Marine strength and Tomahawk Missile vision. The administration that couldn't find your country on a map yesterday becomes the administration that renames the cities on your map tomorrow. Off go the glasses, on goes the costume, and America becomes a superhero, fighting with astonishing powers in the name of the very ideals that give it the illusion of weakness and indecision.

...
In each generation, the struggle is different. Superman -- a child of the late thirties -- reflects the problem of power as seen through the eyes of a first-generation immigrant. He comes to America from a distant land, an adopted citizen who gains extraordinary powers from the near-magical differences between the stagnation of the old world and the boundless possibilities of the new. For him, power is basically infinite; his struggles inhere in the imagination and determination he must bring to bear in using it -- and in the patience he must exercise in not using his power in his civilian identity. By contrast, Spider-Man -- a child of the sixties -- reflects the struggles of the second-generation American: possessed of strange (but not infinite) powers through the mysteries of science, he must reconcile his enormous responsibilities with his desire to lead a normal, fulfilling, unburdened life. When his responsibilities overwhelm him, he sometimes retreats into despair and selfishness, only to return to the fight with a renewed sense of purpose. Finally, Mr. Incredible -- a post-9/11 suburban American -- is indifferent to the origin of his power and comfortable with the use of it, but bedeviled by the enervating influences of modernism: bureaucracies, lawyers, and relativists who can see only order and disorder, rather than good and evil. Need I draw the comparisons to World War II, Vietnam, and the War on Terror?

General Mattis - My Kind of Soldier

2005-02-05T19:43:00.000-07:00

Marine General James Mattis, is a Patton style soldier. He's good at what he does and he likes his job. He seems to have stirred the media up into something of a lather over the fact that he mentioned he both likes fighting, and killing assorted terrorists, fascists and various other minions of tyranny. (NY Times link, free registration is required)

Ah but you have to love someone as forthright about where he stand as Mattis.

According to an audio recording of General Mattis's remarks obtained by The Associated Press, he said: "Actually, it's a lot of fun to fight. You know, it's a hell of a hoot. It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right upfront with you, I like brawling."

He added, "You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil."

General Mattis continued: "You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them."

The media like generals like Collin Powel, whom are far more cryto-uniformed politicians than they are generals. General Mattis on the other hand is the sort of guy you want to go to war with. If you wanted to boil down his comments you would have those of "Major Payne" (a Wayans brothers movie about a marine) who stated "Killing is my business and business is GOOD".

Quite frankly, what does the media want from soldiers? For them to be sulky and remorseful over their business and to put in a half hearted effort?

Most likely some of them would prefer that as that would mean the American military would be nigh to impotent if it went about hesitantly and with misgivings. However, that's not what soldiers are meant to do. They aren't meant to shovel out the streets of Toronto, nor are they meant to be distributing alms to the international poor.

Soldiers are suposed to kill the enemy. By definition the enemy is bad, killing him is desirable as that is the mission and if you do not kill him, he will kill you.

Perhaps Mattis isn't a sauve sophisticate and the media can make him out as a backward redneck brawler. But that's one redneck brawler that I wish was running our military whether the media hates him or not. When it comes down to whom you want on your side in a scap, they can have the sophisticates, I'll take the good old boy every time.

Ayn Rand would have been 100 yesterday

2005-02-03T17:43:00.000-07:00

I had a beer and was generally selfish yesterday, I'm sure Ayn would have been pleased.

There is a surprisingly even handed article about her in the New York Times (free registration if you take the two minutes to do so)

Is there any author out there today as influential as Ayn Rand? Probably not, although there are some authors who push a simmilair agenda and blend fiction and ideology together in a pleasingly individualistic manner. Terry Goodkind is one, if you care for the fantasy genre. His last several novels have been literary polemics against collectivism and pacificism.

Sometimes the best reason to say something is that it makes all the right people angry

2005-02-03T17:21:00.000-07:00

President Bush by again raising that clairon call of freedom and rightly denouncing Syria and Iran as oppressive dictatorships which support terrorism, has evidently made both Syria and Iran angery.

I tend to like the fact that Bush has basically called a spade and spade and denounced Syria and Iran. Far too long the whole notion that "he may be a bastard but he's our bastard" has been in operation as the world struggled between two super powers each seeking to arrange countries like pieces on a playing board. The sad fact of the matter was that regardless of whose side the muderous regime and or dictator in question was on, he was still a blood thirsty tyrant.

The desirability of allowing these intransient governments to persist has ended. No longer is there the "greater evil" of Communism to fight. Now there is only an assortment of lesser evils. Like weeds they must be methodically plucked from the garden of nations until they are no more. Iraq and Afghanistan have been a good start, and undoubtably that alone has made both Syria and Iran terribly uncomfortable.

Two of the most backward regimes in the world have been given notice that change must occur and that if it doesn't come from within, it will be given a helping hand from without. Thus with a hundred thousand American troups in a neighbouring country where a new democratic government is being established and a foreign backed insurgency steadily being beaten down - further change in imminent. No longer will the atrocities and indirect threats these countries offer be ignored but they shall be taken for what they are enemies of all free people.

There is dissatisfaction brewing with the authoritarian regimes governing both countries and undoubtably freedom only a border away offers hope to the opressed. Thus as Iraq becomes more well in hand, I would say full of hawkish glee on the Damascus and on to Tehran!

Adventures in American Tort Law

2005-02-03T16:56:00.000-07:00

As a law student here in Canada, I occasionally look at some of the verdict that are reported on from the United States. I generally have a conflicting reaction of intermingled envy and outrage. Damages in the United States are needless to say *coughs* just a touch more generous than they are here in Canada. But a touch I mean hundreds to thousands and occasionally tens of thousands of times larger.

As a law student, I can't help but thinking that it would be nice to have that one big payday where your ship came in and some large corporation got dinged for tens or hundred of millions of dollars. At which point as the lawyer you take an excessive cut and fees, buy your Carribean island and wander off to live the life of Riley until the end of your days. I tend to think of this as the American Legal Dream ... its like the American Dream except its playing upon populist impulses of a jury to bilk a large company out of millions while they pass on the costs to the public and everyone suffers just a little bit more as a result.

However, you read reports like the award for this tobacco judgement, where the family of a 73 year old woman who developed cancer ect..from smoking for decades was awarded 20 million dollars as compensation.

Seriously..20 million dollars because smoking was bad for you? For the last two decades this has been on tv constantly if not before that. The government and various anti-smoking groups have been trying to hammer this into your head constantly - and you didn't know? Evidently she finally stopped smoking in 1990 and died a decade later of a heart attack.

I'm honestly not sure how anyone managed to convince themselves that putting something on fire into their mouth and sucking smoke into their lungs was good for them in the first place. It seems something that can't be good any way you look at it.

This was also a voluntary action she understook, maybe for the first fifty years or so she smoked she didn't know it was bad for her. But no one made her smoke, it was her own individual decision. Ciggerettes were offered for sale, she purchased and smoked them. She contributed to her own negligence and the jury actually found her 75% responsible. I would't be adgast at the initial award of 2 million dollars.

However, going on the next day to award 20 million dollars to the family? Firstly the woman was 73 - natural causes were about to set in fairly soon anyhow. No matter what trauma the family feels, its not like the woman was cut down in her prime. Its simply a nonsensical award, perhaps it difficult to put a dollar figure on one's sense of loss but I doubt it would be more than a million dollars.

On the other hand reading some Canadian tort cases it can be a touch like trying to squeeze blood out of a stone to get the courts to award any substantial amount of money as compensation and often I think they're somewhat stingy about it. I have to wonder if somewhere they haven't managed some sort of happy media which strikes the middle ground between stingy and excess.

University Students Demand Lefthanded Desks so the Desks Conform with Everything Else at the University

2005-02-03T16:49:00.000-07:00

Well the title is tongue in cheek, however left handed students at the University of Saskatchewan are complaining that there are insufficient desks for left handed people. I think theses students may have a point, your hand begins to cramp up when you're normally writing a three hour exam, I wouldn't want to venture into writing a three hour exam at a strange angle. So you hear that you socialist university administrators, stop stepping on the left handed people and let them..learn in comfort!

New Blogging Tories as well!!

2005-02-03T16:36:00.000-07:00

David Artemiw of the self titled blog, as well as Gull Chased Ship and Crawling in TO have joined the blogging Tories. Welcome!

Monty Solberg seems to be keeping up with the hip new things to do and has started his own blog. It shall be interesting to see him wading into the blogsphere as he's always struck me as one of our party's most articulate advocates both in the Commons and in the media.

New Red Ensign Members

2005-02-03T16:18:00.000-07:00

Rue, of Abraca-Pocus has raised the red ensign, and seems less politically fixated than most of us ensigners.

The Meat Man at the Meatriachy has also signed up for our merry little band of bloggers. (Like he needs a plug from me..)