At 6:05 AM this morning, Iraq time, the world became a better place. Saddam Hussein was executed.
While Human Rights Watch and others decried the execution, it is my opinion he got what he deserved given the brutality he inflicted on many innocent victims over his lifetime.
There are times when killing and/or war are justified. This was one of them.
Good riddance to a brutal, evil person.
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Friday, December 29, 2006
"Bad Luck" or Global Warming?
The Toronto Star ran this headline this morning on a feature about the top weather stories of the year.
Of course the storms hitting BC this year are caused by global warming, just as hurricane Katrina last year was global warming, the georgeous warm winter here in Ontario is global warming, and the breakup of Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston is also probably "global warming". To determined eco-activists, "global warming" must be shoved in your face daily in order to stampede society into the solutions they favour based on emotion. The "reason" angle wasn't working too well. Panic is a better motivator.
I draw your attention to a map and a chart from Wikipedia ("Ice Age"). As recently as 10,000 years ago, not that long ago in geological and evolutionary terms, southern Ontario was under hundreds of metres of ice, and the oceans were 130 metres lower than they are today. The chart shows this pattern has been repeated for the past 400,000 years.
Global warming is certainly a fact, but I think it's time we realize this is a cycle that has been, and will be repeated in some form or another for millennia. Rather than wringing our hands and trying to "stop" the inevitable (many argue at best it can only be postponed, not stopped), perhaps our leaders should develop a strategy to deal with the consequences (coastal flooding, changing environments), and even the opportunities, rather than throwing trillions of our heard-earned dollars at rhetoric and ideology. (ie. If we can't convince you to share your wealth, and reduce inequality with the 3rd world via foreign aid handouts, then we'll stampede you into it with our latest equalization scheme ... Kyoto "carbon credits").
The warm winter in Europe was recently reported as being the warmest in 1,200 years, when Charlemagne was king. But Charlemagne didn't drive SUVs, and neither did the mastadons.
Global warming is real. History tells us that. So let's learn to deal with it. We humans adapt. After all, anything that gives us Atlanta's climate and sinks New York and Los Angeles into the ocean can't be all bad. (Calm down ... that was a joke).
The real immediate crisis is the current exponential growth in humanity that cannot continue, and nobody is even talking about it. Quite apart from the inability of our planet to support such exploding population growth on an ongoing basis, even if we succeed in halving our greenhouse gas output per capita within the next century, if our world population doubles in the same period, nothing will have changed.
Better to spend those trillions intelligently on educating the world's have-nots to a better life than susbsistence living in doomed high-risk coastal flood zones than simply pissing it away in head-in-the-sand handouts to both incapable and irresponsible regimes who will simply giggle with glee at the freebies (carbon credits) being flung at them by idiot ivory tower idealists in the developed world and promoted in our liberal media.
In the meantime, developing cleaner and more energy-efficient power sources, more energy-efficient appliances and technology, encouraging responsible energy use (not ridiculous pleas to turn up the air conditioning to uncomfortable highs, and turn down the furnace to uncomfortable lows ... why bother having the creature comforts if we can't use them?!), in the developed world is the way to go.
As a practical human, I want to see workable solutions with measurable outcomes to real-world factual challenges ... not opportunistic tax-grabs and equalization schemes from social engineers, Hollywood "experts" and eco-nazis. I am very willing to responsibly fine-tune our hard-earned lifestyle within Canada to adapt to inevitable change, but I will not give it up or throw it away for the pseudo-science, self-promotion of an ("I invented the internet") Al Gore, the eco-browbeating of the Salt Spring Island left-coast lobby (ie. David Suzuki and friends), the left-wing activism of the CBC, or the shamelss political opportunism of a (do as I say, not as I did)Stephane Dion.
But level out the population curve within a generation, and you will have actually accomplished something of value towards saving the planet. Current policies that, incredibly, encourage population growth is TRUE eco-irresponsibility, and likely suicide for our species within a relatively short time frame.
In my opinion, this is a much simpler strategy (free condoms to everyone worldwide regardless of income, massive public education and propoganda, and an end to all public policies that encourage and subsidize procreation ... and the economic reality of raising too many kids all on your own should do the rest). Surely flattening the population curve has a much higher chance of being achieved than trying to change the planet's climate cycle within 50 years!
Improving technology and encouraging conservation in developed societies is a no-brainer, but stupidly trading away our hard-earned prosperity and global economic advantage to our competitors, in a vain scheme to try to reverse 400,000 years of geologic and environmental history makes no sense to me. The giddy recipients of our foolishness will laugh all the way to the bank while the planet continues on the road to human population oblivion for reasons quite apart from "global warming". If you think we have "problems" at 6.6 billion (accumulated over all of recorded history), imagine this same planet with 13 billion in just two more generations (100 years). Good luck.
As I keep repeating, when you insist on making the wrong diagnosis, or purposely ignoring or avoiding the correct one for political reasons, there should be no mystery as to why your treatment isn't working.
Of course the storms hitting BC this year are caused by global warming, just as hurricane Katrina last year was global warming, the georgeous warm winter here in Ontario is global warming, and the breakup of Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston is also probably "global warming". To determined eco-activists, "global warming" must be shoved in your face daily in order to stampede society into the solutions they favour based on emotion. The "reason" angle wasn't working too well. Panic is a better motivator.
I draw your attention to a map and a chart from Wikipedia ("Ice Age"). As recently as 10,000 years ago, not that long ago in geological and evolutionary terms, southern Ontario was under hundreds of metres of ice, and the oceans were 130 metres lower than they are today. The chart shows this pattern has been repeated for the past 400,000 years.
Global warming is certainly a fact, but I think it's time we realize this is a cycle that has been, and will be repeated in some form or another for millennia. Rather than wringing our hands and trying to "stop" the inevitable (many argue at best it can only be postponed, not stopped), perhaps our leaders should develop a strategy to deal with the consequences (coastal flooding, changing environments), and even the opportunities, rather than throwing trillions of our heard-earned dollars at rhetoric and ideology. (ie. If we can't convince you to share your wealth, and reduce inequality with the 3rd world via foreign aid handouts, then we'll stampede you into it with our latest equalization scheme ... Kyoto "carbon credits").
The warm winter in Europe was recently reported as being the warmest in 1,200 years, when Charlemagne was king. But Charlemagne didn't drive SUVs, and neither did the mastadons.
Global warming is real. History tells us that. So let's learn to deal with it. We humans adapt. After all, anything that gives us Atlanta's climate and sinks New York and Los Angeles into the ocean can't be all bad. (Calm down ... that was a joke).
The real immediate crisis is the current exponential growth in humanity that cannot continue, and nobody is even talking about it. Quite apart from the inability of our planet to support such exploding population growth on an ongoing basis, even if we succeed in halving our greenhouse gas output per capita within the next century, if our world population doubles in the same period, nothing will have changed.
Better to spend those trillions intelligently on educating the world's have-nots to a better life than susbsistence living in doomed high-risk coastal flood zones than simply pissing it away in head-in-the-sand handouts to both incapable and irresponsible regimes who will simply giggle with glee at the freebies (carbon credits) being flung at them by idiot ivory tower idealists in the developed world and promoted in our liberal media.
In the meantime, developing cleaner and more energy-efficient power sources, more energy-efficient appliances and technology, encouraging responsible energy use (not ridiculous pleas to turn up the air conditioning to uncomfortable highs, and turn down the furnace to uncomfortable lows ... why bother having the creature comforts if we can't use them?!), in the developed world is the way to go.
As a practical human, I want to see workable solutions with measurable outcomes to real-world factual challenges ... not opportunistic tax-grabs and equalization schemes from social engineers, Hollywood "experts" and eco-nazis. I am very willing to responsibly fine-tune our hard-earned lifestyle within Canada to adapt to inevitable change, but I will not give it up or throw it away for the pseudo-science, self-promotion of an ("I invented the internet") Al Gore, the eco-browbeating of the Salt Spring Island left-coast lobby (ie. David Suzuki and friends), the left-wing activism of the CBC, or the shamelss political opportunism of a (do as I say, not as I did)Stephane Dion.
But level out the population curve within a generation, and you will have actually accomplished something of value towards saving the planet. Current policies that, incredibly, encourage population growth is TRUE eco-irresponsibility, and likely suicide for our species within a relatively short time frame.
In my opinion, this is a much simpler strategy (free condoms to everyone worldwide regardless of income, massive public education and propoganda, and an end to all public policies that encourage and subsidize procreation ... and the economic reality of raising too many kids all on your own should do the rest). Surely flattening the population curve has a much higher chance of being achieved than trying to change the planet's climate cycle within 50 years!
Improving technology and encouraging conservation in developed societies is a no-brainer, but stupidly trading away our hard-earned prosperity and global economic advantage to our competitors, in a vain scheme to try to reverse 400,000 years of geologic and environmental history makes no sense to me. The giddy recipients of our foolishness will laugh all the way to the bank while the planet continues on the road to human population oblivion for reasons quite apart from "global warming". If you think we have "problems" at 6.6 billion (accumulated over all of recorded history), imagine this same planet with 13 billion in just two more generations (100 years). Good luck.
As I keep repeating, when you insist on making the wrong diagnosis, or purposely ignoring or avoiding the correct one for political reasons, there should be no mystery as to why your treatment isn't working.
Sunday, December 24, 2006
Liberal-friendly Spin - MSM does it again
I had to laugh at a Yahoo headline and report from Canadian Press this week.
The Liberal-friendly press lovingly spins their pro-Dion headline thusly:
Does the "story" warrant this headline? Let's see.
It is hard to evaluate the poll precisely since the story admits that "The Decima Research poll, (was) made available exclusively to The Canadian Press". I searched and couldn't find the poll or the questions asked. But one can read between the lines to find the questions asked (in quotations).
In response to the first (apparent) question,
Is this news or merely spin? I think I might have the "potential" to be an excellent Prime Minister "some day", given my experience, my knowledge of the political system in Canada, enough time to learn better French than his English, a great team and a whole string of good luck.
Given that a) many/most Canadians outside of Quebec and outside of the Liberal Party likely haven't got a clue who he is or what he stands for, or right before Christmas, do they really care, b) there is a margin of error of 3.1% in the poll, 19 times out of 20 c) roughly 32% of Canadians have already said they would vote Liberal if an election were held today anyway (poll done Nov. 5-9, when Liberals were leaderless) d) 30% voted Liberal in the last election even with the Chretien/Martin corruption/Mr. Dithers legacy ... just how significant is this "43%" yes response?
In other words, within the margin of error, the vast majority of these chronic "spotted-dog" Liberal voters would likely answer "yes" to this question even if, for instance, a Joe Volpe or Hedy Fry had somehow won the Liberal leadership contest. So how is this headline news? Only if you have an ongoing pro-Liberal/anti-Harper agenda methinks.
How about this earth-shattering factoid:
I particularly LOVE this next spin on numbers, and this has to be pure spin if you are honest with yourself ... even to diehard Liberals. It's almost embarassing it's so blatant. Shame on the writer and/or editor.
Quote:
Exactly what does "a breath of fresh air" mean? "Fresh" from 13 years of Liberal excess and corruption? Dion was in that cabinet. How could he possibly be "fresh"? "Fresh" from Stephen Harper's Conservative government? They've only been in power 9 months ... hardly long enough to be "stale". "Fresh" from the liberal media's view of how Canada should be run ... as a pacifist, interventionist, social collective? BINGO!
Decima CEO, Bruce Anderson is quoted as saying, "Clearly, he (Dion) has not yet accumulated much, if any, negative reputation". I agree, but there is little evidence of a positive reputation either.
From where I sit, the numbers seem to say that everyone who voted Liberal under the Chretien/Martin legacy in January, and who said they would vote Liberal in polling done Nov. 5-9 with a leaderless Liberal Party, are (gasp!) likely to vote Liberal under a new unknown new leader who happens to be Stephane Dion. I see little here to convince me that the answers to this poll would have been any different (within margin of error) no matter who had won the Liberal leadership, or that they are much different from the last election.
The people who answered favourably to these (in my opinion) "loaded" questions (ie. specifically designed to make him look good) would likely answer favourably to any Liberal leader. These are people who will likely never in a million years vote Conservative, and are thus not "swing voters" (ie. the ones who decide elections).
So I see no "news" here at all. I see only a predictable campaign by a very pro-Liberal media to try to make Stephane Dion look good (along with ongoing stories deliberately designed to make Stephen Harper look bad). See Stephen Taylor's blog, Dec. 22, 2006 "Globe and Mail too pessimistic".
I saw no hard polling questions regarding Stephane Dion's role as a cabinet minister in the Chretien government during the time of the sponsorship scandal, and how it is possible that such a long-standing cabinet minister from that sorry time couldn't have at least suspected that such corruption was rampant. I saw no questions about his dismal (not "spotty" ... DISMAL) record as environment minister (record and rhetoric are two completely different things). I saw no hard questions on his French citizenship ... "should the Prime Minister of Canada also be a French citizen?" I saw no hard questions on his arrogance and lack of tolerance to those lesser individuals than himself (as reportedly shown during questions about his French citizenship).
In other words, in my personal opinion, I saw only predictable pro-Liberal spin. I saw no headline news. I expect an ongoing campaign of such biased reporting. I believe that the parliamentary press corps do not like Stephen Harper.
Next polling question:
Headline News: "Majority believe Harper Unfit to Lead"
The Liberal-friendly press lovingly spins their pro-Dion headline thusly:
"Voters see Dion as blank canvas with very good potential as PM: poll"
Does the "story" warrant this headline? Let's see.
It is hard to evaluate the poll precisely since the story admits that "The Decima Research poll, (was) made available exclusively to The Canadian Press". I searched and couldn't find the poll or the questions asked. But one can read between the lines to find the questions asked (in quotations).
In response to the first (apparent) question,
"(Do you think that Stephane Dion has) the potential to be an excellent prime minister of Canada one day?"... 43% reportedly answered yes.
Is this news or merely spin? I think I might have the "potential" to be an excellent Prime Minister "some day", given my experience, my knowledge of the political system in Canada, enough time to learn better French than his English, a great team and a whole string of good luck.
Given that a) many/most Canadians outside of Quebec and outside of the Liberal Party likely haven't got a clue who he is or what he stands for, or right before Christmas, do they really care, b) there is a margin of error of 3.1% in the poll, 19 times out of 20 c) roughly 32% of Canadians have already said they would vote Liberal if an election were held today anyway (poll done Nov. 5-9, when Liberals were leaderless) d) 30% voted Liberal in the last election even with the Chretien/Martin corruption/Mr. Dithers legacy ... just how significant is this "43%" yes response?
In other words, within the margin of error, the vast majority of these chronic "spotted-dog" Liberal voters would likely answer "yes" to this question even if, for instance, a Joe Volpe or Hedy Fry had somehow won the Liberal leadership contest. So how is this headline news? Only if you have an ongoing pro-Liberal/anti-Harper agenda methinks.
How about this earth-shattering factoid:
"And almost one-third - including roughly one-third of NDP, Bloc Quebecois and Green party supporters - would like to see Dion win the next election."Wow!! This is shocking news to me. Checking Elections Canada results, "almost one-third" (30.2% to be exact) voted for the train-wreck Liberal Party in the last election. Of Course they would like to see him (any Liberal) win the next election. But this is apparently pre-Christmas headline news for CP and Yahoo.
I particularly LOVE this next spin on numbers, and this has to be pure spin if you are honest with yourself ... even to diehard Liberals. It's almost embarassing it's so blatant. Shame on the writer and/or editor.
Quote:
"Thirty-two per cent thought Dion, a former university political scientist, "seems like an academic who has trouble relating to the average person." But 39 per cent disagreed and 29 per cent were undecided.
On a somewhat more positive note, 32 per cent said Dion's "values are similar to my own," while 37 per cent disagreed and 31 per cent were unsure. And 33 per
cent said Dion is "a breath of fresh air in Canadian politics," while 41 percent disagreed and 26 per cent were undecided."
Let's see, ONLY thirty-two percent feel he's an out-of-touch academic who can't relate, but hey ... "on a more postive note" a WHOPPING 32% say he has values similar to my own and an even bigger 33% say he is "a breath of fresh air" (I'll assume that is a direct quote from the nice neutral question asked by pollsters in this "exclusive to the Canadian Press" poll.) Within margin of error, these two paragraphs contain exactly the same numbers for and against, but that statements that are pro-Dion are specifically spun as "positive", even though more respondents disagreed with the statements than agreed.
Remember, 30.2% voted for the Chretien/Martin version of the Liberals in the last election, and the margin of error is 3.1%. Yet this is deemed headline news on December 21, 2006.Exactly what does "a breath of fresh air" mean? "Fresh" from 13 years of Liberal excess and corruption? Dion was in that cabinet. How could he possibly be "fresh"? "Fresh" from Stephen Harper's Conservative government? They've only been in power 9 months ... hardly long enough to be "stale". "Fresh" from the liberal media's view of how Canada should be run ... as a pacifist, interventionist, social collective? BINGO!
Decima CEO, Bruce Anderson is quoted as saying, "Clearly, he (Dion) has not yet accumulated much, if any, negative reputation". I agree, but there is little evidence of a positive reputation either.
From where I sit, the numbers seem to say that everyone who voted Liberal under the Chretien/Martin legacy in January, and who said they would vote Liberal in polling done Nov. 5-9 with a leaderless Liberal Party, are (gasp!) likely to vote Liberal under a new unknown new leader who happens to be Stephane Dion. I see little here to convince me that the answers to this poll would have been any different (within margin of error) no matter who had won the Liberal leadership, or that they are much different from the last election.
The people who answered favourably to these (in my opinion) "loaded" questions (ie. specifically designed to make him look good) would likely answer favourably to any Liberal leader. These are people who will likely never in a million years vote Conservative, and are thus not "swing voters" (ie. the ones who decide elections).
So I see no "news" here at all. I see only a predictable campaign by a very pro-Liberal media to try to make Stephane Dion look good (along with ongoing stories deliberately designed to make Stephen Harper look bad). See Stephen Taylor's blog, Dec. 22, 2006 "Globe and Mail too pessimistic".
I saw no hard polling questions regarding Stephane Dion's role as a cabinet minister in the Chretien government during the time of the sponsorship scandal, and how it is possible that such a long-standing cabinet minister from that sorry time couldn't have at least suspected that such corruption was rampant. I saw no questions about his dismal (not "spotty" ... DISMAL) record as environment minister (record and rhetoric are two completely different things). I saw no hard questions on his French citizenship ... "should the Prime Minister of Canada also be a French citizen?" I saw no hard questions on his arrogance and lack of tolerance to those lesser individuals than himself (as reportedly shown during questions about his French citizenship).
In other words, in my personal opinion, I saw only predictable pro-Liberal spin. I saw no headline news. I expect an ongoing campaign of such biased reporting. I believe that the parliamentary press corps do not like Stephen Harper.
Next polling question:
"If you saw Stephen Harper drowning puppies, would you
still think he is fit to lead Canada?"
Headline News: "Majority believe Harper Unfit to Lead"
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Dion is, after all, still a French citizen
It was reported today in the Windsor Star that newly-minted Liberal leader Stephane Dion was "ripped" for his cut-and-run stance on Afghanistan by British minister of state for foreign and commonwealth affairs, Kim Howells.
Dion reportedly told the Ottawa Citizen that Canada should "negotiate the withdrawal of its troops 'with honour' from Afghanistan before the expiry of the government's commitment in 2009 ...". I'm a plain talker Stephane. To me, abandoning a committment you've made to an oppressed people and telling your troops to bug out is nothing more than cutting and running.
There is no "honour".
But before anyone gets all in a huff about "honour" and "withdrawal" being in the same sentence when talking about our armed forces abandoning Afghanistan and handing the female half of that population back to the crushingly-repressive Taliban regime, don't forget ... Stephane Dion is still a citizen of France.
One could excuse his pacifism-at-all-costs philosophy by observing that he is merely being consistent with the stance of his government.
Dion reportedly told the Ottawa Citizen that Canada should "negotiate the withdrawal of its troops 'with honour' from Afghanistan before the expiry of the government's commitment in 2009 ...". I'm a plain talker Stephane. To me, abandoning a committment you've made to an oppressed people and telling your troops to bug out is nothing more than cutting and running.
There is no "honour".
But before anyone gets all in a huff about "honour" and "withdrawal" being in the same sentence when talking about our armed forces abandoning Afghanistan and handing the female half of that population back to the crushingly-repressive Taliban regime, don't forget ... Stephane Dion is still a citizen of France.
One could excuse his pacifism-at-all-costs philosophy by observing that he is merely being consistent with the stance of his government.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
New Leader - Same Old Arrogance
As reported in the National Post Dec. 6, 2006 (Dion refuses to give up French citizenship), arrogance remains alive and well at the very top of the Liberal Party of Canada.
Seems Stephane Dion is rather touchy about his dual French citizenship. If he were Celine Dion, nobody would care. But this man has the theoretical potential to become our Prime Minister. It matters. He doesn't get it (our GG did), and dismisses our concern, apparently because his view is more valid and must not be questioned.
Quotes (decrees) from the "new" Liberal leader:
"He may keep his opinion to himself. I am proud of who I am, and I am fully loyal to my country. I think I have proven it, and no one will question it."
"End of the story"
"Move on"
Wow. Seems Stephane Dion missed his calling. He needs a country with a monarchy to fill.
He may be the new leader, but the attitude is as old as the Trudeau legacy. Three days on the job and I'm already sick of the new tune.
Seems Stephane Dion is rather touchy about his dual French citizenship. If he were Celine Dion, nobody would care. But this man has the theoretical potential to become our Prime Minister. It matters. He doesn't get it (our GG did), and dismisses our concern, apparently because his view is more valid and must not be questioned.
Quotes (decrees) from the "new" Liberal leader:
"He may keep his opinion to himself. I am proud of who I am, and I am fully loyal to my country. I think I have proven it, and no one will question it."
"End of the story"
"Move on"
Wow. Seems Stephane Dion missed his calling. He needs a country with a monarchy to fill.
He may be the new leader, but the attitude is as old as the Trudeau legacy. Three days on the job and I'm already sick of the new tune.
Sunday, December 03, 2006
Liberal "Renewal" ???
Let's see.
They voted to allow one member - one vote. Oops! They didn't.
They moved to include more of Canada. Oops! They elected a (surPRISE!) federalist academic from Quebec as their leader.
They moved beyond the Sponsorship scandal to a brand new era. Oops! Dion was there the whole time. If he didn't know, he should have.
They were all so happy winning elections (their only real goal in life) they didn't want to know, in my opinion.
From where I sit, it looks like same old same old to me.
From this conservative's point of view, it doesn't get much better.
They voted to allow one member - one vote. Oops! They didn't.
They moved to include more of Canada. Oops! They elected a (surPRISE!) federalist academic from Quebec as their leader.
They moved beyond the Sponsorship scandal to a brand new era. Oops! Dion was there the whole time. If he didn't know, he should have.
They were all so happy winning elections (their only real goal in life) they didn't want to know, in my opinion.
From where I sit, it looks like same old same old to me.
From this conservative's point of view, it doesn't get much better.
Saturday, December 02, 2006
Leadership and Liberals
In the Saturday Dec. 2, 2006 edition of CNEWS, Alexander Panetta reported on Jean Chretien’s comments regarding Paul Martin’s leadership. In my opinion, they are very telling of the Liberal Party philosophy, and its raison d’etre. It is the reason I will never vote for them. It is the reason why I view the voters of the Liberal-loving city of Toronto with disdain and contempt, and it’s the reason why I fear for Canada if they gain power again any time soon.
To quote: “Chrétien was asked who he was pulling for. ‘A good leader,’ he replied. He was asked: What characterizes a good leader? ‘One who wins elections.’”
That, my fellow Canadians, is the total “vision” of Canada you get when you elect a Liberal government. Their “vision” is that they want to be back in power. Period. To win. Nothing more.
Look at the current “top” crop of four contenders, one of whom will be chosen by tonight as, potentially, our next Prime
Minister.
A failed … REALLY failed socialist premier of Ontario, who now says he didn’t mean any of it, and he’s no longer a socialist. Riiiight. Don’t forget, this guy inspired Ontarians to vote massively …. twice, for Mike Harris as a moderate, “common sense” alternative. He nearly bankrupted us. I don’t believe for a minute that this leopard has changed its spots. Elect this guy Prime Minister, and we will all ride a very bumpy slide down to third world status as real entrepreneurial business flees for greener pastures.
Yet it’s scary to think that the Liberals might very well pick this guy, only because they have to pick someone, and they may think he has the best chance of this sorry bunch to win. They’ll risk “Cuba North” for all of us in order to get it.
Secondly a wayward professor who hasn’t even lived in Canada in over 30 years, and who has shown a penchant for condescension, verbosity, and the quickly-adapted ability (required Liberal trait) to change direction 180 degrees if espousing his true feelings and beliefs appears to make him unwinnable. They’ll all say and/or do anything …
Third, yet another Quebecer, and one from the Chrétien cabinet to boot. I don’t know about you, but I’ve had just about enough of this scene for one lifetime. Do we really want or need more of it? I do not believe a single word from any of them that they didn’t know what was going on in the sponsorship scandal. They were all so happy to be winning, it didn’t matter what it took, and those not directly involved obviously didn’t want to ask, or look too deeply.
Finally a union-placating food bank champion who moved from one socialist enclave (Winnipeg) to another (Toronto) and finally into politics. In my opinion, his “business plan” (hah!) will be robbing Peter to pay Paul, and rewarding Paul so handsomely and making him so dependant on the gravy train that he can count on Paul’s support in perpetuity. This option (along with option #1) will chase jobs and entrepreneurs so far out of Canada we’ll never recover in my lifetime.
If you liked Ontario’s downward-spiraling tax and spend economies under McGuinty and Rae, you’ll definitely love Canada under Kennedy or Rae in my opinion.
So “NONE OF THE ABOVE” is my choice for Liberal leader. That this sad assortment of wannabes is the best they can do tells me volumes about their unfitness to lead. I think the toilet needs to be flushed one or two (or three?) more times before we can even begin to think about giving this soulless party another kick at the can. The only remotely attractive/competent leader (to me) from that side is Frank McKenna, and tellingly, he wanted nothing to do with this three-ring circus.
Jean Chretien’s brutally frank definition of a “good leader” as one who wins elections is sickening to me. It’s disgusting. It’s nauseating. And it’s the reason why Canadians despise politicians so much. It is completely and utterly devoid of any of the right reasons anyone should want to go into politics.
I believe that in his small warped little political world, it’s all about them, and very little to do with us. We are only important in that we are necessary every four years to keep them there. “Policy” and promises are little more than necessary tools required to be made up and then cast aside in order to get elected and stay there. And vision and principles are nothing more than targets to vilify in your opponents. The “party” and “winning” is what it’s all about to them.
In my personal opinion, Jean Chretien’s 40 years in politics, rather than being celebrated, should be held up in disgust to every Political Science 101 class as the poster child example of why Canada should have term limits.
Famed U.S. General, H. Norman Schwarzkopf, defined leadership much differently. “Leadership is Character and Competence. If you can only have one of these, it has to be Character.”
The Liberal record is clear over the past 13 years. Based on this definition, I’ll let you draw your own conclusions about the whole lot of them.
To quote: “Chrétien was asked who he was pulling for. ‘A good leader,’ he replied. He was asked: What characterizes a good leader? ‘One who wins elections.’”
That, my fellow Canadians, is the total “vision” of Canada you get when you elect a Liberal government. Their “vision” is that they want to be back in power. Period. To win. Nothing more.
Look at the current “top” crop of four contenders, one of whom will be chosen by tonight as, potentially, our next Prime
Minister.
A failed … REALLY failed socialist premier of Ontario, who now says he didn’t mean any of it, and he’s no longer a socialist. Riiiight. Don’t forget, this guy inspired Ontarians to vote massively …. twice, for Mike Harris as a moderate, “common sense” alternative. He nearly bankrupted us. I don’t believe for a minute that this leopard has changed its spots. Elect this guy Prime Minister, and we will all ride a very bumpy slide down to third world status as real entrepreneurial business flees for greener pastures.
Yet it’s scary to think that the Liberals might very well pick this guy, only because they have to pick someone, and they may think he has the best chance of this sorry bunch to win. They’ll risk “Cuba North” for all of us in order to get it.
Secondly a wayward professor who hasn’t even lived in Canada in over 30 years, and who has shown a penchant for condescension, verbosity, and the quickly-adapted ability (required Liberal trait) to change direction 180 degrees if espousing his true feelings and beliefs appears to make him unwinnable. They’ll all say and/or do anything …
Third, yet another Quebecer, and one from the Chrétien cabinet to boot. I don’t know about you, but I’ve had just about enough of this scene for one lifetime. Do we really want or need more of it? I do not believe a single word from any of them that they didn’t know what was going on in the sponsorship scandal. They were all so happy to be winning, it didn’t matter what it took, and those not directly involved obviously didn’t want to ask, or look too deeply.
Finally a union-placating food bank champion who moved from one socialist enclave (Winnipeg) to another (Toronto) and finally into politics. In my opinion, his “business plan” (hah!) will be robbing Peter to pay Paul, and rewarding Paul so handsomely and making him so dependant on the gravy train that he can count on Paul’s support in perpetuity. This option (along with option #1) will chase jobs and entrepreneurs so far out of Canada we’ll never recover in my lifetime.
If you liked Ontario’s downward-spiraling tax and spend economies under McGuinty and Rae, you’ll definitely love Canada under Kennedy or Rae in my opinion.
So “NONE OF THE ABOVE” is my choice for Liberal leader. That this sad assortment of wannabes is the best they can do tells me volumes about their unfitness to lead. I think the toilet needs to be flushed one or two (or three?) more times before we can even begin to think about giving this soulless party another kick at the can. The only remotely attractive/competent leader (to me) from that side is Frank McKenna, and tellingly, he wanted nothing to do with this three-ring circus.
Jean Chretien’s brutally frank definition of a “good leader” as one who wins elections is sickening to me. It’s disgusting. It’s nauseating. And it’s the reason why Canadians despise politicians so much. It is completely and utterly devoid of any of the right reasons anyone should want to go into politics.
I believe that in his small warped little political world, it’s all about them, and very little to do with us. We are only important in that we are necessary every four years to keep them there. “Policy” and promises are little more than necessary tools required to be made up and then cast aside in order to get elected and stay there. And vision and principles are nothing more than targets to vilify in your opponents. The “party” and “winning” is what it’s all about to them.
In my personal opinion, Jean Chretien’s 40 years in politics, rather than being celebrated, should be held up in disgust to every Political Science 101 class as the poster child example of why Canada should have term limits.
Famed U.S. General, H. Norman Schwarzkopf, defined leadership much differently. “Leadership is Character and Competence. If you can only have one of these, it has to be Character.”
The Liberal record is clear over the past 13 years. Based on this definition, I’ll let you draw your own conclusions about the whole lot of them.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Quotes
Legendary U. of Michigan football coach, Bo Schembechler, died this week. It is clear from the many tributes that have poured in from friends and "foes" alike that he had a tremendous positive effect on everyone he met and touched. He was obbviously a man of great principle, consistency and compassion. Few men can claim such an honour. He will be missed.
One of my all-time favourite quotes from Bo was a variation of a Mark Twain quote. Bo said, "If you tell the truth, you don't have to try to remember what it was you said".
In this time of cynicism in politics, in a time when saying whatever you need to say to get elected is expected and even accepted, when lies are apparently a valid part of election campaigns and when voter turnout is at abysmal levels, this quote is one for the ages.
It should be etched in steel and hammered into the heads of everyone who holds public office.
R.I.P. Bo!
One of my all-time favourite quotes from Bo was a variation of a Mark Twain quote. Bo said, "If you tell the truth, you don't have to try to remember what it was you said".
In this time of cynicism in politics, in a time when saying whatever you need to say to get elected is expected and even accepted, when lies are apparently a valid part of election campaigns and when voter turnout is at abysmal levels, this quote is one for the ages.
It should be etched in steel and hammered into the heads of everyone who holds public office.
R.I.P. Bo!
Pacifist Editorials from the CBC
Re: Michael Enright's CBC radio's "Sunday Edition" lead-in editorial at 9:15 AM, Sunday Nov. 19, 2006
MICHAEL'S ESSAY Duration: 00:03:20
Michael's thoughts on the North Korea nuclear bomb craze.
I just finished listening to Michael Enright's flippant and dismissive pacifist commentary on North Korea and their recent entry into the nuclear club. Michael Enright (and the CBC obviously) feel it is much ado about nothing, and just couldn't resist the (yawn) oh-so-predictable shots at the U.S. Anti-U.S. rhetoric is apparently inbred genetically at the CBC.
I believe we are still technically "at war" with North Korea, but that factoid aside, many terrorists and other rogue nations have reportedly received their technology and war-making/terror-making capabilities from North Korea. That apparently doesn't register with the CBC, since most of those entities are fighting against the U.S. and "western values" anyway, which in the CBC world is apparently a good thing.
Nevertheless, I and most other reasonable people in the west, consider North Korea a rogue nation in the global village, and I do not want any rogue nations to have nuclear capabilities or nuclear technology in any way, shape or form.
So if Canada is expected to pull its weight to block ships which may be bringing more war-making capability to this rogue nation, I have no problem whatsoever. I support whatever it takes. Whether their rockets will accurately reach the CBC's studios in Vancouver is irrelevent to me. Their technology is finding its way around the world to lots of very bad people, who will try to find a way to use it against us in the west. Canada should use all means possible, both diplomatic, and naval if necessary, to help stop them.
Michael Enright's editorial as a salaried employee for our tax-funded state broadcaster to the contrary was completely out of line and inappropriate, in my opinion.
MICHAEL'S ESSAY Duration: 00:03:20
Michael's thoughts on the North Korea nuclear bomb craze.
I just finished listening to Michael Enright's flippant and dismissive pacifist commentary on North Korea and their recent entry into the nuclear club. Michael Enright (and the CBC obviously) feel it is much ado about nothing, and just couldn't resist the (yawn) oh-so-predictable shots at the U.S. Anti-U.S. rhetoric is apparently inbred genetically at the CBC.
I believe we are still technically "at war" with North Korea, but that factoid aside, many terrorists and other rogue nations have reportedly received their technology and war-making/terror-making capabilities from North Korea. That apparently doesn't register with the CBC, since most of those entities are fighting against the U.S. and "western values" anyway, which in the CBC world is apparently a good thing.
Nevertheless, I and most other reasonable people in the west, consider North Korea a rogue nation in the global village, and I do not want any rogue nations to have nuclear capabilities or nuclear technology in any way, shape or form.
So if Canada is expected to pull its weight to block ships which may be bringing more war-making capability to this rogue nation, I have no problem whatsoever. I support whatever it takes. Whether their rockets will accurately reach the CBC's studios in Vancouver is irrelevent to me. Their technology is finding its way around the world to lots of very bad people, who will try to find a way to use it against us in the west. Canada should use all means possible, both diplomatic, and naval if necessary, to help stop them.
Michael Enright's editorial as a salaried employee for our tax-funded state broadcaster to the contrary was completely out of line and inappropriate, in my opinion.
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Prime Minister Rae ??!
Re: The real skinny on Bob Rae
The Toronto Sun's Lorrie Goldstein today ran a brief history of Bob Rae's shameful litany of failure during his 5 years as our premier ... lest we forget. I always said in retrospect, it was worth those five years of financial devastation because it would ensure that Ontarians, in our lifetime, would never again be so stupid as to elect a socialist government.
Now I'm not so sure. Toronto has become a big socialist cesspool right in the middle of Ontario, and its inbred sense of entitlement and arrogance seems to be limitless. Even more frightening, Torontonians don't seem to learn from their mistakes. As they veer farther and farther left, and ... predictably ... their situation in the world becomes worse and worse, their reaction is ... to go even further left.
Duhhh.
So we have this huge black hole of entitlement and socialism in the middle of Canada's largest province, and it's a big enough tail that it can wag a pretty big dog. And Torontonians have proven themselves to be such unrepentant leftists (even after Chretien-Martin they still voted Liberal!) that Prime Minister Rae is a theoretical possibility. Toronto has become Canada's squeegie kid ... giving us stuff we don't want or need, and expecting ... make that demanding, handouts in return. Spending money they don't have on stuff they don't need and can't afford, and then expecting Ontarians and Canadians in general to pay for it, while sticking the rest of us with a 100 km ring of gridlock around the "sphincter", debt, guns, gangs, garbage and a cancerous support for a form of government (socialism) that has failed time and time again.
Bob Rae was, without any doubt in my mind whatsoever, the single worst premier in Ontario in my lifetime (which is considerable enough), and perhaps the worst Premier in all of Canada in that same period. He alienated everyone ... even his own supporters, besides nearly bankrupting the province and driving jobs and investment as far away as they could possibly get. Five years of a Bob Rae government is why Ontarians overwhelmingly thought Mike Harris looked like a moderate and swept him to power ... twice, to make sure that blood-sucking socialist coffin was nailed shut.
I can't imagine a philosophical socialist (and he is a socialist ... a tiger never changes its stripes) like Bob Rae leading the party of entitlement, with all of the hangers-on, freeloaders and opportunists who would jump onto that bandwagon to loot the banks and punish the entrepreneurs of Canada for their own aggrandizement. The combination of NDP wrong-headedness and incompetence with Liberal arrogance and genetic entitlement and a certain dash of success-envy would be too much to stomach for anyone with a shred of principle and work ethic. It would be the nanny state gone wild. It would probably drive the west out of Canada, and I and many others would likely be gone with them.
If the Liberal Party of Canada sees Bob Rae as their saviour that is frightening enough on its own. If the people of "Canada" (are you listening Toronto? ... probably not) should be so stupid as to elect a Rae-led Liberal government, the signals that would send to our largest trading partner south of the border would be unmistakable. Alignment with Cuba and Venzuela as the axis of stupidity in the western hemisphere would be our new moniker in Washington. On top of the predictable McGuinty-led march from second to last place in manufacturing job growth in Canada in the last 3 years, you could add on a flight of capital and investment and jobs from Canada like we have never seen in our lifetime.
Since I have no faith that Liberals will ever do the right thing (they sway shamelessly in the winds of polling), I have no confidence at all that they won't do something this stupid if they think they can gain power with it.
And as we all know, gaining power and keeping it is the unspoken mission statement of the Liberal Party.
The Toronto Sun's Lorrie Goldstein today ran a brief history of Bob Rae's shameful litany of failure during his 5 years as our premier ... lest we forget. I always said in retrospect, it was worth those five years of financial devastation because it would ensure that Ontarians, in our lifetime, would never again be so stupid as to elect a socialist government.
Now I'm not so sure. Toronto has become a big socialist cesspool right in the middle of Ontario, and its inbred sense of entitlement and arrogance seems to be limitless. Even more frightening, Torontonians don't seem to learn from their mistakes. As they veer farther and farther left, and ... predictably ... their situation in the world becomes worse and worse, their reaction is ... to go even further left.
Duhhh.
So we have this huge black hole of entitlement and socialism in the middle of Canada's largest province, and it's a big enough tail that it can wag a pretty big dog. And Torontonians have proven themselves to be such unrepentant leftists (even after Chretien-Martin they still voted Liberal!) that Prime Minister Rae is a theoretical possibility. Toronto has become Canada's squeegie kid ... giving us stuff we don't want or need, and expecting ... make that demanding, handouts in return. Spending money they don't have on stuff they don't need and can't afford, and then expecting Ontarians and Canadians in general to pay for it, while sticking the rest of us with a 100 km ring of gridlock around the "sphincter", debt, guns, gangs, garbage and a cancerous support for a form of government (socialism) that has failed time and time again.
Bob Rae was, without any doubt in my mind whatsoever, the single worst premier in Ontario in my lifetime (which is considerable enough), and perhaps the worst Premier in all of Canada in that same period. He alienated everyone ... even his own supporters, besides nearly bankrupting the province and driving jobs and investment as far away as they could possibly get. Five years of a Bob Rae government is why Ontarians overwhelmingly thought Mike Harris looked like a moderate and swept him to power ... twice, to make sure that blood-sucking socialist coffin was nailed shut.
I can't imagine a philosophical socialist (and he is a socialist ... a tiger never changes its stripes) like Bob Rae leading the party of entitlement, with all of the hangers-on, freeloaders and opportunists who would jump onto that bandwagon to loot the banks and punish the entrepreneurs of Canada for their own aggrandizement. The combination of NDP wrong-headedness and incompetence with Liberal arrogance and genetic entitlement and a certain dash of success-envy would be too much to stomach for anyone with a shred of principle and work ethic. It would be the nanny state gone wild. It would probably drive the west out of Canada, and I and many others would likely be gone with them.
If the Liberal Party of Canada sees Bob Rae as their saviour that is frightening enough on its own. If the people of "Canada" (are you listening Toronto? ... probably not) should be so stupid as to elect a Rae-led Liberal government, the signals that would send to our largest trading partner south of the border would be unmistakable. Alignment with Cuba and Venzuela as the axis of stupidity in the western hemisphere would be our new moniker in Washington. On top of the predictable McGuinty-led march from second to last place in manufacturing job growth in Canada in the last 3 years, you could add on a flight of capital and investment and jobs from Canada like we have never seen in our lifetime.
Since I have no faith that Liberals will ever do the right thing (they sway shamelessly in the winds of polling), I have no confidence at all that they won't do something this stupid if they think they can gain power with it.
And as we all know, gaining power and keeping it is the unspoken mission statement of the Liberal Party.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
McGuinty, if nothing else, is consistent
Dalton McGuinty claims his Liberal "government" ads are non-partisan.
McGuinty also claims Health Care is much improved in Ontario, while ERs close and thousands can't find a family physician. He claims education is better, but school boards are running huge deficits and cutting programs. He claims to be tough on crime, but refuses to uphold the law in Caledonia. He claims to be the automotive saviour of Ontario, while plants close and layoffs skyrocket in Windsor.
Dalton McGuinty also promised not to raise your taxes, promised not to run deficits and promised to close all coal-fired hydro plants by 2007.
Dalton McGuinty thinks "denial" is a river is Egypt. If he's nothing else, Dalton McGuinty is consistent.
I really don't know how Dalton McGuinty gets his head so far down that hole in the ground with such a big nose.
McGuinty also claims Health Care is much improved in Ontario, while ERs close and thousands can't find a family physician. He claims education is better, but school boards are running huge deficits and cutting programs. He claims to be tough on crime, but refuses to uphold the law in Caledonia. He claims to be the automotive saviour of Ontario, while plants close and layoffs skyrocket in Windsor.
Dalton McGuinty also promised not to raise your taxes, promised not to run deficits and promised to close all coal-fired hydro plants by 2007.
Dalton McGuinty thinks "denial" is a river is Egypt. If he's nothing else, Dalton McGuinty is consistent.
I really don't know how Dalton McGuinty gets his head so far down that hole in the ground with such a big nose.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Klingon to lead Liberals?
In the three-ring circus that is the Liberal "leadership" race (that's an oxymoron) we now have at centre stage the collective metaphoric epitome of why the Liberals got tossed from power. It's a shame Ontario couldn't see its way clear to put a stake completely through their cold hearts when they had the chance in January.
We now have everything from a philosopher prince who hasn't lived in Canada for most of my adult working life, to the socialist Premier who nearly bankrupted Ontario, to the goul who "sees dead people" and takes money from children. It's clear this party is still far too ill to simply change managers. In my opinion, this is a directionless gaggle of cynical power seekers completely devoid of a common vision, who do not deserve to be anywhere near the levers of power. They need to be spanked even harder for a good four years before they deserve a serious look. The toilet needs to be flushed at least one more time, and perhaps more.
John Ivison mused on much of this in his Sept. 26, 2006 column in the National Post (A daytime nightmare for the Liberals) with some memorable quotes worth saving.
Before Canadians consider, even for one minute, that Bob (you mean we WON?) Rae might somehow be a credible alternative to Stephen Harper, besides his stellar record as the destroyer of Ontario, they might want to look at one charismatic endorsement he recently attracted. Even one as accustomed to being surrounded by a near total lack of competence as he was in Ontario, Rae must have secretly cringed when Hedy ("crosses are burning as we speak") Fry dropped out to throw her "support" to him.
Ivison referenced an EKOS Research Poll on the weekend which revealed that Hedy Fry "was not chosen as first, second or third choice for leader by any of the 1,000 respondents" . EKOS's Frank Graves marvelled, "She literally got zero. I have never seen that on over 20 years of polling". (That could, of course, be spun by Liberal spin doctors as "unique achievements, unmatched in decades").
But Ivison's quote to remember must be his musings on Joe Volpe, the clear cream of the crop when it comes to an entrenched Liberal attitude of unrepentant entitlement.
When Volpe reportedly complained that "the party establishment was out to get him" and then whined that he "might not be Canadian enough", Ivison hit a home run when he called this "manipulative humbug" and then accurately noted that ...
"The Liberal Party would elect a Klingon as leader if its members thought he could beat Stephen Harper".
Write that one down, because I believe it represents, in one succinct sentence, the raison d'etre of the Liberal Party. Shameless manipulation, a genetic sense of entitlement, and a quiet understanding that the end always justifies the means, is alive and well. Forty+ years of watching them in action has taught me that, to a Liberal, as long as you get and keep power, it's OK to say or do whatever it takes.
Clearly they need more years in the wilderness ... many more.
We now have everything from a philosopher prince who hasn't lived in Canada for most of my adult working life, to the socialist Premier who nearly bankrupted Ontario, to the goul who "sees dead people" and takes money from children. It's clear this party is still far too ill to simply change managers. In my opinion, this is a directionless gaggle of cynical power seekers completely devoid of a common vision, who do not deserve to be anywhere near the levers of power. They need to be spanked even harder for a good four years before they deserve a serious look. The toilet needs to be flushed at least one more time, and perhaps more.
John Ivison mused on much of this in his Sept. 26, 2006 column in the National Post (A daytime nightmare for the Liberals) with some memorable quotes worth saving.
Before Canadians consider, even for one minute, that Bob (you mean we WON?) Rae might somehow be a credible alternative to Stephen Harper, besides his stellar record as the destroyer of Ontario, they might want to look at one charismatic endorsement he recently attracted. Even one as accustomed to being surrounded by a near total lack of competence as he was in Ontario, Rae must have secretly cringed when Hedy ("crosses are burning as we speak") Fry dropped out to throw her "support" to him.
Ivison referenced an EKOS Research Poll on the weekend which revealed that Hedy Fry "was not chosen as first, second or third choice for leader by any of the 1,000 respondents" . EKOS's Frank Graves marvelled, "She literally got zero. I have never seen that on over 20 years of polling". (That could, of course, be spun by Liberal spin doctors as "unique achievements, unmatched in decades").
But Ivison's quote to remember must be his musings on Joe Volpe, the clear cream of the crop when it comes to an entrenched Liberal attitude of unrepentant entitlement.
When Volpe reportedly complained that "the party establishment was out to get him" and then whined that he "might not be Canadian enough", Ivison hit a home run when he called this "manipulative humbug" and then accurately noted that ...
"The Liberal Party would elect a Klingon as leader if its members thought he could beat Stephen Harper".
Write that one down, because I believe it represents, in one succinct sentence, the raison d'etre of the Liberal Party. Shameless manipulation, a genetic sense of entitlement, and a quiet understanding that the end always justifies the means, is alive and well. Forty+ years of watching them in action has taught me that, to a Liberal, as long as you get and keep power, it's OK to say or do whatever it takes.
Clearly they need more years in the wilderness ... many more.
Saturday, September 23, 2006
If It Saves Just One Life ...
Yesterday on Canada Free Press, Arthur Weinreb highlighted the lower-than-dirt levels to which Liberals are stooping to play politics with the latest mass shooting in Montreal. Specifically, this quote really got my attention: "The most exploitive and ridiculous question of the day was asked by Liberal Lucienne Robillard -- 'Why does the minority government not recognize that this registry is valuable, even if it saves just one life?' "
Arthur then rhetorically suggested, "Even if it just saves one life! Since when do we pass laws for the purpose of saving just one life? ... If we were really concerned about having laws that saved at least one life, we would drop the speed limits on the country's highways to 10 km/hr. That would be bound to save a lot more lives than just one."
I've been using the 10 kph argument for over 5 years (see my Feb. 11, 2006 post below ... "Gun Deaths and Liberal Logic"), and I'm glad to see someone else finally pick it up. It is right on the money for all of those gun-confiscation ... er, gun control advocates, and for all of the history-challenged pacifists on the left who want to cut and run because we've suffered some battle casualties in a war zone (imagine).
Not to trivialize the ultimate sacrifice made by some of our brave fighting men and women serving in Afghanistan, but to date, the total number lost in combat in three years in that most dangerous place is 1/22 of the total lost annually in murders right here in Canada.
So for those wing-nuts on the left, at the CBC and in the Liberal party who think they can legislate perfect safety to the point of immortality, here are some other great ideas to keep them squarely on their path of self-important moral superiority:
Ban all drinking of alcohol ... Lord knows it would save thousands of lives per year, not just one ... so to a Liberal, it would be "worth it".
Ban all golf. Several golfers are killed by lightning strikes every year, and to a Liberal, if you save just one life, "it's worth it".
Ban all internal combustion engines. Physicians have been giving us the stats on how many people die every year from inhaling smog and ozone, and .... if it saves just one life, according to a Liberal, "it's worth it".
Ban all swimming and vacationing in cottage country in Ontario. Reportedly 34 people drowned in Ontario this summer, 8 more than have died in military service in 3 years in Afghanistan to date, so to a Liberal, "if it saves just one life ...".
Ban all fast food, ban hockey, ban all amusment parks, ban adventure travel, ban fishing, ban snow shovelling, ban sea food, ban peanuts, ban air travel and ban farming ... all of which cause multiple deaths every year ... because according to "Liberal logic" ... if it saves just one life, IT'S WORTH IT!
Reality check: In my opinion, there is no argument too far-fetched, too illogical, too transparent or too stupid that a Liberal won't try to use it for attempted political gain. In my opinion there is no significant event good or bad, no war, no tragedy, no death, or natural disaster so horrible that a Liberal won't cynically attempt to twist it to try to win power. To a Liberal, power is everything, and based on my lifetime of observation, I believe that a liberal will say or do ANYTHING to get it.
Vote Liberal ... Live Forever! Why not? It's only a stupid election promise.
Arthur then rhetorically suggested, "Even if it just saves one life! Since when do we pass laws for the purpose of saving just one life? ... If we were really concerned about having laws that saved at least one life, we would drop the speed limits on the country's highways to 10 km/hr. That would be bound to save a lot more lives than just one."
I've been using the 10 kph argument for over 5 years (see my Feb. 11, 2006 post below ... "Gun Deaths and Liberal Logic"), and I'm glad to see someone else finally pick it up. It is right on the money for all of those gun-confiscation ... er, gun control advocates, and for all of the history-challenged pacifists on the left who want to cut and run because we've suffered some battle casualties in a war zone (imagine).
Not to trivialize the ultimate sacrifice made by some of our brave fighting men and women serving in Afghanistan, but to date, the total number lost in combat in three years in that most dangerous place is 1/22 of the total lost annually in murders right here in Canada.
So for those wing-nuts on the left, at the CBC and in the Liberal party who think they can legislate perfect safety to the point of immortality, here are some other great ideas to keep them squarely on their path of self-important moral superiority:
Ban all drinking of alcohol ... Lord knows it would save thousands of lives per year, not just one ... so to a Liberal, it would be "worth it".
Ban all golf. Several golfers are killed by lightning strikes every year, and to a Liberal, if you save just one life, "it's worth it".
Ban all internal combustion engines. Physicians have been giving us the stats on how many people die every year from inhaling smog and ozone, and .... if it saves just one life, according to a Liberal, "it's worth it".
Ban all swimming and vacationing in cottage country in Ontario. Reportedly 34 people drowned in Ontario this summer, 8 more than have died in military service in 3 years in Afghanistan to date, so to a Liberal, "if it saves just one life ...".
Ban all fast food, ban hockey, ban all amusment parks, ban adventure travel, ban fishing, ban snow shovelling, ban sea food, ban peanuts, ban air travel and ban farming ... all of which cause multiple deaths every year ... because according to "Liberal logic" ... if it saves just one life, IT'S WORTH IT!
Reality check: In my opinion, there is no argument too far-fetched, too illogical, too transparent or too stupid that a Liberal won't try to use it for attempted political gain. In my opinion there is no significant event good or bad, no war, no tragedy, no death, or natural disaster so horrible that a Liberal won't cynically attempt to twist it to try to win power. To a Liberal, power is everything, and based on my lifetime of observation, I believe that a liberal will say or do ANYTHING to get it.
Vote Liberal ... Live Forever! Why not? It's only a stupid election promise.
Friday, September 22, 2006
The Case Against the Gun Registry
"Gun control" is one thing, and I support some measure of that. There are individuals in our society who should not have guns, nor should they have access to guns. And there are some weapons in the world I would just as soon not have stored in my neighbour's basement ... rocket launchers, chain guns, hell-fire missles and such. Fair enough.
But here is the reality of legal gun ownership as it already exists. To own a gun legally in Canada, I have to be trained and tested in the safe use and storage of firearms. I have to be checked out by the authorities as being a stable individual who is unlikely to use my legally-acquired weapons for anti-personnel, or dangerous use. And I must keep my weapons locked up in a secure locked cabinet, with locked trigger guards in each weapon that will not permit unauthorized use of the weapon, and with ammunition locked securely in a separate location.
Fair enough. No argument here either. That's multiple redundancy in the CURRENT regulations. Trained, tested, checked and approved owner, with locked, disabled and deprived-of-ammunition weapons.
But what about the vaunted "Gun Registry" that supposedly still isn't "tough enough" for the CBC, Liberals and other egg-headed media types? How does this gross waste of resources and money enhance the safety of society? What more does it accomplish than licensing individuals? After all, guns don't just jump out of closets on their own and shoot people.
Well, it strategically catalogues one-by-one all of the legally owned guns in Canada, who owns them, and where they are located. This is supposedly (the big justification) to "enhance the safety of police" should they ever be called upon to attend a residence where said weapons are owned, so they can prepare accordingly ... as rare an occurrence as this certainly is in the overall scheme of things, given the huge numbers of firearms that are legally owned in Canada, and the hundreds of thousands of legally licensed gun owners.
I contend the police only need to know that an individual has the legal right and means to own firearms. It would be prudent, knowing just that one single fact, to enter the premises armed and prepared accordingly. The suspect may be armed, so enter prepared for an armed individual. Duhhh ... am I missing something?
For example, if he's licensed to own a simple hunting firearm, and he only has only one, he may well have the most dangerous of all close-quarters combat weapons, a 12-gauge shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot. Does it really matter that he also owns twelve black powder muskets, one .22 cal. target rifle, a bolt-action .30-06 hunting rifle, a .243 single-shot varmint rifle, and his father's treasured collection of never-been-fired Winchester model 94 lever action .30-30 collector series? Of course not. He can only fire one at a time, and it only takes one to cause a severe danger to said police.
He's licensed. Enter prepared. That's all you need to know for police safety.
If he's licensed to own fully-automatic weapons, pistols or other restricted or prohibited categories of firearms, he's already required to register each one of those separately, and he's required to be licensed to own such weapons in the first place. This is a difficult license to obtain with many conditions and restrictions. You don't need the gun registry to advise police that they are in the house. They have known this since about 1938.
Sorry, but the ONLY reason to catalogue and locate every firearm in Canada is so that, when the time is right, it will be a piece of cake to round them all up and confiscate them. Liberals and the CBC want our guns. They think NOBODY should own guns. Their morally-superior "progressive" values are more valid than my traditional values. They believe they have the divine right to confiscate my legally-obtained property because it offends their "advanced" urbane, pacifist sensibilities. It's all about philosophy. It has absolutely nothing to do with public safety. NOBODY in this great country will ever convince me otherwise.
Confiscation is the ultimate goal, and the gun registry is the necessary first step. All the rest is CBC-Liberal ka-ka, pooh-pooh, and bald-faced lies.
Kill the gun registry. It is a multi-billion dollar waste of taxpayer money spent to prepare for confiscation, and (!!) to buy jobs (Liberal votes) in New Brunswick. And once it's killed, throw all of their computers into the Bay of Fundy.
The Liberals will, sadly, be back some day, and they'll pick up where they left off. Destroy their records and at least set them back another decade. Make them start all over again. The fight with the left is far from over. No matter how many times they are proven wrong, they just don’t get it.
But here is the reality of legal gun ownership as it already exists. To own a gun legally in Canada, I have to be trained and tested in the safe use and storage of firearms. I have to be checked out by the authorities as being a stable individual who is unlikely to use my legally-acquired weapons for anti-personnel, or dangerous use. And I must keep my weapons locked up in a secure locked cabinet, with locked trigger guards in each weapon that will not permit unauthorized use of the weapon, and with ammunition locked securely in a separate location.
Fair enough. No argument here either. That's multiple redundancy in the CURRENT regulations. Trained, tested, checked and approved owner, with locked, disabled and deprived-of-ammunition weapons.
But what about the vaunted "Gun Registry" that supposedly still isn't "tough enough" for the CBC, Liberals and other egg-headed media types? How does this gross waste of resources and money enhance the safety of society? What more does it accomplish than licensing individuals? After all, guns don't just jump out of closets on their own and shoot people.
Well, it strategically catalogues one-by-one all of the legally owned guns in Canada, who owns them, and where they are located. This is supposedly (the big justification) to "enhance the safety of police" should they ever be called upon to attend a residence where said weapons are owned, so they can prepare accordingly ... as rare an occurrence as this certainly is in the overall scheme of things, given the huge numbers of firearms that are legally owned in Canada, and the hundreds of thousands of legally licensed gun owners.
I contend the police only need to know that an individual has the legal right and means to own firearms. It would be prudent, knowing just that one single fact, to enter the premises armed and prepared accordingly. The suspect may be armed, so enter prepared for an armed individual. Duhhh ... am I missing something?
For example, if he's licensed to own a simple hunting firearm, and he only has only one, he may well have the most dangerous of all close-quarters combat weapons, a 12-gauge shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot. Does it really matter that he also owns twelve black powder muskets, one .22 cal. target rifle, a bolt-action .30-06 hunting rifle, a .243 single-shot varmint rifle, and his father's treasured collection of never-been-fired Winchester model 94 lever action .30-30 collector series? Of course not. He can only fire one at a time, and it only takes one to cause a severe danger to said police.
He's licensed. Enter prepared. That's all you need to know for police safety.
If he's licensed to own fully-automatic weapons, pistols or other restricted or prohibited categories of firearms, he's already required to register each one of those separately, and he's required to be licensed to own such weapons in the first place. This is a difficult license to obtain with many conditions and restrictions. You don't need the gun registry to advise police that they are in the house. They have known this since about 1938.
Sorry, but the ONLY reason to catalogue and locate every firearm in Canada is so that, when the time is right, it will be a piece of cake to round them all up and confiscate them. Liberals and the CBC want our guns. They think NOBODY should own guns. Their morally-superior "progressive" values are more valid than my traditional values. They believe they have the divine right to confiscate my legally-obtained property because it offends their "advanced" urbane, pacifist sensibilities. It's all about philosophy. It has absolutely nothing to do with public safety. NOBODY in this great country will ever convince me otherwise.
Confiscation is the ultimate goal, and the gun registry is the necessary first step. All the rest is CBC-Liberal ka-ka, pooh-pooh, and bald-faced lies.
Kill the gun registry. It is a multi-billion dollar waste of taxpayer money spent to prepare for confiscation, and (!!) to buy jobs (Liberal votes) in New Brunswick. And once it's killed, throw all of their computers into the Bay of Fundy.
The Liberals will, sadly, be back some day, and they'll pick up where they left off. Destroy their records and at least set them back another decade. Make them start all over again. The fight with the left is far from over. No matter how many times they are proven wrong, they just don’t get it.
Saturday, February 11, 2006
Equal access to health care is fine for communists but not Canadians
Re: Equal access to health care is fine for communists but not Canadians.
I couldn't agree more. Where else in Canadian society is every single person forced to wait in bread lines that only the poorest and most vulnerable can afford in the name of "Equity"? I didn't think equity was the goal. I've always (naiively??) imagined it was excellence for all.
While there is certainly a handful who would champion this ideal (about 17 - 20% routinely vote NDP), the rest of us perennially reject the socialist view of society in everything but (so the politicians claim) health care.
I don't believe the politicians. I believe the public have had it with this health care model. It has resulted in the Soviet-style mess we currently endure ... ONLY in health care. I think the public is far ahead of the politicians in this matter.
I thought that Tommy Douglas's ideal was to ensure that the poorest and most disadvantaged in society were not left behind. He envisioned an "insurance" model where many young, healthy (low cost) workers in a simple 50's prairie economy financed the health care for a small number of sick (high cost) patients through a relatively small contribution from everyone. This insurance model worked well in the 50's, 60's & 70's.
That model is no longer valid. We now have a large, and growing, aging population, with a subsequently large number of "sick" people with very high costs due to the conditions of aging, high - tech treatments, high-cost facilities and high expectations from a well-educated and highly-demanding clientele, all supported by a shrinking number of young, highly-taxed and increasingly resentful workers, in a globally competitive environment.
In Ontario, the proportion of tax revenues going to health care has risen from 17% in the 60's and 70's to 46% of the entire budget in 2005. The Fraser Institute projects that this proportion will rise to 50% by 2011, to 66% by 2017 and by 2026, just 21 years from now, it will consume 100% of the Ontario provincial budget unless something changes. We are incresingly foregoing needed improvements in infrastructure, education, law and security, defense, agriculture, energy and natural resources in the name of propping up a failing health care model.
No matter what your political leanings, or no matter what your personal stake in maintaining the status quo, this simply cannot continue. The system will collapse on itself. It is unsustainable.
Canada is the only country remaining in the world, besides Cuba and North Korea, that demands a tax -funded, government - provided health care monopoly. Every other country has allowed some form of private health care in a parallel system to the government-funded model. Raising taxes to provide the levels of improvement required, and demanded by our citizens is not an option. Employers will leave for greener pastures, and taxpayers will toss out any government that attempts to levy tax increases on this scale.
I am personally not willing to give one cent more to governments, because they have shown time and time again that they can't be trusted to spend the money in the manner they have promised. If I need a doctor, I would rather pay the doctor directly, and pay him or her what they truly deserve, not what some bureaucrat says they can get, in order to save enough for political kickbacks and pork in some other department, or in hidden rewards to their own parties.
Further rationing of services, longer waiting times and increasing shortages in futile attempts to contain real costs are unacceptable and repugnant in a free society.
If improving the health care system demands that my family pay another $3,000 - $6,000 a year, then I'm paying directly for services or personal insurance to obtain excellence. "Medicare" should have to pay only for catastrophic illness and end-of-life treatment that is too expensive to insure, as well as greatly improved care for the truly indigent who are unable to pay for themselves for even the basic necessities. Paying taxes for people who can pay for themselves in a system that is chronically and increasingly short of resources is both wrong-headed and foolish.
The "Equity" model is no longer sustainable, and the tenets upon which it is based are no longer valid. The time has come to move on, and join the rest of the world in a parallel private-public model. It's time for dogma to step aside for pragmatism.
You can write all the letters you want to criticize me, discredit my views, or call me names, but sometime before 2026, you will be forced to accept the realities of the market. The buggy whip makers of 1900 dug in their heels to oppose the automobile. There are very few buggy whip makers today.
Excellence is achieved only by the constant pursuit of perfection. Treading water simply to keep our heads above water is NOT acceptable to this Canadian. Kudos to Stephanie Ross and the Centre for Preventative Medicine for taking the lead and bravely stating the obvious.
I couldn't agree more. Where else in Canadian society is every single person forced to wait in bread lines that only the poorest and most vulnerable can afford in the name of "Equity"? I didn't think equity was the goal. I've always (naiively??) imagined it was excellence for all.
While there is certainly a handful who would champion this ideal (about 17 - 20% routinely vote NDP), the rest of us perennially reject the socialist view of society in everything but (so the politicians claim) health care.
I don't believe the politicians. I believe the public have had it with this health care model. It has resulted in the Soviet-style mess we currently endure ... ONLY in health care. I think the public is far ahead of the politicians in this matter.
I thought that Tommy Douglas's ideal was to ensure that the poorest and most disadvantaged in society were not left behind. He envisioned an "insurance" model where many young, healthy (low cost) workers in a simple 50's prairie economy financed the health care for a small number of sick (high cost) patients through a relatively small contribution from everyone. This insurance model worked well in the 50's, 60's & 70's.
That model is no longer valid. We now have a large, and growing, aging population, with a subsequently large number of "sick" people with very high costs due to the conditions of aging, high - tech treatments, high-cost facilities and high expectations from a well-educated and highly-demanding clientele, all supported by a shrinking number of young, highly-taxed and increasingly resentful workers, in a globally competitive environment.
In Ontario, the proportion of tax revenues going to health care has risen from 17% in the 60's and 70's to 46% of the entire budget in 2005. The Fraser Institute projects that this proportion will rise to 50% by 2011, to 66% by 2017 and by 2026, just 21 years from now, it will consume 100% of the Ontario provincial budget unless something changes. We are incresingly foregoing needed improvements in infrastructure, education, law and security, defense, agriculture, energy and natural resources in the name of propping up a failing health care model.
No matter what your political leanings, or no matter what your personal stake in maintaining the status quo, this simply cannot continue. The system will collapse on itself. It is unsustainable.
Canada is the only country remaining in the world, besides Cuba and North Korea, that demands a tax -funded, government - provided health care monopoly. Every other country has allowed some form of private health care in a parallel system to the government-funded model. Raising taxes to provide the levels of improvement required, and demanded by our citizens is not an option. Employers will leave for greener pastures, and taxpayers will toss out any government that attempts to levy tax increases on this scale.
I am personally not willing to give one cent more to governments, because they have shown time and time again that they can't be trusted to spend the money in the manner they have promised. If I need a doctor, I would rather pay the doctor directly, and pay him or her what they truly deserve, not what some bureaucrat says they can get, in order to save enough for political kickbacks and pork in some other department, or in hidden rewards to their own parties.
Further rationing of services, longer waiting times and increasing shortages in futile attempts to contain real costs are unacceptable and repugnant in a free society.
If improving the health care system demands that my family pay another $3,000 - $6,000 a year, then I'm paying directly for services or personal insurance to obtain excellence. "Medicare" should have to pay only for catastrophic illness and end-of-life treatment that is too expensive to insure, as well as greatly improved care for the truly indigent who are unable to pay for themselves for even the basic necessities. Paying taxes for people who can pay for themselves in a system that is chronically and increasingly short of resources is both wrong-headed and foolish.
The "Equity" model is no longer sustainable, and the tenets upon which it is based are no longer valid. The time has come to move on, and join the rest of the world in a parallel private-public model. It's time for dogma to step aside for pragmatism.
You can write all the letters you want to criticize me, discredit my views, or call me names, but sometime before 2026, you will be forced to accept the realities of the market. The buggy whip makers of 1900 dug in their heels to oppose the automobile. There are very few buggy whip makers today.
Excellence is achieved only by the constant pursuit of perfection. Treading water simply to keep our heads above water is NOT acceptable to this Canadian. Kudos to Stephanie Ross and the Centre for Preventative Medicine for taking the lead and bravely stating the obvious.
Harper's Cabinet
Re: "Harper starts a run on the trust bank"
There has been exaggerated outrage this week from pundits over some of Stephen Harper's cabinet choices. It's a safe bet most of those sources don't like the idea of "Prime Minister Harper" to start.
So far, he hasn't yet plundered the public treasury to funnel millions to his party, he hasn't promised us nineteen "number one priorities", he hasn't allegedly leaked any stock tips, he hasn't misspent billions in unaccounted "job creation" or gun registration, he hasn't allegedly funnelled money to his own family's hotel, and he hasn't choked anyone.
Despite the whining from pundits, Ipsos-Reid says 54% of Canadians approved of his first week in office, even though only 36% voted for him.
So far, not bad at all.
There has been exaggerated outrage this week from pundits over some of Stephen Harper's cabinet choices. It's a safe bet most of those sources don't like the idea of "Prime Minister Harper" to start.
So far, he hasn't yet plundered the public treasury to funnel millions to his party, he hasn't promised us nineteen "number one priorities", he hasn't allegedly leaked any stock tips, he hasn't misspent billions in unaccounted "job creation" or gun registration, he hasn't allegedly funnelled money to his own family's hotel, and he hasn't choked anyone.
Despite the whining from pundits, Ipsos-Reid says 54% of Canadians approved of his first week in office, even though only 36% voted for him.
So far, not bad at all.
Cartoons - to publish or not to publish?
CBC Editor in Chief of CBC News, Tony Burman asks rhetorically, ""What if those cartoons had instead focused on Christianity? And on Jesus Christ or the Virgin Mary engaged in unspeakably offensive acts?"
Answer: It's been going on for years on Saturday Night Live, in Mad Magazine, etc. as openly sacreligious skits and cartoons. Nobody has burned down NBC Studios or beheaded Lorne Michaels. If we don't like it, Tony, we change the channel, boycott the advertisers, write an indignant letter to the editor, or turn the page and move on.
The Crusades, the Inquisition, the Third Reich and the War on Terrorism were/are all the result of fanatical adherence to personal beliefs by one group or another AND (the key) THEIR insistence that the rest of the world fall into line. INTOLERANCE is the key in all of this.
Our North American (Canadian) belief in tolerance and personal freedom is just as strong (we've sacrificed hundreds of thousands of lives) as any fanatical insistence on rigid comformity, and when those two ideals clash, the result has historically been tragic.
When I see a group, ANY group, burning buildings, killing innocent people and proudly flaunting posters stating "Freedom Go To Hell", you'll have to excuse me for reacting in an extremely negative fashion. Whatever sympathy I might have held for their cause before has pretty much evaporated as a result of this week.
While I support the state-funded CBC for not publishing the cartoons (for what purpose?), I just as strongly support the right of that Danish newspaper, any privately-owned newspaper in the world, or any individual in the world to publish cartoons, editorials or anything they wish on any subject they wish as their right to express their personal beliefs.
As offensive as it might be to any group, or even to society as a whole, if you don't like what you are reading, TURN THE FRICKIN' PAGE and enjoy the rest of the day.
Those who are simply unable to accept any level of tolerance for any dissenting point of view to their own due to personal philosophy, anger management problems or religious faith, should not be surprised when those targets of their intolerance eventually strike back with everything they've got. Cartoons pose no physical threat to anyone. "Sticks and stones ..."
By contrast, burning private property, mob intimidation, murder and suicide bombings are not acceptable behaviour, and cannot be condoned by the CBC or any other group, no matter what their political leanings.
All this over a cartoon.
Incredible.
Answer: It's been going on for years on Saturday Night Live, in Mad Magazine, etc. as openly sacreligious skits and cartoons. Nobody has burned down NBC Studios or beheaded Lorne Michaels. If we don't like it, Tony, we change the channel, boycott the advertisers, write an indignant letter to the editor, or turn the page and move on.
The Crusades, the Inquisition, the Third Reich and the War on Terrorism were/are all the result of fanatical adherence to personal beliefs by one group or another AND (the key) THEIR insistence that the rest of the world fall into line. INTOLERANCE is the key in all of this.
Our North American (Canadian) belief in tolerance and personal freedom is just as strong (we've sacrificed hundreds of thousands of lives) as any fanatical insistence on rigid comformity, and when those two ideals clash, the result has historically been tragic.
When I see a group, ANY group, burning buildings, killing innocent people and proudly flaunting posters stating "Freedom Go To Hell", you'll have to excuse me for reacting in an extremely negative fashion. Whatever sympathy I might have held for their cause before has pretty much evaporated as a result of this week.
While I support the state-funded CBC for not publishing the cartoons (for what purpose?), I just as strongly support the right of that Danish newspaper, any privately-owned newspaper in the world, or any individual in the world to publish cartoons, editorials or anything they wish on any subject they wish as their right to express their personal beliefs.
As offensive as it might be to any group, or even to society as a whole, if you don't like what you are reading, TURN THE FRICKIN' PAGE and enjoy the rest of the day.
Those who are simply unable to accept any level of tolerance for any dissenting point of view to their own due to personal philosophy, anger management problems or religious faith, should not be surprised when those targets of their intolerance eventually strike back with everything they've got. Cartoons pose no physical threat to anyone. "Sticks and stones ..."
By contrast, burning private property, mob intimidation, murder and suicide bombings are not acceptable behaviour, and cannot be condoned by the CBC or any other group, no matter what their political leanings.
All this over a cartoon.
Incredible.
TORONTO'S "Gun" Problem
Toronto Mayor David Miller, Ontario Justice Minister Michael Bryant, and now Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty all want to solve Toronto's "gun problem" by banning handguns. How liberal.
David Miller, Michael Bryant and now Dalton McGuinty will never solve gun violence.
Gun collectors and hobbyists have been around forever. Yet brazen gang shootings in Toronto have reached a new peak on their watch. This is not a problem in Dryden, Cornwall, or Chatham Ontario. This is a Toronto problem.
Rather than focusing on the real problem ... a certain segment of society that has chosen to completely disregard all conventions of human decency and respect for human life, these "leaders" have chosen to blame inanimate objects (guns), responsible licensed hobbyists and the U.S. constitution. Now they want to change our constitution to give them the right to ban handguns. Hopefully Prime Minister Harper will wisely give them a flat NO.
Rather than making work for an army of bureaucrats chasing down responsible and respectful hobbyists whose legal pastime happens to offend the urbane sensibilities of these hopeless social engineers, they need look no further than Mayor Giuliani’s solution in New York City which worked.
Hire an army of police officers, and get them on the street to find, arrest and put away for a long, long time the thugs, the drugs and the criminals for whom no law or regulation will make one iota of difference.
Until this trio can get beyond their Toronto-centric leftist dogma to make the right diagnosis, they will never in a million years effect a cure. They just don't get it.
David Miller, Michael Bryant and now Dalton McGuinty will never solve gun violence.
Gun collectors and hobbyists have been around forever. Yet brazen gang shootings in Toronto have reached a new peak on their watch. This is not a problem in Dryden, Cornwall, or Chatham Ontario. This is a Toronto problem.
Rather than focusing on the real problem ... a certain segment of society that has chosen to completely disregard all conventions of human decency and respect for human life, these "leaders" have chosen to blame inanimate objects (guns), responsible licensed hobbyists and the U.S. constitution. Now they want to change our constitution to give them the right to ban handguns. Hopefully Prime Minister Harper will wisely give them a flat NO.
Rather than making work for an army of bureaucrats chasing down responsible and respectful hobbyists whose legal pastime happens to offend the urbane sensibilities of these hopeless social engineers, they need look no further than Mayor Giuliani’s solution in New York City which worked.
Hire an army of police officers, and get them on the street to find, arrest and put away for a long, long time the thugs, the drugs and the criminals for whom no law or regulation will make one iota of difference.
Until this trio can get beyond their Toronto-centric leftist dogma to make the right diagnosis, they will never in a million years effect a cure. They just don't get it.
Gun Deaths and Liberal "Logic"
In his rebuttal to a National Post editorial "Ditch the Gun Registry" (Feb. 3, 2006), Emile - J. Therien misuses statistics to inflame public opinion to his personal view that we need to further regulate, and indeed ban guns to save us from ourselves, if not each other. How patronizing.
If he wants to custom-tailor statistics to support his anti-gun bias, let's similarly use them to carry some other examples to equally ridiculous conclusions.
There are approximately 2,800 automobile-related deaths each year in Canada, about 3.5 times the current (not "30 year average") annual gun death rate of approximately 800, (in a country of 31 million people!), with 4/5 of those deaths being suicides (ie. no danger to anyone else). So why don't we enforce "the public interest" by lowering the speed limit on all roads to 10 kph and eliminate virtually all auto deaths. In fact why don't we ban automobiles altogether since they also account for an additional 25,000 hospital admissions per year, and far more when we consider the pollution they cause, clearly a far more lethal and dangerous indulgence than guns, with which the public should not be trusted
There are also about 1,700 drunk driving deaths per year, and if we include all of the homicides, assaults, rapes and marriage break-ups caused by alcohol, we should ban that too. Clearly the all-knowing elites like Mr. Therian have a duty to protect us from ourselves.
I am not aware that any of us has a right to an absolutely risk-free life. I'd like to think that I am entitled to some degree of personal happiness, and the pursuit of any sport, indulgence or activity that allows me that happiness. I could care less whether you approve or not. As long as I am responsible, and my activity doesn't harm others, we don't need more and bigger government to waste money making ineffective rules that are far past any reasonable point of diminishing returns when it comes to the so-called "public interest".
Instead of feeding make-work armies of bureaucrats to go after responsible gun hobbiests, we need armies of new police officers on our streets like Guiliani did in New York to clean up the gangs and the thugs and the drugs, and get illegal guns off the streets. THAT, Mr. Therien (and Misters Miller, Bryant and McGuinty) would be acting SMARTLY in "the public interest".
If he wants to custom-tailor statistics to support his anti-gun bias, let's similarly use them to carry some other examples to equally ridiculous conclusions.
There are approximately 2,800 automobile-related deaths each year in Canada, about 3.5 times the current (not "30 year average") annual gun death rate of approximately 800, (in a country of 31 million people!), with 4/5 of those deaths being suicides (ie. no danger to anyone else). So why don't we enforce "the public interest" by lowering the speed limit on all roads to 10 kph and eliminate virtually all auto deaths. In fact why don't we ban automobiles altogether since they also account for an additional 25,000 hospital admissions per year, and far more when we consider the pollution they cause, clearly a far more lethal and dangerous indulgence than guns, with which the public should not be trusted
There are also about 1,700 drunk driving deaths per year, and if we include all of the homicides, assaults, rapes and marriage break-ups caused by alcohol, we should ban that too. Clearly the all-knowing elites like Mr. Therian have a duty to protect us from ourselves.
I am not aware that any of us has a right to an absolutely risk-free life. I'd like to think that I am entitled to some degree of personal happiness, and the pursuit of any sport, indulgence or activity that allows me that happiness. I could care less whether you approve or not. As long as I am responsible, and my activity doesn't harm others, we don't need more and bigger government to waste money making ineffective rules that are far past any reasonable point of diminishing returns when it comes to the so-called "public interest".
Instead of feeding make-work armies of bureaucrats to go after responsible gun hobbiests, we need armies of new police officers on our streets like Guiliani did in New York to clean up the gangs and the thugs and the drugs, and get illegal guns off the streets. THAT, Mr. Therien (and Misters Miller, Bryant and McGuinty) would be acting SMARTLY in "the public interest".
Sunday, January 08, 2006
Another "Decade of Deception"
From the CBC's Liberal-friendly headlines, "Martin announces $1-billion water cleanup" - Sat. Jan. 07, 2006
But when you read the details, the $1-billion pledge is spread over 10 years, over 3 provinces and over 5 initiatives!
So why stop there? Why not announce a $3 billion dollar investment over 30 years, and then run the headlines, "Martin announces $3-billion cleanup"? Or make it over 100 years and headline "Martin announces $10-billion cleanup".
This is also now a favourite Ontario Liberal tactic as well ... making big headlines out of extrapolated small annual expenditures into the next millennium. Great strategy. By the time the lie has been finally consummated after a decade, half of the electorate has died or moved, the other half have long-forgotten, and the guys who made the promises in the first place are living on tax-funded pensions.
Will CBC's Neil MacDonald "Reality Check" these guys? I doubt it.
Anything beyond the longest-possible mandate (5 years) is completely dishonest electioneering.
But then, given the Liberals' recent history, that IS the ballot question, isn't it.
From the CBC's Liberal-friendly headlines, "Martin announces $1-billion water cleanup" - Sat. Jan. 07, 2006
But when you read the details, the $1-billion pledge is spread over 10 years, over 3 provinces and over 5 initiatives!
So why stop there? Why not announce a $3 billion dollar investment over 30 years, and then run the headlines, "Martin announces $3-billion cleanup"? Or make it over 100 years and headline "Martin announces $10-billion cleanup".
This is also now a favourite Ontario Liberal tactic as well ... making big headlines out of extrapolated small annual expenditures into the next millennium. Great strategy. By the time the lie has been finally consummated after a decade, half of the electorate has died or moved, the other half have long-forgotten, and the guys who made the promises in the first place are living on tax-funded pensions.
Will CBC's Neil MacDonald "Reality Check" these guys? I doubt it.
Anything beyond the longest-possible mandate (5 years) is completely dishonest electioneering.
But then, given the Liberals' recent history, that IS the ballot question, isn't it.
Friday, January 06, 2006
I DON”T UNDERSTAND
Jan. 6, 2006
At this point (January 6th) in the 2006 Canadian election campaign, the Conservatives have done surprisingly well, surpassing expectations, clearly spelling out a planned and coherent platform in an organized fashion and with a vision clearly in mind. The Liberal campaign, on the other hand, appears to be about little more than getting re-elected, and Mr. Martin and the panicking back-room appear to be ready and willing to say, or do literally anything if they feel it might get them four more years in office.
But why on earth do they think they have earned the right to another four years, and why would anyone with an ounce of reason, or common sense of decency, holding commonly-held values in a civilized democracy voluntarily give them that right one more time?
Ask yourself how many “Number One Priorities” Paul Martin has claimed to own in the past 12 months. There can only be one “number one” can’t there? He has one for each audience, and one for each sound bite. The man is shameless.
Quick, in 30 seconds, list just one important accomplishment of lasting value to most Canadians by Paul Martin and his Liberals in the past 12 months. If you somehow managed to identify one, in another 30 seconds, list one more. Hmmm. Two years, and what do we have to show besides scandal, corruption, ineptitude, disappointment, arrogance, entitlement, rhetoric, deception, broken promises and a government clearly adrift?
Paul Martin claims to have not known about the pillaging of the Sponsorship Program in Quebec during his years as Canada’s Finance Minister and as Quebec’s most important Cabinet Minister behind Chretien himself. This from the same man, who, as Chair of Canada Steamship Lines, was obviously astute enough to ensure that his ships were registered in offshore tax havens where he could avoid paying Canadian tax rates, you know … the taxes that support his so-called “Canadian Values”.
Either he is not telling the truth, he has "forgotten", or we have had at our financial helm a man who has to have been one of the most lax and, in my personal opinion, negligent CFOs anywhere in the world. Such a performance (overseeing the theft and misuse of hundreds of millions of our tax dollars on his watch) by any corporate CFO would certainly get him fired, and perhaps more.
Martin claims to be the architect of our good financial performance. Yet he has reportedly racked up accumulated surpluses in our E.I. plan of nearly $48 billion on his watch. Those are "premiums" that were not spent on E.I., but were taken from you and me under false pretenses. That number increased another $2B this year.
That is job-killing money that is being taken from employers and employees for (supposedly) one purpose (funding unemployment programs for those who lose their jobs) and then funneling it into general revenues to be spent however Liberals see fit to spend it. We’ve all heard and read the litany of corruption and neglect … and the hits just keep on coming as this campaign unfolds.
As such, that $48+ billion surplus was, in fact, a tax on employment, not a “premium” as claimed, and should be clearly identified as such by the "Prime Minister of integrity".
In reality, Mr. Martin’s “surpluses” have come as a result of his gutting medicare, his slashing of transfers to the provinces, and as a result of his massive over-taxation of the E.I. plan … not because of any magical financial genius.
Now, to win votes in Toronto, Paul Martin wants to ban handguns. Apparently he has suddenly found religion on this front also … another “number one priority”.
Forget that they are already effectively “banned” in Canada and have been since 1934. Forget that the homicide rate from handguns is already falling, and has been for a long time. Forget that the $2B already spent on an ineffective gun registry has clearly done nothing to stop gunfights on Yonge Street, and … forget that the goons and thugs doing the shooting don’t register their guns or obtain them legally in any case. That’s why they are called CRIMINALS.
Forgetting all of that, IF Paul Martin, in his heart of hearts, honestly believed that banning handguns would stop the shootings in Toronto (and other handgun-related deaths in Canada), why has he waited until the 11th hour of a failing election campaign in 2006 to make the pledge, when, as Prime Minister for the past two years, he could have done I it at any time, and presumably saved hundreds of “needless” murders?
If you buy this hogwash, then you MUST accept that the deaths of handgun murder victims in the past two years fall squarely in Mr. Martin’s lap as a result of his unwillingness to act and ban handguns immediately upon the day he took office based on his sincere beliefs or evidence that it would save lives.
Give me a break. It’s his JOB he wants to save. Nothing more.
Martin’s promise is just one more cheap political ploy to win votes in Toronto. Martin, and his misguided “I feel your pain”, touchy-feely cheerleader, Toronto Mayor David Miller, apparently think that banning target shooting on handgun ranges in Dryden, Ontario, Flin Flon, Manitoba, Yorkton, Saskatchewan and Ft. St James, BC will stop gang-bangers at Jane and Finch in the centre of the whole universe from blowing each other away in increasing numbers, along with innocent bystanders.
Perhaps these social engineering geniuses need to look at little closer at Rudi Guiliani’s get-tough, zero-tolerance model in New York (which has WORKED SPECTACULARLY!) instead of trying to outdo each other as the bleeding heart, no-limit-to-tolerance poster boys for continuing to flog a failed social model to death.
When you continue to make the wrong diagnosis, you shouldn’t expect your prescribed cure to work, and when you keep doing more of the same, you shouldn’t be shocked when you keep getting more of the same result. THAT is why Toronto has a problem. It is NOT a “gun problem”. It is a gangster and drugs problem, and a lack of respect and values problem.
I could go on. There was the HRDC mess, with over $1B wasted in unaccounted spending from within the HRDC department, with much of it reportedly going to boondoggles in Liberal ridings. Who was the Finance Minister who oversaw this waste and irresponsibility?
There is our castrated military, hitch-hiking our way into battle in the back seat of our big brother’s airplanes with green camouflage for desert warfare, helicopters that won’t stay in the air and rusting used submarines that don’t work.
There is our previously proud medicare system starved into Soviet-style immobility and depersonalized mediocrity by the very same Finance Minister, who, as Prime Minister now claims to be the champion of “Canadian Values” and who would have us believe that he alone will save, protect and enhance medical care, (as he personally reportedly receives care at a private clinic). He has a very public record, and I, for one, do not believe or trust him, or his party.
He promised today to spend $7B on education (a provincial responsibility by the way) if we re-elect him and his Liberals, … but then he made virtually the same promise ($8 B) on June 4, 2004, and he failed to keep it.
Remember all of his “Number One Priorities”? Why would anyone believe a single word that comes out of his mouth?? I see his lips moving and all I hear anymore is “wah wah wah wah wah”!
He has gone out of his way, in his shameless quest for votes, to alienate our largest and most important trading partner. Before you jump on his bandwagon in blind nationalistic fervor, think for a minute about where the money for your job comes from. Who is our (your) single biggest customer?
If you, or the companies you work for, manufacture goods or provide services to our friends next door, that is your job and your livelihood that he his gambling with. How long can you live without your job? Who will pay for your children’s education and that fancy “Canadian Values” medicare system if you don’t have a job? Ask Paul Martin as he grovels for votes.
This election has been an ongoing showcase for the, by-now, inbred genetic arrogance, ignorance, and sense of entitlement of the Liberal Party of Canada. I invite you to visit and read the archives of Stephen Taylor’s blog at www.stephentaylor.ca (and others … forget the mainstream media, who have been left far behind in this election). The litany of apparent back-room corner cutting, rule breaking, skimming of public funds for partisan purposes, and insensitive remarks by Liberal insiders shows the true heart of what these Liberals have become.
I am a huge believer in term limits, and in my opinion, the “best-past” due date has long since come and gone on this gang. They need to be flushed, and the septic tank needs to be emptied. They need to do hard-time in opposition purgatory for a deep cleansing, some serious soul-searching, some mass firings and new recruitment of ideas and people. This sorry bunch is about as devoid of ideas and vision and common decency as any government I have witnessed in my lifetime.
So I cannot understand why, when I read the polls, that some 1/3 of decided voters (41% in Ontario … UN-FRICKIN’-BELIEVABLE!!) still believe these guys should be given the right to govern yet again. It makes me wonder how far they would have to go to lose that right for this "enlightened" 30%. Savage beatings? Mass murder? Human sacrifice? Death squads?
Plundering the public purse to the tune of billions of dollars obviously isn’t bad enough. Wasting billions more clearly didn’t do it. Failing to keep promises, breaking promises, and making misguided, ill-conceived and cynical, politically-driven promises apparently isn’t bad enough either.
I don’t understand those Iraqis who apparently miss the good ol’ days of ruler-for-life Saddam Hussein. I have never understood the abused housewife who repeatedly returns to her abusive spouse for more beatings. And I cannot understand for the life of me why any Canadian with even a basic education and one ounce of self-respect would give this bunch another chance, let alone 1/3 of you. We might as well just hand your Liberals the power-for-life to which they are obviously entitled, accept their arrogant dictatorship, hand over our money, and skip all of this dumb election stuff. Elections … what a waste eh?
Under the Liberals, insiders can plunder the public purse, they can ignore rules with impunity, they can treat the people they are supposed to serve with disrespect, arrogance and rudeness, and they apparently still have the blessing of roughly 1/3 of Canadians.
(From the movie, “Animal House”) … “Thank you sir, may I have another!”
I DON”T UNDERSTAND. I REALLY DON’T UNDERSTAND!
Jan. 6, 2006
At this point (January 6th) in the 2006 Canadian election campaign, the Conservatives have done surprisingly well, surpassing expectations, clearly spelling out a planned and coherent platform in an organized fashion and with a vision clearly in mind. The Liberal campaign, on the other hand, appears to be about little more than getting re-elected, and Mr. Martin and the panicking back-room appear to be ready and willing to say, or do literally anything if they feel it might get them four more years in office.
But why on earth do they think they have earned the right to another four years, and why would anyone with an ounce of reason, or common sense of decency, holding commonly-held values in a civilized democracy voluntarily give them that right one more time?
Ask yourself how many “Number One Priorities” Paul Martin has claimed to own in the past 12 months. There can only be one “number one” can’t there? He has one for each audience, and one for each sound bite. The man is shameless.
Quick, in 30 seconds, list just one important accomplishment of lasting value to most Canadians by Paul Martin and his Liberals in the past 12 months. If you somehow managed to identify one, in another 30 seconds, list one more. Hmmm. Two years, and what do we have to show besides scandal, corruption, ineptitude, disappointment, arrogance, entitlement, rhetoric, deception, broken promises and a government clearly adrift?
Paul Martin claims to have not known about the pillaging of the Sponsorship Program in Quebec during his years as Canada’s Finance Minister and as Quebec’s most important Cabinet Minister behind Chretien himself. This from the same man, who, as Chair of Canada Steamship Lines, was obviously astute enough to ensure that his ships were registered in offshore tax havens where he could avoid paying Canadian tax rates, you know … the taxes that support his so-called “Canadian Values”.
Either he is not telling the truth, he has "forgotten", or we have had at our financial helm a man who has to have been one of the most lax and, in my personal opinion, negligent CFOs anywhere in the world. Such a performance (overseeing the theft and misuse of hundreds of millions of our tax dollars on his watch) by any corporate CFO would certainly get him fired, and perhaps more.
Martin claims to be the architect of our good financial performance. Yet he has reportedly racked up accumulated surpluses in our E.I. plan of nearly $48 billion on his watch. Those are "premiums" that were not spent on E.I., but were taken from you and me under false pretenses. That number increased another $2B this year.
That is job-killing money that is being taken from employers and employees for (supposedly) one purpose (funding unemployment programs for those who lose their jobs) and then funneling it into general revenues to be spent however Liberals see fit to spend it. We’ve all heard and read the litany of corruption and neglect … and the hits just keep on coming as this campaign unfolds.
As such, that $48+ billion surplus was, in fact, a tax on employment, not a “premium” as claimed, and should be clearly identified as such by the "Prime Minister of integrity".
In reality, Mr. Martin’s “surpluses” have come as a result of his gutting medicare, his slashing of transfers to the provinces, and as a result of his massive over-taxation of the E.I. plan … not because of any magical financial genius.
Now, to win votes in Toronto, Paul Martin wants to ban handguns. Apparently he has suddenly found religion on this front also … another “number one priority”.
Forget that they are already effectively “banned” in Canada and have been since 1934. Forget that the homicide rate from handguns is already falling, and has been for a long time. Forget that the $2B already spent on an ineffective gun registry has clearly done nothing to stop gunfights on Yonge Street, and … forget that the goons and thugs doing the shooting don’t register their guns or obtain them legally in any case. That’s why they are called CRIMINALS.
Forgetting all of that, IF Paul Martin, in his heart of hearts, honestly believed that banning handguns would stop the shootings in Toronto (and other handgun-related deaths in Canada), why has he waited until the 11th hour of a failing election campaign in 2006 to make the pledge, when, as Prime Minister for the past two years, he could have done I it at any time, and presumably saved hundreds of “needless” murders?
If you buy this hogwash, then you MUST accept that the deaths of handgun murder victims in the past two years fall squarely in Mr. Martin’s lap as a result of his unwillingness to act and ban handguns immediately upon the day he took office based on his sincere beliefs or evidence that it would save lives.
Give me a break. It’s his JOB he wants to save. Nothing more.
Martin’s promise is just one more cheap political ploy to win votes in Toronto. Martin, and his misguided “I feel your pain”, touchy-feely cheerleader, Toronto Mayor David Miller, apparently think that banning target shooting on handgun ranges in Dryden, Ontario, Flin Flon, Manitoba, Yorkton, Saskatchewan and Ft. St James, BC will stop gang-bangers at Jane and Finch in the centre of the whole universe from blowing each other away in increasing numbers, along with innocent bystanders.
Perhaps these social engineering geniuses need to look at little closer at Rudi Guiliani’s get-tough, zero-tolerance model in New York (which has WORKED SPECTACULARLY!) instead of trying to outdo each other as the bleeding heart, no-limit-to-tolerance poster boys for continuing to flog a failed social model to death.
When you continue to make the wrong diagnosis, you shouldn’t expect your prescribed cure to work, and when you keep doing more of the same, you shouldn’t be shocked when you keep getting more of the same result. THAT is why Toronto has a problem. It is NOT a “gun problem”. It is a gangster and drugs problem, and a lack of respect and values problem.
I could go on. There was the HRDC mess, with over $1B wasted in unaccounted spending from within the HRDC department, with much of it reportedly going to boondoggles in Liberal ridings. Who was the Finance Minister who oversaw this waste and irresponsibility?
There is our castrated military, hitch-hiking our way into battle in the back seat of our big brother’s airplanes with green camouflage for desert warfare, helicopters that won’t stay in the air and rusting used submarines that don’t work.
There is our previously proud medicare system starved into Soviet-style immobility and depersonalized mediocrity by the very same Finance Minister, who, as Prime Minister now claims to be the champion of “Canadian Values” and who would have us believe that he alone will save, protect and enhance medical care, (as he personally reportedly receives care at a private clinic). He has a very public record, and I, for one, do not believe or trust him, or his party.
He promised today to spend $7B on education (a provincial responsibility by the way) if we re-elect him and his Liberals, … but then he made virtually the same promise ($8 B) on June 4, 2004, and he failed to keep it.
Remember all of his “Number One Priorities”? Why would anyone believe a single word that comes out of his mouth?? I see his lips moving and all I hear anymore is “wah wah wah wah wah”!
He has gone out of his way, in his shameless quest for votes, to alienate our largest and most important trading partner. Before you jump on his bandwagon in blind nationalistic fervor, think for a minute about where the money for your job comes from. Who is our (your) single biggest customer?
If you, or the companies you work for, manufacture goods or provide services to our friends next door, that is your job and your livelihood that he his gambling with. How long can you live without your job? Who will pay for your children’s education and that fancy “Canadian Values” medicare system if you don’t have a job? Ask Paul Martin as he grovels for votes.
This election has been an ongoing showcase for the, by-now, inbred genetic arrogance, ignorance, and sense of entitlement of the Liberal Party of Canada. I invite you to visit and read the archives of Stephen Taylor’s blog at www.stephentaylor.ca (and others … forget the mainstream media, who have been left far behind in this election). The litany of apparent back-room corner cutting, rule breaking, skimming of public funds for partisan purposes, and insensitive remarks by Liberal insiders shows the true heart of what these Liberals have become.
I am a huge believer in term limits, and in my opinion, the “best-past” due date has long since come and gone on this gang. They need to be flushed, and the septic tank needs to be emptied. They need to do hard-time in opposition purgatory for a deep cleansing, some serious soul-searching, some mass firings and new recruitment of ideas and people. This sorry bunch is about as devoid of ideas and vision and common decency as any government I have witnessed in my lifetime.
So I cannot understand why, when I read the polls, that some 1/3 of decided voters (41% in Ontario … UN-FRICKIN’-BELIEVABLE!!) still believe these guys should be given the right to govern yet again. It makes me wonder how far they would have to go to lose that right for this "enlightened" 30%. Savage beatings? Mass murder? Human sacrifice? Death squads?
Plundering the public purse to the tune of billions of dollars obviously isn’t bad enough. Wasting billions more clearly didn’t do it. Failing to keep promises, breaking promises, and making misguided, ill-conceived and cynical, politically-driven promises apparently isn’t bad enough either.
I don’t understand those Iraqis who apparently miss the good ol’ days of ruler-for-life Saddam Hussein. I have never understood the abused housewife who repeatedly returns to her abusive spouse for more beatings. And I cannot understand for the life of me why any Canadian with even a basic education and one ounce of self-respect would give this bunch another chance, let alone 1/3 of you. We might as well just hand your Liberals the power-for-life to which they are obviously entitled, accept their arrogant dictatorship, hand over our money, and skip all of this dumb election stuff. Elections … what a waste eh?
Under the Liberals, insiders can plunder the public purse, they can ignore rules with impunity, they can treat the people they are supposed to serve with disrespect, arrogance and rudeness, and they apparently still have the blessing of roughly 1/3 of Canadians.
(From the movie, “Animal House”) … “Thank you sir, may I have another!”
I DON”T UNDERSTAND. I REALLY DON’T UNDERSTAND!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
