“For Liberals, 'the sky is the limit'” reads the headline in the Globe and Mail.
It's clear to me that the same old Liberal arrogance and sense of entitlement that spawned the sponsorship scandal is still alive and well. There's a new captain on board, they've shuffled the deck chairs, but apparently an unrepentant Liberal Party of Canada is still steering the ship, obviously minus a moral compass. Nothing has changed with this bunch.
Anyone with a wit of sense, who understands the intent of the ban on corporate political donations and a limit of $1,100 per donor would know that the aborted Liberal scheme to draw "limitless" donations from corporate donors is illegal, unethical and against every principle of the new rules. Yet a veteran Liberal MP, on CBC's "Politics" show claimed that the party wasn't clear, and thought the scheme was OK.
They got caught with the lid off the cookie jar, intending to steal more cookies ... yet again.
Obviously this gang hasn't learned a thing, and they do not deserve to be trusted with the reins of power any time soon.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Why John McCaine will win the White House
I believe John McCaine will indeed be the next president of the United States. Won't the CBC's already inflated victory balloon pop when that happens!
I live on the U.S. border. While there are hard-core Democrats and Republicans who literally hate each other (those who vote in primaries), the vast majority of Americans are, like Canadians, somewhere in the middle. They are swing voters and independents. I think they are sick to death of the vitriolic partisanship that monopolizes headlines, while real issues go unaddressed or are mishandled.
George Bush isn't running, and Americans understand that, so don't discount the entire Republican "brand" so swiftly. The Clintons evoke such negative feelings from such a wide range of America that it more than offsets the "Bush factor", should Hillary become the nominee.
In fact I believe that a Hillary candidacy would almost assure a McCaine win, she evokes such negative feelings, and she comes with the anchor of Bill tied around her neck.
Obama has not yet been scrutinized beyond his flowery rhetoric. So far, he's all style and no substance. "Change" and "Hope" and soaring oratory are not hard policy.
But tough scrutiny and criticism will rapidly descend if he wins the nomination, and there he will suffer mightily in comparison to John McCaine. He is a rookie senator with little experience at this level, let alone being considered for leader of the free world, the most powerful man on earth. In a showdown, world sharks like Vladimir Putin would eat him alive.
He has (reportedly) the most liberal voting record in the entire U.S. senate, and that does not reflect the values of the vast majority of mainstream middle America. Wait until the talk turns to big tax increases, as it must under an Obama administration, and see what happens.
Finally he is black, and leftist media adulation aside, do not under-estimate the undercurrent of racism that is still widespread in much of the U.S. There aren't enough Starbucks-sipping, BMW-driving Bostonian elites spread throughout the entire U.S. to offset the Joe Lunchbuckets who will put down their beer, give up a day of rabbit hunting or football watching, and quietly vote to ensure he doesn't win, no matter what they may think of John McCaine.
And finally there is John McCaine himself. He is clearly a principled individual who has upset even the right wing of his own Republican party for his principled non-partisan stances. I think that's a huge positive for the electorate at large. You can trust him to do what he says, and to listen to those who disagree.
He was a prisoner of war, and before that, a warrior who repeatedly put himself in harm's way. That gives him a thoughtful perspective that most people on earth, let alone world leaders, do not have. I believe it has to lead to an introspective and compassionate streak that transcends political dogma. It's probably the "independence" that ideologues like Rush Limbaugh so hate, and that's a good thing. The American electorate at large will respect and admire that.
He is also clearly in a superior position to understand world and U.S. security when emergencies arise, from his own first-hand experience. Military briefings from his advisors cannot be sugar-coated for a man who has been there. Obama wouldn't have a clue, and would be operating from a position of complete ignorance.
I think when push comes to shove, John McCaine will look very good to the majority of mainstream America when placed under the microscope next to an inexperienced "community organizer" from Chicago with an extremely liberal record, or the bitter, vindictive, partisan wife of a disgraced former president. The White House does not need 4-8 more years of the Clintons.
What it does need is 4-8 years of reasoned non-partisan stability, leadership and toned-down rhetoric. John McCaine is the man to do it.
I live on the U.S. border. While there are hard-core Democrats and Republicans who literally hate each other (those who vote in primaries), the vast majority of Americans are, like Canadians, somewhere in the middle. They are swing voters and independents. I think they are sick to death of the vitriolic partisanship that monopolizes headlines, while real issues go unaddressed or are mishandled.
George Bush isn't running, and Americans understand that, so don't discount the entire Republican "brand" so swiftly. The Clintons evoke such negative feelings from such a wide range of America that it more than offsets the "Bush factor", should Hillary become the nominee.
In fact I believe that a Hillary candidacy would almost assure a McCaine win, she evokes such negative feelings, and she comes with the anchor of Bill tied around her neck.
Obama has not yet been scrutinized beyond his flowery rhetoric. So far, he's all style and no substance. "Change" and "Hope" and soaring oratory are not hard policy.
But tough scrutiny and criticism will rapidly descend if he wins the nomination, and there he will suffer mightily in comparison to John McCaine. He is a rookie senator with little experience at this level, let alone being considered for leader of the free world, the most powerful man on earth. In a showdown, world sharks like Vladimir Putin would eat him alive.
He has (reportedly) the most liberal voting record in the entire U.S. senate, and that does not reflect the values of the vast majority of mainstream middle America. Wait until the talk turns to big tax increases, as it must under an Obama administration, and see what happens.
Finally he is black, and leftist media adulation aside, do not under-estimate the undercurrent of racism that is still widespread in much of the U.S. There aren't enough Starbucks-sipping, BMW-driving Bostonian elites spread throughout the entire U.S. to offset the Joe Lunchbuckets who will put down their beer, give up a day of rabbit hunting or football watching, and quietly vote to ensure he doesn't win, no matter what they may think of John McCaine.
And finally there is John McCaine himself. He is clearly a principled individual who has upset even the right wing of his own Republican party for his principled non-partisan stances. I think that's a huge positive for the electorate at large. You can trust him to do what he says, and to listen to those who disagree.
He was a prisoner of war, and before that, a warrior who repeatedly put himself in harm's way. That gives him a thoughtful perspective that most people on earth, let alone world leaders, do not have. I believe it has to lead to an introspective and compassionate streak that transcends political dogma. It's probably the "independence" that ideologues like Rush Limbaugh so hate, and that's a good thing. The American electorate at large will respect and admire that.
He is also clearly in a superior position to understand world and U.S. security when emergencies arise, from his own first-hand experience. Military briefings from his advisors cannot be sugar-coated for a man who has been there. Obama wouldn't have a clue, and would be operating from a position of complete ignorance.
I think when push comes to shove, John McCaine will look very good to the majority of mainstream America when placed under the microscope next to an inexperienced "community organizer" from Chicago with an extremely liberal record, or the bitter, vindictive, partisan wife of a disgraced former president. The White House does not need 4-8 more years of the Clintons.
What it does need is 4-8 years of reasoned non-partisan stability, leadership and toned-down rhetoric. John McCaine is the man to do it.
Give Mulroney a Rest
I am just curious whether anyone in Canada besides the Conservative-loathing CBC, and Globe and Mail cares two hoots about what Brian Mulroney may, or may not have done in his private life after he left office five elections and four Prime Ministers ago. It's been 15 years - a decade and a half. He was out of office, and it was a few hundred thousands of dollars, relative small change compared to the millions lost by the taxpayers of Canada to the Liberal sponsorship scandal.
Surely there are hundreds of more important things on which to report in 2008 that are relevant in the here and now. It's ancient history. Give it a rest.
Surely there are hundreds of more important things on which to report in 2008 that are relevant in the here and now. It's ancient history. Give it a rest.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
"Famous Climate Change Activists"
While Al Gore may be "one of the world's most famous climate change activists", that does not automatically make him an expert, or even knowledgeable. He is a failed rich U.S. politician from a big mansion in Tennessee, and a one-time documentary film maker, with little knowledge of Canada, our workers, or our unique circumstances.
Heaven forbid ... if George Bush came up here and tried to tell us how to run our country, the CBC, the Toronto Star, David Suzuki, Maude Barlow, and all of the other usual suspects would be apoplectic. But it's OK when it's Al Gore, the man who "invented the internet" (remember THAT claim??).
Other famous activists on Al's side of the political spectrum are "One-Sheet Sheryl Crow" and "You selfish little pig" Alec Baldwin. "Famous activist" is not a moniker that automatically gives you the creds to run a government.
The left's current hero, David Suzuki, is a geneticist and the host of a TV show. He is not a climatologist. As such, he too is little more than "a celebrity activist". His opinion that "Canadians" are prepared to support a carbon tax is so flawed as to be laughable. He bases this opinion on one cross-Canada tour that drew, not surprisingly, people who agree with David Suzuki ... the already-converted. 19% routinely vote NDP, and that is about the size of David Suzuki's true following. Add a big fat punative carbon tax to fossil fuels and internal combustion engines, and thousands of laid-off auto workers here in Windsor would gladly lynch David Suzuki in public. We aren't rich cocktail circuit ideologues. It's easy to "sacrifice" $5,000 a year to save the planet when you are making $500,000 a year, or when you are an idealistic ivory tower student who makes no money, has no commitments and pays no taxes.
The Green Show in Toronto is really nothing more than a commercially-motivated gaggle of the converted in Canada's most left-wing, malignantly-entitled city, and while I too support some measure of responsible behaviour on behalf of all of us to improve our environment, it cannot be at the cost of castrating our economic competitiveness in the world. If we don't have viable jobs and industries earning us profits to pay for our way of life, including all of our treasured benefits, worrying about New Orleans (maybe) sinking back into the ocean in 50 years will rapidly fall to number 20 on our list of real-world priorities.
Thousands here in Windsor have lost good manufacturing jobs to China, the U.S., India and the developing world, none of whom have been suckered into supporting "Kyoto" ... a well-meaning, but very flawed document. This is not the time to be following "famous celebrity activists" lemming-like over a cliff of economic irresponsibility just because it seems like the cool thing to do during a slow news cycle.
Harper and Baird have got this right. Their measures are tough, they have real outcomes and timelines specified, they are responsibly-timed, they are sustainable and they are achievable. They are realistic, and most importantly, we have the leaders now in place to make them happen.
None of that was true (as history has proven!) under the Liberals. I cannot believe any living, breathing Liberal has the cajones to even open his mouth on the issue of the environment, given their absolutely abysmal record of breaking promises in almost every facet of life in Canada, and most especially on the environment.
Al Gore, Michael Moore, Bono and One-Sheet Sheryl have nothing whatsoever to teach us here in Canada. As the documentary's title so figuratively summed up regarding "celebrity activists" ... "Just Shut Up and Sing".
Heaven forbid ... if George Bush came up here and tried to tell us how to run our country, the CBC, the Toronto Star, David Suzuki, Maude Barlow, and all of the other usual suspects would be apoplectic. But it's OK when it's Al Gore, the man who "invented the internet" (remember THAT claim??).
Other famous activists on Al's side of the political spectrum are "One-Sheet Sheryl Crow" and "You selfish little pig" Alec Baldwin. "Famous activist" is not a moniker that automatically gives you the creds to run a government.
The left's current hero, David Suzuki, is a geneticist and the host of a TV show. He is not a climatologist. As such, he too is little more than "a celebrity activist". His opinion that "Canadians" are prepared to support a carbon tax is so flawed as to be laughable. He bases this opinion on one cross-Canada tour that drew, not surprisingly, people who agree with David Suzuki ... the already-converted. 19% routinely vote NDP, and that is about the size of David Suzuki's true following. Add a big fat punative carbon tax to fossil fuels and internal combustion engines, and thousands of laid-off auto workers here in Windsor would gladly lynch David Suzuki in public. We aren't rich cocktail circuit ideologues. It's easy to "sacrifice" $5,000 a year to save the planet when you are making $500,000 a year, or when you are an idealistic ivory tower student who makes no money, has no commitments and pays no taxes.
The Green Show in Toronto is really nothing more than a commercially-motivated gaggle of the converted in Canada's most left-wing, malignantly-entitled city, and while I too support some measure of responsible behaviour on behalf of all of us to improve our environment, it cannot be at the cost of castrating our economic competitiveness in the world. If we don't have viable jobs and industries earning us profits to pay for our way of life, including all of our treasured benefits, worrying about New Orleans (maybe) sinking back into the ocean in 50 years will rapidly fall to number 20 on our list of real-world priorities.
Thousands here in Windsor have lost good manufacturing jobs to China, the U.S., India and the developing world, none of whom have been suckered into supporting "Kyoto" ... a well-meaning, but very flawed document. This is not the time to be following "famous celebrity activists" lemming-like over a cliff of economic irresponsibility just because it seems like the cool thing to do during a slow news cycle.
Harper and Baird have got this right. Their measures are tough, they have real outcomes and timelines specified, they are responsibly-timed, they are sustainable and they are achievable. They are realistic, and most importantly, we have the leaders now in place to make them happen.
None of that was true (as history has proven!) under the Liberals. I cannot believe any living, breathing Liberal has the cajones to even open his mouth on the issue of the environment, given their absolutely abysmal record of breaking promises in almost every facet of life in Canada, and most especially on the environment.
Al Gore, Michael Moore, Bono and One-Sheet Sheryl have nothing whatsoever to teach us here in Canada. As the documentary's title so figuratively summed up regarding "celebrity activists" ... "Just Shut Up and Sing".
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Most Hypocritical Headline of 2007
From CTV's website today: "Baird accused of scare tactics on Kyoto"
Now that's rich ... global warming alarmists criticising Baird for using scare tactics. How DARE anyone use scare tactics to sway public opinion on global warming. Who would dare to stoop so low? It turns out, many.
The left is soooo predictable. The Dion Liberals criticising Conservatives of using smear ads. How low. And now "critics" upset at Baird for using scare tactics.
For a Master's course on using smear campaigns, bullying and scare tactics, please study professors Chretien and Suzuki.
Learn from the masters. Nobody does it better!
Now that's rich ... global warming alarmists criticising Baird for using scare tactics. How DARE anyone use scare tactics to sway public opinion on global warming. Who would dare to stoop so low? It turns out, many.
The left is soooo predictable. The Dion Liberals criticising Conservatives of using smear ads. How low. And now "critics" upset at Baird for using scare tactics.
For a Master's course on using smear campaigns, bullying and scare tactics, please study professors Chretien and Suzuki.
Learn from the masters. Nobody does it better!
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
More Liberal Smoke & Mirrors
In Rob Ferguson's April 6, 2007 Toronto Star report, “Nuclear deal too costly: Auditor”, Tom Adams of Energy Probe said, "The government's reputation as a defender of the ratepayer has suffered a serious blow here".
I disagree. This particular government has richly earned a reputation of being incapable of conducting business in a responsible manner, and this is just one more example.
To whit, they made irresponsible election promises in 2003 that they knew they couldn’t or wouldn't keep. Now with another election looming, they are scurrying to look like they’ve actually done something, and their lack of vision, planning and business acumen leads to bad deals like this.
Secondly, they "created an artificially low price at the beginning" of the Bruce deal so they won’t have to run as the party that increased hydro prices 44%. In fact, this government routinely makes “blue-sky” predictions far into the future to both embellish their meager accomplishments, and obfuscate their considerable shortcomings.
For example, their much-ballyhooed Business Education Tax cut doesn't even start until 2008 (at just $15 M), and doesn’t fully kick in until 2014, but they trumpeted the entire final estimated $540 M tax cut as a key plank in their 2007 budget. If it’s that good for business and jobs, it should be both real, and immediate. 2014 is two elections into the future, and such “announcements” are thus completely dishonest.
I will grant the McGuinty Liberals one thing. At least they are consistent.
Ralph Klein might describe their adopted business model as "Big Hat - No Cattle".
I disagree. This particular government has richly earned a reputation of being incapable of conducting business in a responsible manner, and this is just one more example.
To whit, they made irresponsible election promises in 2003 that they knew they couldn’t or wouldn't keep. Now with another election looming, they are scurrying to look like they’ve actually done something, and their lack of vision, planning and business acumen leads to bad deals like this.
Secondly, they "created an artificially low price at the beginning" of the Bruce deal so they won’t have to run as the party that increased hydro prices 44%. In fact, this government routinely makes “blue-sky” predictions far into the future to both embellish their meager accomplishments, and obfuscate their considerable shortcomings.
For example, their much-ballyhooed Business Education Tax cut doesn't even start until 2008 (at just $15 M), and doesn’t fully kick in until 2014, but they trumpeted the entire final estimated $540 M tax cut as a key plank in their 2007 budget. If it’s that good for business and jobs, it should be both real, and immediate. 2014 is two elections into the future, and such “announcements” are thus completely dishonest.
I will grant the McGuinty Liberals one thing. At least they are consistent.
Ralph Klein might describe their adopted business model as "Big Hat - No Cattle".
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Re: Time to bail out of Afghanistan?
Re: WHY ARE WE IMPORTING DEAD CANADIAN SOLDIERS ?
While I sometimes disagree with the contents of Bourque's Newswatch page, I can accept our differing points of view and move on. I've slept on this one overnight before sending. I guess I don't understand those who want to bail out of Afghanistan at all. This headline from his website triggered my response, which is really a response to all Afghanistan-bailers in Canada.
With respect to the above headline, in my opinion it is really out of line, and even offensive, especially to those serving. I wish all of the sanctimonious Afghanistan "pacifists" (CBC, CTV, NDP, most of Quebec, mainstream media, academia, ... all of the usual suspects) would consider the following:
1. Number of military deaths to date in Afghanistan 2002 - 2006: 45. Consider, all of these people signed up voluntarily for the military, a very dangerous job, where you are trained to fight and kill people, destroy things and do whatever it takes to impose your will on an unwilling opponent, while they are committed to doing the same thing to you. If you wanted a nice safe job, you could have become an accountant, or even an editorial writer in Canada (try THAT job in Afghanistan!). Violent death, as unpleasant as it may be to reality-denying spoiled Canadians in their little socialist cocoon here, is a way of every day life in much of the world, and our soldiers know that when they sign on. I spent a weekend at Ft. Knox, Ky with the Essex and Kent Scottish a year ago where they were training for Afghanistan. To a man/woman, they know exactly what they face, and are proud participants. They didn't sign on to hand out soap, rations and blankets to refugees, or to direct traffic and distribute wheat bags for the UN. Social workers, church groups and NGOs can do that.
2. Number of innocent Canadians killed by drunk drivers from 2002 - 2006: approximately 5,600. They were just on their way to work, and wham!
Number of Canadians on average who die of the flu in 4 years: 2,000 - 6,000.
Number of Canadians killed by lightning (a freak accident of nature, and the butt of many jokes as a result) in 4 years on average: 24 - 48.
As sad as any death is, death is a fact of everyday life ... in far greater numbers than our soldiers are experiencing in Afghanistan doing a noble, necessary and worthwhile job. Eventually, you and I will both die ... of something. I think the pacifist-isolationists in Canada need to get over it and look at these numbers for what they really are.
3. Pacifists in rose-coloured glasses wonder (and honestly believe), "Can't we all just get along"? Obvious answer as evidenced by all of recorded history: Absolutely not. As long as there are bad people in the world willing to attack our way of life, kill our people, trying to force their way of life, or personal beliefs on us, or attack our values and our economy, we will always have to be the biggest, baddest mother in the valley, with a willingness to use all means at our disposal with absolute ruthlessness if necessary, to prevent that from happening. Those who haven't learned that lesson over all of history probably deserve to be fried by our enemies in my opinion.
Canada did not gain its fine military reputation by meekly keeping the peace between grumpy neighbours who had already agreed to stop killing each other, a myth perpetuated by political ideologues, those too young to remember and those who should know better. We won it with blood, sweat, tears, sacrifice, bravery and determination in WW I, WW II and in Korea by a willingness to use overwhelming lethal force against our enemies.
4. What if an occupying force, say a strict radical Islamo-fascist state, a ruthless Communist dictator, or some other misguided group had invaded Canada, and was forcing my daughters (and yours) to cover their faces, be treated like sub-humans, denied an education, and beaten or executed at will at the whim of the local warlord who felt you weren't toeing the line as he, personally, felt you should on that particular day, or, like Pol Pot, decided to eliminate all of the "educated elite" simply to satisfy his personal vision of society. Would you not welcome an outside power coming in and driving these idiots back to wherever they came from (or annihilating them?), even if some local infrastructure got trashed along the way, and a few "innocent bystanders" (sympathizers??) got caught in the crossfire? I would give anything for that country to come, and occupy, and free my family and my friends. There is no issue in my life more important to me than personal freedom, and I would make any sacrifice to achieve it if I didn't have it.
I guess the pacifists don't value freedom as much as I do, or they are so selfish that as long as they have it, they could give a rat's behind if the rest of the world doesn't even have a chance to decide for themselves, on penalty of death, whether they agree. I see this as isolationist head-in-the-sand sanctimony at its worst, and I have very little tolerance for it. My grandparents paid dearly for what we have today, and what we take so much for granted. Canadians in 2007 are like spoiled brats who have had everything handed to us on a platter by overly-protective and indulgent parents (and we have).
5. When we and our allies are in Afghanistan chasing Taliban trouble-makers, they aren't free to target me in my house, or my children in their cities. That alone, in and of itself, is enough reason to be in Afghanistan, or in any other God-forsaken place that these freedom-hating radicals choose to call home. I don't care how far away it may seem. I don't care if this battle never ends, and I don't care if there is a steady stream of coffins coming home, even if that means people I know and care about. This is a battle that MUST be fought, and it must be continued without let-up, for as long as it takes.
Cut-and-run pacifists just don't get it. In the real world, Bambi's mother does get killed by wolves, hunters and disease, Old Yeller does die, old ladies do get mugged on the street for crack money, Hitlers and Milosevics unilaterally decide to rid the world of all but their own "preferred" race, and radical idiots think it's God's will that they fly jets loaded with dirty bombs into our centres of commerce. Contrary to western civilization apologists, WE are not the cause of these bad people's actions. THEY are the problem. THEY must be tracked down, and if necessary, ruthlessly eliminated, so that the good people, both here and in their own countries, can get on with their lives. Sitting quietly (and passively) on our hands does not deter bad people from doing really, really bad things.
I hope we never have to face a major attack on our cities, but perhaps that's what it will take to convince this generation of thoroughly spoiled Canadians that we need a tough, well-trained, experienced, well-equipped armed force, willing to use overwhelming lethal force without hesitation if necessary, that can be dispatched anywhere we need them to go on our behalf, and sacrifice at whatever level is required so that the rest of us don't have to do it personally, as we would if the pacifist, cut-and-run crowd had their way.
I have my grandfather's WW I diary sitting right behind me as I write this. His world was light-years away from ours, but only two generations-removed. It's too bad that history has become such a poorly-taught subject. All of the lessons my grandfather had to learn the hard way will certainly have to be learned all over again by another generation who couldn't be bothered to learn the lessons he and his generation left for us to pass along, or don't like the message and choose to ignore it for (misguided) personal beliefs. Appeasement DOES NOT WORK, and never has. At some point (early is far better than later!), you must fight, and you must sacrifice whatever it takes.
With the greatest respect to the 45 families who have paid the ultimate price in this conflict to date (from a father of 4), Canada's sacrifice in Afghanistan has been a pittance in the global and historical scheme of things, and for this reason I find the headline in question, and the attached poll, quite offensive.
Sorry, it needs to be said.
While I sometimes disagree with the contents of Bourque's Newswatch page, I can accept our differing points of view and move on. I've slept on this one overnight before sending. I guess I don't understand those who want to bail out of Afghanistan at all. This headline from his website triggered my response, which is really a response to all Afghanistan-bailers in Canada.
With respect to the above headline, in my opinion it is really out of line, and even offensive, especially to those serving. I wish all of the sanctimonious Afghanistan "pacifists" (CBC, CTV, NDP, most of Quebec, mainstream media, academia, ... all of the usual suspects) would consider the following:
1. Number of military deaths to date in Afghanistan 2002 - 2006: 45. Consider, all of these people signed up voluntarily for the military, a very dangerous job, where you are trained to fight and kill people, destroy things and do whatever it takes to impose your will on an unwilling opponent, while they are committed to doing the same thing to you. If you wanted a nice safe job, you could have become an accountant, or even an editorial writer in Canada (try THAT job in Afghanistan!). Violent death, as unpleasant as it may be to reality-denying spoiled Canadians in their little socialist cocoon here, is a way of every day life in much of the world, and our soldiers know that when they sign on. I spent a weekend at Ft. Knox, Ky with the Essex and Kent Scottish a year ago where they were training for Afghanistan. To a man/woman, they know exactly what they face, and are proud participants. They didn't sign on to hand out soap, rations and blankets to refugees, or to direct traffic and distribute wheat bags for the UN. Social workers, church groups and NGOs can do that.
2. Number of innocent Canadians killed by drunk drivers from 2002 - 2006: approximately 5,600. They were just on their way to work, and wham!
Number of Canadians on average who die of the flu in 4 years: 2,000 - 6,000.
Number of Canadians killed by lightning (a freak accident of nature, and the butt of many jokes as a result) in 4 years on average: 24 - 48.
As sad as any death is, death is a fact of everyday life ... in far greater numbers than our soldiers are experiencing in Afghanistan doing a noble, necessary and worthwhile job. Eventually, you and I will both die ... of something. I think the pacifist-isolationists in Canada need to get over it and look at these numbers for what they really are.
3. Pacifists in rose-coloured glasses wonder (and honestly believe), "Can't we all just get along"? Obvious answer as evidenced by all of recorded history: Absolutely not. As long as there are bad people in the world willing to attack our way of life, kill our people, trying to force their way of life, or personal beliefs on us, or attack our values and our economy, we will always have to be the biggest, baddest mother in the valley, with a willingness to use all means at our disposal with absolute ruthlessness if necessary, to prevent that from happening. Those who haven't learned that lesson over all of history probably deserve to be fried by our enemies in my opinion.
Canada did not gain its fine military reputation by meekly keeping the peace between grumpy neighbours who had already agreed to stop killing each other, a myth perpetuated by political ideologues, those too young to remember and those who should know better. We won it with blood, sweat, tears, sacrifice, bravery and determination in WW I, WW II and in Korea by a willingness to use overwhelming lethal force against our enemies.
4. What if an occupying force, say a strict radical Islamo-fascist state, a ruthless Communist dictator, or some other misguided group had invaded Canada, and was forcing my daughters (and yours) to cover their faces, be treated like sub-humans, denied an education, and beaten or executed at will at the whim of the local warlord who felt you weren't toeing the line as he, personally, felt you should on that particular day, or, like Pol Pot, decided to eliminate all of the "educated elite" simply to satisfy his personal vision of society. Would you not welcome an outside power coming in and driving these idiots back to wherever they came from (or annihilating them?), even if some local infrastructure got trashed along the way, and a few "innocent bystanders" (sympathizers??) got caught in the crossfire? I would give anything for that country to come, and occupy, and free my family and my friends. There is no issue in my life more important to me than personal freedom, and I would make any sacrifice to achieve it if I didn't have it.
I guess the pacifists don't value freedom as much as I do, or they are so selfish that as long as they have it, they could give a rat's behind if the rest of the world doesn't even have a chance to decide for themselves, on penalty of death, whether they agree. I see this as isolationist head-in-the-sand sanctimony at its worst, and I have very little tolerance for it. My grandparents paid dearly for what we have today, and what we take so much for granted. Canadians in 2007 are like spoiled brats who have had everything handed to us on a platter by overly-protective and indulgent parents (and we have).
5. When we and our allies are in Afghanistan chasing Taliban trouble-makers, they aren't free to target me in my house, or my children in their cities. That alone, in and of itself, is enough reason to be in Afghanistan, or in any other God-forsaken place that these freedom-hating radicals choose to call home. I don't care how far away it may seem. I don't care if this battle never ends, and I don't care if there is a steady stream of coffins coming home, even if that means people I know and care about. This is a battle that MUST be fought, and it must be continued without let-up, for as long as it takes.
Cut-and-run pacifists just don't get it. In the real world, Bambi's mother does get killed by wolves, hunters and disease, Old Yeller does die, old ladies do get mugged on the street for crack money, Hitlers and Milosevics unilaterally decide to rid the world of all but their own "preferred" race, and radical idiots think it's God's will that they fly jets loaded with dirty bombs into our centres of commerce. Contrary to western civilization apologists, WE are not the cause of these bad people's actions. THEY are the problem. THEY must be tracked down, and if necessary, ruthlessly eliminated, so that the good people, both here and in their own countries, can get on with their lives. Sitting quietly (and passively) on our hands does not deter bad people from doing really, really bad things.
I hope we never have to face a major attack on our cities, but perhaps that's what it will take to convince this generation of thoroughly spoiled Canadians that we need a tough, well-trained, experienced, well-equipped armed force, willing to use overwhelming lethal force without hesitation if necessary, that can be dispatched anywhere we need them to go on our behalf, and sacrifice at whatever level is required so that the rest of us don't have to do it personally, as we would if the pacifist, cut-and-run crowd had their way.
I have my grandfather's WW I diary sitting right behind me as I write this. His world was light-years away from ours, but only two generations-removed. It's too bad that history has become such a poorly-taught subject. All of the lessons my grandfather had to learn the hard way will certainly have to be learned all over again by another generation who couldn't be bothered to learn the lessons he and his generation left for us to pass along, or don't like the message and choose to ignore it for (misguided) personal beliefs. Appeasement DOES NOT WORK, and never has. At some point (early is far better than later!), you must fight, and you must sacrifice whatever it takes.
With the greatest respect to the 45 families who have paid the ultimate price in this conflict to date (from a father of 4), Canada's sacrifice in Afghanistan has been a pittance in the global and historical scheme of things, and for this reason I find the headline in question, and the attached poll, quite offensive.
Sorry, it needs to be said.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Stephane Dion: The man without a clue
This is really rich. The new so-called "leader" of the Liberal Party of Canada, and Prime Ministerial wannabe "didn't know".
In a National Post report this morning Stephane Dion denies knowing anything about a Liberal plan to greatly expand the oil sands to supply oil to the U.S.A. while he was the Environment Minister of Canada just one year ago!
To quote the report:
"The plan - made public by a joint committee of government experts from Natural Resources Canada and the U.S. Department of Energy who met in Houston, Texas Jan. 23-24, 2006, before Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government was sworn in - encouraged decision makers ''to streamline the regulatory approval process,'' with a ''one-stop-shop'' for project proposals and facilitate a ''fivefold'' expansion of oil production in Alberta from one million to five million barrels a day.
The committee was set up under the Security and Prosperity Partnership between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, which scheduled the talks several months earlier.
''This meeting, if it took place, I wasn't aware (of it). Certainly not,'' Dion said at a news conference Thursday."
Well he's consistent, because I'm sure he "wasn't aware" of Adscam either, even though he was a Quebec-based minister in the federal cabinet of Jean Chretien while the whole shameful affair was being perpetrated on you and me.
There are only several possible explanations here on both issues.
1. He honestly didn't know. If this is true, it can only be because he was viewed as such a lightweight that he didn't need to be kept in the loop of real decision making. This, of course, would be entirely consistent with Liberal dogma which has a handful of the annointed telling the rest of us what's best for us. Dion has already said he will override local constituency associations and appoint his own hand-picked candidates if he feels that's what's best. He studied and learned from the best at this type of regal arrogance. So if his own party's leadership didn't feel it necessary to tell the Minister of the Environment about a plan to boost oil sands output by five-fold to the U.S.A., our largest and most important trading partner, then why the heck would I want him to be my Prime Minister?
2. Some people simply wander through life "unaware". They go to meetings, but don't take notes. They don't read memos, they don't answer their e-mail for weeks and even when they are "on the team", they simply don't "get it". In my experience it's sometimes easier to simply leave these loners out of the loop than to expend energy trying to keep them up to speed, and just call them in for the mandatory rubber stamp when all of the real decisions have been made in advance. So maybe his ministry was indeed involved, but he, as minister, didn't need to be told, and "didn't realize what was happening" ... i.e. "he didn't know".
3. Maybe he's lying. Maybe he knew full-well what was happening, but the new "green" Stephane Dion would look hypocritical now if he knew about, and approved plans just 12 months ago to ramp up the biggest greenhouse gas emitter in Canada to feed the U.S. appetite for oil. Maybe the cabinet minister from Quebec knew full well what was happening with Adscam, and either approved, or turned a blind eye while the corrupt party machinery delivered majority after majority. That too would be hypocritical for the "new" leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.
The explanations for federal cabinet minister Stephane Dion not knowing so much of what he darn well should have known can only be some variation of one of the above three possibilities. None of these bodes well for a man who thinks he has what it takes to be my Prime Minister.
I know one thing for sure. I don't want this man and his slick gang of cronies anywhere near the reins of power any time soon. I don't believe him, I don't trust him, and it is my personal belief that this man is simply more of the same. The smoke and mirrors show that this bunch has perpetrated on the Canadian people for over 13 years is alive and well, and he's just their latest leader.
Now let's all join Kermit in a rising swell of ... "It's Not Easy Being Greeeen ...."
In a National Post report this morning Stephane Dion denies knowing anything about a Liberal plan to greatly expand the oil sands to supply oil to the U.S.A. while he was the Environment Minister of Canada just one year ago!
To quote the report:
"The plan - made public by a joint committee of government experts from Natural Resources Canada and the U.S. Department of Energy who met in Houston, Texas Jan. 23-24, 2006, before Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government was sworn in - encouraged decision makers ''to streamline the regulatory approval process,'' with a ''one-stop-shop'' for project proposals and facilitate a ''fivefold'' expansion of oil production in Alberta from one million to five million barrels a day.
The committee was set up under the Security and Prosperity Partnership between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, which scheduled the talks several months earlier.
''This meeting, if it took place, I wasn't aware (of it). Certainly not,'' Dion said at a news conference Thursday."
Well he's consistent, because I'm sure he "wasn't aware" of Adscam either, even though he was a Quebec-based minister in the federal cabinet of Jean Chretien while the whole shameful affair was being perpetrated on you and me.
There are only several possible explanations here on both issues.
1. He honestly didn't know. If this is true, it can only be because he was viewed as such a lightweight that he didn't need to be kept in the loop of real decision making. This, of course, would be entirely consistent with Liberal dogma which has a handful of the annointed telling the rest of us what's best for us. Dion has already said he will override local constituency associations and appoint his own hand-picked candidates if he feels that's what's best. He studied and learned from the best at this type of regal arrogance. So if his own party's leadership didn't feel it necessary to tell the Minister of the Environment about a plan to boost oil sands output by five-fold to the U.S.A., our largest and most important trading partner, then why the heck would I want him to be my Prime Minister?
2. Some people simply wander through life "unaware". They go to meetings, but don't take notes. They don't read memos, they don't answer their e-mail for weeks and even when they are "on the team", they simply don't "get it". In my experience it's sometimes easier to simply leave these loners out of the loop than to expend energy trying to keep them up to speed, and just call them in for the mandatory rubber stamp when all of the real decisions have been made in advance. So maybe his ministry was indeed involved, but he, as minister, didn't need to be told, and "didn't realize what was happening" ... i.e. "he didn't know".
3. Maybe he's lying. Maybe he knew full-well what was happening, but the new "green" Stephane Dion would look hypocritical now if he knew about, and approved plans just 12 months ago to ramp up the biggest greenhouse gas emitter in Canada to feed the U.S. appetite for oil. Maybe the cabinet minister from Quebec knew full well what was happening with Adscam, and either approved, or turned a blind eye while the corrupt party machinery delivered majority after majority. That too would be hypocritical for the "new" leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.
The explanations for federal cabinet minister Stephane Dion not knowing so much of what he darn well should have known can only be some variation of one of the above three possibilities. None of these bodes well for a man who thinks he has what it takes to be my Prime Minister.
I know one thing for sure. I don't want this man and his slick gang of cronies anywhere near the reins of power any time soon. I don't believe him, I don't trust him, and it is my personal belief that this man is simply more of the same. The smoke and mirrors show that this bunch has perpetrated on the Canadian people for over 13 years is alive and well, and he's just their latest leader.
Now let's all join Kermit in a rising swell of ... "It's Not Easy Being Greeeen ...."
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Hugo Chavez stuck in the 60s
The CBC reports headline: "Venezuela's Chavez sworn in again, vows 'socialism or death'."
With a little luck someone (nation or individual) will take Hugo Chavez up on his offer, and rid the western hemisphere of this obnoxious cancer. Slow learners like Chavez don't care that socialism has never worked. It's a failed system.
Winston Churchill defined socialism as "... a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery".
Amen. I've seen nothing in my considerable lifetime - nothing, to convince me that Churchill wasn't right on the money. If you want to condemn a nation to poverty, and rid it of all vestiges of innovation and progress, bring in socialism.
What an idiot!
With a little luck someone (nation or individual) will take Hugo Chavez up on his offer, and rid the western hemisphere of this obnoxious cancer. Slow learners like Chavez don't care that socialism has never worked. It's a failed system.
Winston Churchill defined socialism as "... a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery".
Amen. I've seen nothing in my considerable lifetime - nothing, to convince me that Churchill wasn't right on the money. If you want to condemn a nation to poverty, and rid it of all vestiges of innovation and progress, bring in socialism.
What an idiot!
Saturday, January 06, 2007
Stephane Dion the Hypocrite
Re. Stephane Dion's statements re. Wajid Kahn in Saturday's National Post:
This Saturday's report quoted Stephane Dion as saying, "I was never comfortable with Mr. Khan serving as an advisor to a Conservative Prime Minister, as Mr. Khan has done since August of last year. As leader of the party, I felt it imperative that he decide to which party he would ultimately be loyal."
My response as a taxpaying Canadian to this wannabe Prime Minister ... "I am not comfortable with you continuing to be a dual citizen of both Canada and France. I feel it imperative that you decide to which country you would ultimately be loyal".
Hmm - this is kind of like saying you're the environmental saviour like he did as Jean Chretien's Cabinet Minister, (and as he's now trying to paint himself), and actually doing something about it, which he didn't when he had the chance in a majority government.
"Do as I say, not as I do", would seem to be the picture I am getting of this "new" Liberal boss.
This Saturday's report quoted Stephane Dion as saying, "I was never comfortable with Mr. Khan serving as an advisor to a Conservative Prime Minister, as Mr. Khan has done since August of last year. As leader of the party, I felt it imperative that he decide to which party he would ultimately be loyal."
My response as a taxpaying Canadian to this wannabe Prime Minister ... "I am not comfortable with you continuing to be a dual citizen of both Canada and France. I feel it imperative that you decide to which country you would ultimately be loyal".
Hmm - this is kind of like saying you're the environmental saviour like he did as Jean Chretien's Cabinet Minister, (and as he's now trying to paint himself), and actually doing something about it, which he didn't when he had the chance in a majority government.
"Do as I say, not as I do", would seem to be the picture I am getting of this "new" Liberal boss.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Committment to Excellence
My favourite hockey player of all time, Steve Yzerman, was justly honoured in Detroit last night as his number was retired.
True to his nature, Yzerman used the greater part of his speech to heap praise on those with whom he played, as well as his coaches and a great team owner. There was precious little about "Steve".
How refreshing in a era of "it's all about me" super-star super-jerks. In his entire career, I can't ever remember Yzerman show-boating, shooting off his mouth, or bad-mouthing his team mates when things weren't going well. He played through injuries when it mattered, and he was always available to politely sign autographs and speak with kids. He spent his entire career with one team, and remained loyal to the Ilitch family, recognizing how well he has been treated. I believe he recognized "enough" when it came to money, and looked at the big picture. He certainly could have commanded higher figures if he had played the field at contract time. He never did that.
Above all, what makes him the greatest in my book is not his stats. Although they are impressive, there are others who have done a bit better in almost every category. What made him the best in my book was his committment to excellence every single day of his career, and the pure class he displayed from the moment he entered the league as an 18 year old boy. He obviously grew up in a great home.
A committment to excellence, demanding nothing but the best from both himself and his teammates, a selfless focus on "the team" rather than "me", and a loyal appreciation for what he already had, rather than a selfish quest for "more" are all what made, and continue to make Steve Yzerman an exceptional professional in my book.
Those qualities are not a bad place to start when it comes to running a government either. Acceptance of mediocrity with excuses for individual failings have become all too commonplace. "Equality" is sought by social activists who attack those who have embraced and achieved excellence rather than looking for ways to bring the overall average up to a higher level. The team only wins when it performs at a level that other teams cannot match when it counts. Canada exists in a very competitive world.
Congratulations Steve Yzerman. You are a true hero in every sense of the word. Would that this world had a lot more Steve Yzermans. It would be a much better place.
True to his nature, Yzerman used the greater part of his speech to heap praise on those with whom he played, as well as his coaches and a great team owner. There was precious little about "Steve".
How refreshing in a era of "it's all about me" super-star super-jerks. In his entire career, I can't ever remember Yzerman show-boating, shooting off his mouth, or bad-mouthing his team mates when things weren't going well. He played through injuries when it mattered, and he was always available to politely sign autographs and speak with kids. He spent his entire career with one team, and remained loyal to the Ilitch family, recognizing how well he has been treated. I believe he recognized "enough" when it came to money, and looked at the big picture. He certainly could have commanded higher figures if he had played the field at contract time. He never did that.
Above all, what makes him the greatest in my book is not his stats. Although they are impressive, there are others who have done a bit better in almost every category. What made him the best in my book was his committment to excellence every single day of his career, and the pure class he displayed from the moment he entered the league as an 18 year old boy. He obviously grew up in a great home.
A committment to excellence, demanding nothing but the best from both himself and his teammates, a selfless focus on "the team" rather than "me", and a loyal appreciation for what he already had, rather than a selfish quest for "more" are all what made, and continue to make Steve Yzerman an exceptional professional in my book.
Those qualities are not a bad place to start when it comes to running a government either. Acceptance of mediocrity with excuses for individual failings have become all too commonplace. "Equality" is sought by social activists who attack those who have embraced and achieved excellence rather than looking for ways to bring the overall average up to a higher level. The team only wins when it performs at a level that other teams cannot match when it counts. Canada exists in a very competitive world.
Congratulations Steve Yzerman. You are a true hero in every sense of the word. Would that this world had a lot more Steve Yzermans. It would be a much better place.
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Good Riddance!
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
