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".
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
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.
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Prime Minister Rae ??!
Re: The real skinny on Bob Rae
The Toronto Sun's Lorrie Goldstein today ran a brief history of Bob Rae's shameful litany of failure during his 5 years as our premier ... lest we forget. I always said in retrospect, it was worth those five years of financial devastation because it would ensure that Ontarians, in our lifetime, would never again be so stupid as to elect a socialist government.
Now I'm not so sure. Toronto has become a big socialist cesspool right in the middle of Ontario, and its inbred sense of entitlement and arrogance seems to be limitless. Even more frightening, Torontonians don't seem to learn from their mistakes. As they veer farther and farther left, and ... predictably ... their situation in the world becomes worse and worse, their reaction is ... to go even further left.
Duhhh.
So we have this huge black hole of entitlement and socialism in the middle of Canada's largest province, and it's a big enough tail that it can wag a pretty big dog. And Torontonians have proven themselves to be such unrepentant leftists (even after Chretien-Martin they still voted Liberal!) that Prime Minister Rae is a theoretical possibility. Toronto has become Canada's squeegie kid ... giving us stuff we don't want or need, and expecting ... make that demanding, handouts in return. Spending money they don't have on stuff they don't need and can't afford, and then expecting Ontarians and Canadians in general to pay for it, while sticking the rest of us with a 100 km ring of gridlock around the "sphincter", debt, guns, gangs, garbage and a cancerous support for a form of government (socialism) that has failed time and time again.
Bob Rae was, without any doubt in my mind whatsoever, the single worst premier in Ontario in my lifetime (which is considerable enough), and perhaps the worst Premier in all of Canada in that same period. He alienated everyone ... even his own supporters, besides nearly bankrupting the province and driving jobs and investment as far away as they could possibly get. Five years of a Bob Rae government is why Ontarians overwhelmingly thought Mike Harris looked like a moderate and swept him to power ... twice, to make sure that blood-sucking socialist coffin was nailed shut.
I can't imagine a philosophical socialist (and he is a socialist ... a tiger never changes its stripes) like Bob Rae leading the party of entitlement, with all of the hangers-on, freeloaders and opportunists who would jump onto that bandwagon to loot the banks and punish the entrepreneurs of Canada for their own aggrandizement. The combination of NDP wrong-headedness and incompetence with Liberal arrogance and genetic entitlement and a certain dash of success-envy would be too much to stomach for anyone with a shred of principle and work ethic. It would be the nanny state gone wild. It would probably drive the west out of Canada, and I and many others would likely be gone with them.
If the Liberal Party of Canada sees Bob Rae as their saviour that is frightening enough on its own. If the people of "Canada" (are you listening Toronto? ... probably not) should be so stupid as to elect a Rae-led Liberal government, the signals that would send to our largest trading partner south of the border would be unmistakable. Alignment with Cuba and Venzuela as the axis of stupidity in the western hemisphere would be our new moniker in Washington. On top of the predictable McGuinty-led march from second to last place in manufacturing job growth in Canada in the last 3 years, you could add on a flight of capital and investment and jobs from Canada like we have never seen in our lifetime.
Since I have no faith that Liberals will ever do the right thing (they sway shamelessly in the winds of polling), I have no confidence at all that they won't do something this stupid if they think they can gain power with it.
And as we all know, gaining power and keeping it is the unspoken mission statement of the Liberal Party.
The Toronto Sun's Lorrie Goldstein today ran a brief history of Bob Rae's shameful litany of failure during his 5 years as our premier ... lest we forget. I always said in retrospect, it was worth those five years of financial devastation because it would ensure that Ontarians, in our lifetime, would never again be so stupid as to elect a socialist government.
Now I'm not so sure. Toronto has become a big socialist cesspool right in the middle of Ontario, and its inbred sense of entitlement and arrogance seems to be limitless. Even more frightening, Torontonians don't seem to learn from their mistakes. As they veer farther and farther left, and ... predictably ... their situation in the world becomes worse and worse, their reaction is ... to go even further left.
Duhhh.
So we have this huge black hole of entitlement and socialism in the middle of Canada's largest province, and it's a big enough tail that it can wag a pretty big dog. And Torontonians have proven themselves to be such unrepentant leftists (even after Chretien-Martin they still voted Liberal!) that Prime Minister Rae is a theoretical possibility. Toronto has become Canada's squeegie kid ... giving us stuff we don't want or need, and expecting ... make that demanding, handouts in return. Spending money they don't have on stuff they don't need and can't afford, and then expecting Ontarians and Canadians in general to pay for it, while sticking the rest of us with a 100 km ring of gridlock around the "sphincter", debt, guns, gangs, garbage and a cancerous support for a form of government (socialism) that has failed time and time again.
Bob Rae was, without any doubt in my mind whatsoever, the single worst premier in Ontario in my lifetime (which is considerable enough), and perhaps the worst Premier in all of Canada in that same period. He alienated everyone ... even his own supporters, besides nearly bankrupting the province and driving jobs and investment as far away as they could possibly get. Five years of a Bob Rae government is why Ontarians overwhelmingly thought Mike Harris looked like a moderate and swept him to power ... twice, to make sure that blood-sucking socialist coffin was nailed shut.
I can't imagine a philosophical socialist (and he is a socialist ... a tiger never changes its stripes) like Bob Rae leading the party of entitlement, with all of the hangers-on, freeloaders and opportunists who would jump onto that bandwagon to loot the banks and punish the entrepreneurs of Canada for their own aggrandizement. The combination of NDP wrong-headedness and incompetence with Liberal arrogance and genetic entitlement and a certain dash of success-envy would be too much to stomach for anyone with a shred of principle and work ethic. It would be the nanny state gone wild. It would probably drive the west out of Canada, and I and many others would likely be gone with them.
If the Liberal Party of Canada sees Bob Rae as their saviour that is frightening enough on its own. If the people of "Canada" (are you listening Toronto? ... probably not) should be so stupid as to elect a Rae-led Liberal government, the signals that would send to our largest trading partner south of the border would be unmistakable. Alignment with Cuba and Venzuela as the axis of stupidity in the western hemisphere would be our new moniker in Washington. On top of the predictable McGuinty-led march from second to last place in manufacturing job growth in Canada in the last 3 years, you could add on a flight of capital and investment and jobs from Canada like we have never seen in our lifetime.
Since I have no faith that Liberals will ever do the right thing (they sway shamelessly in the winds of polling), I have no confidence at all that they won't do something this stupid if they think they can gain power with it.
And as we all know, gaining power and keeping it is the unspoken mission statement of the Liberal Party.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
McGuinty, if nothing else, is consistent
Dalton McGuinty claims his Liberal "government" ads are non-partisan.
McGuinty also claims Health Care is much improved in Ontario, while ERs close and thousands can't find a family physician. He claims education is better, but school boards are running huge deficits and cutting programs. He claims to be tough on crime, but refuses to uphold the law in Caledonia. He claims to be the automotive saviour of Ontario, while plants close and layoffs skyrocket in Windsor.
Dalton McGuinty also promised not to raise your taxes, promised not to run deficits and promised to close all coal-fired hydro plants by 2007.
Dalton McGuinty thinks "denial" is a river is Egypt. If he's nothing else, Dalton McGuinty is consistent.
I really don't know how Dalton McGuinty gets his head so far down that hole in the ground with such a big nose.
McGuinty also claims Health Care is much improved in Ontario, while ERs close and thousands can't find a family physician. He claims education is better, but school boards are running huge deficits and cutting programs. He claims to be tough on crime, but refuses to uphold the law in Caledonia. He claims to be the automotive saviour of Ontario, while plants close and layoffs skyrocket in Windsor.
Dalton McGuinty also promised not to raise your taxes, promised not to run deficits and promised to close all coal-fired hydro plants by 2007.
Dalton McGuinty thinks "denial" is a river is Egypt. If he's nothing else, Dalton McGuinty is consistent.
I really don't know how Dalton McGuinty gets his head so far down that hole in the ground with such a big nose.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Klingon to lead Liberals?
In the three-ring circus that is the Liberal "leadership" race (that's an oxymoron) we now have at centre stage the collective metaphoric epitome of why the Liberals got tossed from power. It's a shame Ontario couldn't see its way clear to put a stake completely through their cold hearts when they had the chance in January.
We now have everything from a philosopher prince who hasn't lived in Canada for most of my adult working life, to the socialist Premier who nearly bankrupted Ontario, to the goul who "sees dead people" and takes money from children. It's clear this party is still far too ill to simply change managers. In my opinion, this is a directionless gaggle of cynical power seekers completely devoid of a common vision, who do not deserve to be anywhere near the levers of power. They need to be spanked even harder for a good four years before they deserve a serious look. The toilet needs to be flushed at least one more time, and perhaps more.
John Ivison mused on much of this in his Sept. 26, 2006 column in the National Post (A daytime nightmare for the Liberals) with some memorable quotes worth saving.
Before Canadians consider, even for one minute, that Bob (you mean we WON?) Rae might somehow be a credible alternative to Stephen Harper, besides his stellar record as the destroyer of Ontario, they might want to look at one charismatic endorsement he recently attracted. Even one as accustomed to being surrounded by a near total lack of competence as he was in Ontario, Rae must have secretly cringed when Hedy ("crosses are burning as we speak") Fry dropped out to throw her "support" to him.
Ivison referenced an EKOS Research Poll on the weekend which revealed that Hedy Fry "was not chosen as first, second or third choice for leader by any of the 1,000 respondents" . EKOS's Frank Graves marvelled, "She literally got zero. I have never seen that on over 20 years of polling". (That could, of course, be spun by Liberal spin doctors as "unique achievements, unmatched in decades").
But Ivison's quote to remember must be his musings on Joe Volpe, the clear cream of the crop when it comes to an entrenched Liberal attitude of unrepentant entitlement.
When Volpe reportedly complained that "the party establishment was out to get him" and then whined that he "might not be Canadian enough", Ivison hit a home run when he called this "manipulative humbug" and then accurately noted that ...
"The Liberal Party would elect a Klingon as leader if its members thought he could beat Stephen Harper".
Write that one down, because I believe it represents, in one succinct sentence, the raison d'etre of the Liberal Party. Shameless manipulation, a genetic sense of entitlement, and a quiet understanding that the end always justifies the means, is alive and well. Forty+ years of watching them in action has taught me that, to a Liberal, as long as you get and keep power, it's OK to say or do whatever it takes.
Clearly they need more years in the wilderness ... many more.
We now have everything from a philosopher prince who hasn't lived in Canada for most of my adult working life, to the socialist Premier who nearly bankrupted Ontario, to the goul who "sees dead people" and takes money from children. It's clear this party is still far too ill to simply change managers. In my opinion, this is a directionless gaggle of cynical power seekers completely devoid of a common vision, who do not deserve to be anywhere near the levers of power. They need to be spanked even harder for a good four years before they deserve a serious look. The toilet needs to be flushed at least one more time, and perhaps more.
John Ivison mused on much of this in his Sept. 26, 2006 column in the National Post (A daytime nightmare for the Liberals) with some memorable quotes worth saving.
Before Canadians consider, even for one minute, that Bob (you mean we WON?) Rae might somehow be a credible alternative to Stephen Harper, besides his stellar record as the destroyer of Ontario, they might want to look at one charismatic endorsement he recently attracted. Even one as accustomed to being surrounded by a near total lack of competence as he was in Ontario, Rae must have secretly cringed when Hedy ("crosses are burning as we speak") Fry dropped out to throw her "support" to him.
Ivison referenced an EKOS Research Poll on the weekend which revealed that Hedy Fry "was not chosen as first, second or third choice for leader by any of the 1,000 respondents" . EKOS's Frank Graves marvelled, "She literally got zero. I have never seen that on over 20 years of polling". (That could, of course, be spun by Liberal spin doctors as "unique achievements, unmatched in decades").
But Ivison's quote to remember must be his musings on Joe Volpe, the clear cream of the crop when it comes to an entrenched Liberal attitude of unrepentant entitlement.
When Volpe reportedly complained that "the party establishment was out to get him" and then whined that he "might not be Canadian enough", Ivison hit a home run when he called this "manipulative humbug" and then accurately noted that ...
"The Liberal Party would elect a Klingon as leader if its members thought he could beat Stephen Harper".
Write that one down, because I believe it represents, in one succinct sentence, the raison d'etre of the Liberal Party. Shameless manipulation, a genetic sense of entitlement, and a quiet understanding that the end always justifies the means, is alive and well. Forty+ years of watching them in action has taught me that, to a Liberal, as long as you get and keep power, it's OK to say or do whatever it takes.
Clearly they need more years in the wilderness ... many more.
Saturday, September 23, 2006
If It Saves Just One Life ...
Yesterday on Canada Free Press, Arthur Weinreb highlighted the lower-than-dirt levels to which Liberals are stooping to play politics with the latest mass shooting in Montreal. Specifically, this quote really got my attention: "The most exploitive and ridiculous question of the day was asked by Liberal Lucienne Robillard -- 'Why does the minority government not recognize that this registry is valuable, even if it saves just one life?' "
Arthur then rhetorically suggested, "Even if it just saves one life! Since when do we pass laws for the purpose of saving just one life? ... If we were really concerned about having laws that saved at least one life, we would drop the speed limits on the country's highways to 10 km/hr. That would be bound to save a lot more lives than just one."
I've been using the 10 kph argument for over 5 years (see my Feb. 11, 2006 post below ... "Gun Deaths and Liberal Logic"), and I'm glad to see someone else finally pick it up. It is right on the money for all of those gun-confiscation ... er, gun control advocates, and for all of the history-challenged pacifists on the left who want to cut and run because we've suffered some battle casualties in a war zone (imagine).
Not to trivialize the ultimate sacrifice made by some of our brave fighting men and women serving in Afghanistan, but to date, the total number lost in combat in three years in that most dangerous place is 1/22 of the total lost annually in murders right here in Canada.
So for those wing-nuts on the left, at the CBC and in the Liberal party who think they can legislate perfect safety to the point of immortality, here are some other great ideas to keep them squarely on their path of self-important moral superiority:
Ban all drinking of alcohol ... Lord knows it would save thousands of lives per year, not just one ... so to a Liberal, it would be "worth it".
Ban all golf. Several golfers are killed by lightning strikes every year, and to a Liberal, if you save just one life, "it's worth it".
Ban all internal combustion engines. Physicians have been giving us the stats on how many people die every year from inhaling smog and ozone, and .... if it saves just one life, according to a Liberal, "it's worth it".
Ban all swimming and vacationing in cottage country in Ontario. Reportedly 34 people drowned in Ontario this summer, 8 more than have died in military service in 3 years in Afghanistan to date, so to a Liberal, "if it saves just one life ...".
Ban all fast food, ban hockey, ban all amusment parks, ban adventure travel, ban fishing, ban snow shovelling, ban sea food, ban peanuts, ban air travel and ban farming ... all of which cause multiple deaths every year ... because according to "Liberal logic" ... if it saves just one life, IT'S WORTH IT!
Reality check: In my opinion, there is no argument too far-fetched, too illogical, too transparent or too stupid that a Liberal won't try to use it for attempted political gain. In my opinion there is no significant event good or bad, no war, no tragedy, no death, or natural disaster so horrible that a Liberal won't cynically attempt to twist it to try to win power. To a Liberal, power is everything, and based on my lifetime of observation, I believe that a liberal will say or do ANYTHING to get it.
Vote Liberal ... Live Forever! Why not? It's only a stupid election promise.
Arthur then rhetorically suggested, "Even if it just saves one life! Since when do we pass laws for the purpose of saving just one life? ... If we were really concerned about having laws that saved at least one life, we would drop the speed limits on the country's highways to 10 km/hr. That would be bound to save a lot more lives than just one."
I've been using the 10 kph argument for over 5 years (see my Feb. 11, 2006 post below ... "Gun Deaths and Liberal Logic"), and I'm glad to see someone else finally pick it up. It is right on the money for all of those gun-confiscation ... er, gun control advocates, and for all of the history-challenged pacifists on the left who want to cut and run because we've suffered some battle casualties in a war zone (imagine).
Not to trivialize the ultimate sacrifice made by some of our brave fighting men and women serving in Afghanistan, but to date, the total number lost in combat in three years in that most dangerous place is 1/22 of the total lost annually in murders right here in Canada.
So for those wing-nuts on the left, at the CBC and in the Liberal party who think they can legislate perfect safety to the point of immortality, here are some other great ideas to keep them squarely on their path of self-important moral superiority:
Ban all drinking of alcohol ... Lord knows it would save thousands of lives per year, not just one ... so to a Liberal, it would be "worth it".
Ban all golf. Several golfers are killed by lightning strikes every year, and to a Liberal, if you save just one life, "it's worth it".
Ban all internal combustion engines. Physicians have been giving us the stats on how many people die every year from inhaling smog and ozone, and .... if it saves just one life, according to a Liberal, "it's worth it".
Ban all swimming and vacationing in cottage country in Ontario. Reportedly 34 people drowned in Ontario this summer, 8 more than have died in military service in 3 years in Afghanistan to date, so to a Liberal, "if it saves just one life ...".
Ban all fast food, ban hockey, ban all amusment parks, ban adventure travel, ban fishing, ban snow shovelling, ban sea food, ban peanuts, ban air travel and ban farming ... all of which cause multiple deaths every year ... because according to "Liberal logic" ... if it saves just one life, IT'S WORTH IT!
Reality check: In my opinion, there is no argument too far-fetched, too illogical, too transparent or too stupid that a Liberal won't try to use it for attempted political gain. In my opinion there is no significant event good or bad, no war, no tragedy, no death, or natural disaster so horrible that a Liberal won't cynically attempt to twist it to try to win power. To a Liberal, power is everything, and based on my lifetime of observation, I believe that a liberal will say or do ANYTHING to get it.
Vote Liberal ... Live Forever! Why not? It's only a stupid election promise.
Friday, September 22, 2006
The Case Against the Gun Registry
"Gun control" is one thing, and I support some measure of that. There are individuals in our society who should not have guns, nor should they have access to guns. And there are some weapons in the world I would just as soon not have stored in my neighbour's basement ... rocket launchers, chain guns, hell-fire missles and such. Fair enough.
But here is the reality of legal gun ownership as it already exists. To own a gun legally in Canada, I have to be trained and tested in the safe use and storage of firearms. I have to be checked out by the authorities as being a stable individual who is unlikely to use my legally-acquired weapons for anti-personnel, or dangerous use. And I must keep my weapons locked up in a secure locked cabinet, with locked trigger guards in each weapon that will not permit unauthorized use of the weapon, and with ammunition locked securely in a separate location.
Fair enough. No argument here either. That's multiple redundancy in the CURRENT regulations. Trained, tested, checked and approved owner, with locked, disabled and deprived-of-ammunition weapons.
But what about the vaunted "Gun Registry" that supposedly still isn't "tough enough" for the CBC, Liberals and other egg-headed media types? How does this gross waste of resources and money enhance the safety of society? What more does it accomplish than licensing individuals? After all, guns don't just jump out of closets on their own and shoot people.
Well, it strategically catalogues one-by-one all of the legally owned guns in Canada, who owns them, and where they are located. This is supposedly (the big justification) to "enhance the safety of police" should they ever be called upon to attend a residence where said weapons are owned, so they can prepare accordingly ... as rare an occurrence as this certainly is in the overall scheme of things, given the huge numbers of firearms that are legally owned in Canada, and the hundreds of thousands of legally licensed gun owners.
I contend the police only need to know that an individual has the legal right and means to own firearms. It would be prudent, knowing just that one single fact, to enter the premises armed and prepared accordingly. The suspect may be armed, so enter prepared for an armed individual. Duhhh ... am I missing something?
For example, if he's licensed to own a simple hunting firearm, and he only has only one, he may well have the most dangerous of all close-quarters combat weapons, a 12-gauge shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot. Does it really matter that he also owns twelve black powder muskets, one .22 cal. target rifle, a bolt-action .30-06 hunting rifle, a .243 single-shot varmint rifle, and his father's treasured collection of never-been-fired Winchester model 94 lever action .30-30 collector series? Of course not. He can only fire one at a time, and it only takes one to cause a severe danger to said police.
He's licensed. Enter prepared. That's all you need to know for police safety.
If he's licensed to own fully-automatic weapons, pistols or other restricted or prohibited categories of firearms, he's already required to register each one of those separately, and he's required to be licensed to own such weapons in the first place. This is a difficult license to obtain with many conditions and restrictions. You don't need the gun registry to advise police that they are in the house. They have known this since about 1938.
Sorry, but the ONLY reason to catalogue and locate every firearm in Canada is so that, when the time is right, it will be a piece of cake to round them all up and confiscate them. Liberals and the CBC want our guns. They think NOBODY should own guns. Their morally-superior "progressive" values are more valid than my traditional values. They believe they have the divine right to confiscate my legally-obtained property because it offends their "advanced" urbane, pacifist sensibilities. It's all about philosophy. It has absolutely nothing to do with public safety. NOBODY in this great country will ever convince me otherwise.
Confiscation is the ultimate goal, and the gun registry is the necessary first step. All the rest is CBC-Liberal ka-ka, pooh-pooh, and bald-faced lies.
Kill the gun registry. It is a multi-billion dollar waste of taxpayer money spent to prepare for confiscation, and (!!) to buy jobs (Liberal votes) in New Brunswick. And once it's killed, throw all of their computers into the Bay of Fundy.
The Liberals will, sadly, be back some day, and they'll pick up where they left off. Destroy their records and at least set them back another decade. Make them start all over again. The fight with the left is far from over. No matter how many times they are proven wrong, they just don’t get it.
But here is the reality of legal gun ownership as it already exists. To own a gun legally in Canada, I have to be trained and tested in the safe use and storage of firearms. I have to be checked out by the authorities as being a stable individual who is unlikely to use my legally-acquired weapons for anti-personnel, or dangerous use. And I must keep my weapons locked up in a secure locked cabinet, with locked trigger guards in each weapon that will not permit unauthorized use of the weapon, and with ammunition locked securely in a separate location.
Fair enough. No argument here either. That's multiple redundancy in the CURRENT regulations. Trained, tested, checked and approved owner, with locked, disabled and deprived-of-ammunition weapons.
But what about the vaunted "Gun Registry" that supposedly still isn't "tough enough" for the CBC, Liberals and other egg-headed media types? How does this gross waste of resources and money enhance the safety of society? What more does it accomplish than licensing individuals? After all, guns don't just jump out of closets on their own and shoot people.
Well, it strategically catalogues one-by-one all of the legally owned guns in Canada, who owns them, and where they are located. This is supposedly (the big justification) to "enhance the safety of police" should they ever be called upon to attend a residence where said weapons are owned, so they can prepare accordingly ... as rare an occurrence as this certainly is in the overall scheme of things, given the huge numbers of firearms that are legally owned in Canada, and the hundreds of thousands of legally licensed gun owners.
I contend the police only need to know that an individual has the legal right and means to own firearms. It would be prudent, knowing just that one single fact, to enter the premises armed and prepared accordingly. The suspect may be armed, so enter prepared for an armed individual. Duhhh ... am I missing something?
For example, if he's licensed to own a simple hunting firearm, and he only has only one, he may well have the most dangerous of all close-quarters combat weapons, a 12-gauge shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot. Does it really matter that he also owns twelve black powder muskets, one .22 cal. target rifle, a bolt-action .30-06 hunting rifle, a .243 single-shot varmint rifle, and his father's treasured collection of never-been-fired Winchester model 94 lever action .30-30 collector series? Of course not. He can only fire one at a time, and it only takes one to cause a severe danger to said police.
He's licensed. Enter prepared. That's all you need to know for police safety.
If he's licensed to own fully-automatic weapons, pistols or other restricted or prohibited categories of firearms, he's already required to register each one of those separately, and he's required to be licensed to own such weapons in the first place. This is a difficult license to obtain with many conditions and restrictions. You don't need the gun registry to advise police that they are in the house. They have known this since about 1938.
Sorry, but the ONLY reason to catalogue and locate every firearm in Canada is so that, when the time is right, it will be a piece of cake to round them all up and confiscate them. Liberals and the CBC want our guns. They think NOBODY should own guns. Their morally-superior "progressive" values are more valid than my traditional values. They believe they have the divine right to confiscate my legally-obtained property because it offends their "advanced" urbane, pacifist sensibilities. It's all about philosophy. It has absolutely nothing to do with public safety. NOBODY in this great country will ever convince me otherwise.
Confiscation is the ultimate goal, and the gun registry is the necessary first step. All the rest is CBC-Liberal ka-ka, pooh-pooh, and bald-faced lies.
Kill the gun registry. It is a multi-billion dollar waste of taxpayer money spent to prepare for confiscation, and (!!) to buy jobs (Liberal votes) in New Brunswick. And once it's killed, throw all of their computers into the Bay of Fundy.
The Liberals will, sadly, be back some day, and they'll pick up where they left off. Destroy their records and at least set them back another decade. Make them start all over again. The fight with the left is far from over. No matter how many times they are proven wrong, they just don’t get it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
