Apparently, Nikki Holland will only deny smokes for votes until then
Ontario voters eager to hear the truth about the allegations that Liberal Party of Ontario Vice-President (Operations) bribing homeless people with cigarettes will only have to wait until the cows come home.
In reality, they're more than just "allegations". Audio recorded of Holland's comments have her admission in full.
"If anyone repeats this, I'll deny it until the cows come home," Holland remarked. "I have gone to a shelter in the riding of St Paul's with a carton of smokes and said 'I'll give them to you after you vote'. I have done that."
Once the recording came to light, Holland set about doing precisely what she said she would do: denying it. The recording has made that more than just a little awkward.
To account for that, Holland is claiming that what she said was "a joke". But there doesn't seem to be much reason to believe her.
She's also tried to spin the issue back on her political opponents by insisting that the NDP and Conservative Party do the same.
In the most amusing twist yet, Premier Dalton McGuinty responded not by doing what would have been expected of someone in his delicate position -- either collecting Holland's resignation or firing her from at least the campaign -- but has publicly accepted her apology.
"It was a bad joke in poor taste," McGuinty remarked. "She apologized for it."
It simply doesn't pass the laugh test.
It's only the most recent incident in a gaffe-ridden election campaign for McGuinty's Liberals, one that featured a staged photo-op at a closed factory and a lawsuit brought against the Ontario government by one of the very green energy companies McGuinty is championing as the future of the Ontario economy.
McGuinty's explanation for the staged photo-op didn't pass the laugh test, nor does his explanation for this scandal.
Especially damning is that Holland delivered these remarks at a training seminar for Liberal Party campaign workers. Even if Holland were joking -- and no one believes that she was -- if there are any Liberal campaign workers currently bribing homeless people with cigarettes, we know where they got the idea.
Nikki Holland cannot stay on as VP (Operations) of the Ontario Liberals, and if Dalton McGuinty continues to parrot her disingenuous explanation, he cannot stay on as leader of the party.
Both must go, before the cows come home.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Authoritarian Post-modernism Oversteps Its Bounds
LGBT activists freaking out over Institute for Canadian Values ad
Across Canada, LGBT activists are up in arms over a full-page ad placed in the National Post by Charles McVety's Institute for Canadian Values.
In the ad, a young girl is pictured above a caption reading "I'm a girl. Don't teach me to question if I'm a boy, transexual, transgenered, intersexed or two-spirted."
A header at the top of the ad reads: "Please! Don't confuse me."
The ad is in opposition to the Toronto District School Board's anti-discrimination curriculum, which has garnered increased public attention since a planning calendar sent home for first grade students came to light. The calendar featured references to prostitution, transgendered people, AIDs, and female genital mutilation.
All of this and more... for six year olds.
The TDSB anti-discrimination curriculum insists that it's age-appropriate. A great many Torontonians -- and Canadians -- are coming to disagree.
LGBT activists quickly voiced their outrage that the ad would be printed, and immediately began to deploy their typical responses, accusing McVety of being a homophobe and a transphobe.
But as it turns out, the ad is entirely accurate. The accusations are merely bully words, intended to intimidate McVety out of the debate, and similarly intimidate anyone who may be inclined to agree with him.
This author is not inclined to agree with McVety very often on these sorts of issues. But your not-so-humble scribe does find one important point of agreement on this particular subject: the authoritarian approach of the TDSB to this curriculum is entirely unacceptable.
In the ad, the curriculum is directly quoted regarding the rights of parents in relation to this curriculum. The TDSB makes itself clear: it believes parents have no right to object to this curriculum.
Moreover, parents have the right to raise their children according to these beliefs. They have the right to decide what their children will be taught, for good or ill.
The TDSB does not recognize these rights. They've locked parents out, refusing them their parental rights. It's absolutely shameful.
Meanwhile, some LGBT activists have not only missed the point, but they've lost the plot.
A parody ad, produced by Toronto film maker and LGBT activist Chase Joynt, declares "I'm Chase. Teach me to question everything! Specifically that transgender, transsexual, intersexed and two-spirit are just some of my options."
More is wrong with Joynt's response than can be named in one place at one time.
The first is that Joynt is very clearly an adult. He appears to be in his late 20s, if not his 30s. As such, Joynt is mature enough in life that he can reflect on these issues and make these decisions with a full understanding of whatever consequences they may have.
In other words, while Joynt's own questioning nature -- if it is at all genuine -- is worthy of applause, but he is not a child. Not like the children the TDSB's anti-discrimination curriculum is aimed at.
Anyone who has had any dealings with children, whatsoever, know that children are far more impulsive than the vast majority of adults. Neither Joynt nor the demagogues at the TDSB have stopped for so much as an instant to wonder about a child who may -- thinking that the idea seems neat -- decide that they are transgendered, not having considered what impact that decision may have on their lives.
Which brings up the other area in which Joynt has entirely lost the plot. LGBT activists have long insisted -- and scienctific studies strongly support this -- that LGBT is not a lifestyle choice. They'd likely tell Joynt to go back and listen to his Lady Gaga CDs a little more closely, because gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transsexuals were "Born This Way".
These aren't "options", as Joynt suggests. They aren't "lifestyle choices", as far-right anti-LGBT activists insist.
“What’s crucial about any curriculum in regard to identity politics is that it’s providing a breadth of options and potentially the inclusion of LGBT rights in any curriculum at any level is that it affords another opinion,” Joynt insists. “While I think there is opportunity to speak to things such as when is age appropriate, the ability to learn about those identities is integral to our success as educators.”
If Joynt is really interested in fostering discussion about whether or not this curriculum is age-appropriate (and that would be welcome, indeed), the least he could do is not obscure this issue in his counter-ad.
In the end, this issue is very simple: the postmodern leftist ideology behind this curriculum has overstepped its bounds, adopted the trappings of authoritarianism, and violated the rights of parents.
If it's up to Charles McVety and the Institute for Canadian Values to rally ordinary Canadians to shove the footsoldiers of this grievance-mongering demagoguery back across the line, that is what will simply have to happen.
Across Canada, LGBT activists are up in arms over a full-page ad placed in the National Post by Charles McVety's Institute for Canadian Values.
A header at the top of the ad reads: "Please! Don't confuse me."
The ad is in opposition to the Toronto District School Board's anti-discrimination curriculum, which has garnered increased public attention since a planning calendar sent home for first grade students came to light. The calendar featured references to prostitution, transgendered people, AIDs, and female genital mutilation.
All of this and more... for six year olds.
The TDSB anti-discrimination curriculum insists that it's age-appropriate. A great many Torontonians -- and Canadians -- are coming to disagree.
LGBT activists quickly voiced their outrage that the ad would be printed, and immediately began to deploy their typical responses, accusing McVety of being a homophobe and a transphobe.
But as it turns out, the ad is entirely accurate. The accusations are merely bully words, intended to intimidate McVety out of the debate, and similarly intimidate anyone who may be inclined to agree with him.
This author is not inclined to agree with McVety very often on these sorts of issues. But your not-so-humble scribe does find one important point of agreement on this particular subject: the authoritarian approach of the TDSB to this curriculum is entirely unacceptable.
In the ad, the curriculum is directly quoted regarding the rights of parents in relation to this curriculum. The TDSB makes itself clear: it believes parents have no right to object to this curriculum.
"'Can a parent have their child accomodated out of human rights education (LGBTQ) based on religious grounds? NO'The problem is that the environment is already poisoned, and has been poisoned by the TDSB. Whether one likes or dislikes the religious beliefs of any number of people -- and there is much to dislike about religious beliefs that may lead one into homophobia -- the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to hold such beliefs.
'Should schools send notes or permission slips home before starting any classroom work on LGBTQ (Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transexual/two-spirited, queer) issues? NO'
'Can teachers seek accomodation from teaching materials that may contradict their religious beliefs? NO'
'Can schools/teachers choose not to address controversial issues for fear of negative parent response? NO'
'Teachers are obligated to address all equity issues. Any ommisisions that maintain a non-inclusive curriculum and pedagogy are considered to foster a poisoned environment..."
Moreover, parents have the right to raise their children according to these beliefs. They have the right to decide what their children will be taught, for good or ill.
The TDSB does not recognize these rights. They've locked parents out, refusing them their parental rights. It's absolutely shameful.
Meanwhile, some LGBT activists have not only missed the point, but they've lost the plot.
More is wrong with Joynt's response than can be named in one place at one time.
The first is that Joynt is very clearly an adult. He appears to be in his late 20s, if not his 30s. As such, Joynt is mature enough in life that he can reflect on these issues and make these decisions with a full understanding of whatever consequences they may have.
In other words, while Joynt's own questioning nature -- if it is at all genuine -- is worthy of applause, but he is not a child. Not like the children the TDSB's anti-discrimination curriculum is aimed at.
Anyone who has had any dealings with children, whatsoever, know that children are far more impulsive than the vast majority of adults. Neither Joynt nor the demagogues at the TDSB have stopped for so much as an instant to wonder about a child who may -- thinking that the idea seems neat -- decide that they are transgendered, not having considered what impact that decision may have on their lives.
Which brings up the other area in which Joynt has entirely lost the plot. LGBT activists have long insisted -- and scienctific studies strongly support this -- that LGBT is not a lifestyle choice. They'd likely tell Joynt to go back and listen to his Lady Gaga CDs a little more closely, because gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transsexuals were "Born This Way".
These aren't "options", as Joynt suggests. They aren't "lifestyle choices", as far-right anti-LGBT activists insist.
“What’s crucial about any curriculum in regard to identity politics is that it’s providing a breadth of options and potentially the inclusion of LGBT rights in any curriculum at any level is that it affords another opinion,” Joynt insists. “While I think there is opportunity to speak to things such as when is age appropriate, the ability to learn about those identities is integral to our success as educators.”
If Joynt is really interested in fostering discussion about whether or not this curriculum is age-appropriate (and that would be welcome, indeed), the least he could do is not obscure this issue in his counter-ad.
In the end, this issue is very simple: the postmodern leftist ideology behind this curriculum has overstepped its bounds, adopted the trappings of authoritarianism, and violated the rights of parents.
If it's up to Charles McVety and the Institute for Canadian Values to rally ordinary Canadians to shove the footsoldiers of this grievance-mongering demagoguery back across the line, that is what will simply have to happen.
Ed Miliband to David: "Please Come Back"
With all the bad news piling up for Labour leader Ed Miliband, he could certainly use some good news.
The news he would welcome most is embracing his brother David back into his inner circle.
As Miliband prepares to promote a number of women within his shadow cabinet -- including Yvette Cooper -- what Miliband really covets is the return of his brother.
"David is a massive asset to our politics and our party," the younger Miliband declared. “And I’ve always said I’d be happy to have him back, I want to have him back. But in the end he’s got to decide what’s the right thing for him to do.”
After the 2010 Labour leadership contest, the elder Miliband decided the right thing for him to do was sit on the backbenches. But with Labour struggling in Parliament and suffering in the eyes of Britain's political class, Ed Miliband needds a game-changer.
The addition of David Miliband to his shadow cabinet could be that very game-changer. But it seems tension between the two siblings could be preventing that from happening.
“It was a difficult leadership contest that we had. It was difficult for us. The reason I stood is because I felt I had something distinctive to say and I said it yesterday [in my conference speech]," the younger Miliband explained. "That is was why I ran. That’s what I believe. That’s why I think society needs to change.”
For his own part, David Miliband is focused on grassroots organizing for a Labour Party that has come to tend to neglect that key part of political organizing.
“It is my way of supporting Ed, supporting the party and helping us back into Government," the elder Miliband explained. “He’s been very supportive, the party’s been supportive, which is good."
The problem for David Miliband is that the weak leadership being provided by his brother threatens to undermine any gains he makes through grassroots organizing. Perhaps it isn't merely Ed Miliband who needs his brother in the shadow cabinet. Perhaps David Miliband needs to be there to shore up his own gains.
Either way, the Miliband brothers are better off working together within the shadow cabinet. Even if David doesn't see that, Ed keenly does. How could he not?
Janeane Garofalo Starring In... Far-Left Racism-Obsessed Virtual Reality Moonbattery
When a would-be media figure is as marginal as Janeane Garofalo, they certainly face continual pressure to stay relevant.
For her own part, Garofalo has no idea how to do that. So when appearing on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, she decided to re-hash her greatest hits: accusing conservatives of racism.
It's something she tried before, when she accused the Tea Party of opposing the policies of US President Barack Obama out of "racism, straight-up". Her most recent dip into her arsenal of weaponized racism is a little more confusing. They support Republcian Presidential hopeful Herman Cain out of racism.
Get it? If they oppose a black man politically, they're racist. If they support a black man politically, they're racist. Garofalo's argument basically amounts to "they're racist, no matter what."
"Herman Cain is probably well liked by some of the Republicans because it hides the racist elements of the Republican party. Conservative movement and tea party movement, one in the same," Garofalo declared. "People like Karl Rove liked to keep the racism very covert. And so Herman Cain provides this great opportunity say you can say 'Look, this is not a racist, anti-immigrant, anti-female, anti-gay movement. Look we have a black man.'"
Olbermann being Olbermann, he declines to offer any critical comment or question of Garofalo's comments, even the one that seems entirely elementary to any rational human being.
(Considering that Olbermann began the segment by noting that Palin didn't focus on what GOP hopefuls were doing wrong in the debates, it's pretty clear that Olbermann is allowing his personal bias to absolutely overwhelm ration.)
To describe Garofalo's argument as childish is beyond understatement. But examining it logically for any more than two seconds immediately reveals something abotu Garofalo that rathional people... already knew.
As an argument, this is intellectually lazy. It's exceedingly intellectually lazy. It essentially amounts to virtual reality reasoning.
Originally posited by Norman Mailer, virtual reality reasoning describes a closed system of thought. The virtual reality thinker locks themselves into a narrow, compact realm of possibilities. Not only may no answer to any question be found that is not already programmed within the system, but no question may be asked that isn't already programmed into that system.
For Garofalo, the question is "why are conservatives racist?" The answer is "because conservatives are racist, no matter what."
In a previous outing on Olbermann's show, Garofalo suggests that someone may even be paying Cain to run for President. She offers absolutely no evidence other than her own demand that any visible minority give her their undying political allegiance.
It seems necessary to wonder whether Garofalo herself is the nut or the dolt in the "nuts and dolts"-themed segment until one realizes that she's both.
Any information that Garofalo is presented with -- including an impressive level of support for Cain's ideas within the Tea Party -- will, in her mind, immediately be warped and twisted to reach one conclusion: the Tea Party, Republicans and conservatives are all racist. No matter what.
And yet Janeane Garofalo wants to be the absolute arbiter of who does and does not have credibility. It will be a sad day for American politics if she ever actually achieves that level of influence.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
The Left-Wing Media at Work, Continued
Far-left Vancouver rag The Georgia Straight is no stranger to Vancouver Club employee-strangling 9/11 "truth"er Darren Pearson. They didn't shy away from covering the Dick Cheney protest (both before and after the fact).
So why not a single, solitary mention of Pearson's brutish act?
So why not a single, solitary mention of Pearson's brutish act?
The Left-Wing Media At Work
There are plenty of decent reasons for the Canadian left to object to former US Vice President Dick Cheney's speech at the Vancouver Club in Vancouver, BC this week.
It certainly doesn't excuse some of the things that took place outside the Vancouver club.
Outside the club, protesters did what left-wing protesters in Canada have now adopted as their top tactic at times such as these: they accosted the people who had paid their hard-earned money for the opportunity to hear Cheney speak. They blocked the sidewalk, refused these citizens safe passage, obstructed access to public property, and in one extreme example, assaulted a staff member at the club.
Yet if one relied solely on the reporting by left-wing media outlets, one would think that none of this ever happened. One would think that entirely peaceful protesters were assaulted by Vancouver police.
You would never hear the story of one of their own, one Darren Pearson, wrapping his fingers around the neck of a Vancouver Club employee, who was attempting to help speech attendees find a way around the throng, and throttling him.
You would never hear from them the satisfaction that Pearson derived from the act, or the pleasure he's taking in the attention he's now receiving.
“It was so much fun,” Pearson remarked. “I can’t tell you how much fun I had. I was laughing my ass off, jumping into that mosh pit.”
“I call it fun," Person continued. "We wanted to draw people’s attention and show up to support our demands to have that evil bastard arrested for war crimes. If it bleeds, it leads. We got the media coverage we wanted.”
One would never hear a peep of this from Canada's far-left media. The Georgia Strait uploaded numerous YouTube videos of the protest, including some depicting what it considered the unwarranted actions of police officers clearing sidewalks to allow the citizens who very likely paid the lion's share of the cost of paving them. Rabble.ca featured an article penned by David P Ball complaining about police "roughing up" protesters.
Neither mention a single word about Pearson's actions, or about the man he assaulted. Not a single, solitary mention of the incident.
Do they approve of Pearson's actions, or are they just hoping that no one will take notice of them? It's difficult to say. But one way or the other, they're covering up Pearson's actions.
The cover-up is certainly at odds with the high standard of journalistic ethics Rabble purports to represent. An ad on the website (pictured left) describes them as "not just reporting", but "just reporting". As in their reporting embodies some principles of justice being elaborated on in some left-wing think tank who will twist it in whatever way necessary to benefit the left and put everyone else at a disadvantage.
In other words: victor's justice before any victory has ever actually been won.
In the case of Dick Cheney, even if one finds the allegations that he authorized torture in the US forces -- and this author agrees that many of the "enhanced interrogation techniques" authorized by Cheney constitute torture -- there is the matter of precisely what they imagine the endgame to be.
As things currently stand, it isn't Cheney on trial.
There are certainly accusations outstanding against Cheney that he authorized torture. He doesn't deny them. But there is one key element missing in these people's endgame plan: a warrant.
If people such as Derrick O'Keefe were able to take Cheney into their custody tomorrow, as they imagine, and transport him to the Hague, as they imagine, Cheney would immediately be set free. It isn't up to Derrick O'Keefe to issue an arrest warrant for Cheney, and those to whom it is up to haven't issued that warrant.
In fact, O'Keefe and his merry band of showboaters would promptly wind up in custody for unlawful confinement; they have no authority to place Cheney under arrest.
Perhaps Dick Cheney should be standing trial in the Hague. That's for others to actually decide.
But the far-left media, for all its love of pinning violent incidents on their conservative opponents -- often under exceedingly self-generous pretenses -- should own up to and acknowledge the actions of Darren Pearson at the protest they themselves helped organize.
If they can't do this, they have no moral authority to denounce the actions Vancouver police did to assure the safety of people who had the right to access to the Vancouver Club and hear Dick Cheney speak.
Not that anyone should expect them to. It's just the way they operate.
It certainly doesn't excuse some of the things that took place outside the Vancouver club.
Outside the club, protesters did what left-wing protesters in Canada have now adopted as their top tactic at times such as these: they accosted the people who had paid their hard-earned money for the opportunity to hear Cheney speak. They blocked the sidewalk, refused these citizens safe passage, obstructed access to public property, and in one extreme example, assaulted a staff member at the club.
Yet if one relied solely on the reporting by left-wing media outlets, one would think that none of this ever happened. One would think that entirely peaceful protesters were assaulted by Vancouver police.
You would never hear from them the satisfaction that Pearson derived from the act, or the pleasure he's taking in the attention he's now receiving.
“It was so much fun,” Pearson remarked. “I can’t tell you how much fun I had. I was laughing my ass off, jumping into that mosh pit.”
“I call it fun," Person continued. "We wanted to draw people’s attention and show up to support our demands to have that evil bastard arrested for war crimes. If it bleeds, it leads. We got the media coverage we wanted.”
One would never hear a peep of this from Canada's far-left media. The Georgia Strait uploaded numerous YouTube videos of the protest, including some depicting what it considered the unwarranted actions of police officers clearing sidewalks to allow the citizens who very likely paid the lion's share of the cost of paving them. Rabble.ca featured an article penned by David P Ball complaining about police "roughing up" protesters.
Neither mention a single word about Pearson's actions, or about the man he assaulted. Not a single, solitary mention of the incident.
Do they approve of Pearson's actions, or are they just hoping that no one will take notice of them? It's difficult to say. But one way or the other, they're covering up Pearson's actions.
In other words: victor's justice before any victory has ever actually been won.
In the case of Dick Cheney, even if one finds the allegations that he authorized torture in the US forces -- and this author agrees that many of the "enhanced interrogation techniques" authorized by Cheney constitute torture -- there is the matter of precisely what they imagine the endgame to be.
As things currently stand, it isn't Cheney on trial.
There are certainly accusations outstanding against Cheney that he authorized torture. He doesn't deny them. But there is one key element missing in these people's endgame plan: a warrant.
If people such as Derrick O'Keefe were able to take Cheney into their custody tomorrow, as they imagine, and transport him to the Hague, as they imagine, Cheney would immediately be set free. It isn't up to Derrick O'Keefe to issue an arrest warrant for Cheney, and those to whom it is up to haven't issued that warrant.
In fact, O'Keefe and his merry band of showboaters would promptly wind up in custody for unlawful confinement; they have no authority to place Cheney under arrest.
Perhaps Dick Cheney should be standing trial in the Hague. That's for others to actually decide.
But the far-left media, for all its love of pinning violent incidents on their conservative opponents -- often under exceedingly self-generous pretenses -- should own up to and acknowledge the actions of Darren Pearson at the protest they themselves helped organize.
If they can't do this, they have no moral authority to denounce the actions Vancouver police did to assure the safety of people who had the right to access to the Vancouver Club and hear Dick Cheney speak.
Not that anyone should expect them to. It's just the way they operate.
Sack Balls, Screw the Unions
Ed Balls helped create British fiscal mess, cannot remain Shadow Chancellor
If Labour leader Ed Miliband has a single, overriding problem, it comes in the embodiment of his Shadow Chancellor of the Excchequer, Ed Balls.
As a former Secretary to the Treasury -- charged with heloing manage Britain's public finances -- Balls had a direct hand in the profligacy that has led to the current state of the UK's finances.
Yet he has the temerity to stand as Shadow Chancellor, even as he continues to avoid admitting his part in the ballooning of Britain's public debt.
Terry Smith, the President of Tullet Prebon, has had enough. He says it's time for Balls to depart from Ed Miliband's shadow caucus.
“He is in total denial about the fact that Labour was running a deficit years before the financial crisis struck and seems to think that we can borrow and spend our way out of a crisis caused by excessive debt,” Smith declared. "There is no avoiding the fact that Labour ran a growing deficit from 2002 as the economic boom was heading towards its peak”.
Smith charges that Balls, as well as Gordon Brown and those others tasked with keeping Britain's finances on the rails, put political expediency far ahead of responsible fiscal management.
“Moreover, the government spending which led to this deficit before the banking crisis struck was wasteful, unproductive and cynically aimed at buying the loyalty of a growing dependent section of the population to the Labour Party,” Smith continued.
Ed Balls wasn't the only thing on Smith's mind. He also declared the pensions owed to public service employees to be unviable, and suggested they should be cut back.
"Unviable because we cannot sustain a system in which people can retire and live for another 20 years at the expense of the state,” he explained. “This was never the intention of the original social security systems and it has been made unviable by improvements in health care and life expectancy.”
Smith has presented Ed Miliband with some difficult choices. Certainly, labour unions will never tolderate a Labour leader who pushes back against their unsustainable pensions. Certainly, the left wing of the Labour Party will bristle at Ed Balls being relieved of his duties.
Smith suggests that Balls should be shuffled to the most junior shadow cabinet post in existence. Ed Miliband would be better off shuffling Ed Balls out of politics altogether.
Balls, and his allegiance to the unions, are relics of an old left-wing politics that has catastrophically failed in Britain. If the Labour Party is to survive -- and its survival is far from guaranteed -- they will need to find a new brand of left-wing politics that can account for and repair the damage done by Ed Balls and his associates.
If Labour leader Ed Miliband has a single, overriding problem, it comes in the embodiment of his Shadow Chancellor of the Excchequer, Ed Balls.
As a former Secretary to the Treasury -- charged with heloing manage Britain's public finances -- Balls had a direct hand in the profligacy that has led to the current state of the UK's finances.
Yet he has the temerity to stand as Shadow Chancellor, even as he continues to avoid admitting his part in the ballooning of Britain's public debt.
Terry Smith, the President of Tullet Prebon, has had enough. He says it's time for Balls to depart from Ed Miliband's shadow caucus.
“He is in total denial about the fact that Labour was running a deficit years before the financial crisis struck and seems to think that we can borrow and spend our way out of a crisis caused by excessive debt,” Smith declared. "There is no avoiding the fact that Labour ran a growing deficit from 2002 as the economic boom was heading towards its peak”.
Smith charges that Balls, as well as Gordon Brown and those others tasked with keeping Britain's finances on the rails, put political expediency far ahead of responsible fiscal management.
“Moreover, the government spending which led to this deficit before the banking crisis struck was wasteful, unproductive and cynically aimed at buying the loyalty of a growing dependent section of the population to the Labour Party,” Smith continued.
Ed Balls wasn't the only thing on Smith's mind. He also declared the pensions owed to public service employees to be unviable, and suggested they should be cut back.
"Unviable because we cannot sustain a system in which people can retire and live for another 20 years at the expense of the state,” he explained. “This was never the intention of the original social security systems and it has been made unviable by improvements in health care and life expectancy.”
Smith has presented Ed Miliband with some difficult choices. Certainly, labour unions will never tolderate a Labour leader who pushes back against their unsustainable pensions. Certainly, the left wing of the Labour Party will bristle at Ed Balls being relieved of his duties.
Smith suggests that Balls should be shuffled to the most junior shadow cabinet post in existence. Ed Miliband would be better off shuffling Ed Balls out of politics altogether.
Balls, and his allegiance to the unions, are relics of an old left-wing politics that has catastrophically failed in Britain. If the Labour Party is to survive -- and its survival is far from guaranteed -- they will need to find a new brand of left-wing politics that can account for and repair the damage done by Ed Balls and his associates.
Can Herman Cain Break the Democrats' Hold on the Black Vote
Cain boasts black appeal amidst talk of "brainwashing"
Accusations of black-on-black racism against Republcian Presidential hopeful Herman Cain may only be a matter of time.
In an interview with CNN, Cain suggested that black voters had been "brainwashed" into voting for the Democrats.
"African Americans have been brainwashed into not being open minded, not even considering a conservative point of view," Cain said. "I have received some of that same vitriol simply because I am running for the Republican nomination as a conservative. So it's just brainwashing and people not being open minded, pure and simple."
There should be little doubt that many Democrats have been quietly worried about the prospect of a Cain nomination, as it would rob them of their ability to accuse their Republican opponent of racism. Right now, it's become their chief political tactic.
They could always resort to accusing Cain of being a black-on-black racist. While such racism does exist, it lacks the instant credulity many grant to accusations of racism against a white candidate.
At best, Cain can hope to merely be accused of having a condescending attitude toward black voters. Some will even attempt to claim Cian has lost any confidence in black voters.
But this is simply not true.
Prior to his CNN comments, Cain speculated that he may be able to claim one-third or more of the black vote if he manages to win the Republican nomination. Without the black vote commandingly coming on side for Obama, Obama's chances of winning reelection in 2012 would narrow considerably.
“The African-American vote, I am confident, based upon black people that run into, black people that used to call my radio show, black people that have signed up on my website to support me. I believe, quite frankly, that my campaign, I will garner a minimum of a third of the black vote in this country and possibly more,” Cain said.
Even the possibility of this must have Democrats running scared. They're already keen to insist that Cain cannot win the Republcian nomination, let alone the Presidency.
Faced with the prospect of losing their grip on the black vote, they'll pull out all the stops to make sure that can never happen.
Accusations of black-on-black racism against Republcian Presidential hopeful Herman Cain may only be a matter of time.
In an interview with CNN, Cain suggested that black voters had been "brainwashed" into voting for the Democrats.
"African Americans have been brainwashed into not being open minded, not even considering a conservative point of view," Cain said. "I have received some of that same vitriol simply because I am running for the Republican nomination as a conservative. So it's just brainwashing and people not being open minded, pure and simple."
There should be little doubt that many Democrats have been quietly worried about the prospect of a Cain nomination, as it would rob them of their ability to accuse their Republican opponent of racism. Right now, it's become their chief political tactic.
They could always resort to accusing Cain of being a black-on-black racist. While such racism does exist, it lacks the instant credulity many grant to accusations of racism against a white candidate.
At best, Cain can hope to merely be accused of having a condescending attitude toward black voters. Some will even attempt to claim Cian has lost any confidence in black voters.
But this is simply not true.
Prior to his CNN comments, Cain speculated that he may be able to claim one-third or more of the black vote if he manages to win the Republican nomination. Without the black vote commandingly coming on side for Obama, Obama's chances of winning reelection in 2012 would narrow considerably.
“The African-American vote, I am confident, based upon black people that run into, black people that used to call my radio show, black people that have signed up on my website to support me. I believe, quite frankly, that my campaign, I will garner a minimum of a third of the black vote in this country and possibly more,” Cain said.
Even the possibility of this must have Democrats running scared. They're already keen to insist that Cain cannot win the Republcian nomination, let alone the Presidency.
Faced with the prospect of losing their grip on the black vote, they'll pull out all the stops to make sure that can never happen.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
"No Violence Was Had", He Says
Over the past few days, it's become increasingly difficult not to pick on Jim Parrot. Your not-so-humble author is trying, but Parrot is begging on the thunder.
Over the past few days, Parrot has been giddily obsessive over the recent visit to Vancouver by Dick Cheney. Speaking at the Vancouver Club, Cheney attracted the usual -- and in this author's honest opinion, not-entirely-unjustifiable -- outrage from Canada's left. 250 people showed up to demand his arrest.
Jim Parrot was one of them. This would be largely innocuous if not for a rather intriguing passage in blog post about it:
"No violence was had, although one middle-aged woman guest with a 50's perm that could cut glass got her purse caught in a camera as she wormed through the crowd. She yanked the purse with a violence that could only come from fear. She took a wayward swing at the poor camera guy. That was all I saw."As it turns out, this comment is flagrantly false. Stunningly false.
Local 9/11 "truth"er Darren Pearson, at some point during the inevitable frenzy, saw fit to seize a Vancouver Club employee around the neck and throttle him.
Not so much as a mention of the assault -- immortalized in the form of photo evidence -- at Let Freedom Rain.
For his own part, Darren Pearson feels absolutely no shame for his assault on the unnamed Vancouver Club employee, who reportedly suffered minor injuries. In fact, Pearson has publicly stated that it was "fun" for him.
At a time like this one would even see fit to question the tenor of the pre-speech coverage at LFR, and ask whether it's fair to take a page out of the left's play book and ask if Jim Parrot himself had any hand in encouraging the assault. a blog post originally entitled "Leah Costello is cancer on Vancouver" (the title was since changed). Looking at how liberally Parrot has proven to be willing to spread the blame for "words of hate", it seems to his own standard bill. Other mentions of the Vancouver Club on LFR are too vile to be reproduced here -- which is really saying something.
At best, Jim Parrot needs to account for his claims there were no violence when some of those present saw fit to assail not club manager Leah Costello, not Dick Cheney, but club staff.
At worst, Jim Parrot should apply his own rhetorical habits to himself and ask if he could be blamed for encouraging the violence.
Given past dealigns with the Let Freedom Rain proprietor, one should expect neither.
Although, credit where credit is due -- Jim Parrot is right about one thing: the banana-throwing incident involving Wayne Simmonds isn't just "a lapse in judgment", it seems inconceivable to consider it anything but pre-medidated, especially when one considers the typical shortage of fresh produce at hockey games.
And it's entirely justifiable to be outraged over a homophobic remark directed at Sean Avery... but let's not forget Avery's own foray into on-ice racism.
Oilers fans -- and especially Georges Larague -- won't forget anytime soon.
So, What's the Deal With Canada's Reputation? Redux
Really bothers them.
In an etching at Dr Dawg's kennel, John Cross has evidently taken umbrage at your not-so-humble author taking some time out to acknowledge the fact.
As it turns out, Cross expected that Canada would fare poorly in any attempt to measure and compare the global reputations of the world's countries. He was -- and still is -- one of the very Canada-bashers now absorbing a healthy dosage of crow.
Not that they aren't doing whatever they can to try to wriggle free of the ultimate implications of the results of the survey. Cross complains that, of all things, human rights was not featured as a subject of the survey. Apparently, in the mind of John Cross, that is some kind of game breaker.
As in so many things, Cross has apparently declined to acknowledge which way the global wind is blowing. In a world where the United Nations human rights council is populated by the worst human rights abusers in the world, it seems that human rights has become devalued as the currency of global morality.
This is very unfortunate, particularly for Canada. If the UN and its apologists had any sense of moral probity in relation to these important principles, Canada would be one of a couple dozen countries in the world considered eligible to chair that particular committee.
Unless one considers the myth of Omar Khard's torture -- for which there is no evidence -- or the myth of Canadian involvement in torture in Afghanistan -- again, for which there is no evidence.
Cross also commits a genetic fallacy in attempting to attack the source of the information used to compile the Reputation Institute's report. He claims that the survey used only respondents from G8 countries, but this is false. The report was compiled from responses from 42,000 respondents worldwide.
It's not at all unfair to keep in mind that John Cross is an individual who does exceedingly poorly with any facts that refute whatever popular far-leftist narrative he may be pushing at any given time.
His favourite seems to be that of man-made climate change, and it behooves a responsible thinker to remember that Cross has been an apologist for climategate, and invested considerable energy in propping up the long-disproven hockey stick model of climate change; a model long shown to have absolutely zero scientific merit, and was reached through omitting an entire time period.
So, yeah. John Cross and evidence. Not really bosom buddies.
Which is the amusing thing about it all. Cross and his cohorts in Canada's far-left have obsessively insisted that Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been allegedly-disastrous for Canada's global reputation.
What they've never offered is the evidence. Never offered any evidence that Canada's global reputation is suffering; never offered any evidence that it's because of Stephen Harper.
And now that it's been shown that Canada's reputation has suffered no less than each and every country governed by the kind of welfare state government they want Canada's to emulate, they're all-too eager to simply dispense with the evidence, even if they know deep down that they can't.
Deep down, John Cross simply must know that he can't sweep this one under the rug, although it is amusing watching him try.
Britain Can't Afford Any More PFIs
Britain can't afford any more debt
Writing in an op/ed in The Guardian, Colin Cram demonstrates a very real gift for missing the point.
Writing on the topic of Private Finance Initiatives, Cram questions the critical attitude of the current Conservative Party government toward PFIs.
For the uninitiated, Private Finance Initiatives were largely used by Labour Party governments to hide billions of pounds in public spending effectively off the national books.
Cram writes:
And there's a very good reason for them to reject PFIs:
Britain simply can't afford any more debt. As of July 2011 the UK's public debt was 61.4% of its GDP. If the government were to expropriate everything produced on the Isles this year to pay down the public debt Britain would not be able to feed its population.
Cram goes on to suggest that PFIs had given Britain more up-to-date hospitals, schools, and other public assets than otherwise would have been possible. But this is actually flagrantly untrue. If anything, PFIs simply gave the British government a means to escape accountability for running up the public debt.
Any of the goals accomplished by PFIs -- such as attracting private investment in public assets -- can be done better under a system that doesn't serve to evade public accountability.
Colin Cram shouldn't be criticizing the David Cameron government for discarding PFIs as a means of funding public projects. They should be commended for it, and any philosophical contradictions are purely of Cram's own imagination.
Writing in an op/ed in The Guardian, Colin Cram demonstrates a very real gift for missing the point.
Writing on the topic of Private Finance Initiatives, Cram questions the critical attitude of the current Conservative Party government toward PFIs.
For the uninitiated, Private Finance Initiatives were largely used by Labour Party governments to hide billions of pounds in public spending effectively off the national books.
Cram writes:
"The criticism of the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) being levelled by some government ministers is ironic in that it was introduced by the previous Conservative government.Apparently Cram has failed to discern even the most basic distinction: the Labour Party opposed the use of PFIs while they were in opposition, then promptly set to using them while in government. The Tories opposed PFIs while in opposition, and maintained that opposition while in government.
Norman Lamont was chancellor of the exchequer at the time, closely followed by Ken Clarke, under whom the initiative prospered. As Professor Colin Talbot points out, PFIs were created to address a very big and real problem.
When in opposition in the 1990s, the Labour party was critical of the initiative, expressing some similar concerns to those of some of today's government ministers. However, when Labour came to power, it realised that if it wished for infrastructure improvements to schools, roads, prisons and hospitals, for example, it had little option but to adopt it. It therefore re-badged the scheme the Private Public Parternship (PPP) and accelerated its use."
And there's a very good reason for them to reject PFIs:
Britain simply can't afford any more debt. As of July 2011 the UK's public debt was 61.4% of its GDP. If the government were to expropriate everything produced on the Isles this year to pay down the public debt Britain would not be able to feed its population.
Cram goes on to suggest that PFIs had given Britain more up-to-date hospitals, schools, and other public assets than otherwise would have been possible. But this is actually flagrantly untrue. If anything, PFIs simply gave the British government a means to escape accountability for running up the public debt.
Any of the goals accomplished by PFIs -- such as attracting private investment in public assets -- can be done better under a system that doesn't serve to evade public accountability.
Colin Cram shouldn't be criticizing the David Cameron government for discarding PFIs as a means of funding public projects. They should be commended for it, and any philosophical contradictions are purely of Cram's own imagination.
Herman Cain vs Morgan Freeman, Left-Wing Intellectual Laziness & Tea Party Racism
With the 2012 Republican Party primary elections dawning ever-nearer on the horizon, it's a charge one can expect to hear more and more often from an increasingly-unimaginative left:
Tea Party racism.
It's a mantra that dwells on the surface of the American left-wing psyche as their President leads the United States deeper and deeper into an economic morass, and as they find themselves increasingly bereft of any new ideas.
Looking for a way out of what seems like an inevitable defeat in November 2012, their imaginations will continually bring them down to what has been and remains their last, best hope. Charges of Tea Party racism.
In the past, they've come from such "luminaries" of the entertainment world as Janeane Garofalo. This time they're coming from someone far more talented and far more accomplished. Morgan Freeman's talents don't lend credulity to his accusations any more than his accusations diminish his talent.
"Their stated policy, publicly stated, is to do whatever it takes to see to it that Obama only serves one term," Freeman insisted. "What underlines that? Screw the country. We are going to do ... whatever we can to get this black man outta here."
"It is a racist thing," Freeman continued. "It just shows the weak, dark underside of America. We're supposed to be better than that. That's why all those people were in tears when he was elected."
Freeman apparently hasn't stopped for so much as an instant to consider the fact that the Tea Party opposes President Barack Obama because they disagree with his politics as if it were even a possibility.
But with the left unable to conjure any more than a handful of examples of Tea Party racism -- and always among individuals who either dwell on the periphery of the movement, or who are promptly banished forthright -- these are arguments that simply don't carry any credibility.
Herman Cain is a black man. But he isn't buying it.
He simply notes that Morgan Freeman has never been to a Tea Party event. His experience with the Tea Party movement has indicated the precise opposite of Freeman's comments.
"They know I bring my message from my heart and from my head, and they're responding to it," Cain declared.
In fact, it's Cain's success in front of Tea Party crowds that is more threatening to Morgan Freeman's narrative than anything. And it's likely one of the reasons that the left is determined to believe that Cain cannot win the primary election, let alone a 2012 showdown with Obama.
They're foolish to count Herman Cain out, and doubly foolish to do it merely to preserve what is a low-road political narrative in the first place.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
So What's the Deal with Canada's Reputation?
Since 2006, it's been a familiar siren song from the left to Canadians, trying to lure voters away from Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party:
"Harper is destroying Canada's global reputation. And we -- the Liberal Party, NDP, or whomever else -- are the ones to restore it. Please vote for us."
Harper has now been in power for more than five years. And these complaints about the effect Stephen Harper's tenure in 24 Sussex Drive have turned out to be nothing more than pure, unmitigated bullshit.
In a study that measured the public esteem, trust, admiration and good feelings toward 50 countries, Canada came out on top. Number one. The best country in the world in terms of its global reputation. The survey was run by the Reputation Institute.
Canada is regarded better than Sweden, Australia, Switzerland, or New Zealand. Most of these countries have had leaders far more of the sort preferred by those citing imaginary harm done by Harper to Canada's reputation.
No one should expect many of these people to wake up and smell the global rejection of this narrative. Some of them just don't get it at all.
No one should be surprised. These are people who prefer to smirk about a preachy lecture delivered to Harper regarding the Kyoto protocols by countries who stood to be fiscal beneficiaries of the treaty at the World Economic Forum in Davos to the standing ovation he received at the same event.
These are people who focus on the handful of far-left whackos protesting the oilsands over the countries and businesses lining up to be oilsands' customers, and the millions of people who consume oilsands oil.
What's the deal with Canada's reputation? Canada's reputation is excellent. Five years of Stephen Harper hasn't done the kind of harm the far-left has bemoaned at every opportunity.
This revelation actually changes nothing: the far-left will still continue to make this claim, and Canadians will continue to do the appropriate thing: and ignore them.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Creepy Little Bastard Joe McGinniss Can't Keep His Tabloid Stories Straight
Joe McGinnis, no longer a respected, reputable journalist, can't keep his story straight. First he claims supermarket tabloids used him as a source, then later admits he used the National Enquirer as a source.
In other news, none other than Sarah Palin's brother was cited as a source in McGinnis' book, but was never actually spoken to by the author. He's even declared that anything attributed to him by McGinniss was a lie.
It says more than what anyone needs to know about the journalistic integrity of McGinniss' work. More specifically, the lack thereof.
In other news, none other than Sarah Palin's brother was cited as a source in McGinnis' book, but was never actually spoken to by the author. He's even declared that anything attributed to him by McGinniss was a lie.
It says more than what anyone needs to know about the journalistic integrity of McGinniss' work. More specifically, the lack thereof.
The Gory Underside of the Arts Communities' Oppression Fantasies
As various individuals purporting to represent Canada's arts community attempt to monopolize more and more media time with staged scandals and contrived outrage, it's becoming more and more clear that many Canadian artists seem to be both prone and eager to imagine themselves as an oppressed community in Canada.
The most public examples have been self-appointed "martyrs" Margie Gillis and Franke James. The former averaged more than $90,000 a year in arts grants over a 13-year period between 1998 and 2011. The latter is apparently outraged that the federal government chose not to fit the bill for her to take her mediocre anti-oilsands art on a self-lionizing tour of Europe.
But as it pertains to the tendency of some Canadian artists to imagine themselves as an oppressed minority, James and Gillis are but the tip of the iceberg.
An interesting case study is that of a band calling itself Trike. Originating from Vancouver, Trike now mostly plays in Europe.
In 2009, Trike announced they were going to stay in Europe. They haven't been missed.
They also apparently didn't lose interest in Canada. In July 2010, they uploaded a music video to YouTube entitled "Get Out, Get Out".
It's amazing that something like this could fester, largely unnoticed, on YouTube for more than 14 months.
The first thing that stands out about the video is the song. The first thing that stands out about the song is that, frankly, it's shit. God-awful shit. Irredeemable shit. Anyone who makes it past the 0:55 mark of the video should be applauded for their endurance.
After that, the next thing that stands out is the deranged nature of the video. While the two members of Trike drone on about murdering someone, someone wearing a hastily-constructed Stephen Harper mask smashes their keyboard and murders the band, stabbing them multiple times with multiple knives.
It's hard to escape the conclusion that the video is meant to suggest that Stephen Harper is killing Canada's arts community. Frankly, it's a comical notion.
In 2009, when the band announced its "exile" to Germany, they declared that Canada had become "anti-art".
“Canada is our home, but it’s going through a bit of a right-wing, bureaucratic, anti-art phase right now, which would make it next to impossible to live as artists.”
Those lacking the sense of entitlement that has come to afflict the Canadian arts know differently. Canada isn't going through an "anti-art phase", and no anti-art phase would be necessary to make it impossible for Trike to live off their art.
The banality and mediocrity of Trike's art is what does that. Trike can't live off their music not because Canada has become "anti-art", but because their music is just so goddamned awful.
The trinity figures of Margie Gillis, Franke James and Trike seem to bring an unsurprising reality to light: bad artists rely on government grants to keep them out of having to seek work in industries more appropriate for their talents... like fast food.
Bad artists also seem to rely on a shared sense of ideological vanity to make their art more marketable to those who share their political beliefs. In a video posted after the 2011 election, band member Xania Keane declares that she was considering moving back to Canada, but can't live in a country with a conservative government.
(She apparently hasn't taken note of Angela Merkel.)
Keane says she isn't coming back to Canada, and apparently expects people to care. It doesn't seem like many do. It all works out pretty well for Canadian music fans, who are now spared from having to be subjected to Trike's tripe.
Friday, September 23, 2011
Stupid People Shouldn't Play Hockey Historian
There's something about Jymn Parrett -- known around these parts as Jim Parrot for his tendency to mindlessly repeat any line of bullshit a far-left demagogue instructs him to -- and hockey that seems to send his under-sized, under-powered mental locomotive off the tracks.
As was shown during the Vancouver Canucks 2011 Stanley Cup run -- which ended in disappointment for all Canadians, on far too many levels -- a bizarre obsession lies in Jim Parrot's psyche to politicize the game in all sorts of ways that don't reflect the reality of it.
For example, in the mind of this deranged individual, the horrifying story about Philadelphia Flyers forward Wayne Simmonds having a banana thrown at him in London, ON has become an opportunity to blame Prime Minister Stephen Harper for some alleged resurgence of racism in Canada.
Those who have paid close attention to race issues in Canada for what they are, as opposed to what they wish it would be know better. All proper-thinking Canadians wish racism was a thing of the past in Canada. But we know it is not.
Racism has never really gone away in Canada, as much as we wish it would. It seems worthy of note that the race indcident that most readily comes to mind during the 2011 federal election, in which Harper won a majority government, involved not a Conservative candidate, but a Bloc Quebecois candidate who declared that Quebeckers would note vote for Romeo Saganash because he's Cree.
Let's not for get that the Bloc Quebecois was essential to the power-grabbing coalition of socialists and separatists that people like Jim Parrot so readily favoured in 2008.
Parrot's logic is hardly befitting the word. It proceeds something like this: Stephen Harper is the Prime Minister of Canada. A racist incident occurred in London, Ontario. Ergo, Harper must be to blame.
Parrot pretends to be deeply concerned about this incident -- and perhaps truly is, even if he isn't at all legitimately concerned with the issues intrinsic to it. But can't even keep his hockey history straight.
He treats Boston Bruins forward Willie O'Ree as the pioneer for black players in hockey. This assessment is actually incorrect.
O'Ree played a total of 45 games in the NHL for the Boston Bruins -- not bad for the first black player to ever do so. But those fully familair with hockey history know of another man... a man by the name of Herb Carnegie.
Carnegie began his professional career in 1938, while O'Ree was but three years old.
In 1948 Carnegie was invited for a tryout with the New York Rangers. Although he was widely regarded as one of the best players in the camp, fit to crack the Rangers starting lineup, he was instead offered a contract to play with the Rangers' minor league affiliate. The contract was worth less than he was earning playing for the Quebec Aces.
Among his teammates with the Aces was none other than Jean Bealiveau, who would later remark that Carnegie was one of the best players he had ever played with. Considering Bealiveau played with legends such as Maurice "The Rocket" Richard, this is high praise indeed.
Msny believe that if Carnegie had accepted the contract offered to him by the Rangers that he would have played in the NHL long before Willie O'Ree. Unlike O'Ree, whose NHL output totalled 14 points, he also would have excelled.
But Carnegie should always be admired for one thing: he knew that his self-respect and dignity were worth more than the possibility of one day, maybe, playing in the NHL after prostrating himself in order to have done it.
Hearing Carnegie talk about it today, he is still clearly stung by the pain of having been denied the opportunity to play in the NHL, but he publicly expresses few regrets. The Rangers management of the day should have a few: it's not unreasonable to speculate that they could have won a Stanley Cup with Carnegie. Instead, the franchise would wait until 1994, when they beat -- who else? -- the Vancouver Canucks.
Carnegie's decision to keep his dignity is a triumph in itself.
That Jim Parrot would look to the mediocre Willie O'Ree over the spectacular Herb Carnegie as the luminary for black hockey players demonstrates that he's as out-of-touch with hockey history as he is out-of-touch with the issues at the heart of the Simmonds incident.
Simmonds is far from the only black hockey player in the modern era to experience racism. In one incident that comes to mind, Anson Carter -- whose career peak was a world championship-winning goal -- had a banana thrown at him during the 2004-05 NHL lockout... while he was playing as part of a team of touring NHL stars in Russia.
Simmonds, like Carter, like Carnegie, has opted to take the high road in this incident. Simmonds has opted to simply rise above the clearly-premeditated expression of hatred directed at him, and move on.
He's brought no personal agenda to the table; political, ideological, or otherwise.
If only Jim Parrot had opted to do the same thing -- instead of transforming the incident into a political smear -- he would be fit to comment on the matter. Sadly, he didn't, and unsurprisingly, he isn't.
As was shown during the Vancouver Canucks 2011 Stanley Cup run -- which ended in disappointment for all Canadians, on far too many levels -- a bizarre obsession lies in Jim Parrot's psyche to politicize the game in all sorts of ways that don't reflect the reality of it.
For example, in the mind of this deranged individual, the horrifying story about Philadelphia Flyers forward Wayne Simmonds having a banana thrown at him in London, ON has become an opportunity to blame Prime Minister Stephen Harper for some alleged resurgence of racism in Canada.
Those who have paid close attention to race issues in Canada for what they are, as opposed to what they wish it would be know better. All proper-thinking Canadians wish racism was a thing of the past in Canada. But we know it is not.
Racism has never really gone away in Canada, as much as we wish it would. It seems worthy of note that the race indcident that most readily comes to mind during the 2011 federal election, in which Harper won a majority government, involved not a Conservative candidate, but a Bloc Quebecois candidate who declared that Quebeckers would note vote for Romeo Saganash because he's Cree.
Let's not for get that the Bloc Quebecois was essential to the power-grabbing coalition of socialists and separatists that people like Jim Parrot so readily favoured in 2008.
Parrot's logic is hardly befitting the word. It proceeds something like this: Stephen Harper is the Prime Minister of Canada. A racist incident occurred in London, Ontario. Ergo, Harper must be to blame.
Parrot pretends to be deeply concerned about this incident -- and perhaps truly is, even if he isn't at all legitimately concerned with the issues intrinsic to it. But can't even keep his hockey history straight.
He treats Boston Bruins forward Willie O'Ree as the pioneer for black players in hockey. This assessment is actually incorrect.
O'Ree played a total of 45 games in the NHL for the Boston Bruins -- not bad for the first black player to ever do so. But those fully familair with hockey history know of another man... a man by the name of Herb Carnegie.
Carnegie began his professional career in 1938, while O'Ree was but three years old.
In 1948 Carnegie was invited for a tryout with the New York Rangers. Although he was widely regarded as one of the best players in the camp, fit to crack the Rangers starting lineup, he was instead offered a contract to play with the Rangers' minor league affiliate. The contract was worth less than he was earning playing for the Quebec Aces.
Among his teammates with the Aces was none other than Jean Bealiveau, who would later remark that Carnegie was one of the best players he had ever played with. Considering Bealiveau played with legends such as Maurice "The Rocket" Richard, this is high praise indeed.
Msny believe that if Carnegie had accepted the contract offered to him by the Rangers that he would have played in the NHL long before Willie O'Ree. Unlike O'Ree, whose NHL output totalled 14 points, he also would have excelled.
But Carnegie should always be admired for one thing: he knew that his self-respect and dignity were worth more than the possibility of one day, maybe, playing in the NHL after prostrating himself in order to have done it.
Hearing Carnegie talk about it today, he is still clearly stung by the pain of having been denied the opportunity to play in the NHL, but he publicly expresses few regrets. The Rangers management of the day should have a few: it's not unreasonable to speculate that they could have won a Stanley Cup with Carnegie. Instead, the franchise would wait until 1994, when they beat -- who else? -- the Vancouver Canucks.
Carnegie's decision to keep his dignity is a triumph in itself.
That Jim Parrot would look to the mediocre Willie O'Ree over the spectacular Herb Carnegie as the luminary for black hockey players demonstrates that he's as out-of-touch with hockey history as he is out-of-touch with the issues at the heart of the Simmonds incident.
Simmonds is far from the only black hockey player in the modern era to experience racism. In one incident that comes to mind, Anson Carter -- whose career peak was a world championship-winning goal -- had a banana thrown at him during the 2004-05 NHL lockout... while he was playing as part of a team of touring NHL stars in Russia.
Simmonds, like Carter, like Carnegie, has opted to take the high road in this incident. Simmonds has opted to simply rise above the clearly-premeditated expression of hatred directed at him, and move on.
He's brought no personal agenda to the table; political, ideological, or otherwise.
If only Jim Parrot had opted to do the same thing -- instead of transforming the incident into a political smear -- he would be fit to comment on the matter. Sadly, he didn't, and unsurprisingly, he isn't.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
A Horrible Idea Whose Time Should Not Come
Levac: Carbon tax "presently on the table"
In 2008, the federal Liberal party presented to Canadians a proposal that could have precipitated an economic disaster in Canada.
Pitched by Stephane Dion, cobbled together from an idea proposed by Michael Ignatieff during the 2006 Liberal leadership campaign, they called it the Green Shift. It was essentially a carbon tax paired with income tax cuts.
Yet the income tax "cuts" wouldn't reduce the tax burden on the average Canadian family. Shifted to industry in the form of a carbon tax, those cuts would come back to haunt Canadians in the form of higher prices for absolutely everything. As private businesses are not charities, they would inevitably pass their higher costs along to the consumer.
The best-case scenario was that Canadians would be no better off for indulging the Liberal Party's foray into utopianism. A likelier scenario is that the tax would have scared off foreign and domestic investment in Canada, ultimately leading to an economic collapse.
Now, with the 2011 Ontario election on the line, Premier Dalton McGuinty is considering setting Ontario on this very disastrous path.
With the green energy companies that were to be the feathers in McGuinty's cap failing one by one -- in some cases, failing to do much of anything but provide McGuinty with photo ops -- McGuinty is turning to the last alternative policy that he can to pander to environmentalists.
In an online chat, Dave Levac, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure, has indicated that the McGuinty Liberals are already considering a carbon tax.
"It's being reviewed, and some of my colleagues are more enthusiastic about it than others," Levac declared. "There is a possibility that a carbon tax is on the table to evaluate, because it already is."
Levac noted that a carbon tax is not presently in the Liberal election platform. This is something of a meaningless detail; many of the things that were in the last Liberal election platform were not done. Many of the things that were done -- including the HST -- were not in the election platform.
Regardless of how sympathetic McGuinty is to a carbon tax proposal, he owes it to the voters of Ontario to not spring it on them as a post-election surprise. The time to tell Ontario voters precisely what manner of a carbon tax is on the table.
If the Liberals had learned from the failure of Canadians to fall for the proposals of their federal counterparts, the answer would be "none at all". Yet as Dave Levac has it, this is not the case.
A carbon tax would drive up the cost of literally everything an Ontario family consumes: housing, energy, groceries, everything.
Dalton McGuinty owes Ontarians the opportunity to use the 2011 election as a referendum on such a prospect. Whether or not he'll be forthcoming with Ontario voters remains yet to be seen.
In 2008, the federal Liberal party presented to Canadians a proposal that could have precipitated an economic disaster in Canada.
Pitched by Stephane Dion, cobbled together from an idea proposed by Michael Ignatieff during the 2006 Liberal leadership campaign, they called it the Green Shift. It was essentially a carbon tax paired with income tax cuts.
Yet the income tax "cuts" wouldn't reduce the tax burden on the average Canadian family. Shifted to industry in the form of a carbon tax, those cuts would come back to haunt Canadians in the form of higher prices for absolutely everything. As private businesses are not charities, they would inevitably pass their higher costs along to the consumer.
The best-case scenario was that Canadians would be no better off for indulging the Liberal Party's foray into utopianism. A likelier scenario is that the tax would have scared off foreign and domestic investment in Canada, ultimately leading to an economic collapse.
Now, with the 2011 Ontario election on the line, Premier Dalton McGuinty is considering setting Ontario on this very disastrous path.
With the green energy companies that were to be the feathers in McGuinty's cap failing one by one -- in some cases, failing to do much of anything but provide McGuinty with photo ops -- McGuinty is turning to the last alternative policy that he can to pander to environmentalists.
In an online chat, Dave Levac, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure, has indicated that the McGuinty Liberals are already considering a carbon tax.
"It's being reviewed, and some of my colleagues are more enthusiastic about it than others," Levac declared. "There is a possibility that a carbon tax is on the table to evaluate, because it already is."
Levac noted that a carbon tax is not presently in the Liberal election platform. This is something of a meaningless detail; many of the things that were in the last Liberal election platform were not done. Many of the things that were done -- including the HST -- were not in the election platform.
Regardless of how sympathetic McGuinty is to a carbon tax proposal, he owes it to the voters of Ontario to not spring it on them as a post-election surprise. The time to tell Ontario voters precisely what manner of a carbon tax is on the table.
If the Liberals had learned from the failure of Canadians to fall for the proposals of their federal counterparts, the answer would be "none at all". Yet as Dave Levac has it, this is not the case.
A carbon tax would drive up the cost of literally everything an Ontario family consumes: housing, energy, groceries, everything.
Dalton McGuinty owes Ontarians the opportunity to use the 2011 election as a referendum on such a prospect. Whether or not he'll be forthcoming with Ontario voters remains yet to be seen.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Warren Kinsella & His Desperate Dog Whistle Politics
As the Ontario provincial election seemingly tightens at the midway point of the election, Warren Kinsella is becoming more and more desperate.
It's actually rather ironic. Earlier in the campaign, "desperate" was his favourite word. He took to Twitter to declare the deseperation of the Tim Hudak-led Progressive Conservative Party.
Now, it's Kinsella and Premier Dalton McGuinty who are becoming desperate. But mostly Kinsella.
In a posting on his blog, Kinsella wails about the federal Conservative Party's treatment of a video taken at a barbecue Toronto Mayor Rob Ford held in July.
The guest of honour at the barbecue was Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who spoke about the upcoming Ontario election, and rallied guests to support Tim Hudak in defeating the Liberal government of Ontario.
Harper spoke of the need for a conservative hat trick in Ontario.
Kinsella's desperation in raising this video becomes clear when one considers that this non-story first came up in early August and it is now late September.
Frankly, it is precisely that: a non-story. There is nothing reasonably controversial about this video. Unless, of course, one is a Liberal voter or war room worker.
It's reminiscent of a past story in which a left-wing partisan snuck a video camera into a Conservative Party event in which Prime Minister Stephen Harper revealed that -- *gasp!* -- he and his party were working toward winning a majority goverment.
The story was not only a non-story, it was non-news. Everyone knew that Harper and the Tories had been working toward a majority government. Harper coming out and saying so was threatening only to left-wing partisans. Treating a video in which he said what everyone already knew as if it were remarkable or scandalous was nothing more than blowing the left-wing dog whistle.
Harper's words simply alert Kinsella and the left-wing partisans he's counting on to something only they will perceive as dangerous.
Now, in the middle of an election campaign, Kinsella is offering up video of Harper saying he'd like to see a conservative government in Queen's Park. In other words, video in which Harper simply says what everyone already knows. Kinsella is simply blowing the left-wing dog whistle, and in his desperation he's blowing it hard.
It's certainly Kinsella's hope that Harper's "conservative hat trick" comment will scare NDP voters into the Liberal fold. Looking at the poll numbers, looking at the embarrassing incidents his party has fallen victim to, Kinsella knows, as many other people know, that this is his party's best hopes of holding onto even a minority government, let alone holding on to their majority.
As for the federal Tories' efforts to shut the video down, chalk that up to an effort to discourage left-wing activists from resorting to the creepy means of hidden cameras in search of "gotcha" non-stories.
For Warren Kinsella, desperate times seem to call for desperate measures.
It's actually rather ironic. Earlier in the campaign, "desperate" was his favourite word. He took to Twitter to declare the deseperation of the Tim Hudak-led Progressive Conservative Party.
Now, it's Kinsella and Premier Dalton McGuinty who are becoming desperate. But mostly Kinsella.
In a posting on his blog, Kinsella wails about the federal Conservative Party's treatment of a video taken at a barbecue Toronto Mayor Rob Ford held in July.
The guest of honour at the barbecue was Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who spoke about the upcoming Ontario election, and rallied guests to support Tim Hudak in defeating the Liberal government of Ontario.
Harper spoke of the need for a conservative hat trick in Ontario.
Kinsella's desperation in raising this video becomes clear when one considers that this non-story first came up in early August and it is now late September.
Frankly, it is precisely that: a non-story. There is nothing reasonably controversial about this video. Unless, of course, one is a Liberal voter or war room worker.
It's reminiscent of a past story in which a left-wing partisan snuck a video camera into a Conservative Party event in which Prime Minister Stephen Harper revealed that -- *gasp!* -- he and his party were working toward winning a majority goverment.
The story was not only a non-story, it was non-news. Everyone knew that Harper and the Tories had been working toward a majority government. Harper coming out and saying so was threatening only to left-wing partisans. Treating a video in which he said what everyone already knew as if it were remarkable or scandalous was nothing more than blowing the left-wing dog whistle.
Harper's words simply alert Kinsella and the left-wing partisans he's counting on to something only they will perceive as dangerous.
Now, in the middle of an election campaign, Kinsella is offering up video of Harper saying he'd like to see a conservative government in Queen's Park. In other words, video in which Harper simply says what everyone already knows. Kinsella is simply blowing the left-wing dog whistle, and in his desperation he's blowing it hard.
It's certainly Kinsella's hope that Harper's "conservative hat trick" comment will scare NDP voters into the Liberal fold. Looking at the poll numbers, looking at the embarrassing incidents his party has fallen victim to, Kinsella knows, as many other people know, that this is his party's best hopes of holding onto even a minority government, let alone holding on to their majority.
As for the federal Tories' efforts to shut the video down, chalk that up to an effort to discourage left-wing activists from resorting to the creepy means of hidden cameras in search of "gotcha" non-stories.
For Warren Kinsella, desperate times seem to call for desperate measures.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
David Suzuki Extinguishes His Own Credibility
When the Ontario Liberal Party secured the endorsement of David Suzuki, they were so excited they went out and made an ad about it.
In it, Suzuki extinguishes what little remained of his own credibility. Gushing over Premier Dalton McGuinty's environmental record, Suzuki declares how excited he was when McGuinty promised to shut down Ontario's coal-fired power plants. He declares the promise to be "a big step" toward fixing Ontario's relationship with the environment.
The problem is that McGuinty made the promise, then promptly set about breaking it. In 2006, he promised to shut down those power plants by 2009. In 2009, he promised to shut them down by 2014 He might not be around to keep that promise in 2014. Even if he is, he probably won't.
Even McGuinty's vaunted green jobs accomplishments are fading, as green energy firms continue laying workers off. Adding to the comedy is McGuinty staging a photo op at a solar panel factory that had shut down production.
In other words, McGuinty's environmental record is not all rainbows and sunshine. It's actually piss-poor at best. All he's offering in the 2011 election is more of the promises he already broke. He'll never keep them.
It only makes sense that the Liberals would work so hard to establish themselves as good environmentalists. But Ontarians aren't stupid, and can spot a broken promise when someone makes it again. In their effort to brand themselves as the party for the environment, they've managed to counter-brand themselves as promise-breakers.
For himself, Suzuki has done worse. In attempting to brand himself the voice of environmentalism in the 2011 election, he's counter-branded himself as an unprincipled hack who offers the Liberal Party's broken promises up as if they were achievements.
He's definitively turned his back on his own credibility. He'll never be taken seriously again.
What (Some) Ron Paul Supporters Don't Get About the Constitution
By now it's been seen and enjoyed by thousands of people on YouTube: a clip from National Geographic's Frontier Force in which a drunk driver hautily lectures Montana state troopers about the constitution.
After being put in the back of the police cruiser to be taken away, the man pronounces "Ron Paul 2012."
Whatever the constitution has to do with this individual driving while his blood alohol content is four times over the legal limit is something that the driver himself probably doesn't know. He's just that drunk.
But in the midst of his ramblings, the drunk slurs something that might give one pause to consider just how well this individual understands the US constitution at all. He declares, "constitution! Read it and... live by it."
Reading too deeply into it given the level of inebriation of this man may be a mistake. But it could be interpreted as a sign that this individual, for all his devotion to the constitution, doesn't understand it.
Simply put, the constitution is not actually a code for its citizens to live by. It's a code for a country's government to govern by. While there are numerous bodies of law by which the power of the state is used to bind citizens, the constitution is the body of law by which the power of citizens is used to bind the state. It simultaneously grants the government powers and limits them. It simultaneously assigns the state responsibilities and limits them as well.
The US constitution, specifically, is preoccupied with the freedom of its citizens. The US constitution actually offers no comment on how citizens should live their lives; rather, it grants them the freedom to do it as they will.
There's no reason to definitively believe that this individual really believes one should live by the constitution. There's also no reason to definitively believe that there are no Ron Paul followers who do not hold this belief.
It's likely a belief that Ron Paul himself would reject. Even so, there's some cause -- however slim -- for Americans to be concerned about such notions among his followers.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
The Value of a Vote in Ontario? No Less Than $730
Ontario Liberals crassly trying to buy votes
Students in Ontario following the ongoing provincial election were recently alerted to a remarkable fact:
To the Liberal Party of Ontario, their vote is worth money. So much so that Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal Party are willing to blatantly buy their votes for anywhere from $730 to $1600 per year.
In a mass email sent out to University of Windsor students, someone working on behalf of the Liberal Party spammed in favour of the party's proposed education policy. The specific language of that email lays out in no uncertain terms how the Liberal Party is appealing to these students:
Instead, it simply promises to send a government cheque to university students once a year, every year, until the next election. That means that the Liberal Party has offered to buy the vote of post-secondary students for anywhere ranging from $2,920 to $6,400.
And all of this without ever having addressed, or even attempted to solve, a single problem related to the cost of post-secondary education. Finding ways to reduce the costs of providing post-secondary education in the first place would solve this problem once and for all. The Liberals' proposed policy simply shifts the costs away from the student to the taxpayer.
Any political party that respects taxpayers and aims to spend tax dollars responsibly would be absolutely ashamed to have put such a crassly irresponsible and flagrantly self-interested policy forward.
It's political bribery at its finest, and desperation from a party for whom the poll numbers are not what they're telling people they are.
Students in Ontario following the ongoing provincial election were recently alerted to a remarkable fact:
To the Liberal Party of Ontario, their vote is worth money. So much so that Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal Party are willing to blatantly buy their votes for anywhere from $730 to $1600 per year.
In a mass email sent out to University of Windsor students, someone working on behalf of the Liberal Party spammed in favour of the party's proposed education policy. The specific language of that email lays out in no uncertain terms how the Liberal Party is appealing to these students:
"So [the Liberal Party] are going to support all middle-class Ontario families with a 30% across-the-board post-secondary undergraduate tuition grant.That means - every year - the families of five out of six students will save $1600 per student in university and $730 per student in college.To describe a blatant vote-buying scheme as an education plan is beyond facetious. It lacks any kind of insight into what is continuously driving up the costs of post-secondary education across Canada and certainly lacks the foresight to address those issues.
Neither the NDP nor the Conservatives have an education plan - nothing! Shame on the NDP and the Conservatives for not caring about students, higher education, or the future of Ontario.
We are in battle for our future and you get to help make the choice on October 6th, 2011. As many of you may know, we are currently in a provincial election. On one side there are the NDP and the Conservatives who want to take Ontario off track - cutting healthcare, education, and destroying jobs.
On the other side, there is the Ontario Liberal Party, who is fighting to ensure that we continue to have the best education in Canada, the strongest healthcare, and that we create jobs for everyone. We need to stay on the right track because our future depends on it.
PS. If you are in 4th year and don’t think this amazing policy will apply to you - think again. By voting Liberal, every student will receive half the amount in January - that is $800!"
Instead, it simply promises to send a government cheque to university students once a year, every year, until the next election. That means that the Liberal Party has offered to buy the vote of post-secondary students for anywhere ranging from $2,920 to $6,400.
And all of this without ever having addressed, or even attempted to solve, a single problem related to the cost of post-secondary education. Finding ways to reduce the costs of providing post-secondary education in the first place would solve this problem once and for all. The Liberals' proposed policy simply shifts the costs away from the student to the taxpayer.
Any political party that respects taxpayers and aims to spend tax dollars responsibly would be absolutely ashamed to have put such a crassly irresponsible and flagrantly self-interested policy forward.
It's political bribery at its finest, and desperation from a party for whom the poll numbers are not what they're telling people they are.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Brian Topp & the NDP: Not On Your Side
Topp-led NDP would do what's good for them, not what's good for Canada
Anyone who pays even passing attention to the NDP has noticed it: their penchant for divisive politics.
They delight in drawing sides among Canadians, then telliing as many as possible that the NDP is on their side, and that their political opponents are not.
Yet if you live in the provinces of BC, Alberta or Ontario, the NDP is unequivocally not on your side... or at least they won't be, if Brian Topp -- so far the only declared candidate for the NDP leadership -- gets his way.
Topp has already declared that the NDP will staunchly oppose any additional seats in Parliament for Alberta, BC or Ontario unless Quebec recieves a proportionate increase of its own. This despite the fact that Quebec is already disproportionately represented on a scale greater than anywhere else in the world.
Topp's justification for sticking the 61% of Canadians that are underrepresented in Parliament is rather bizarre: because Parliament recognized Quebec as a distinct society within Canada, it's entitled to be overrepresented.
“The national legislature … has recognized the province of Quebec as a nation within the country, a resolution that was supported by all parties, and this is an occasion where it’s time to think about what that resolution means,” Topp declared.
It isn't hard to figure out what that motion means. It doesn't require extensive reflection. It may mean that Quebec is distinct within Canada, but it doesn't mean that it's above the rest of Canada.
Sadly, many of the NDP's hardcore supporters will back Topp's opposition to equitable democracy in Canada even thought it's vastly democratic. They even manage to offer some supremely dumb reasons: some will even declare that in opposing the addition of more seats in Parliament, they're fighting in favour of small government (not realizing that there's a difference between Parliament and the government).
Some oppose the addition of these seats believing that too many of them -- particularly in Alberta -- will fall to the Tories. For these people, their motivation is crassly partisan.
In Brian Topp's case, he's merely shamelessly pandering to Quebec at the expense of the rest of Canada. After all, it wasn't BC, Alberta or Ontario that delivered a mass of new seats to the NDP in the last election. It was Quebec.
In pandering to Quebec, the NDP is only doing what's good for itself. The NDP's merely doing what the NDP does best: putting itself first, and Canada second.
Anyone who pays even passing attention to the NDP has noticed it: their penchant for divisive politics.
They delight in drawing sides among Canadians, then telliing as many as possible that the NDP is on their side, and that their political opponents are not.
Yet if you live in the provinces of BC, Alberta or Ontario, the NDP is unequivocally not on your side... or at least they won't be, if Brian Topp -- so far the only declared candidate for the NDP leadership -- gets his way.
Topp has already declared that the NDP will staunchly oppose any additional seats in Parliament for Alberta, BC or Ontario unless Quebec recieves a proportionate increase of its own. This despite the fact that Quebec is already disproportionately represented on a scale greater than anywhere else in the world.
Topp's justification for sticking the 61% of Canadians that are underrepresented in Parliament is rather bizarre: because Parliament recognized Quebec as a distinct society within Canada, it's entitled to be overrepresented.
“The national legislature … has recognized the province of Quebec as a nation within the country, a resolution that was supported by all parties, and this is an occasion where it’s time to think about what that resolution means,” Topp declared.
It isn't hard to figure out what that motion means. It doesn't require extensive reflection. It may mean that Quebec is distinct within Canada, but it doesn't mean that it's above the rest of Canada.
Sadly, many of the NDP's hardcore supporters will back Topp's opposition to equitable democracy in Canada even thought it's vastly democratic. They even manage to offer some supremely dumb reasons: some will even declare that in opposing the addition of more seats in Parliament, they're fighting in favour of small government (not realizing that there's a difference between Parliament and the government).
Some oppose the addition of these seats believing that too many of them -- particularly in Alberta -- will fall to the Tories. For these people, their motivation is crassly partisan.
In Brian Topp's case, he's merely shamelessly pandering to Quebec at the expense of the rest of Canada. After all, it wasn't BC, Alberta or Ontario that delivered a mass of new seats to the NDP in the last election. It was Quebec.
In pandering to Quebec, the NDP is only doing what's good for itself. The NDP's merely doing what the NDP does best: putting itself first, and Canada second.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Republicans Breech Another Democrat Stronghold
Start spreading the news.
Although the Democrats felt invincible following the 2008 election of Barack Obama as President of the United States, they have instead become a remarkably frail party. In addition to a defeat at the polls in the 2010 midterm elections, they've also lost their grip on some key stronghold seats.
First, it was Ted Kennedy's former Senate seat, won by Scott Brown after Kennedy's passing. Now Anthony Weiner's former seat in the House of Representatives, claimed by Bob Turner in a special election following Weiner's resignation over a sex scandal.
Turner promptly described his victory as a message to President Barack Obama.
“We’ve been asked by the people of this district to send a message to Washington,” Turner announced. “I hope they hear it loud and clear. We’ve been told this is a referendum. Mr. President, we are on the wrong track. We have had it with an irresponsible fiscal policy which endangers the entire economy.”
If this special election truly was a referendum on Obama's Presidency, it's bad news for him indeed. And it accompanies news every bit as bad.
Obama's job approval rating has sunk to its greatest low, just as his job disapproval rating has reached its highest peak. 55% of Americans disapprove of the job he's been doing. Only 48% think of him as a strong leader.
Now, as Nancy Pelosi looks across the House of Representatives with the arduous task of pushing Obama's agenda forward, she'll be seeing one less Democrat pushing with him and one more Republican pushing back.
All this while Obama tries to figure out how the hell he's going to get reelected in 2012.
The news is in for President Barack Obama. And the news is bad; very bad, indeed.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
The Pro-Abortion Lobby Undermines... Itself
ARCC defends infanticide law
For decades, it has been a staple argument of the Canadian pro-abortion lobby when resisting any idea that the unborn may have rights: the idea that unborn children are not legally considered "human beings" until they have emerged alive from the birth canal.
Now, in the horrific case of Katrina Effert, the pro-abortion lobby seems to have dispensed even with that argument.
In 2005, Effert, then aged 19, gave birth to a baby boy in the bathroom of her parents' home. She promptly strangled the child with her underwear and threw it over a fence into her neighbour's yard.
The boy never had a name.
In a truly disturbing ruling, Justice Joanne Veil referred to Canada's lack of abortion laws, and decided that "while many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childrbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support."
She issued a three-year suspended sentence for infanticide. Effert will not walk entirely free, but will not do any further jail time.
Many people are outraged at this decision, and justifiably so. The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, however, have reacted to the increasing numbers of wary eyes being cast toward Canada's lack of abortion law by suggesting there are good reasons for infanticide to be considered a lesser crime than murder.
As is typical of the pro-abortion lobby, they're refusing to answer any questions about what those reasons might be.
In light of the ARCC's dedication to the law defining legal personhood in Canada -- they cite it in their talking points opposing the Unborn Victims of Crime Act -- one would suspect that the ARCC should admit that using Canada's abortion law status quo to justify this decision is deeply troubling.
Instead, they're pushing for more, and advancing an argument that recently-born children should be considered lesser persons, with lesser rights, than those not-so-recently born.
It isn't enough for them that the unborn have no rights. They now seem bound and determined to justify extending fewer rights to those who already meet the law's ill-conceived definition of legal human personhood.
The fact that the infanticide scenario only strengthens many of the arguments of the anti-abortion lobby seems entirely lost on the ARCC. Perhaps deliberately.
If the pro-abortion lobby refuses to accept adoption as an alternative to abortion, perhaps they would at least accept adoption as an alternative to murder? Frighteningly, apparently not.
There's little question that Katrina Effert was in a deeply disturbed state of mind following this childbirth, and that her actions clearly reflect that. In light of this, even if Effert doesn't belong in prison -- she likely doesn't -- she should have been remanded for the necessary psychiatric care, provided she hasn't received it already.
Using Canada's lack of an abortion law to justify treating her unnamed baby boy as less worthy of justice, however, is a decision that absolutely cannot be justified. That the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada would fail to recognize this simply reveals them for what they truly are: manical pro-abortion zealots.
For decades, it has been a staple argument of the Canadian pro-abortion lobby when resisting any idea that the unborn may have rights: the idea that unborn children are not legally considered "human beings" until they have emerged alive from the birth canal.
Now, in the horrific case of Katrina Effert, the pro-abortion lobby seems to have dispensed even with that argument.
In 2005, Effert, then aged 19, gave birth to a baby boy in the bathroom of her parents' home. She promptly strangled the child with her underwear and threw it over a fence into her neighbour's yard.
The boy never had a name.
In a truly disturbing ruling, Justice Joanne Veil referred to Canada's lack of abortion laws, and decided that "while many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childrbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support."
She issued a three-year suspended sentence for infanticide. Effert will not walk entirely free, but will not do any further jail time.
Many people are outraged at this decision, and justifiably so. The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, however, have reacted to the increasing numbers of wary eyes being cast toward Canada's lack of abortion law by suggesting there are good reasons for infanticide to be considered a lesser crime than murder.
As is typical of the pro-abortion lobby, they're refusing to answer any questions about what those reasons might be.
In light of the ARCC's dedication to the law defining legal personhood in Canada -- they cite it in their talking points opposing the Unborn Victims of Crime Act -- one would suspect that the ARCC should admit that using Canada's abortion law status quo to justify this decision is deeply troubling.
Instead, they're pushing for more, and advancing an argument that recently-born children should be considered lesser persons, with lesser rights, than those not-so-recently born.
It isn't enough for them that the unborn have no rights. They now seem bound and determined to justify extending fewer rights to those who already meet the law's ill-conceived definition of legal human personhood.
The fact that the infanticide scenario only strengthens many of the arguments of the anti-abortion lobby seems entirely lost on the ARCC. Perhaps deliberately.
If the pro-abortion lobby refuses to accept adoption as an alternative to abortion, perhaps they would at least accept adoption as an alternative to murder? Frighteningly, apparently not.
There's little question that Katrina Effert was in a deeply disturbed state of mind following this childbirth, and that her actions clearly reflect that. In light of this, even if Effert doesn't belong in prison -- she likely doesn't -- she should have been remanded for the necessary psychiatric care, provided she hasn't received it already.
Using Canada's lack of an abortion law to justify treating her unnamed baby boy as less worthy of justice, however, is a decision that absolutely cannot be justified. That the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada would fail to recognize this simply reveals them for what they truly are: manical pro-abortion zealots.
Whitewashing the Evils of the Cultural Revolution
Jason Unruhe has already demonstrated he doesn't understand the difference between "Islamicism" and "Islam". But that was just him getting warmed up. In a return engagement, Unruhe tries to whitewash the atrocities committed by Mao Tsetung during the Cultural Revolution.
He describes it as a "debate". Unbelievable.
Saskatchewan NDP Already Making Excuses For Losing
Orange getting ready to be crushed in SK
In Becoming Holyfield, multi-time World Heavyweight Champion Evander Holyfield offers an intriguing insight into the behaviours of boxers who know they cannot win a big match:
They give themselves an excuse to win.
Holyfield even attributed the infamous ear-biting incident to this particular behaviour: Mike Tyson giving himself an excuse for having lost.
With pre-election polls in Saskatchewan indicating that, barring a miracle, serious gaffe, or major political scandal, the Saskatchewan Party will win a dominating victory in the coming 2011 provincial election, the NDP is already looking for it's excuse for losing.
Regina-Dewdney MLA Kevin Yates has decided on his excuse: blame attack ads from the Saskatchewan Party undermining NDP leader Dwain Lingenfelter.
“This is how the right-wing does things," Yates complained. "I don’t think it would have mattered who the leader is, they would have gone after the leader. The tactics might have been a little different but that’s what they do."
Yates complained that the ads were unfair. He's obviously banking on voters forgetting about the deliberately deceptive attack ads the NDP has been running, featuring fabricated quotes cast ridiculously out of context. How Yates says the right-wing does things is not all that different from how the left-wing does things.
Other than Yates, other NDP candidates and activists seem to be quietly admitting defeat, and focusing on making it as small a defeat as they can.
Saskatoon-Nutana MLA Pat Atkinson will not run in the 2011 election. This grants her a great deal of freedom to speak openly about the NDP's prospects in the coming election.
“There is no question we are in a battle to maintain the seats that we have. But I think it’s important that the NDP do well enough so that the government has an Opposition that can be effective,” said Atkinson, formerly Minister of Finance. “It appears as though Brad Wall is going to be re-elected ...we usually give a government two terms. The important thing will be to have an effective Opposition.”
(Noting that Saskatchewan often gives governments at least two terms seems to smack of another excuse, even if it seems more gracious.)
“Brad Wall is a very popular guy," Atkinson conceded. "There’s no question about that. But does that mean you give him a mandate to do whatever he wants? I don’t think the public wants to do that.”
There is little question that Saskatchewan would be better off with a strong opposition than a weak one. But with the NDP pulling some boneheaded blunders and seemingly conceding the election, they'll have great difficulty electing that kind of opposition.
Brad Wall will continue to be a great Premier of Saskatchewan -- far better than Dwain Lingenfelter could hope to be -- the NDP is already doing enough to ensure that.
In Becoming Holyfield, multi-time World Heavyweight Champion Evander Holyfield offers an intriguing insight into the behaviours of boxers who know they cannot win a big match:
They give themselves an excuse to win.
Holyfield even attributed the infamous ear-biting incident to this particular behaviour: Mike Tyson giving himself an excuse for having lost.
With pre-election polls in Saskatchewan indicating that, barring a miracle, serious gaffe, or major political scandal, the Saskatchewan Party will win a dominating victory in the coming 2011 provincial election, the NDP is already looking for it's excuse for losing.
Regina-Dewdney MLA Kevin Yates has decided on his excuse: blame attack ads from the Saskatchewan Party undermining NDP leader Dwain Lingenfelter.
Yates complained that the ads were unfair. He's obviously banking on voters forgetting about the deliberately deceptive attack ads the NDP has been running, featuring fabricated quotes cast ridiculously out of context. How Yates says the right-wing does things is not all that different from how the left-wing does things.
Other than Yates, other NDP candidates and activists seem to be quietly admitting defeat, and focusing on making it as small a defeat as they can.
Saskatoon-Nutana MLA Pat Atkinson will not run in the 2011 election. This grants her a great deal of freedom to speak openly about the NDP's prospects in the coming election.
(Noting that Saskatchewan often gives governments at least two terms seems to smack of another excuse, even if it seems more gracious.)
“Brad Wall is a very popular guy," Atkinson conceded. "There’s no question about that. But does that mean you give him a mandate to do whatever he wants? I don’t think the public wants to do that.”
There is little question that Saskatchewan would be better off with a strong opposition than a weak one. But with the NDP pulling some boneheaded blunders and seemingly conceding the election, they'll have great difficulty electing that kind of opposition.
Brad Wall will continue to be a great Premier of Saskatchewan -- far better than Dwain Lingenfelter could hope to be -- the NDP is already doing enough to ensure that.
Monday, September 12, 2011
A Confusing Brand to Embrace
When going into an election, one would expect that there is an incentive for politicians to be on their best behaviour.
The Saskatchewan NDP, however, has not been on their best behaviour. They've been closer to their worst. The party got itself into hot water in July when it released a radio ad featured a heavily-edited quote. The quote was not merely heavily-edited -- the new favourite defense of the far-left when they are caught red-handed behaving poorly -- it was heavily-edited to the point of sheer dishonesty.
A comment made in response to a question about the tactics used by a public service union during a strike was presented as a comment about how Premier Brad Wall and the Saskatchewan Party feel about helping working families confront higher cost of living.
"I don't really care. We're not going to do it, and they're coming back to work."
When considers the extent of the warping and twisting of context in the presentation of this quote, there's really only one reasonable conclusion: the NDP lied. They made a decision to lie to the people of Saskatchewan, and turned out to be not all that good at it.
In response to the revelation that the NDP took Wall's comments bizarrely out of context and then altered them, the NDP is refusing to budge. They insist that the comments accurately reflect Wall's attitude toward working families.
They have nothing to support those claims, but they make them nonetheless. It's just what they do.
Now the Saskatchewan Party has released an ad highlighting the NDP's blatant attempt to deceive the people of Saskatchewan. The intent of the ad is very clear: they're seeking to brand the NDP as liars.
Bizarrely, the NDP has not only chosen to embrace that brand, they've sought to counter-brand the Saskatchewan party as childish for objecting to the NDP's lies. Naturally, they say nothing at all about their own childishness in lying in the first place.
Polling numbers indicate that the NDP is going to get creamed in the 2011 provincial election. There will be no orange crush. Instead, the orange will be crushed. Considering they have a leader who owes the people of Saskatchewan his resignation for approving this ad in the first place, they deserve much, much worse.
It's ON
CAW President sounding the alarm of a blue scare
There's a provincial election, and it's getting serious.
How do you know an election is getting serious in Canada? When union leaders start sounding the alarm and calling for strategic voting. There's a blue scare afoot, and Canadian Auto Workers President Ken Lewenza intends to make it as scary as he possibly can.
"We're asking our members to get politically involved," Lewenza announced. "Look at the campaign and ask yourself... who represents your community and your household the best. I think (people will see) the alternatives are clear. We can't waste our vote on a third party candidate that could split the vote and allow a Tory to win."
Like Buzz Hargrove before him -- Hargrove was kicked out of the NDP for encouraging strategic voting during the 2005-06 federal election -- Lewenza has chosen to back away from being an NDP stalwart, and instead encourage members of his unions to blindly vote againt Tim Hudak and the Conservative Party.
"We marched the New Democrat line," he continued. "We thought, ‘this is our party,' but today we have to be more proactive. You have to think strategically to avoid a disaster... If I had it my way, I would try and convince the New Democrats and Liberals to form an electoral coalition so they're not knocking each other off."
Apparently, the prospect of a Conservative government in Ontario is so scary that Lewenza would, if he could, beat his head against the wall trying to convince the Liberals and NDP to work together to defeat them. He chooses to ignore the correlation between banging your head against the wall and headaches by blaming his headache on the Conservatives.
The Conservatives, it seems, aren't prepared to blindly commit themselves to further economic stimulus, even in the wake of a slowly-recovering Ontario economy. Lewenza would really like it if someone would.
"Even though some would suggest Ontario has recovered on a per capita basis... the fact of the matter is that most jobs being created are part-time and precarious in nature," he declared. "Government intervention in jobs is important."
The detail that the billions of dollars already doled out by the federal and Ontario governments has led to jobs that Lewenza considers "precarious" seems to have little impact on his assessment of it. He somehow thinks more of the same would somehow turn out differently.
Perhaps there's even more to it than that. Lewenza would clearly prefer a government that would bow to the demands of unions over the demands of the rest of Ontarians.
"Even though [labour unions] represent 30 per cent of the Ontario population, we influence 100 per cent of some of the public policy issues on things like minimum wage, pensions and health care," Lewenza added. "People are going to have to be reminded that if there's an aggressive challenge against the labour movement, it normally results in more lost time off work."
Hudak, it seems, is not that leader. He's willing to consider the views of people other than labour union leaders.
"We know the history of Mr Hudak in cabinet with [former Premier Mike] Harris," Lewenza recalled. "I remember it like it was yesterday. The first act Mike Harris introduced in the legislature was to dismantle legislation to allow workers to join a union harassment-free. They disbanded the wage protection program for workers."
In fact, Hudak voted with Harris for legislation that required secret ballot votes before a workplace could unionize, stripping unions of the ability to harass and intimidate workers who voted against unionization. It's no surprise that union leadership opposed such legislation.
The election in Ontario is getting serious. For Ken Lewenza, it's as serious as a heart attack. The prospects of a Progressive Conservative government threaten to undermine the disproportionate political influence of labour unions.
It's something that Ontarians should actually welcome. But Lewenza is too busy trying to make them afraid.
There's a provincial election, and it's getting serious.
How do you know an election is getting serious in Canada? When union leaders start sounding the alarm and calling for strategic voting. There's a blue scare afoot, and Canadian Auto Workers President Ken Lewenza intends to make it as scary as he possibly can.
"We're asking our members to get politically involved," Lewenza announced. "Look at the campaign and ask yourself... who represents your community and your household the best. I think (people will see) the alternatives are clear. We can't waste our vote on a third party candidate that could split the vote and allow a Tory to win."
Like Buzz Hargrove before him -- Hargrove was kicked out of the NDP for encouraging strategic voting during the 2005-06 federal election -- Lewenza has chosen to back away from being an NDP stalwart, and instead encourage members of his unions to blindly vote againt Tim Hudak and the Conservative Party.
"We marched the New Democrat line," he continued. "We thought, ‘this is our party,' but today we have to be more proactive. You have to think strategically to avoid a disaster... If I had it my way, I would try and convince the New Democrats and Liberals to form an electoral coalition so they're not knocking each other off."
Apparently, the prospect of a Conservative government in Ontario is so scary that Lewenza would, if he could, beat his head against the wall trying to convince the Liberals and NDP to work together to defeat them. He chooses to ignore the correlation between banging your head against the wall and headaches by blaming his headache on the Conservatives.
The Conservatives, it seems, aren't prepared to blindly commit themselves to further economic stimulus, even in the wake of a slowly-recovering Ontario economy. Lewenza would really like it if someone would.
"Even though some would suggest Ontario has recovered on a per capita basis... the fact of the matter is that most jobs being created are part-time and precarious in nature," he declared. "Government intervention in jobs is important."
The detail that the billions of dollars already doled out by the federal and Ontario governments has led to jobs that Lewenza considers "precarious" seems to have little impact on his assessment of it. He somehow thinks more of the same would somehow turn out differently.
Perhaps there's even more to it than that. Lewenza would clearly prefer a government that would bow to the demands of unions over the demands of the rest of Ontarians.
"Even though [labour unions] represent 30 per cent of the Ontario population, we influence 100 per cent of some of the public policy issues on things like minimum wage, pensions and health care," Lewenza added. "People are going to have to be reminded that if there's an aggressive challenge against the labour movement, it normally results in more lost time off work."
Hudak, it seems, is not that leader. He's willing to consider the views of people other than labour union leaders.
"We know the history of Mr Hudak in cabinet with [former Premier Mike] Harris," Lewenza recalled. "I remember it like it was yesterday. The first act Mike Harris introduced in the legislature was to dismantle legislation to allow workers to join a union harassment-free. They disbanded the wage protection program for workers."
In fact, Hudak voted with Harris for legislation that required secret ballot votes before a workplace could unionize, stripping unions of the ability to harass and intimidate workers who voted against unionization. It's no surprise that union leadership opposed such legislation.
The election in Ontario is getting serious. For Ken Lewenza, it's as serious as a heart attack. The prospects of a Progressive Conservative government threaten to undermine the disproportionate political influence of labour unions.
It's something that Ontarians should actually welcome. But Lewenza is too busy trying to make them afraid.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
V for Victory, Peace Through Victory
10 years ago today, Al Qaida terrorists under the direction of Osama Bin Laden crashed two jet airliners into the World Trade Centre in New York City. They also crashed a jet airliner into the Pentagon in Washington, DC. A fourth airliner crashed into a field in Pennsylvania when passengers decided to take the plane back from the hijackers.
2,819 people were killed in the attacks. Fortunately, it was far short of the 10,000 suspected to have been killed within hours of the attacks.
The people of the United States, Canada, Britain and the civilized world were certainly afraid on the day of the attacks. But not too afraid to fight back.
Osama Bin Laden would not live to see the 10th anniversary of the attacks he directed. But he did live to see the full extent of the western victory over the fear he sought to plant in the hearts of the civilized world.
The civilized world should not be mistaken to mean only the western world. The attacks launched on the United States were meant not only to terrify citizens of the United States, but freedom-loving people around the world, including those in countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran (among others).
He did live long enough to see the civilized world fight back: in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, in Iran, in Tunisia, in Egypt, in Libya, in Syria, in South Sudan, and in countless other places around the world.
The fight for freedom certainly hasn't been definitively won anywhere. Even in places that now show so much promise, such as Egypt, there is still a chance that the forces of Islamofascism will exploit the efforts of the liberal (classical liberal, that is) activists who are throwing off the chains of oppression. There is still a chance they may simply be re-chained under someone else's brand of oppression.
It happened after the Iranian revolution, and could quite easily happen again.
But in the guise of Islamofascism -- something that should not be mistaken for Islam itself, but is rather a political perversion of Islam -- the world sees the kind of threat it has seen on occasion in the past: the kind of threat that simply must be defeated in order for peace to be possible.
It's been seen before. During the 1930s, in Germany, Adolph Hitler lead a political phenomenon so hostile to anything even resembling peace -- let alone a just peace -- that it had to be destroyed for peace to be possible.
Some, like Neville Chamberlain, attempted to placate that threat in the hopes of attaining peace. The more they attempted to appease Hitler, the more aggressive he became. Peace was only possible when Winston Churchill became Prime Minister of Britain, and stood up and declared that they would fight Hitler anywhere and everywhere they could.
In the process, he made the v-shaped finger salute -- v for victory -- truly iconic.
In the 1960s, the peace movement adopted the same gesture in order to demonstrate their devotion to peace.
Some have viewed this as a perversion of the "v for victory" gesture. They're not entirely correct.
Certainly, the peace movement can often be wrong about their pronouncements. For example, any peace activist who demands that the western world stop fighting the war on terror is not legitimately a peace activist. Their demands would result in a world in which radical Muslim terrorists would continue to attack the civilized world while the civilized world simply declines to fight back.
That is not peace.
In the case of Islamofascism, as with the case of Nazism and fascism before it, peace -- true, actual peace -- is only possible through victory.
On this, the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, we must not allow ourselves to forget the example of Winston Churchill. We must win the victory against Al Qaida and the varied forces of Islamofascism so peace can be possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)