Friday, April 30, 2004
The Jesus Factor
I railed against John Kerry and his Let's-Pretend-Catholicism-of-Convenience in an offering last week (Nancy Pelosi defends him on this today and more from the other side here). I caught a program last night that looked at President Bush's religious leanings.
PBS' "Frontline" aired a documentary called "The Jesus Factor". I have to say it was roughly even-handed and offered lots of interesting insights into the President's spirituality. If it airs where you are, I recommend it. If not, the website is has tonnes of interesting stuff.
Two things struck me hard. One, American liberal evangelicals are really creepy. It's all Chomsky, Marx, Freud and Darwin and not Matthew, Mark, Luke and John for the lefty born-agains. That said, interestingly, one of these lefty Christians, characterized Bush as someone who was transformed by 9/11 from a "Self-Help Methodist" into some kind of visionary Calvinist. I have to chew this over more, but I have heard UofT's Stephen Clarkson and other left-lib weirdos warn that Bush is the most "messianic" president in a long while, but, as this documentary made crystal clear, this "messianism" is more about America and its proper place in the world and not about Bush as a sort of wannabe messiah. It's this sense of America with a mission and purpose and not some post-modern amorphous state of convenience that really bugs the Left.
PS: Coulter? Why aren't you at your computer every Thursday morning at 12:01 AM waiting for the latest Peggy Noonan column to be posted?
I railed against John Kerry and his Let's-Pretend-Catholicism-of-Convenience in an offering last week (Nancy Pelosi defends him on this today and more from the other side here). I caught a program last night that looked at President Bush's religious leanings.
PBS' "Frontline" aired a documentary called "The Jesus Factor". I have to say it was roughly even-handed and offered lots of interesting insights into the President's spirituality. If it airs where you are, I recommend it. If not, the website is has tonnes of interesting stuff.
Two things struck me hard. One, American liberal evangelicals are really creepy. It's all Chomsky, Marx, Freud and Darwin and not Matthew, Mark, Luke and John for the lefty born-agains. That said, interestingly, one of these lefty Christians, characterized Bush as someone who was transformed by 9/11 from a "Self-Help Methodist" into some kind of visionary Calvinist. I have to chew this over more, but I have heard UofT's Stephen Clarkson and other left-lib weirdos warn that Bush is the most "messianic" president in a long while, but, as this documentary made crystal clear, this "messianism" is more about America and its proper place in the world and not about Bush as a sort of wannabe messiah. It's this sense of America with a mission and purpose and not some post-modern amorphous state of convenience that really bugs the Left.
PS: Coulter? Why aren't you at your computer every Thursday morning at 12:01 AM waiting for the latest Peggy Noonan column to be posted?
Things on my mind
1. The US has charged some soldiers with torturing Iraqi prisoners. I hope that the soldiers in question get every procedural right that the pro-Guantanamo crowd wants for people jailed there. If the soldiers are guilty of breaking the rules, they should be punished. But if anyone thinks that Iraqi prisoners were treated better when Saddam Hussein was in charge, they are sorely mistaken. And if anyone thinks that Westerners taken hostage by Moqtada al-Sadr's goons, or the old Ba'athist crew, aren't treated far, far worse (at least those who actually survive the ordeal), they are dead wrong.
2. An abomination. A Quebec man who drove drunk into a group of teenagers, killing an 18-year old, will serve less than two years in jail. This is a travesty of justice. But what was most offensive? The defence lawyer who claimed -I assume with a straight face- "[t]he sentence, I believe is a bit stiff." The blood boils.
3. John Kerry is going to pick his VP candidate earlier than usual. Note that Howard Dean didn't even make this list. Other notables left off: Sen. Hilary Clinton (D-NY), former Clinton Energy Secretary and current New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson (who also happens to be Hispanic), and my personal favourite, former Nebraska Senator, and current 9/11 commission member, Bob Kerrey. I'd love a Kerry-Kerrey ticket.
4. Another reason I love public sector unions: the union bosses in BC advised their workers -health care workers, no less- to break the law and not return to work. It's not as if they are actually needed to ensure the health of British Columbians or anything... But most egregious? From Chris Alnutt, the leader of the union: "You are to respect the protest lines until we decide that you should go back to work." I've long since dismissed the quaint idea that people have the right to sell their labour however they want; but Chris, unless you're prepared to go to jail or pay the relevant fines on behalf of 43,000 union members, I suggest you stop posturing and instead try to improve the health of your members, their families, and their neighbours by helping your members get back to work.
And finally, while I am happy that readers of RW.ca visit some of our favourite websites, why aren't you reading Ann Coulter? She is a great woman.
1. The US has charged some soldiers with torturing Iraqi prisoners. I hope that the soldiers in question get every procedural right that the pro-Guantanamo crowd wants for people jailed there. If the soldiers are guilty of breaking the rules, they should be punished. But if anyone thinks that Iraqi prisoners were treated better when Saddam Hussein was in charge, they are sorely mistaken. And if anyone thinks that Westerners taken hostage by Moqtada al-Sadr's goons, or the old Ba'athist crew, aren't treated far, far worse (at least those who actually survive the ordeal), they are dead wrong.
2. An abomination. A Quebec man who drove drunk into a group of teenagers, killing an 18-year old, will serve less than two years in jail. This is a travesty of justice. But what was most offensive? The defence lawyer who claimed -I assume with a straight face- "[t]he sentence, I believe is a bit stiff." The blood boils.
3. John Kerry is going to pick his VP candidate earlier than usual. Note that Howard Dean didn't even make this list. Other notables left off: Sen. Hilary Clinton (D-NY), former Clinton Energy Secretary and current New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson (who also happens to be Hispanic), and my personal favourite, former Nebraska Senator, and current 9/11 commission member, Bob Kerrey. I'd love a Kerry-Kerrey ticket.
4. Another reason I love public sector unions: the union bosses in BC advised their workers -health care workers, no less- to break the law and not return to work. It's not as if they are actually needed to ensure the health of British Columbians or anything... But most egregious? From Chris Alnutt, the leader of the union: "You are to respect the protest lines until we decide that you should go back to work." I've long since dismissed the quaint idea that people have the right to sell their labour however they want; but Chris, unless you're prepared to go to jail or pay the relevant fines on behalf of 43,000 union members, I suggest you stop posturing and instead try to improve the health of your members, their families, and their neighbours by helping your members get back to work.
And finally, while I am happy that readers of RW.ca visit some of our favourite websites, why aren't you reading Ann Coulter? She is a great woman.
Thursday, April 29, 2004
In Excellent Company
The fascinating web-tracking site alexa.com has gotten around to tracking rightwing.ca now that it is consistently one of the top 1 million websites worldwide.
The information gathered is telling. The most fascinating item by far is the list of sites most often visited by readers of rightwing.ca.
They fall into exactly the two categories you'd expect given the attitudes of those who write for this webpage.
First there are the sarcastic humour sites. The Onion is the web's foremost humour magazine. Fark.com caters to the angry, the witty, and hard-core geeks. (Put together, this makes up the persona of many writers here at rightwing.ca.) Also included is Maddox's "Best Page in the Universe", a vicious, hilarious diatribe against, well, everything.
Second, there are the conservative sites, and they are good ones.
Not only do we get the expected viewers of OntarioPC.com, but our readers frequent some of the best and most important conservative sites in the world. Predictably, our readers visit Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and National Review Online. More surprising, but also VERY encouraging, is the presence of one of the best free-speech groups in North America, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Also making the list was the homepage of America's top counter-protesters, the fearless Protest Warriors.
Rightwing.ca is being read by people who frequent great sites. And just as encouragingly, loyal followers of Michael Moore seem to stay away entirely.
The fascinating web-tracking site alexa.com has gotten around to tracking rightwing.ca now that it is consistently one of the top 1 million websites worldwide.
The information gathered is telling. The most fascinating item by far is the list of sites most often visited by readers of rightwing.ca.
They fall into exactly the two categories you'd expect given the attitudes of those who write for this webpage.
First there are the sarcastic humour sites. The Onion is the web's foremost humour magazine. Fark.com caters to the angry, the witty, and hard-core geeks. (Put together, this makes up the persona of many writers here at rightwing.ca.) Also included is Maddox's "Best Page in the Universe", a vicious, hilarious diatribe against, well, everything.
Second, there are the conservative sites, and they are good ones.
Not only do we get the expected viewers of OntarioPC.com, but our readers frequent some of the best and most important conservative sites in the world. Predictably, our readers visit Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and National Review Online. More surprising, but also VERY encouraging, is the presence of one of the best free-speech groups in North America, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Also making the list was the homepage of America's top counter-protesters, the fearless Protest Warriors.
Rightwing.ca is being read by people who frequent great sites. And just as encouragingly, loyal followers of Michael Moore seem to stay away entirely.
Hit your spouse. Lose your dorm room...
Last Tuesday, former Ontario Liberal Leader Lyn McLeod was quietly appointed as the inaugural Chancellor of Ontario’s new Institute of Technology. The position, which is largely ceremonial, will hopefully allow McLeod to end her working days with far more dignity than she was ever able to muster in the house or on the hustings.
But before the soft flutter of Lyn’s golden parachute stops reverberating in the ears of Ontarians, however, I think it’s important to take a stroll down memory lane.
Some might recall that shortly after the founding of the UOIT, a heated debate took place between the Ontario Government and the Council of Ontario Universities. Somewhat unexpectedly however, the debate did not centre upon the change in the government’s approach to academic programming (towards a more collegiate model based on vocational training) that the UOIT’s creation signaled. Rather, the various Principals and Presidents of the COU expressed their concern about the creation of another university that would be one more hand in the face of Queen’s Park, competing for limited university dollars.
Without so much as a word to the COU, the opposition Liberals adopted the cause as their own. They decried the UOIT as a shameless way for the Tories to win votes in the Durham region, and they rumbled about shutting it down in discussion with stakeholders outside of the legislature.
This griping reached its peak the day that then Training, Colleges, and Universities critic Marie Bountrogianni had the audacity to rise in the Ontario legislature and question the acceptability of the inaugural President of the UOIT because he did not have a PhD.
So here’s my question, applied with the same cutting logic that Marie Bountrogianni (PhD) seems to think is a fair standard:
What qualifies a person with a simple BA in Psychology from Lakehead University to be Chancellor of the UOIT?
Even more importantly... when is Liberal support for anything going to be based on something other than the opportunity for them to derive patronage appointments from it?
Last Tuesday, former Ontario Liberal Leader Lyn McLeod was quietly appointed as the inaugural Chancellor of Ontario’s new Institute of Technology. The position, which is largely ceremonial, will hopefully allow McLeod to end her working days with far more dignity than she was ever able to muster in the house or on the hustings.
But before the soft flutter of Lyn’s golden parachute stops reverberating in the ears of Ontarians, however, I think it’s important to take a stroll down memory lane.
Some might recall that shortly after the founding of the UOIT, a heated debate took place between the Ontario Government and the Council of Ontario Universities. Somewhat unexpectedly however, the debate did not centre upon the change in the government’s approach to academic programming (towards a more collegiate model based on vocational training) that the UOIT’s creation signaled. Rather, the various Principals and Presidents of the COU expressed their concern about the creation of another university that would be one more hand in the face of Queen’s Park, competing for limited university dollars.
Without so much as a word to the COU, the opposition Liberals adopted the cause as their own. They decried the UOIT as a shameless way for the Tories to win votes in the Durham region, and they rumbled about shutting it down in discussion with stakeholders outside of the legislature.
This griping reached its peak the day that then Training, Colleges, and Universities critic Marie Bountrogianni had the audacity to rise in the Ontario legislature and question the acceptability of the inaugural President of the UOIT because he did not have a PhD.
So here’s my question, applied with the same cutting logic that Marie Bountrogianni (PhD) seems to think is a fair standard:
What qualifies a person with a simple BA in Psychology from Lakehead University to be Chancellor of the UOIT?
Even more importantly... when is Liberal support for anything going to be based on something other than the opportunity for them to derive patronage appointments from it?
Cadman, Part III
OK, here's the update, if anyone cares. Chuck Cadman, MP resigned from the Conservative caucus yesterday. He's running as an independent against a nominated CPC candidate in his riding of Surrey North. John Reynolds is quoted in the Vancouver paper(s) [again, thanks to CanWest e-parsimony, I cannot give you a link, except this] saying that if Cadman wins, he will not be allowed to join the CPC caucus in the next Parliament. He's a good man, who's done good work, says Reynolds, in his capacity as chair of the BC CPC Campaign, but the CPC has a candidate and the party supports its candidates. Cadman says, see link above, he's campaigning for nomination reform. Scintillating, I know.
OK, here's the update, if anyone cares. Chuck Cadman, MP resigned from the Conservative caucus yesterday. He's running as an independent against a nominated CPC candidate in his riding of Surrey North. John Reynolds is quoted in the Vancouver paper(s) [again, thanks to CanWest e-parsimony, I cannot give you a link, except this] saying that if Cadman wins, he will not be allowed to join the CPC caucus in the next Parliament. He's a good man, who's done good work, says Reynolds, in his capacity as chair of the BC CPC Campaign, but the CPC has a candidate and the party supports its candidates. Cadman says, see link above, he's campaigning for nomination reform. Scintillating, I know.
The rationing of free speech
The Ottawa Citizen reports today that Ottawa City Council has passed a by-law that limits private citizens to posting election signs on their own property no earlier than 60 days before an election and signs must be removed no later than 48 hours after the close of the polls. (Here's a link to a news brief on the by-law, if you don't have access to the full glories of CanWest's internet offerings.)
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. This is an outrage. One councillor was clipped on the radio this morning saying the city has a duty to limit 'visual pollution' caused by election signs!
To give some context, there are lawn signs up now for candidates in the Ottawa Centre federal by-election, scheduled for November 29, 2004. Even from my biased perch, I would hardly call the election signs on private lawns "pollution".
The Ottawa Citizen reports today that Ottawa City Council has passed a by-law that limits private citizens to posting election signs on their own property no earlier than 60 days before an election and signs must be removed no later than 48 hours after the close of the polls. (Here's a link to a news brief on the by-law, if you don't have access to the full glories of CanWest's internet offerings.)
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. This is an outrage. One councillor was clipped on the radio this morning saying the city has a duty to limit 'visual pollution' caused by election signs!
To give some context, there are lawn signs up now for candidates in the Ottawa Centre federal by-election, scheduled for November 29, 2004. Even from my biased perch, I would hardly call the election signs on private lawns "pollution".
Wednesday, April 28, 2004
And in this corner...
Truth is often stranger than fiction.
Conservative members of the Ontario Legislature are calling on Deputy Speaker Bruce Crozier to resign for allegedly threatening PC MPP Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln).
According to Hudak, Crozier "was, as the expression goes, calling me out."
Good thing that metal folding chairs, bells, trashcans, and ken-do sticks are not often found in the House.
Truth is often stranger than fiction.
Conservative members of the Ontario Legislature are calling on Deputy Speaker Bruce Crozier to resign for allegedly threatening PC MPP Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln).
According to Hudak, Crozier "was, as the expression goes, calling me out."
Good thing that metal folding chairs, bells, trashcans, and ken-do sticks are not often found in the House.
More on Cadman
There's little pick up on this story so far. I can't find anything and I have some powerful tools at my use -- not even on Command News. But Cadman is running as an independent. There's a release out there somewhere from him, he's running. Remember then, you read it at rightwing.ca first.
Why? Here's a story from the BC alternative weekly, The Georgia Strait that quotes the CTF's John Williamson saying that class of 1997 MPs, including Cadman, who don't run, aren't eligible for severance, separation pay, pensions, what have you. Surely, this is does not figure in Cadman's decision?
And I repeat, how can Harper keep him in Caucus for one day, if the CPC has a nominated candidate in that riding?
There's little pick up on this story so far. I can't find anything and I have some powerful tools at my use -- not even on Command News. But Cadman is running as an independent. There's a release out there somewhere from him, he's running. Remember then, you read it at rightwing.ca first.
Why? Here's a story from the BC alternative weekly, The Georgia Strait that quotes the CTF's John Williamson saying that class of 1997 MPs, including Cadman, who don't run, aren't eligible for severance, separation pay, pensions, what have you. Surely, this is does not figure in Cadman's decision?
And I repeat, how can Harper keep him in Caucus for one day, if the CPC has a nominated candidate in that riding?
Sundries from my desktop...
I am not normally a big fan of Paul Wells, in his Macleans incarnation, but this is an interesting piece. Unlike other journos and such, it seems Wells can read French. I am not that keen on E.P. Manning to start with, but this gave me the willies.
Senator Kerry's body man in the presidential campaign is a Canadian. Check out this New York Times profile of UWO grad Marvin Nicholson, Jr. [A shorter version appeared in The Globe and Mail today.]
Looking to go back to school? I got just the place for rightwing.ca readers. Ronald Reagan University. I am putting my name on a list for a sweatshirt right now.
I am not normally a big fan of Paul Wells, in his Macleans incarnation, but this is an interesting piece. Unlike other journos and such, it seems Wells can read French. I am not that keen on E.P. Manning to start with, but this gave me the willies.
Senator Kerry's body man in the presidential campaign is a Canadian. Check out this New York Times profile of UWO grad Marvin Nicholson, Jr. [A shorter version appeared in The Globe and Mail today.]
Looking to go back to school? I got just the place for rightwing.ca readers. Ronald Reagan University. I am putting my name on a list for a sweatshirt right now.
Breaking News
Chuck Cadman, CPC MP, has announced he will run as an independent in the coming federal election. The CPC has a nominated candidate in the riding of Surrey North. How can he stay in the CPC caucus? Stay tuned.
Chuck Cadman, CPC MP, has announced he will run as an independent in the coming federal election. The CPC has a nominated candidate in the riding of Surrey North. How can he stay in the CPC caucus? Stay tuned.
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
Watch this show
Remember the Israeli counter-terrorist operation in the Jenin "refugee" camp last year? Despite Palestinian claims of an "massacre", it turned out that approximately as many Israeli soldiers died as Palestinian civilians. This experience in urban environments is something the US and allies will tap as they fumigate Iraqi cities to get rid of terrorists.
While this is unusual for rightwing.ca, below is an unedited teaser (there are some editorial comments I will refrain from making) for a show on Global Wednesday night. I encourage you all to watch it. My VCR will be set:
Jenin: Massacring Truth documents the British and European media's inaccurate reporting of events involving the Middle East conflict. Two years ago, Palestinian terrorists opened a suicide-bombing offensive against Israeli cities. Israel responded by invading the West Bank cities to root out the terrorists suspected of hiding there. The Euro-British media, with reports that reached hundreds of millions of people around the world, declared Israel was committing massacres and atrocities in Jenin.
Months later, commissions from the United Nations and Human Rights Watch cleared Israel of that charge, declaring that 26
Palestinian civilians, 23 Israeli soldiers and 23 Palestinian fighters had been killed. But for Jonathan Van Caspel, an Israeli soldier who fought in Jenin, the stain of being branded a war criminal remained.
Jenin: Massacring Truth goes into Jenin and the war with footage rarely seen in the outside world. It profiles battle and the Palestinian militants - still on the run - who fought against Jonathan and other Israeli units in Jenin. The documentary also gives Jonathan a rare chance to meet some of the journalists who falsely branded Israel's actions as war crimes.
Filmed in Israel, the West Bank, Jenin, London, Johannesburg, Washington, Boston and Toronto, Jenin: Massacring Truth includes interviews with world-renown jurist Alan Dershowitz, Palestinian Minister Saeb Erakat, and Palestinian fighters of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. It is a shocking indictment of several influential and respected media outlets' reporting on this important event in the current Middle East conflict.
Jenin: Massacring Truth is produced by Elsash Productions and directed and written by Martin Himel. A Canadian journalist, Himel has covered the Mideast for more than 20 years and has reported for Global National as well as CTV, CBC, FOX and ABC.
Jenin: Massacring Truth airs Wednesday, April 28 on the Global
Television Network as follows:
Ontario/Quebec/British Columbia - 9pm
Maritimes/Manitoba/Saskatchewan/Alberta - 8pm
Remember the Israeli counter-terrorist operation in the Jenin "refugee" camp last year? Despite Palestinian claims of an "massacre", it turned out that approximately as many Israeli soldiers died as Palestinian civilians. This experience in urban environments is something the US and allies will tap as they fumigate Iraqi cities to get rid of terrorists.
While this is unusual for rightwing.ca, below is an unedited teaser (there are some editorial comments I will refrain from making) for a show on Global Wednesday night. I encourage you all to watch it. My VCR will be set:
Jenin: Massacring Truth documents the British and European media's inaccurate reporting of events involving the Middle East conflict. Two years ago, Palestinian terrorists opened a suicide-bombing offensive against Israeli cities. Israel responded by invading the West Bank cities to root out the terrorists suspected of hiding there. The Euro-British media, with reports that reached hundreds of millions of people around the world, declared Israel was committing massacres and atrocities in Jenin.
Months later, commissions from the United Nations and Human Rights Watch cleared Israel of that charge, declaring that 26
Palestinian civilians, 23 Israeli soldiers and 23 Palestinian fighters had been killed. But for Jonathan Van Caspel, an Israeli soldier who fought in Jenin, the stain of being branded a war criminal remained.
Jenin: Massacring Truth goes into Jenin and the war with footage rarely seen in the outside world. It profiles battle and the Palestinian militants - still on the run - who fought against Jonathan and other Israeli units in Jenin. The documentary also gives Jonathan a rare chance to meet some of the journalists who falsely branded Israel's actions as war crimes.
Filmed in Israel, the West Bank, Jenin, London, Johannesburg, Washington, Boston and Toronto, Jenin: Massacring Truth includes interviews with world-renown jurist Alan Dershowitz, Palestinian Minister Saeb Erakat, and Palestinian fighters of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. It is a shocking indictment of several influential and respected media outlets' reporting on this important event in the current Middle East conflict.
Jenin: Massacring Truth is produced by Elsash Productions and directed and written by Martin Himel. A Canadian journalist, Himel has covered the Mideast for more than 20 years and has reported for Global National as well as CTV, CBC, FOX and ABC.
Jenin: Massacring Truth airs Wednesday, April 28 on the Global
Television Network as follows:
Ontario/Quebec/British Columbia - 9pm
Maritimes/Manitoba/Saskatchewan/Alberta - 8pm
Liberal Ethics: Oxymoron
Thanks for that link, PA.
I note that, for all of Gary Carr's arrogance and self-aggrandizement in that release (surprisingly, he compared neither himself nor Joe Clark to Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, Moses, Martin Luther King, etc.), he did not note one very relevant reference: Gary Carr ran for the Liberal nomination in Halton. (His website does not mention that he won, and the Liberal Party of Canada's website is surprisingly bad, though I have it on PA's authority that Mr. Carr beat out a fellow by the name of Doofus.)
As a card-carrying Liberal, can Gary Carr really be objective in assessing the merits or demerits of Joe Clark's statement, or the responses of the new Conservative Party? (Especially after Carr called the CPC "too right-wing" before it had either a leader or any policies.)
It is too bad that Gary Carr has such little respect for the media, and for Canadians. Then again, as he is a member of Paul Martin's team, that shouldn't surprise.
Thanks for that link, PA.
I note that, for all of Gary Carr's arrogance and self-aggrandizement in that release (surprisingly, he compared neither himself nor Joe Clark to Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, Moses, Martin Luther King, etc.), he did not note one very relevant reference: Gary Carr ran for the Liberal nomination in Halton. (His website does not mention that he won, and the Liberal Party of Canada's website is surprisingly bad, though I have it on PA's authority that Mr. Carr beat out a fellow by the name of Doofus.)
As a card-carrying Liberal, can Gary Carr really be objective in assessing the merits or demerits of Joe Clark's statement, or the responses of the new Conservative Party? (Especially after Carr called the CPC "too right-wing" before it had either a leader or any policies.)
It is too bad that Gary Carr has such little respect for the media, and for Canadians. Then again, as he is a member of Paul Martin's team, that shouldn't surprise.
Why wasn't this in the book?
Noted "author", Clinton defender, and Bush accuser Richard Clarke has now declared Canada a "freeloader" when it comes to security and military spending. For some reason, I think that Paul Martin's gutting of our military and security infrastructure in the early and mid- 1990s might have something to do with this, but I digress.
The really interesting part is that the Canadian government today announced $690M in "security initiatives". Surely, this is in preparation for Paul Martin's meetings with US congressional leaders on Thursday and with el Presidente George W. Bush on Friday? Now I do wonder: after 9/11, Martin imposed what became essentially a $7.7 Billion security tax; this tax, and its allotment, were criticized by uber-Auditor General Sheila Fraser recently. So where is the rest of the money? Why did Martin's own Justice Minister say that the country is only now getting a "comprehensive threat assessment plan"? And why, exactly, is it necessary to add "a cross-cultural roundtable" in with actual security measures?
ps. To my good friend Mike- welcome, but enough with la francais.
Noted "author", Clinton defender, and Bush accuser Richard Clarke has now declared Canada a "freeloader" when it comes to security and military spending. For some reason, I think that Paul Martin's gutting of our military and security infrastructure in the early and mid- 1990s might have something to do with this, but I digress.
The really interesting part is that the Canadian government today announced $690M in "security initiatives". Surely, this is in preparation for Paul Martin's meetings with US congressional leaders on Thursday and with el Presidente George W. Bush on Friday? Now I do wonder: after 9/11, Martin imposed what became essentially a $7.7 Billion security tax; this tax, and its allotment, were criticized by uber-Auditor General Sheila Fraser recently. So where is the rest of the money? Why did Martin's own Justice Minister say that the country is only now getting a "comprehensive threat assessment plan"? And why, exactly, is it necessary to add "a cross-cultural roundtable" in with actual security measures?
ps. To my good friend Mike- welcome, but enough with la francais.
A Crack Addiction to My Personal Rightness
Like the next guy, I love being right. Check out the two SES Research polls released today (look for the .pdfs on the right side of the page). I think it would be a bold stroke beyond the force of will of the current Prime Minister to face the people with these numbers. We will not see an election to the fall or even until this time next year. I am sticking with that and I will celebrate when I am right.
Don Martin's column today gets the quote I was looking for. Here Martin interviews the Rt. Hon. Charles Joseph Clark (a man who is taking up way too much pyschic space in Hartley's significant noggin): "When I teased him recently about rumours he was heading to the Senate, he [Clark] grinned: "I'm holding out for Governor General."" O, I love being right!
And, I am just watching "Politics Early Edition" on CBC-NW as I write and Don Newman asked an excellent question: Who will Jean Charest support in the coming federal election? Who indeed? Any thoughts?
Note to Mr. Daifallah: All is forgiven. O, the crack of rightness is coursing through my veins!
Like the next guy, I love being right. Check out the two SES Research polls released today (look for the .pdfs on the right side of the page). I think it would be a bold stroke beyond the force of will of the current Prime Minister to face the people with these numbers. We will not see an election to the fall or even until this time next year. I am sticking with that and I will celebrate when I am right.
Don Martin's column today gets the quote I was looking for. Here Martin interviews the Rt. Hon. Charles Joseph Clark (a man who is taking up way too much pyschic space in Hartley's significant noggin): "When I teased him recently about rumours he was heading to the Senate, he [Clark] grinned: "I'm holding out for Governor General."" O, I love being right!
And, I am just watching "Politics Early Edition" on CBC-NW as I write and Don Newman asked an excellent question: Who will Jean Charest support in the coming federal election? Who indeed? Any thoughts?
Note to Mr. Daifallah: All is forgiven. O, the crack of rightness is coursing through my veins!
It could only happen in Canada.
Pour qu'il n'y ait aucun malentendu des motifs derrière cet opinion, je veut énoncer pour mémoire que je me suis toujours considéré un Quebecker (adopté) fier et un Canadien fier... but seriously, what the hell is wrong with the team of geniuses who compiled the set list of nominations for the CBC's "Greatest Canadian" contest?!
One of two things is going on here... either this braintrust purchased "Canadian History for Dummies" and simply included every individual whose name appeared more than three times, or the CBC was so desperate not to offend any ethnic or linguistic community that they decided to include individuals whose "greatest" contribution to the history of the nation was sedition.
I mean, how else could one explain the inclusion of Rene Levesque, Elijah Harper, and Louis Riel in this list?
This contest was meant to be a cute and predictable flag-waving exercise. It was designed to amuse the general public and satiate history buffs, while giving Canadian teachers yet another well-deserved break from actually teaching Canadian students. THAT was the model prescribed by the BBC, who concluded their astoundingly popular "Greatest Briton" contest last year by naming Winston Churchill the nation's foremost citizen.
Fun? Check.
Educational? Check.
National Mythology and Identity Reinforced? Check.
And you'll notice that on the BBC's "Greatest Briton" site, there's no mention of Guy Fawkes, William Wallace, or Richard III. In fact, the BBC didn't ever bother producing a set list of nominations for the contest, counting (gasp) upon the intelligence of respondents to produce nominees.
But that's what happens when you live in a nation so afraid of its shadow that it can't even run a nationalist contest without actively mitigating any nationalist aspect of the content.
But forgetting for a moment that Burton Cummings, Celine Dion, and Dan Aykroyd are on this set list of nominations, let's deal with a guy who ISN'T on the list and should be:
How about Canadian Ambassador Ken Taylor who, under pain of death and with no concern for his own well-being, engineered the safe escape of 6 American embassay workers from Iran during the 1979 revolution? There's a true Canadian hero ladies and gentlemen, throughly worthy of a Chuck Norris movie. But, of course, Taylor can't be on the list, because his acheivement centres upon helping Americans... which, as we all know, no "Greatest Canadian" could ever do.
I can't think of a sadder commentary on the state of the collective Canadian pysche than the one revealed through the inclusion of men like Levesque on a list such as this one. It is even sadder than Canada selecting Trudeau as its "Greatest Citizen"... which we all know will eventually happen.
Pour qu'il n'y ait aucun malentendu des motifs derrière cet opinion, je veut énoncer pour mémoire que je me suis toujours considéré un Quebecker (adopté) fier et un Canadien fier... but seriously, what the hell is wrong with the team of geniuses who compiled the set list of nominations for the CBC's "Greatest Canadian" contest?!
One of two things is going on here... either this braintrust purchased "Canadian History for Dummies" and simply included every individual whose name appeared more than three times, or the CBC was so desperate not to offend any ethnic or linguistic community that they decided to include individuals whose "greatest" contribution to the history of the nation was sedition.
I mean, how else could one explain the inclusion of Rene Levesque, Elijah Harper, and Louis Riel in this list?
This contest was meant to be a cute and predictable flag-waving exercise. It was designed to amuse the general public and satiate history buffs, while giving Canadian teachers yet another well-deserved break from actually teaching Canadian students. THAT was the model prescribed by the BBC, who concluded their astoundingly popular "Greatest Briton" contest last year by naming Winston Churchill the nation's foremost citizen.
Fun? Check.
Educational? Check.
National Mythology and Identity Reinforced? Check.
And you'll notice that on the BBC's "Greatest Briton" site, there's no mention of Guy Fawkes, William Wallace, or Richard III. In fact, the BBC didn't ever bother producing a set list of nominations for the contest, counting (gasp) upon the intelligence of respondents to produce nominees.
But that's what happens when you live in a nation so afraid of its shadow that it can't even run a nationalist contest without actively mitigating any nationalist aspect of the content.
But forgetting for a moment that Burton Cummings, Celine Dion, and Dan Aykroyd are on this set list of nominations, let's deal with a guy who ISN'T on the list and should be:
How about Canadian Ambassador Ken Taylor who, under pain of death and with no concern for his own well-being, engineered the safe escape of 6 American embassay workers from Iran during the 1979 revolution? There's a true Canadian hero ladies and gentlemen, throughly worthy of a Chuck Norris movie. But, of course, Taylor can't be on the list, because his acheivement centres upon helping Americans... which, as we all know, no "Greatest Canadian" could ever do.
I can't think of a sadder commentary on the state of the collective Canadian pysche than the one revealed through the inclusion of men like Levesque on a list such as this one. It is even sadder than Canada selecting Trudeau as its "Greatest Citizen"... which we all know will eventually happen.
Monday, April 26, 2004
A site that will one day be good
Since I don't have the right to endorse external sites along the right-hand side of the page, my endorsements must be done within the oppressive framework set for me by this site's host.
In any event, this site will one day be good. If the author, one "KRad", is perchance a reader of RW.ca, I volunteer to assist his efforts to harm the career of Sen. John F. Kerry. Godspeed, KRad.
Since I don't have the right to endorse external sites along the right-hand side of the page, my endorsements must be done within the oppressive framework set for me by this site's host.
In any event, this site will one day be good. If the author, one "KRad", is perchance a reader of RW.ca, I volunteer to assist his efforts to harm the career of Sen. John F. Kerry. Godspeed, KRad.
Mr. Irrelevant
Unlike nearly all of Canada, I'm not yet done with Joe Clark:
Given a chance to clarify his egregious remarks of Sunday that reeked of jealousy and Mulroney-bashing (Joe timed his Martin endorsement to be right after a scintillating Mulroney speech endorsing Stephen Harper and the CPC in Moncton, proving that Martin-Chretien is not the only old leadership battle that is not quite done), Joe Clark today explained himself. He endorsed NDP candidate Ed Broadbent in an Ottawa-area riding.
While I don't often admit to being wrong, today I say "mea culpa", Joe- my post yesterday calling you a Liberal was clearly off. I don't know what the appropriate, non-libellous word is, but "Liberal" just ain't harsh enough.
(And for those interested in the genesis of this subject line: Every year around this time, the NFL conducts its annual draft of of-age college players. The last person chosen in the last round is given the name "Mr. Irrelevant" and is treated with a surprising amount of celebrity. It won't surprise readers to know that few "winners" of this title go on to survive training camp, let alone to promising NFL careers. Much like other Messrs. Irrelevant, Joe Clark's career is just about over...and I doubt he'll get any product endorsements on the way out.)
Unlike nearly all of Canada, I'm not yet done with Joe Clark:
Given a chance to clarify his egregious remarks of Sunday that reeked of jealousy and Mulroney-bashing (Joe timed his Martin endorsement to be right after a scintillating Mulroney speech endorsing Stephen Harper and the CPC in Moncton, proving that Martin-Chretien is not the only old leadership battle that is not quite done), Joe Clark today explained himself. He endorsed NDP candidate Ed Broadbent in an Ottawa-area riding.
While I don't often admit to being wrong, today I say "mea culpa", Joe- my post yesterday calling you a Liberal was clearly off. I don't know what the appropriate, non-libellous word is, but "Liberal" just ain't harsh enough.
(And for those interested in the genesis of this subject line: Every year around this time, the NFL conducts its annual draft of of-age college players. The last person chosen in the last round is given the name "Mr. Irrelevant" and is treated with a surprising amount of celebrity. It won't surprise readers to know that few "winners" of this title go on to survive training camp, let alone to promising NFL careers. Much like other Messrs. Irrelevant, Joe Clark's career is just about over...and I doubt he'll get any product endorsements on the way out.)
Three Things...
1.Welcome Mike. We need more voices of sanity, common sense and principled conservatism. We need a few geezers like me, but young guys like you are needed, too.
2. You’re partially wrong about Joe Clark. It’s not the Senate of Canada he’s angling for. I don’t believe he’s actually angling for an appointment. That said, he will get one – Governor General of Canada. Madam Clarkson’s time is up this year. Although it would not be strange for Mr. Martin to re-appoint her this summer (since we won’t have an election until the fall), the Right Hon. Joe Clark would be a prime candidate for Rideau Hall. Think about it. Tonnes of advantages for Martin and Clark.
3.You know who’s bugging me? Adam Daifallah. First, he gets the story of unhorsed BQ MP Jocelyn Girald-Bujold all wrong. Second, he saw it on "The Shotgun", not here -- even though it was here a full day before any one else in English Canada saw it, but that's fine. Third, he corrected the story on his own blog after yours truly corrected him, acknowledging rightwing.ca in the comments section of his page but complaining that we don't update this site frequently enough (noted by guys with day jobs who aren't full-time CanWest-paid content providers). Fourth, he posted the corrected story, again acknowledging "The Shotgun" sourcing with no mention of rightwing.ca. I am not all that saavy with the etiquette of the Blogosphere, but I feel aggrieved. I AM A VICTIM! Oh, that feels good. Now back to work...
1.Welcome Mike. We need more voices of sanity, common sense and principled conservatism. We need a few geezers like me, but young guys like you are needed, too.
2. You’re partially wrong about Joe Clark. It’s not the Senate of Canada he’s angling for. I don’t believe he’s actually angling for an appointment. That said, he will get one – Governor General of Canada. Madam Clarkson’s time is up this year. Although it would not be strange for Mr. Martin to re-appoint her this summer (since we won’t have an election until the fall), the Right Hon. Joe Clark would be a prime candidate for Rideau Hall. Think about it. Tonnes of advantages for Martin and Clark.
3.You know who’s bugging me? Adam Daifallah. First, he gets the story of unhorsed BQ MP Jocelyn Girald-Bujold all wrong. Second, he saw it on "The Shotgun", not here -- even though it was here a full day before any one else in English Canada saw it, but that's fine. Third, he corrected the story on his own blog after yours truly corrected him, acknowledging rightwing.ca in the comments section of his page but complaining that we don't update this site frequently enough (noted by guys with day jobs who aren't full-time CanWest-paid content providers). Fourth, he posted the corrected story, again acknowledging "The Shotgun" sourcing with no mention of rightwing.ca. I am not all that saavy with the etiquette of the Blogosphere, but I feel aggrieved. I AM A VICTIM! Oh, that feels good. Now back to work...
Worst. Endorsement. EVER.
Joe Clark can't even sell-out with screwing everything up.
Hello everyone. Long-time reader, first-time writer.
My good friend Hartley (who has long suffered with me in the ranks of the Federal Progressive Conservative Party) has already touched on many of the salient points that prove Joseph Clark to be an utter and complete failure when it comes to anything political and... well, ANYTHING really. So I won't bother rehashing why Clark's recent public statements reveal him to be a jealous and bitter megalomaniac with Mulroney envy.
But for God's sake Joe...
Can't you even stab your own friends in the back without making a complete and utter mess of it?
I'll admit it Joe. I was confused the first six or seven times I read the transcript of your interview.
I honestly couldn't decide whether you meant to make an endorsement, strike a blow for independent MPs, or just generally sound incoherent and pompous.
Let me see if I've got the gist of your logic straight:
1. You don't think the Liberals merit the continued faith of Canadians.
2. But, you have "concerns" about Harper becoming Prime Minister.
3. Thus, you prefer "the devil that you know" to Mr. Harper.
4. And therefore, you're working for the Conservative candidate in your riding?!
C'est un peu bizzare ca, n'est pas mon ami?
Then I realized that this was simply more of the same weak, vacillating, straddle-the-fence, jowl-shaking nonsense that you've been foisting off on the Canadian public for the entirety of the circus of hypocrisy that has been your political career. Suddenly Joe, it all made such perfect sense.
You're going to love the Senate Joe... it's down the long hallway and on the left.
I'd offer you directions back to reality and political relevance... but I think I speak for all Canadians when I say that we'd rather deal with the devils that we don't know rather than the hypocritical SOB we've come to know far too well.
Joe Clark can't even sell-out with screwing everything up.
Hello everyone. Long-time reader, first-time writer.
My good friend Hartley (who has long suffered with me in the ranks of the Federal Progressive Conservative Party) has already touched on many of the salient points that prove Joseph Clark to be an utter and complete failure when it comes to anything political and... well, ANYTHING really. So I won't bother rehashing why Clark's recent public statements reveal him to be a jealous and bitter megalomaniac with Mulroney envy.
But for God's sake Joe...
Can't you even stab your own friends in the back without making a complete and utter mess of it?
I'll admit it Joe. I was confused the first six or seven times I read the transcript of your interview.
I honestly couldn't decide whether you meant to make an endorsement, strike a blow for independent MPs, or just generally sound incoherent and pompous.
Let me see if I've got the gist of your logic straight:
1. You don't think the Liberals merit the continued faith of Canadians.
2. But, you have "concerns" about Harper becoming Prime Minister.
3. Thus, you prefer "the devil that you know" to Mr. Harper.
4. And therefore, you're working for the Conservative candidate in your riding?!
C'est un peu bizzare ca, n'est pas mon ami?
Then I realized that this was simply more of the same weak, vacillating, straddle-the-fence, jowl-shaking nonsense that you've been foisting off on the Canadian public for the entirety of the circus of hypocrisy that has been your political career. Suddenly Joe, it all made such perfect sense.
You're going to love the Senate Joe... it's down the long hallway and on the left.
I'd offer you directions back to reality and political relevance... but I think I speak for all Canadians when I say that we'd rather deal with the devils that we don't know rather than the hypocritical SOB we've come to know far too well.
Harper, the Trimmer?
I love www.m-w.com. Here's a lift from their succinct definition of a "trimmer": "a person who modifies a policy, position, or opinion especially out of expediency". (In case you thought I was talking about the Mayor of Scarborough in the early 1990s.)
Here's my summary of Stephen Harper on CTV's Question Period yesterday: we like the US, we want to be perceived in Washington as supporting the regime change in Iraq, but I have read the polling numbers and I say I am not for antagonizing the US, but as Prime Minister, I would not send troops or any actual support to the coalition forces in Iraq. It's this trimming? Too much prudence? I thought he was for a more principled Canadian presence on the world stage? Sounds muddy to me.
I love www.m-w.com. Here's a lift from their succinct definition of a "trimmer": "a person who modifies a policy, position, or opinion especially out of expediency". (In case you thought I was talking about the Mayor of Scarborough in the early 1990s.)
Here's my summary of Stephen Harper on CTV's Question Period yesterday: we like the US, we want to be perceived in Washington as supporting the regime change in Iraq, but I have read the polling numbers and I say I am not for antagonizing the US, but as Prime Minister, I would not send troops or any actual support to the coalition forces in Iraq. It's this trimming? Too much prudence? I thought he was for a more principled Canadian presence on the world stage? Sounds muddy to me.
Sunday, April 25, 2004
Joe Clark: Liberal
At precisely the moment when Canadians were again asking themselves "Joe who?", Joe Clark - a man famous for...um...surely something - endorsed Paul Martin for Prime Minister.
Let us recap history: Joe Clark is elected to a minority government. He decides to govern as if he has a majority, forgets how to count, and loses a confidence motion. (For trivia buffs, that motion was brought by then-MP and future Ontario Premier Bob Rae) Clark loses the subsequent election, he gets about a 67% approval rate at a leadership review, and decides to hold a leadership contest, which he promptly loses to Brian Mulroney. Mulroney is elected Prime Minister twice, and Clark serves as his Minister of External Affairs and Minister of Constitutional Affairs, negotiating the Charlottetown Accord that was rejected by just about all of Canada. Before the Kim Campbell trouncing, Clark leaves politics. Clark returns in the late 1990s, as Jean Charest leaves the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada to be the leader of the Quebec Liberal Party. Clark criticizes David Orchard as a "tourist" in the PC party before welcoming Orchard's ilk. Clark contests the 2000 federal election, winning praise for not being Kim Campbell, yet "leads" PC candidates to their lowest vote percentage ever. Within a few years - after taking a salary subsidy from a horribly-indebted PC Party - Clark notices that he cannot move the PC numbers and quits. His successor, Peter Mackay, actually manages to work to unite the right. In the leadership election for the new Conservative Party of Canada, Stephen Harper is elected leader.
The problem, of course is that Joe Clark was never "right" (in the political sense; whether he has ever been correct is a whole other issue), and I am not convinced he was ever conservative. It is clear that Joe Clark has finally revealed his true stripes, the same stripes shared by John Herron and Scott Brison, among others- Joe Clark would rather elect Liberals than conservatives.
Thank you, Joe, for proving what thousands of us have been saying for years. And, to paraphrase something you told a friend of mine when he decided to leave your PC party some years ago: Mr. Clark, your departure from the Conservative Party is utterly insignificant.
At precisely the moment when Canadians were again asking themselves "Joe who?", Joe Clark - a man famous for...um...surely something - endorsed Paul Martin for Prime Minister.
Let us recap history: Joe Clark is elected to a minority government. He decides to govern as if he has a majority, forgets how to count, and loses a confidence motion. (For trivia buffs, that motion was brought by then-MP and future Ontario Premier Bob Rae) Clark loses the subsequent election, he gets about a 67% approval rate at a leadership review, and decides to hold a leadership contest, which he promptly loses to Brian Mulroney. Mulroney is elected Prime Minister twice, and Clark serves as his Minister of External Affairs and Minister of Constitutional Affairs, negotiating the Charlottetown Accord that was rejected by just about all of Canada. Before the Kim Campbell trouncing, Clark leaves politics. Clark returns in the late 1990s, as Jean Charest leaves the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada to be the leader of the Quebec Liberal Party. Clark criticizes David Orchard as a "tourist" in the PC party before welcoming Orchard's ilk. Clark contests the 2000 federal election, winning praise for not being Kim Campbell, yet "leads" PC candidates to their lowest vote percentage ever. Within a few years - after taking a salary subsidy from a horribly-indebted PC Party - Clark notices that he cannot move the PC numbers and quits. His successor, Peter Mackay, actually manages to work to unite the right. In the leadership election for the new Conservative Party of Canada, Stephen Harper is elected leader.
The problem, of course is that Joe Clark was never "right" (in the political sense; whether he has ever been correct is a whole other issue), and I am not convinced he was ever conservative. It is clear that Joe Clark has finally revealed his true stripes, the same stripes shared by John Herron and Scott Brison, among others- Joe Clark would rather elect Liberals than conservatives.
Thank you, Joe, for proving what thousands of us have been saying for years. And, to paraphrase something you told a friend of mine when he decided to leave your PC party some years ago: Mr. Clark, your departure from the Conservative Party is utterly insignificant.
Friday, April 23, 2004
Catholic of Convenience: John Kerry
When do pronouncements of the Holy See's Congregation for Divine Worship
and the Discipline of the Sacrament become part of the news of a presidential campaign? Today. Cardinal Francis Arinze, prefect of the Congregation issued this instruction recently and held a news conference in Rome today to spread the message. In the newser, the Cardinal was asked about unambigiously pro-abortion politicians and he explained that, properly, they should be denied communion. Reuters and the Associated Press pick up on this point, as it is a fight John Kerry reputedly has been spoiling to have with his Church. MSNBC quotes his spokesman saying a President Kerry would ignore his Church, ignore its teachings and do whatever if elected to the White House. Don't count on his religion or "faith" being a guide to anything he does. Then what anchors this man? You know he believes in something. At Easter, he made a point of going to Mass and telling reporters about it. He met with Cardinal Theodore McCarrick and his staff said it was private matter between a man and "a member of HIS clergy." Look, which is it? Catholic or not? Follow the rules or don't. It's simple. It's sad. And it's why millions of Catholics will vote for the Methodist/Anglican Texan in November. Pace Michael Novak.
When do pronouncements of the Holy See's Congregation for Divine Worship
and the Discipline of the Sacrament become part of the news of a presidential campaign? Today. Cardinal Francis Arinze, prefect of the Congregation issued this instruction recently and held a news conference in Rome today to spread the message. In the newser, the Cardinal was asked about unambigiously pro-abortion politicians and he explained that, properly, they should be denied communion. Reuters and the Associated Press pick up on this point, as it is a fight John Kerry reputedly has been spoiling to have with his Church. MSNBC quotes his spokesman saying a President Kerry would ignore his Church, ignore its teachings and do whatever if elected to the White House. Don't count on his religion or "faith" being a guide to anything he does. Then what anchors this man? You know he believes in something. At Easter, he made a point of going to Mass and telling reporters about it. He met with Cardinal Theodore McCarrick and his staff said it was private matter between a man and "a member of HIS clergy." Look, which is it? Catholic or not? Follow the rules or don't. It's simple. It's sad. And it's why millions of Catholics will vote for the Methodist/Anglican Texan in November. Pace Michael Novak.
Silencing the truth
Earlier today, two trains collided in North Korea, each carrying explosive fuel which, unsurprisingly, exploded, and it is believed that thousands are dead.
North Korea's first reaction: cut the phone lines to the area.
This tragedy may have been avoidable; what is nearly certain is that more people than necessary will die and injuries will be more serious than they ought to be, simply because the North Korean government values its reputation above the truth, and values information filtering above the lives of its people.
This, of course, calls to mind the Soviet Union's denial of any "incident" at Chernobyl in the 1980s, and China's denial of SARS about a year ago.
And still, "progressives" the world over deny the threat posed by communism and totalitarianism to local populations and to the rest of the world. North Korea isn't just a threat in a James Bond movie (admittedly, a pretty good one); the "People's Republic" has threatened to set American cities on fire (given the quality of communist goods, Canadian and Mexican cities have reason to be worried) and, of course, has a nuclear program, albeit one that is likely fledgling.
How many have to die?
Earlier today, two trains collided in North Korea, each carrying explosive fuel which, unsurprisingly, exploded, and it is believed that thousands are dead.
North Korea's first reaction: cut the phone lines to the area.
This tragedy may have been avoidable; what is nearly certain is that more people than necessary will die and injuries will be more serious than they ought to be, simply because the North Korean government values its reputation above the truth, and values information filtering above the lives of its people.
This, of course, calls to mind the Soviet Union's denial of any "incident" at Chernobyl in the 1980s, and China's denial of SARS about a year ago.
And still, "progressives" the world over deny the threat posed by communism and totalitarianism to local populations and to the rest of the world. North Korea isn't just a threat in a James Bond movie (admittedly, a pretty good one); the "People's Republic" has threatened to set American cities on fire (given the quality of communist goods, Canadian and Mexican cities have reason to be worried) and, of course, has a nuclear program, albeit one that is likely fledgling.
How many have to die?
Thursday, April 22, 2004
How do say, "Weirdness" in French?
This is a strange, obscure story brought to my attention today. I wrote before about BQ MP Jocelyne Girard-Bujold being unhorsed in nomination. No big deal right? Well, weirdness has ensued. A story in "Le Quotidien", a East Quebec daily that serves the Saguenauy-Lac-St-Jean area reports that the Conservative Party of Canada, in the persons of Philip Murphy, chief of staff to Mr. Harper and CPC Eastern Quebec organizer Michel Rivard, approach Madam Girard-Bujold about running for the CPC and then sort of disappeared. She's quoted in a story today -- there's no link I can provide -- saying she's running as an independent, she wants to run for the BQ or independently, but the Conservative Party sought her out and now, like a teenage lover, is refusing to call her and pretending they don't know who she is. Only in Quebec, you say? Pity.
This is a strange, obscure story brought to my attention today. I wrote before about BQ MP Jocelyne Girard-Bujold being unhorsed in nomination. No big deal right? Well, weirdness has ensued. A story in "Le Quotidien", a East Quebec daily that serves the Saguenauy-Lac-St-Jean area reports that the Conservative Party of Canada, in the persons of Philip Murphy, chief of staff to Mr. Harper and CPC Eastern Quebec organizer Michel Rivard, approach Madam Girard-Bujold about running for the CPC and then sort of disappeared. She's quoted in a story today -- there's no link I can provide -- saying she's running as an independent, she wants to run for the BQ or independently, but the Conservative Party sought her out and now, like a teenage lover, is refusing to call her and pretending they don't know who she is. Only in Quebec, you say? Pity.
The Liberal approach to policing
Paul Martin's Quebec lieutenant wants criminal charges laid in response to the sponsorship scandal. So do I, and so do millions of Canadians, once evidence is found that people acted in a criminal manner.
But here is the different between Martin's buddy Jean Lapierre and the rest of non-Liberal Canada: while Lapierre seems to want charges laid to "blunt the anger of Quebec voters" just before an election, the rest of us wants charges laid because people may have stolen up to $100 million from us. Rather than politicizing the police, Lapierre and Martin would do well to remember that Canadians already don't trust the Liberal approach to public safety. (And, of course, let us remember that the RCMP was one of the Crown corporations used to filter money from the government through to Liberal-connected agencies.)
Bonus: through an editing error, the CBC posted my two favourite paragraphs of the day over and over again in this article. No doubt they will change it eventually, but until then, enjoy!
Paul Martin's Quebec lieutenant wants criminal charges laid in response to the sponsorship scandal. So do I, and so do millions of Canadians, once evidence is found that people acted in a criminal manner.
But here is the different between Martin's buddy Jean Lapierre and the rest of non-Liberal Canada: while Lapierre seems to want charges laid to "blunt the anger of Quebec voters" just before an election, the rest of us wants charges laid because people may have stolen up to $100 million from us. Rather than politicizing the police, Lapierre and Martin would do well to remember that Canadians already don't trust the Liberal approach to public safety. (And, of course, let us remember that the RCMP was one of the Crown corporations used to filter money from the government through to Liberal-connected agencies.)
Bonus: through an editing error, the CBC posted my two favourite paragraphs of the day over and over again in this article. No doubt they will change it eventually, but until then, enjoy!
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
Monday, April 19, 2004
The fruits of Harris
No, it's not the Belinda campaign that I refer to. But rather Toronto Star columnist Ian Urquhart's column that tweaked me to this interesting report commissioned by the Government of Ontario. As Urquhart reports, in the dying days of the Harris government, January 2002, Ontario commissioned Hartley's boss, UofT Law Dean Ron Daniels to lead a commission on the future role of government. Two-plus years later, the commission reported last week. A couple of things, it's an interesting report that asks for bigger government -- only $2.7B to implement the recommendations in the report. It speaks only of government, really, doing more not less. The one area, in my quick review, it wanted Ontario to scale back was in deregulating tuition. Okay, fine, but is that the only business Ontario can get out of? It calls for something like a renewed Red Tape Reduction Commission -- which the Ont. Grits scrapped on October 3rd. From a pure wonk perspective, it has other meaty bits. I am still working through it, but I draw it to your attention as rightwing.ca's contributors and readers are all about ideas.
No, it's not the Belinda campaign that I refer to. But rather Toronto Star columnist Ian Urquhart's column that tweaked me to this interesting report commissioned by the Government of Ontario. As Urquhart reports, in the dying days of the Harris government, January 2002, Ontario commissioned Hartley's boss, UofT Law Dean Ron Daniels to lead a commission on the future role of government. Two-plus years later, the commission reported last week. A couple of things, it's an interesting report that asks for bigger government -- only $2.7B to implement the recommendations in the report. It speaks only of government, really, doing more not less. The one area, in my quick review, it wanted Ontario to scale back was in deregulating tuition. Okay, fine, but is that the only business Ontario can get out of? It calls for something like a renewed Red Tape Reduction Commission -- which the Ont. Grits scrapped on October 3rd. From a pure wonk perspective, it has other meaty bits. I am still working through it, but I draw it to your attention as rightwing.ca's contributors and readers are all about ideas.
Zapaterrorism
While I deplore broken election promises, every so often there is one so egregious that I really hope that it will be broken, only because keeping that promise would be so bad for the electorate, if not the world.
Enter newly-sworn in Spanish Prime Minister Luis Rodriguez Zapatero. The Socialist PM was sworn in Saturday. Naturally, among his first acts was a declaration that Spanish troops currently helping stabilize Iraq would be brought home in "as short a time as possible."
After the train bombings in Madrid March 11, I would have hoped that even Zapatero's Socialists would have the guts to stand strong against al Qaeda's terror. Sadly, I was wrong.
Zapatero's decision is bad for Iraqis, bad for the other 30-odd countries helping Iraq, and bad for any other democracy in the world that al Qaeda believes it can influence by bullet if not by ballot. Oh, and Luis? In case you were wondering, al Qaeda's still pretty pissed about the Spanish Inquisition and wants Spain back. 500-year old grudges die pretty hard. Just a heads-up.
While I deplore broken election promises, every so often there is one so egregious that I really hope that it will be broken, only because keeping that promise would be so bad for the electorate, if not the world.
Enter newly-sworn in Spanish Prime Minister Luis Rodriguez Zapatero. The Socialist PM was sworn in Saturday. Naturally, among his first acts was a declaration that Spanish troops currently helping stabilize Iraq would be brought home in "as short a time as possible."
After the train bombings in Madrid March 11, I would have hoped that even Zapatero's Socialists would have the guts to stand strong against al Qaeda's terror. Sadly, I was wrong.
Zapatero's decision is bad for Iraqis, bad for the other 30-odd countries helping Iraq, and bad for any other democracy in the world that al Qaeda believes it can influence by bullet if not by ballot. Oh, and Luis? In case you were wondering, al Qaeda's still pretty pissed about the Spanish Inquisition and wants Spain back. 500-year old grudges die pretty hard. Just a heads-up.
Saturday, April 17, 2004
Classless in Calgary
When will professional sports franchises learn?
DO NOT SEND AMATEURS OUT TO SING THE NATIONAL ANTHEM.
It's not funny. It's not cool and edgy. It's not a good way to connect with the average fan. It's sickening and embarrassing. And, believe it or not, it can hurt your team.
Tonight, the Calgary Flames organization managed to suck the life out of the building by sending a out a fat woman who urged fans to join her in singing the national anthem "for the best city in Canada." Totally classless, but the worst was yet to come. The woman in the flames jersey proceeded to howl such a terrible version of our national anthem that fans were too embarrassed to get fired up about it. The building went from pure energy to awkward whispers in a split second. Some fans booed, others just watched with pained expressions. The cheer at the end, normally the loudest moment before the game begins, was muted at best.
Could that affect Calgary's play? Who knows, probably not. But a loud crown is better than a quiet one...and home ice energy is one of those intangibles that can make the difference in the early going of a game.
Real singers are introduced, they belt out the anthem, and they walk away. Some, like Ottawa's excellent Lyndon Slewidge, make a gesture of support for the home team (Slewidge waves a Sens towel at the end of O Canada.) They don't pull stunts, and they don't butcher the anthem.
The Flames organization doesn't deserve another home game. Go Canucks.
When will professional sports franchises learn?
DO NOT SEND AMATEURS OUT TO SING THE NATIONAL ANTHEM.
It's not funny. It's not cool and edgy. It's not a good way to connect with the average fan. It's sickening and embarrassing. And, believe it or not, it can hurt your team.
Tonight, the Calgary Flames organization managed to suck the life out of the building by sending a out a fat woman who urged fans to join her in singing the national anthem "for the best city in Canada." Totally classless, but the worst was yet to come. The woman in the flames jersey proceeded to howl such a terrible version of our national anthem that fans were too embarrassed to get fired up about it. The building went from pure energy to awkward whispers in a split second. Some fans booed, others just watched with pained expressions. The cheer at the end, normally the loudest moment before the game begins, was muted at best.
Could that affect Calgary's play? Who knows, probably not. But a loud crown is better than a quiet one...and home ice energy is one of those intangibles that can make the difference in the early going of a game.
Real singers are introduced, they belt out the anthem, and they walk away. Some, like Ottawa's excellent Lyndon Slewidge, make a gesture of support for the home team (Slewidge waves a Sens towel at the end of O Canada.) They don't pull stunts, and they don't butcher the anthem.
The Flames organization doesn't deserve another home game. Go Canucks.
Another terrorist down...
...too many left to go.
This morning, the leader of Israel's own al-Qaeda, Abdel Aziz Rantisi, was killed . Not surprisingly, there does not appear to be a rush of people for the job of chief terrorist/bullseye target.
Most egregious, but unsurprising, is this CBC outline of who exactly Hamas is. Hamas' roots, as the outline implies goes back before 1988's violent terrorist "intefadah". More importantly, the precursor of Hamas as a tool to "promote the Palestinian cause" dates back to two decades before Israel's founding! And far from being a body in conflict with Yasser Arafat's terrorist Palestinian Authority, Hamas has been brought into the "government"; Arafat's own Prime Minister visited Hamas after Israel killed Ahmed Yassin, the Hamas founder and then-leader, and declared Yassin a voice of "moderation" within Hamas.
Most troubling of this bio- NOWHERE does it mention the hundreds of Israeli lives lost to Hamas homicide bombings, the Israelis wounded in those bombings, or the number of attempted Hamas activities stopped only by the brave Israelis (Jewish, Arab, and Christian) working for the Israeli Defence Forces or who are just very observant citizens. The best the CBC does is the understatement of the year: "While Hamas is known primarily for its terrorist activity...", and then goes on to praise Hamas for its operation of "mosques, schools, clinics, and a number of social programs." Wonderful. Seems to me that same resume won Yasser Arafat a Nobel Prize.
And to Gord- thank you for that laugh. No one questions whether stealing a ring was bad. (Incidentally I am told that the ring was up for public auction, which suggests that Svend Robinson was, of course, stealing from all of us.) I give him credit only for standing up and accepting blame for his own actions. I cry no tears for him, only say that he did the right thing after years and years of doing the wrong thing...including stealing a ring. Gord and I agree that Svend should be held to the same standard as every person in Canada. If the police decide to file charges, he should be punished appropriately. The real irony is that others have set the bar so low that doing what should be expected (ie. confessing) after breaking the law is seen as an exception. If that makes me a communist, then so be it. Cuba is nice this time of year. Viva la revolucion.
...too many left to go.
This morning, the leader of Israel's own al-Qaeda, Abdel Aziz Rantisi, was killed . Not surprisingly, there does not appear to be a rush of people for the job of chief terrorist/bullseye target.
Most egregious, but unsurprising, is this CBC outline of who exactly Hamas is. Hamas' roots, as the outline implies goes back before 1988's violent terrorist "intefadah". More importantly, the precursor of Hamas as a tool to "promote the Palestinian cause" dates back to two decades before Israel's founding! And far from being a body in conflict with Yasser Arafat's terrorist Palestinian Authority, Hamas has been brought into the "government"; Arafat's own Prime Minister visited Hamas after Israel killed Ahmed Yassin, the Hamas founder and then-leader, and declared Yassin a voice of "moderation" within Hamas.
Most troubling of this bio- NOWHERE does it mention the hundreds of Israeli lives lost to Hamas homicide bombings, the Israelis wounded in those bombings, or the number of attempted Hamas activities stopped only by the brave Israelis (Jewish, Arab, and Christian) working for the Israeli Defence Forces or who are just very observant citizens. The best the CBC does is the understatement of the year: "While Hamas is known primarily for its terrorist activity...", and then goes on to praise Hamas for its operation of "mosques, schools, clinics, and a number of social programs." Wonderful. Seems to me that same resume won Yasser Arafat a Nobel Prize.
And to Gord- thank you for that laugh. No one questions whether stealing a ring was bad. (Incidentally I am told that the ring was up for public auction, which suggests that Svend Robinson was, of course, stealing from all of us.) I give him credit only for standing up and accepting blame for his own actions. I cry no tears for him, only say that he did the right thing after years and years of doing the wrong thing...including stealing a ring. Gord and I agree that Svend should be held to the same standard as every person in Canada. If the police decide to file charges, he should be punished appropriately. The real irony is that others have set the bar so low that doing what should be expected (ie. confessing) after breaking the law is seen as an exception. If that makes me a communist, then so be it. Cuba is nice this time of year. Viva la revolucion.
Hartley is a Communist
I have to take issue with the most recent post of my good friend, Hartley.
Hartley, you are a communist.
Yes, Svend admitted to doing a bad thing. Great. Let's all have a group hug at what great people we are that we praise people who admit they've done something wrong. I'm sure this is great comfort to people who are serving jail time for theft and pleaded guilty, admitting they "did a bad thing." What Svend did was break the law. Not some wishy-washy let-the-courts-decide-if-this-is-illegal type law, but actually one of the most universally accepted and understood laws in our criminal justice system.
He is not hiding behind his staff, this is true. Instead he's hiding behind a "near-fatal hiking accident" that happened not last week, not last month, but SIX YEARS AGO. He's hiding behind a wall of "acceptance" that is built by people like Libby Davies, Jack Layton, Paul Martin, and Hartley. Are we supposed to feel bad for Svend because he's crying on national television about being a criminal? Is this the "high standard we should expect for people who hold positions of power"? For Pete's sake, since when did this "high standard" assume that everyone's a criminal and kudos to those who admit to it?
Svend Robinson didn't do "the right thing". He broke the law. I think we can all agree that this is, in fact, the WRONG thing. Despite of taking responsibility and "facing the consequences" as he claims, he's hired Clayton Ruby, the F. Lee Bailey of the Canadian legal system. Does this sound like a guy who wants to face the consequences?
We should hold our MPs to the same standard that we hold every Canadian citizen: Don't break the law. If you break the law, cry all you want about it, but pack your bags because you're going to the big house.
For further reading on why nobody should shed a tear for Svend, I suggest reading Peter Worthington's article in the Toronto Sun. You can find it here.
I have to take issue with the most recent post of my good friend, Hartley.
Hartley, you are a communist.
Yes, Svend admitted to doing a bad thing. Great. Let's all have a group hug at what great people we are that we praise people who admit they've done something wrong. I'm sure this is great comfort to people who are serving jail time for theft and pleaded guilty, admitting they "did a bad thing." What Svend did was break the law. Not some wishy-washy let-the-courts-decide-if-this-is-illegal type law, but actually one of the most universally accepted and understood laws in our criminal justice system.
He is not hiding behind his staff, this is true. Instead he's hiding behind a "near-fatal hiking accident" that happened not last week, not last month, but SIX YEARS AGO. He's hiding behind a wall of "acceptance" that is built by people like Libby Davies, Jack Layton, Paul Martin, and Hartley. Are we supposed to feel bad for Svend because he's crying on national television about being a criminal? Is this the "high standard we should expect for people who hold positions of power"? For Pete's sake, since when did this "high standard" assume that everyone's a criminal and kudos to those who admit to it?
Svend Robinson didn't do "the right thing". He broke the law. I think we can all agree that this is, in fact, the WRONG thing. Despite of taking responsibility and "facing the consequences" as he claims, he's hired Clayton Ruby, the F. Lee Bailey of the Canadian legal system. Does this sound like a guy who wants to face the consequences?
We should hold our MPs to the same standard that we hold every Canadian citizen: Don't break the law. If you break the law, cry all you want about it, but pack your bags because you're going to the big house.
For further reading on why nobody should shed a tear for Svend, I suggest reading Peter Worthington's article in the Toronto Sun. You can find it here.
Friday, April 16, 2004
I don't believe I'm doing this...
I come to praise Svend Robinson.
For basically his entire political career (which happens to be equivalent to almost my entire life), Svend Robinson has opposed things in which I believe; the post below outlines some of them.
But now, I must give him credit: he did the right thing.
Svend Robinson admitted to doing a bad thing. But he returned the stolen item, confessed to the police, and then took the difficult step of confessing to the world. If he had hidden behind his staff, refused to take questions, or engaged in counter-attacks, we would all have been calling on him to be straight with us. Lord knows we ask that of the Liberals enough.
Svend Robinson did the right thing, and followed the high standard we should expect for people who hold positions of power.
Good for you, Svend. But don't count on my praises too often...
I come to praise Svend Robinson.
For basically his entire political career (which happens to be equivalent to almost my entire life), Svend Robinson has opposed things in which I believe; the post below outlines some of them.
But now, I must give him credit: he did the right thing.
Svend Robinson admitted to doing a bad thing. But he returned the stolen item, confessed to the police, and then took the difficult step of confessing to the world. If he had hidden behind his staff, refused to take questions, or engaged in counter-attacks, we would all have been calling on him to be straight with us. Lord knows we ask that of the Liberals enough.
Svend Robinson did the right thing, and followed the high standard we should expect for people who hold positions of power.
Good for you, Svend. But don't count on my praises too often...
Thursday, April 15, 2004
Robinson: Pro-Terrorism. Pro-Marxism. Criminal.
The most ideologically intolerable member of the Canadian House of Commons resigned in disgrace today after admitting to being a jewel thief.
Robinson has a history of sickening behaviour.
He called for God to be removed from the Constitution of Canada despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of Canadians believe in Him.
He marched with anarchists and communists in Quebec City and made allegations that he was shot by the RCMP...which he failed to prove.
He stood proudly with Palestinian terrorists in Israel and parrotted the terrorist line about Israeli brutality for the world to hear. This was especially interesting since Robinson is openly homosexual. Perhaps he merely failed to notice that homosexuals are viciously persecuted by the Palestinians (as they are in all Muslim nations).
Robinson is against free speech (he constantly calls for more legislation restrcting speech and thought), for enourmous tax hikes, and marches with those who call for the murder of Jews. He is more concerned about "racial profiling" than taking any steps to combat international terrorism.
The fact that all this wasn't enough to force Robinson from politics is disturbing to say the least. At least now that he is also outed as a petty thief, he won't be around to vote against freedom and prosperity any longer.
Good riddance to the worst MP in Canada.
The most ideologically intolerable member of the Canadian House of Commons resigned in disgrace today after admitting to being a jewel thief.
Robinson has a history of sickening behaviour.
He called for God to be removed from the Constitution of Canada despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of Canadians believe in Him.
He marched with anarchists and communists in Quebec City and made allegations that he was shot by the RCMP...which he failed to prove.
He stood proudly with Palestinian terrorists in Israel and parrotted the terrorist line about Israeli brutality for the world to hear. This was especially interesting since Robinson is openly homosexual. Perhaps he merely failed to notice that homosexuals are viciously persecuted by the Palestinians (as they are in all Muslim nations).
Robinson is against free speech (he constantly calls for more legislation restrcting speech and thought), for enourmous tax hikes, and marches with those who call for the murder of Jews. He is more concerned about "racial profiling" than taking any steps to combat international terrorism.
The fact that all this wasn't enough to force Robinson from politics is disturbing to say the least. At least now that he is also outed as a petty thief, he won't be around to vote against freedom and prosperity any longer.
Good riddance to the worst MP in Canada.
Monday, April 12, 2004
Quality Wins
An interesting report ran tonight on CBC regarding a Canadian Auto Workers campaign encouraging consumers to buy "domestic" rather than imported cars. Ignoring the fact that there are no Canadian car companies, so nothing is technically domestic, this brings up a number of interesting issues.
First and foremost, does the CAW honestly believe this campaign changes anyone's mind? There are 3 kinds of car buyers in this regard. The largest group are people who are just looking for the best value car that suits their needs. They'll buy it from GM, they'll buy it from Toyota. They don't care, as long as it does whatever they want it to do.
The second group is people who have discovered that American cars are in fact vastly inferior to Japanese imports. Any analysis of depreciation will show you just how much better a Japanese car holds its value. There's a reason: US cars require far more maintenance, suffer from all kinds of performance issues, and are basically shoddier in every way. Even the greatest US triumph in recent years, the Ford Focus, is now completely outclassed by the Mazda 3.
The third group thinks the opposite way. Usually affiliated either with unions or just generally in favour of buying from WW2 Allies rather than Axis powers, they buy US cars without ever looking at the imports.
None of these groups are going to care about the CAW's campaign.
So who are they targeting? Or are they just wasting their members' dollars again?
interesting side note: If a non-leftist organization advised buying any US product over imports, how long would it take for the CAW-funded loony left to scream racism?
An interesting report ran tonight on CBC regarding a Canadian Auto Workers campaign encouraging consumers to buy "domestic" rather than imported cars. Ignoring the fact that there are no Canadian car companies, so nothing is technically domestic, this brings up a number of interesting issues.
First and foremost, does the CAW honestly believe this campaign changes anyone's mind? There are 3 kinds of car buyers in this regard. The largest group are people who are just looking for the best value car that suits their needs. They'll buy it from GM, they'll buy it from Toyota. They don't care, as long as it does whatever they want it to do.
The second group is people who have discovered that American cars are in fact vastly inferior to Japanese imports. Any analysis of depreciation will show you just how much better a Japanese car holds its value. There's a reason: US cars require far more maintenance, suffer from all kinds of performance issues, and are basically shoddier in every way. Even the greatest US triumph in recent years, the Ford Focus, is now completely outclassed by the Mazda 3.
The third group thinks the opposite way. Usually affiliated either with unions or just generally in favour of buying from WW2 Allies rather than Axis powers, they buy US cars without ever looking at the imports.
None of these groups are going to care about the CAW's campaign.
So who are they targeting? Or are they just wasting their members' dollars again?
interesting side note: If a non-leftist organization advised buying any US product over imports, how long would it take for the CAW-funded loony left to scream racism?
Thursday, April 08, 2004
Keeping Perspective
Tie Domi has a unique way of keeping things focused on his game and keeping hockey where it belongs: on the ice. Domi refused to be dragged into the fray after an Ottawa radio jockey made offensive comments which implied that the hockey player was a physically abusive husband. The radio jockey rightly apologized shortly after and Domi was quoted as saying "I have no comment on it whatsoever. It's a disturbing thing but I can't let those things bother me at this time."
Domi's also refused to accept Ottawa assertions that the playoff series between the Senators and Maple Leafs will be a "war".
Well said, Tie.
Go Leafs Go.
Read the full story here.
Tie Domi has a unique way of keeping things focused on his game and keeping hockey where it belongs: on the ice. Domi refused to be dragged into the fray after an Ottawa radio jockey made offensive comments which implied that the hockey player was a physically abusive husband. The radio jockey rightly apologized shortly after and Domi was quoted as saying "I have no comment on it whatsoever. It's a disturbing thing but I can't let those things bother me at this time."
Domi's also refused to accept Ottawa assertions that the playoff series between the Senators and Maple Leafs will be a "war".
"I think using the word war is getting a little stupid, especially for this rivalry," said Domi. "I don't think it should be used.
"It's not appropriate. I think out of respect to the real war that is going on it shouldn't be used and media people should think about that, too.
"Those guys are fighting a real war. I think it's insulting and disrespectful to them. What we do is a game. It's a hard-fought game, a physical game and those are things we should talk about. That (war) word shouldn't be used in this series. It's not right. It's disrespectful. There's people losing their lives over there in a real war."
Well said, Tie.
Go Leafs Go.
Read the full story here.
Knock Me Over With a Feather
Former Groupaction executive Alain Richard, in a presentation to the House of Commons public accounts committee, detailed the relationship between the Liberal Party of Canada and the advertising firm. In this presentation, he explained how business for the previously "small, minor" firm grew exponentially after Groupaction had worked almost for free during the 1997 election. This work came in the form of Tourism Canada, VIA Rail, and Canada Post contracts from the federal government and has been the subject of much discussion after it was revealed that these contracts, though paid, produced very few results despite their high price tag.
But is anyone really surprised? Did it really take a report by the Auditor-General and public inquiry to reveal that the Liberal Party rewards firms that have donated their time and money to their Quebec wing?
Perhaps we've become too desensitized to this kind of business dealing at the federal level. Maybe it's just accepted that we have to put up with this political, and clearly regional, favouritism from the Liberal Party of Canada. Canadians want their tax dollars going to reduce hospital waiting times or to increase the share of federal funding for post-secondary education, not to reward Liberal-friendly consulting firms for their "service". I suppose Canadians could just resign themselves to this fate. Or perhaps we should demand better.
Read the full story here.
Former Groupaction executive Alain Richard, in a presentation to the House of Commons public accounts committee, detailed the relationship between the Liberal Party of Canada and the advertising firm. In this presentation, he explained how business for the previously "small, minor" firm grew exponentially after Groupaction had worked almost for free during the 1997 election. This work came in the form of Tourism Canada, VIA Rail, and Canada Post contracts from the federal government and has been the subject of much discussion after it was revealed that these contracts, though paid, produced very few results despite their high price tag.
But is anyone really surprised? Did it really take a report by the Auditor-General and public inquiry to reveal that the Liberal Party rewards firms that have donated their time and money to their Quebec wing?
Perhaps we've become too desensitized to this kind of business dealing at the federal level. Maybe it's just accepted that we have to put up with this political, and clearly regional, favouritism from the Liberal Party of Canada. Canadians want their tax dollars going to reduce hospital waiting times or to increase the share of federal funding for post-secondary education, not to reward Liberal-friendly consulting firms for their "service". I suppose Canadians could just resign themselves to this fate. Or perhaps we should demand better.
Read the full story here.
Monday, April 05, 2004
Liberals in (light) blue clothing
Apparently a 90% plurality in an election is not enough for some people. In a vain, desperate, and wrong-headed attempt to re-elect a Paul Martin majority government, straggling former PC members are trying to bring us back to the days of Joe Clark.
Come on, people. I know that your preferred candidate, David Orchard, lost the PC leadership. Twice. I know that you lost the ratification vote by 9:1. I know that Stephen Harper is not your ideal CPC leader. But sometimes, you've just got to grin and bear it. Sit tight, and wait until next time. It's part of "being an adult".
If you really believe that Paul Martin's Liberals need to be replaced, then put old battles aside, and unite.
Of course, I note that the great majority of former PC and former CA members have decided to unite behind the one Party and the one Leader (even if they are just biding their time for the next Leadership race). These people should be congratulated for being mature enough to realize that, in politics as in life, you can't always get what you want.
Apparently a 90% plurality in an election is not enough for some people. In a vain, desperate, and wrong-headed attempt to re-elect a Paul Martin majority government, straggling former PC members are trying to bring us back to the days of Joe Clark.
Come on, people. I know that your preferred candidate, David Orchard, lost the PC leadership. Twice. I know that you lost the ratification vote by 9:1. I know that Stephen Harper is not your ideal CPC leader. But sometimes, you've just got to grin and bear it. Sit tight, and wait until next time. It's part of "being an adult".
If you really believe that Paul Martin's Liberals need to be replaced, then put old battles aside, and unite.
Of course, I note that the great majority of former PC and former CA members have decided to unite behind the one Party and the one Leader (even if they are just biding their time for the next Leadership race). These people should be congratulated for being mature enough to realize that, in politics as in life, you can't always get what you want.
Just like Liberals...
To satisfy my friend P A, and prove that someone other than him reads what he writes, I will write this column a la Gingrich, and mention three things that bug me from today's headlines about the Liberals:
First, the Martin Liberals are considering a tax dedicated to increasing health spending. I could point out that provincial health care funding has increased exponentially, with no discernable increase in service levels, but I won't. I could point out that Paul was the only minister in Canada to actually CUT health care funding, but I won't. I could point out that "dedicated" taxes (such as airport security taxes, "employment" insurance, and gas taxes) tend to be diverted to "general revenues", but I won't. Instead, I note how shameful and harmful it is for the feds to put off, yet again, the fundamental change in the system that even Roy Romanow says is necessary, all because an election is on the way. And since Martin et al know that Stephen Harper will oppose any tax increase, they will be able to say that he is opposed to better health care, etc. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth, but that's not stopped the Liberals before. Also, if they are really looking for more health money (as implied by the end of the article), I can find them billions in wasted spending over the past several years, including a gun database $2B over budget, a $1B HRDC scandal that provided little discernible benefit, $100M to Liberal-friendly firms in AdScam, $161M to Paul Martin's own shipping companies, etc. etc. etc.
Second, I note that Paul Martin has broken another promise. In his leadership campaign, he promised funding to cities without delay, based on a portion of the gas tax. Unfortunately for Canadians relying on this promise, that's been deferred to 2005, and beyond. But apparently "without delay" depends on your definition of "without" and "delay". This, of course, is the same party running ads that note increased student loan levels...that don't take effect for two more years.
Third, I for one am shocked, SHOCKED, that the Liberal made-in-Kyoto environment plan is falling short of targets. I look forward to the inevitable Kyoto tax that will further harm Canadian business and the Canadian economy...and I can't wait to hear our leaders talk about how important this is for the world, even though major "greenhouse gas" emitters like China, Russia, India, and the US are not in Kyoto.
To satisfy my friend P A, and prove that someone other than him reads what he writes, I will write this column a la Gingrich, and mention three things that bug me from today's headlines about the Liberals:
First, the Martin Liberals are considering a tax dedicated to increasing health spending. I could point out that provincial health care funding has increased exponentially, with no discernable increase in service levels, but I won't. I could point out that Paul was the only minister in Canada to actually CUT health care funding, but I won't. I could point out that "dedicated" taxes (such as airport security taxes, "employment" insurance, and gas taxes) tend to be diverted to "general revenues", but I won't. Instead, I note how shameful and harmful it is for the feds to put off, yet again, the fundamental change in the system that even Roy Romanow says is necessary, all because an election is on the way. And since Martin et al know that Stephen Harper will oppose any tax increase, they will be able to say that he is opposed to better health care, etc. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth, but that's not stopped the Liberals before. Also, if they are really looking for more health money (as implied by the end of the article), I can find them billions in wasted spending over the past several years, including a gun database $2B over budget, a $1B HRDC scandal that provided little discernible benefit, $100M to Liberal-friendly firms in AdScam, $161M to Paul Martin's own shipping companies, etc. etc. etc.
Second, I note that Paul Martin has broken another promise. In his leadership campaign, he promised funding to cities without delay, based on a portion of the gas tax. Unfortunately for Canadians relying on this promise, that's been deferred to 2005, and beyond. But apparently "without delay" depends on your definition of "without" and "delay". This, of course, is the same party running ads that note increased student loan levels...that don't take effect for two more years.
Third, I for one am shocked, SHOCKED, that the Liberal made-in-Kyoto environment plan is falling short of targets. I look forward to the inevitable Kyoto tax that will further harm Canadian business and the Canadian economy...and I can't wait to hear our leaders talk about how important this is for the world, even though major "greenhouse gas" emitters like China, Russia, India, and the US are not in Kyoto.
Saturday, April 03, 2004
Do they still get 70 virgins?
So it seems that at least three people accused of killing 191 on board Spanish trains last month have decided to take their own lives, rather than facing the music themselves.
But the most egregious part of this story is the headline: "Madrid bombing suspects kill themselves". Uh, not quite. A special forces agent was killed and 11 police officers hurt in the same explosion. But, good ol' CBC -with its anti-police bias- couldn't see fit to make its headline more inclusive for the heroes who put their lives on the line everyday.
And, in shocking news, a bomb was found on the Spanish rail line yesterday. To paraphrase a good friend, it turns out that voting in a socialist, appeasement-oriented government does not, in fact, save you from becoming the subject of terrorist attacks. Al Qaida has a grudge dating back over 500 years-- for some reason, I don't think that pulling troops out of Iraq (unless, of course, the UN comes in) will help much.
So it seems that at least three people accused of killing 191 on board Spanish trains last month have decided to take their own lives, rather than facing the music themselves.
But the most egregious part of this story is the headline: "Madrid bombing suspects kill themselves". Uh, not quite. A special forces agent was killed and 11 police officers hurt in the same explosion. But, good ol' CBC -with its anti-police bias- couldn't see fit to make its headline more inclusive for the heroes who put their lives on the line everyday.
And, in shocking news, a bomb was found on the Spanish rail line yesterday. To paraphrase a good friend, it turns out that voting in a socialist, appeasement-oriented government does not, in fact, save you from becoming the subject of terrorist attacks. Al Qaida has a grudge dating back over 500 years-- for some reason, I don't think that pulling troops out of Iraq (unless, of course, the UN comes in) will help much.
Friday, April 02, 2004
The worst thing I have ever seen.
A friend sent this to me the other day.
It is a movie that describes the terror threat Israel faces every day. Watching it, I thought of family friends killed in Israel, I thought of my cousin killed in Israel, I thought of my friends who are soldiers in the Israeli Defence Forces and who deal with this threat daily. I also thought of those four American men who were guards of food in Iraq who were lynched and whose bodies were mutilated last Wednesday.
I was reminded of how important it is that we not back down from the War on Terror...wherever the field of battle may lie.
I encourage you all to watch it (it is in .wmv format, and is about 6 min 44 sec long), but advise that it is VERY graphic and disturbing.
A friend sent this to me the other day.
It is a movie that describes the terror threat Israel faces every day. Watching it, I thought of family friends killed in Israel, I thought of my cousin killed in Israel, I thought of my friends who are soldiers in the Israeli Defence Forces and who deal with this threat daily. I also thought of those four American men who were guards of food in Iraq who were lynched and whose bodies were mutilated last Wednesday.
I was reminded of how important it is that we not back down from the War on Terror...wherever the field of battle may lie.
I encourage you all to watch it (it is in .wmv format, and is about 6 min 44 sec long), but advise that it is VERY graphic and disturbing.
Thursday, April 01, 2004
Carr Beats Duffus
It's a double tragedy. First turncoat, too-many-pucks-too-the-head former PC MPP Garry Carr runs for the Liberal nomination in Wellington-Halton Hills, but he beat a man named DUFFUS! How good would that have been to have a Liberal candidate named "Duffus"? The last laugh will be on Carr. Dean Martin is the CPC candidate and future MP.
Those whacky French! The people lurch left, Chirac goes right! After the socialist upsurge in regional elections, Chirac has shuffled the deck and now has an a more right-wing government with a man who has been less critical of the US and the war on terror as foreign minister. "Less critical" is a move forward for the French. Nicholas Sarkozy, the popular and tough interior minister is now the finance minister. Sarkozy was budget minister and, wait for it, a tax cutter. Quelle bonne surprise.
I wanted to raise a point about Karl Rove's house getting swarmed. It's sad, but what's sadder, I think, is Lloyd Robertson's (the PhD, not the news guy) seemingly indifferent blog on it.
Yeah, I am "mysterious"! Not as "mysterious" as "Admin" though.
It's a double tragedy. First turncoat, too-many-pucks-too-the-head former PC MPP Garry Carr runs for the Liberal nomination in Wellington-Halton Hills, but he beat a man named DUFFUS! How good would that have been to have a Liberal candidate named "Duffus"? The last laugh will be on Carr. Dean Martin is the CPC candidate and future MP.
Those whacky French! The people lurch left, Chirac goes right! After the socialist upsurge in regional elections, Chirac has shuffled the deck and now has an a more right-wing government with a man who has been less critical of the US and the war on terror as foreign minister. "Less critical" is a move forward for the French. Nicholas Sarkozy, the popular and tough interior minister is now the finance minister. Sarkozy was budget minister and, wait for it, a tax cutter. Quelle bonne surprise.
I wanted to raise a point about Karl Rove's house getting swarmed. It's sad, but what's sadder, I think, is Lloyd Robertson's (the PhD, not the news guy) seemingly indifferent blog on it.
Yeah, I am "mysterious"! Not as "mysterious" as "Admin" though.
Rocky Start
First Paul Martin's new web ads were totally inaccessible. Now there's just massive skipping because they haven't got anywhere near the bandwidth needed for streaming video.
For an example of how to do it right (and some unbelievably good elections ads), click here.
Of course, the release of these ads is yet another indication that a federal election is coming sooner rather than later. Will Canada actually vote the Liberals in again? And if we do, what does that say about this country? If we won't vote people out for massive theft to which they freely admit (but won't take responsiblity for), is there any point having elections any more?
First Paul Martin's new web ads were totally inaccessible. Now there's just massive skipping because they haven't got anywhere near the bandwidth needed for streaming video.
For an example of how to do it right (and some unbelievably good elections ads), click here.
Of course, the release of these ads is yet another indication that a federal election is coming sooner rather than later. Will Canada actually vote the Liberals in again? And if we do, what does that say about this country? If we won't vote people out for massive theft to which they freely admit (but won't take responsiblity for), is there any point having elections any more?
