I have been having a bit of a discussion on this post with one of my readers regarding Chuck Cadman.
He has challenged me to reply to his comments.
Bill makes the comment that Cadman using his position to get something out of the government is ok and it is politics as usual. In general, I agree that this is how they usually operate. Certain groups support certain parties and they expect that party to push their agenda/pet project. The same with people. However, we come to trouble when trying to figure out which came first. If you vote/work for the Liberals because they support your views on victims' rights that is one thing. If they say they will pass your victims' rights legislation if you vote for them on something else, that is completely different. Now, Cadman's situation is not clear and there is no evidence of anyone's vote being "for sale". However, based on what we have seen with Belinda and the Grewal tapes, I believe Cadman sold out. He met with the PM and he, or more likely one of his flunkies, spoke to him just like Tim Murphy spoke to Grewal, and a "not deal" was made.
Of course, vote buying is illegal, but the Libs are experts at it, so it would be very hard to prove.
Now, taking the innocent view, let's assume that nothing was discussed and no one suggested he would get a reward. First of all, in the tit for tat Liberal world, I believe that Cadman knew they would do something for him, and they knew he would have to be paid. Both parties have been in the game for long enough to know what happens without having to say it. Is that a crime? Not technically, but it sure is sleazy.
Which brings me to my main point. I feel that all of this vote buying has greatly damaged Canadian democracy. We appear to be more like Zimbabwe than a modern, western democracy. I think the Libs need to be thrown out to demonstrate that their actions are wrong, immoral, and will not be stood for in this country. I am mad because Chuck Cadman had a chance to send this message, on behalf of all Canadians, that these actions will not be tolerated. He failed to put the good of the country ahead of his own personal political pet projects.
Chuck had leverage over the Libs and decided to get something he thought was important with that leverage. However, the damage done by Liberal actions may make it even more difficult for projects like Cadman's to ever get done in the future. The long term damage to the system outweights any good done by passing Cadman's bill.
Now on to Bill's second comment, regarding the actions of the Conservative party.
Bill makes the same, boring argument that the "rabid" politics that the Conservative practice "leaves a lot of normal non-Fiberal Canadians turned off by the Conservatives". Bullshit. This sounds like something off of the Liberal talking points. If Bill is a normal Canadian, then we are surely doomed, as normal Canadians are now parroting Liberal talking points. All other parties should give up and go home, as it is impossible to break that level of brainwashing.
Bill then goes on to talk about how the Conservatives could win if they just would ..... wait for it... be more like the Liberals!
Bill talks about being an alternative to the Liberals. Personally, I prefer my alternatives to be a bit more different. I can just see the lawn signs:
Conservatives, just like the Liberals but with less corruption
I would like to see a party that is not Liberal lite. If Canadians want the Liberal agenda, then they can take the corruption with it.
Bill also makes comments about the Conservatives being more centrist, kicking out "rabid" elements, blagh, blagh, blaghblaghblagh.
Personally, if I was a Liberal strategist, this would be my best message. Make your enemy just like you, then say to the voters, "See, they have no principles" or "Why vote for pretend Liberals when you can have the real thing" or "See they must have a hidden agenda. They are pretending to be us just to get your vote".
If conservatives change just to try to get elected, I think they will lose. I, and I think many other Canadians, are looking for a principled party that will do what it says. If Conservatives say what they are going to do and then do it, I think they will be elected. This is similar to what happened in Ontario under Mike Harris. Harris stated clearly his platform and then did it. I remember hearing from people in Ontario that, even though they hated Harris and his platform, they respected him for doing what he said. Remember that this guy won re-election. This is the model the federal Conservative party should follow.
Bill also mentions a bunch of stuff about social conservatives and "turning back the clock", I guess conservatives are against the forward movement of time, or something. Destroy all clocks!
There seems to be some myth out their that Conservatives are controlled by some group known as "social conservatives" that, if elected, will have everyone going to church, etc.
I really get tired of this argument. It may be true, but in reality, "social conservatives" have no other mainstream party, so they are unlikely to be able to hijack the Conservatives. I would be more worried about the left hijacking the Liberals. Lefties can choose between the NDP and Liberals, which is why you see the Liberals tacking left at election time.
To Bill: Get some new talking points, preferably ones not lifted directly off of Scott Reid's desk.
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Results of the Poll
I am finally summarizing the results of my sidebar poll. If you remember, this post talked about our future plans and how the wife (then Gf) accused me of being lazy because I had some concerns.
I put the poll up to see what you, my readers, thought about the situation.
The poll asked the following two questions:
Marcel is a lazy, afraid of commitment, bastard who is just stalling;
Marcel is a cautious and clear headed person who is just trying to look out for the financial security of his family.
The results:
Fourteen of you think I am lazy and 22 say I am cautious.
I feel somewhat vindicated. However, I am not sure about the accuracy of the poll. I cought the wife checking the poll on our vacation by voting again. I had it set up so you could only vote once per machine, but we used different computers overseas all the time. When I caught her doing this she freely admitted it and said she had done in a number of times before. So, instead of her getting 38% of the vote, it is more likely less than 1/3 agree with her.
Actually, we are quickly nearing the point where we have to sign a contract for this deal. We still have not gotten the information I feel is required to make a decision. Not only that, but he still feels he has given us the information. Even the wife cannot understand him, as we have made it very clear what we want. And, from discussions with friends of mine in business, what we want is more than reasonable, it is required. Everyone I talk to says something is fishy. We are going to try one last time, and then we are going to give up. I have little hope he will get with the program.
I put the poll up to see what you, my readers, thought about the situation.
The poll asked the following two questions:
Marcel is a lazy, afraid of commitment, bastard who is just stalling;
Marcel is a cautious and clear headed person who is just trying to look out for the financial security of his family.
The results:
Fourteen of you think I am lazy and 22 say I am cautious.
I feel somewhat vindicated. However, I am not sure about the accuracy of the poll. I cought the wife checking the poll on our vacation by voting again. I had it set up so you could only vote once per machine, but we used different computers overseas all the time. When I caught her doing this she freely admitted it and said she had done in a number of times before. So, instead of her getting 38% of the vote, it is more likely less than 1/3 agree with her.
Actually, we are quickly nearing the point where we have to sign a contract for this deal. We still have not gotten the information I feel is required to make a decision. Not only that, but he still feels he has given us the information. Even the wife cannot understand him, as we have made it very clear what we want. And, from discussions with friends of mine in business, what we want is more than reasonable, it is required. Everyone I talk to says something is fishy. We are going to try one last time, and then we are going to give up. I have little hope he will get with the program.
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Cadman the Sellout
In this post I mused that Cadman was bought. More evidence.
Cadman wins commitment to victims-rights concerns
Ezra seems to agree with me.
Cadman wins commitment to victims-rights concerns
Ezra seems to agree with me.
An interesting protest idea
Ian, at Ianism has quite a lengthy post on the illegitmacy of the present government. One might actually call it a rant. Everyone needs to get stuff off their chest.
Even though Ian's point is well taken, a more interesting idea is put forth by MWW in the comments on what should be done to protest the illegal collection and use of our tax money.
Even though Ian's point is well taken, a more interesting idea is put forth by MWW in the comments on what should be done to protest the illegal collection and use of our tax money.
...I've gone down the Great Canadian Superstore on our reserve and offered to purchase things for non-natives in line. It felt really good to do that. They liked it too! :) A few have said no thanks and asked me why I was willing to do that. And my response was "Because I'd rather see that money in your pocket than in the pockets of the crooks in Ottawa". That actually convinced them to take up my offer to be a buffer between them and the state.
What a thing it would be if a significant number of people would do this. Get enough people doing this and it would hit this illegal government where it hurt the most, in their pocketbook.
The war of two Generals
Retired generals Romeo Dallaire and Lewis MacKenzie have been publicly arguing over what Canada should commit to Darfour. I do not know who is right, but I have certain points about each of them and their positions.
Firstly, MacKenzie has more of the classic military leader traits that you would expect from a general. He is the guy who went into Yugo and kicked ass. Dallaire went to Africa and failed. Who would you listen to?
A few points about going to Darfour:
1. People are not like us. It may surprise many of you out there, but people in other countries are not like us. They think differently and have different priorities. Africa is still very tribal and many tribes have not respect for the life or rights of other tribes. By that I mean, if you are not from their tribe, you have no right to life. For those too stupid to get my meaning, the only thing that stops them from killing you is what the consequences will be to them.
2. Unarmed could mean dead. I have been in the military for 15 years, and there is no way I would go to Darfour without a gun. At the very least, I would carry a pistol so I could shoot myself before they could take me. Even better to have something that can take a few with me. However, see point number one and remember, their lives mean less to them than your does to you, so you may need to be able to kill a lot of them to make that cost/benefit ratio come out it your favour.
3. Not all armies are created equal. Some are more competent than others. Ask any soldier who has been on any peacekeeping mission and you will hear horror stories regarding the action of the Jordanians or of Bangladesh, etc. An African army is not like the a western European one. Having AU soldiers protect you will not be like protecting yourself. Remember this when people say we don't want "whitey" in our country, we want other Africans. Why not white soldiers? Because they would actually do the job that needs to be done. Am I racist? Some throw back to "white man's burden"? No, just realistic. Don't believe me, go see for yourself. Or ask someone who has been there.
So, go to Darfour or not? I do not know the answer. But I can say I am pretty certain the AU troops there are not up to the job. If they do succeed it may be in a way that we do not approve of (ie. putting the fear of death into the bad guys by killing everyone they see).
I am quite happy that I am now a part time soldier. This gives me the option, short of a war, of refusing any positions such as Darfour. The way that mission is presently structured there seems only two possible outcomes:
-be so outgunned that Canadians are afraid to leave the camp. I can waste 6 months at home just as easily as in Africa.
-go out and do the job with the consequence of someone begin taken hostage, being killed, etc. Being in the army means you accept the risk of being killed or injured, but I am not too particular about dying because Paul Martin wanted to buy off David Kilgour and save his sorry government.
The Darfour problem will never be solved until a competent army with the political will to are put there with the tools to get the job done. Until someone has the political will, there is no point risking the lives of Canadian soldiers in a mission that cannot succeed.
Firstly, MacKenzie has more of the classic military leader traits that you would expect from a general. He is the guy who went into Yugo and kicked ass. Dallaire went to Africa and failed. Who would you listen to?
A few points about going to Darfour:
1. People are not like us. It may surprise many of you out there, but people in other countries are not like us. They think differently and have different priorities. Africa is still very tribal and many tribes have not respect for the life or rights of other tribes. By that I mean, if you are not from their tribe, you have no right to life. For those too stupid to get my meaning, the only thing that stops them from killing you is what the consequences will be to them.
2. Unarmed could mean dead. I have been in the military for 15 years, and there is no way I would go to Darfour without a gun. At the very least, I would carry a pistol so I could shoot myself before they could take me. Even better to have something that can take a few with me. However, see point number one and remember, their lives mean less to them than your does to you, so you may need to be able to kill a lot of them to make that cost/benefit ratio come out it your favour.
3. Not all armies are created equal. Some are more competent than others. Ask any soldier who has been on any peacekeeping mission and you will hear horror stories regarding the action of the Jordanians or of Bangladesh, etc. An African army is not like the a western European one. Having AU soldiers protect you will not be like protecting yourself. Remember this when people say we don't want "whitey" in our country, we want other Africans. Why not white soldiers? Because they would actually do the job that needs to be done. Am I racist? Some throw back to "white man's burden"? No, just realistic. Don't believe me, go see for yourself. Or ask someone who has been there.
So, go to Darfour or not? I do not know the answer. But I can say I am pretty certain the AU troops there are not up to the job. If they do succeed it may be in a way that we do not approve of (ie. putting the fear of death into the bad guys by killing everyone they see).
I am quite happy that I am now a part time soldier. This gives me the option, short of a war, of refusing any positions such as Darfour. The way that mission is presently structured there seems only two possible outcomes:
-be so outgunned that Canadians are afraid to leave the camp. I can waste 6 months at home just as easily as in Africa.
-go out and do the job with the consequence of someone begin taken hostage, being killed, etc. Being in the army means you accept the risk of being killed or injured, but I am not too particular about dying because Paul Martin wanted to buy off David Kilgour and save his sorry government.
The Darfour problem will never be solved until a competent army with the political will to are put there with the tools to get the job done. Until someone has the political will, there is no point risking the lives of Canadian soldiers in a mission that cannot succeed.
Have we reached our Tipping Point?
This is the best post I have read in a long time and, I think, sums up the feelings of many Canadians.
The following two paragraphs are the key point:
Go read the whole thing at The Monarchist
The following two paragraphs are the key point:
What exactly have we witnessed over the past two weeks? We have witnessed a parliamentary government of the British Crown and tradition, faced with a protracted and clear demonstration of a loss of majority confidence, refuse to adhere to the most fundamental tenets of responsible government by submitting itself to an immediate and declared confidence vote. We have watched that government instead suspend democracy until its bribes and enticements to the characterless could bear fruit. We have watched a blonde Judas cross the floor, oblivious of how ephemeral her new friendships will prove; casting the will of her constituents - and with it, the core mechanism by which the will of the people is translated into the reality of parliamentary power - into the dust; for obvious, crass and fleeting personal gain. And we have watched the chief architect of this farce declare, with a straight face, that he had secured the renewed confidence of the House and assured the future of a united Canada.
As this tragedy concluded, I listened to some around me, here in Ontario, actually declare their relief that they would not soon have to make another trip to the ballot box. And in that moment, I reached my tipping point. I realized that a people unprepared to devote a single hour – without sweat, cost or blood – to the enforcement of democracy, to the assurance that they might be governed by decent and responsible people of their actual choice; that a people too selfish and shameless to care whether their countrymen felt respected and represented under the common roof; that a people too brain-dead to understand how deeply their traditions of democracy have been compromised, and how dangerous a precedent has just been set - were not worthy of my allegiance.
Go read the whole thing at The Monarchist
Sunday, May 22, 2005
What to do?
I have been reading many blogs on the right side of the spectrum, bemoaning the state of Canadian democracy. From the big and the small, from hits counted on two hands to those with tens of thousands of visits per day.
When I was in the military, some of my subordinates used to come to me with problems. When you are dealing with junior officers, their experience level can be very low, so a problem that seems insurmountable might be easily fixed by someone like me. However, part of my job was to train these junior officers and part of that is teaching problem solving. Inevitably, they would explain some problem, and I would reply "Don't come to me with problems, come to me with solutions."
To the smart ones, this would only happen once and any further meetings would be for them to tell me how they were going to fix a problem and not for them to whine. I should also mention that, being the lazy sort, the less of other peoples work I have to do, the happier I am. So, to those who bemoan the state of democracy in Canada I say:
"Don't come to me with problems, come to me with solutions."
Instead of hearing about how corrupt the Liberals are, lets talk about what we should do about it.
Comments?
UPDATE: Here are some suggestions
This post by Kate at smalldeadanimals
I do not think I agree with suggestion at Occam's Carbuncle
Perhaps a good suggestion by Damain at Babbling Brooks, but is it enough?
Bound by Gravity has a few
Stephen Taylor has a lot (hat tip to BBG)
Reupdate:
Another suggestion to the CPC by Political Staples
When I was in the military, some of my subordinates used to come to me with problems. When you are dealing with junior officers, their experience level can be very low, so a problem that seems insurmountable might be easily fixed by someone like me. However, part of my job was to train these junior officers and part of that is teaching problem solving. Inevitably, they would explain some problem, and I would reply "Don't come to me with problems, come to me with solutions."
To the smart ones, this would only happen once and any further meetings would be for them to tell me how they were going to fix a problem and not for them to whine. I should also mention that, being the lazy sort, the less of other peoples work I have to do, the happier I am. So, to those who bemoan the state of democracy in Canada I say:
"Don't come to me with problems, come to me with solutions."
Instead of hearing about how corrupt the Liberals are, lets talk about what we should do about it.
Comments?
UPDATE: Here are some suggestions
This post by Kate at smalldeadanimals
I do not think I agree with suggestion at Occam's Carbuncle
Perhaps a good suggestion by Damain at Babbling Brooks, but is it enough?
Bound by Gravity has a few
Stephen Taylor has a lot (hat tip to BBG)
Reupdate:
Another suggestion to the CPC by Political Staples
Friday, May 20, 2005
Was Cadman bought?
This story (copied below) from the Montreal Gazette is of some interest.
Hat tip to Rayguy.
Hat tip to Rayguy.
Cadman's dream for justice now a little closerHe entered politics to fight for justice for the victims of violence and their families after his son was stabbed to death.
Now British Columbia MP Chuck Cadman's dream of justice is a little closer to being realized after Justice Minister Irwin Cotler said late yesterday he shares many of Cadman's concerns and plans to act on them.
However, Cotler said he told Cadman only after last night's critical vote because he didn't want to be accused of trying to influence him.
"I went to Mr. Cadman (after the vote) and said, 'I didn't want to speak to you about this before the vote and never did, but those initiatives that you had with respect to victims' rights, I said I am going to be supporting them as best as I can because I believe we have a common cause in that regard.' "
Cotler said he had been thinking about issues Cadman had raised for some time, such as victims' rights and Cadman's bill to crack down on street racing. Cotler said his preoccupation with victims' rights came long before there was any question of a vote. Now that the immediate crisis has been averted, Cotler said, he can move forward with addressing those concerns.
Public Safety Minister Anne McLellan had nothing but praise for Cadman and also appeared open to acting on some of Cadman's causes.
"We are bringing forward legislative amendment to strengthen the rights of victims and victims' families. We're putting more resources into our existing victims' programs to expand them.
Does anyone believe this?
After these tapes we released this week (summary here) regarding Liberal attempts to buy Conservative MP's, something smells a little fishy. On the tape, the PM's Chief of Staff, Tim Murphy, makes statements such as how it is a "bad idea" to "have any kind of commitment that involves and explicit trade".
So here we have Chuck, meeting with the Prime Minister before the vote, not have any discussions of a trade, but then, lo and behold, less then 24 hours after he votes with the Libs, certain pet projects of his are now a higher Liberal priority. What a coincidence.
Even if I am wrong, based on the Liberal standard operating procedure we have all witnessed this week, I should be forgiven for jumping to conclusions.
Cadman sold out.
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Politics as usual?
I cannot express my disgust at what is going on in Ottawa this week, so I will be lazy and link to a few who are doing a much better job.
Damian at Babbling Brooks has this excellent post on Belinda's whole "national unity" reasoning.
AC has an excellent post on the latest Liberal vote buying attempt.
Mark Steyn with two columns on the state of Canada.
Damian at Babbling Brooks has this excellent post on Belinda's whole "national unity" reasoning.
AC has an excellent post on the latest Liberal vote buying attempt.
Mark Steyn with two columns on the state of Canada.
Revenge of the Sith review
Ok, I promised no spoilers, so I will just comment on Revenge of the Sith in a general way.
First of all, a bit about me. I am a fan of science fiction, so I am drawn to many sci-fi movies, books, etc. However, I like to think I maintain enough distance from the "rabid fan" position to comment critically. The best Star Wars movie so far has been Empire. The franchise started to go down in Return of the Jedi, with the sickenly cute, obviously merchandised, Ewoks. The worst movie was Phantom Menace. It is so kid-friendly as to make you sick. I have always thought Lucas was the Star Wars legacy in Phantom. Also, making it kid-friendly usually backfires. Sure, Star Wars was scary, maybe too scary for kids at the time, but as adults 30 years later, we still love it. Does anyone think people will still love Phantom in 30 years or will it be known as the worst Star Wars movie?
That said, Revenge of the Sith was good. Very good. It is as dark as Empire, with lots of action. Christensen does a very good job protraying the fall and inner conflict of Skywalker. I must admit I did not think well of Christensen after Attack of the Clones. I felt his acting was a bit stiff and the flashes of evil seemed unrealistic. He may have improved, but I think he has more to work with this time. Portman does a good job as the conflicted wife. None of the great shots showing off her body that we saw in Attack, which is unfortunate. I have to say excellent job by McGregor, particularily when he confronts Skywalker about his betrayal of the Jedi (everyone knows this happens, so it should not be a spoiler).
Non fans and fans, even critical fans, will not be disappointed.
See this movie now.
Now a bit about last night.
The wife picked me up after work. She bought the tickets early, about 8:00 pm and picked me up at 10:30 pm. We got to the theater just before 11 and our theater had already been let in. I thought for sure we were going to get a crappy seat, but we did well. We had to sit for over an hour, the longest time I have ever waited for a movie. The audience was mostly kids in their late teens, but I saw a few my age. A sample of conversation overheard in the concession line by the wife:
Yes, they really talk like that.
First of all, a bit about me. I am a fan of science fiction, so I am drawn to many sci-fi movies, books, etc. However, I like to think I maintain enough distance from the "rabid fan" position to comment critically. The best Star Wars movie so far has been Empire. The franchise started to go down in Return of the Jedi, with the sickenly cute, obviously merchandised, Ewoks. The worst movie was Phantom Menace. It is so kid-friendly as to make you sick. I have always thought Lucas was the Star Wars legacy in Phantom. Also, making it kid-friendly usually backfires. Sure, Star Wars was scary, maybe too scary for kids at the time, but as adults 30 years later, we still love it. Does anyone think people will still love Phantom in 30 years or will it be known as the worst Star Wars movie?
That said, Revenge of the Sith was good. Very good. It is as dark as Empire, with lots of action. Christensen does a very good job protraying the fall and inner conflict of Skywalker. I must admit I did not think well of Christensen after Attack of the Clones. I felt his acting was a bit stiff and the flashes of evil seemed unrealistic. He may have improved, but I think he has more to work with this time. Portman does a good job as the conflicted wife. None of the great shots showing off her body that we saw in Attack, which is unfortunate. I have to say excellent job by McGregor, particularily when he confronts Skywalker about his betrayal of the Jedi (everyone knows this happens, so it should not be a spoiler).
Non fans and fans, even critical fans, will not be disappointed.
See this movie now.
Now a bit about last night.
The wife picked me up after work. She bought the tickets early, about 8:00 pm and picked me up at 10:30 pm. We got to the theater just before 11 and our theater had already been let in. I thought for sure we were going to get a crappy seat, but we did well. We had to sit for over an hour, the longest time I have ever waited for a movie. The audience was mostly kids in their late teens, but I saw a few my age. A sample of conversation overheard in the concession line by the wife:
Teen #1: Dude, I am going to be so wasted for school tomorrow.
Teen #2: Dude, me too.
Teen #1: Dude, I so don't want to go to gym tomorrow.
Teen #2: Dude, that sucks.
Teen #1: Dude, do you want a refill?
Teen #2: No. Dude I don't think I will make it through the movie without having to piss.
Yes, they really talk like that.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Revenge of the Sith
The wife and I are going to see the new Star Wars movie tonight. After I get off work we are going to meet up for the 12:01 showing.
I have a bit of a reputation for ruining movies for people. I really enjoyed Finding Nemo, so I proceeded to tell every joke in it to a friend of mine, thereby ruining the movie for him. After he saw it, he said I told him every joke in the film. That was my plan.
Of course, this guy got his revenge by telling all of our couple friends that I did this. No one will see movies us anymore, so we are going to see this one by ourselves.
I promise not to post any spoilers.
I have a bit of a reputation for ruining movies for people. I really enjoyed Finding Nemo, so I proceeded to tell every joke in it to a friend of mine, thereby ruining the movie for him. After he saw it, he said I told him every joke in the film. That was my plan.
Of course, this guy got his revenge by telling all of our couple friends that I did this. No one will see movies us anymore, so we are going to see this one by ourselves.
I promise not to post any spoilers.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Vote Switching
Paul Wells at Inkless Wells asked a few days ago for people to email him if they were intending to switch their vote and why.
This unscientific and completely bias poll is quite interesting and may provide some insight into what Canadians are thinking.
This unscientific and completely bias poll is quite interesting and may provide some insight into what Canadians are thinking.
"Strange days indeed...."
They say a week in politics is like a year. What a difference a day makes. Belinda Stronach has left the Conservative Party and is now a Liberal with a senior Cabinet post, Minister of Human Resources Development.
I heard about this and immediately switched to talk radio to hear what the people had to say. I just caught the last part of a call in program where it seemed that many people felt this was a principled decision by Belinda. However, one of the last callers got on and stated that, if this was a decision based on principle, why did she not sit as an independent? Did she need to cross the floor and sit as a Liberal to make a statement about her principles?
The fact that she got a senior cabinet post sure makes it look like a payoff.
Although I believe this was pure ambition on her part, her stated reason was that she was not happy with the Conservatives and Bloc alliance. I think this demonstrates the differences in thinking between Albertans and Ontario. Ontario sees the block as a much bigger threat than the west does.
Many in the west, me included, have sympathy towards Quebec claims of being left out. Alberta feels the same way. Not that I agree with Quebec's perception that it is left out. Quite the contrary. With only 25% of the population, Quebec controls Canadian politics. There is no reason the second most populous province in Canada should not be near the top economically. Yet Quebec receives equalization payments. My tax dollars go to pay for $7 a day child care that costs $40 per day. What is fair about that?
Here is another little test. Name the last Canadian Prime Minister that did not come from Quebec. Kim Campbell? John Turner? Remind me again how well they did?
To get back to the main point, Belinda says she is unhappy with the Conservatives cozying up to the Bloc. As if they are. Just because both parties want to get rid of this government does not mean they are in bed together. What do you think is a greater threat to Canada: the fall of this Liberal government or the federal government treating 25% of its citizens like idiots and thinking that a sign with the Canada word mark at their favorite fishing trade show is going to turn them into federalists?
Of course, that is only if you believe Adscam was about saving Canada and not about illegally paying off Liberal party members with your tax dollars.
The Bloc will be against the Government of Canada no matter which party forms the government.
My advice to Belinda: Wake Up.
Also, treat Canadians with a bit of respect.
Don't feed me shit and call it ice cream.
I heard about this and immediately switched to talk radio to hear what the people had to say. I just caught the last part of a call in program where it seemed that many people felt this was a principled decision by Belinda. However, one of the last callers got on and stated that, if this was a decision based on principle, why did she not sit as an independent? Did she need to cross the floor and sit as a Liberal to make a statement about her principles?
The fact that she got a senior cabinet post sure makes it look like a payoff.
Although I believe this was pure ambition on her part, her stated reason was that she was not happy with the Conservatives and Bloc alliance. I think this demonstrates the differences in thinking between Albertans and Ontario. Ontario sees the block as a much bigger threat than the west does.
Many in the west, me included, have sympathy towards Quebec claims of being left out. Alberta feels the same way. Not that I agree with Quebec's perception that it is left out. Quite the contrary. With only 25% of the population, Quebec controls Canadian politics. There is no reason the second most populous province in Canada should not be near the top economically. Yet Quebec receives equalization payments. My tax dollars go to pay for $7 a day child care that costs $40 per day. What is fair about that?
Here is another little test. Name the last Canadian Prime Minister that did not come from Quebec. Kim Campbell? John Turner? Remind me again how well they did?
To get back to the main point, Belinda says she is unhappy with the Conservatives cozying up to the Bloc. As if they are. Just because both parties want to get rid of this government does not mean they are in bed together. What do you think is a greater threat to Canada: the fall of this Liberal government or the federal government treating 25% of its citizens like idiots and thinking that a sign with the Canada word mark at their favorite fishing trade show is going to turn them into federalists?
Of course, that is only if you believe Adscam was about saving Canada and not about illegally paying off Liberal party members with your tax dollars.
The Bloc will be against the Government of Canada no matter which party forms the government.
My advice to Belinda: Wake Up.
Also, treat Canadians with a bit of respect.
Don't feed me shit and call it ice cream.
Sunday, May 15, 2005
Where is my $700?
Interesting developments in Ottawa over the last few weeks. I cannot say I am happy. The country seems to be going into the shithole, to put it bluntly. The House loses confidence in the government, so the government decides it will ignore it. Saner heads prevail and they realize the optics and decide to have a vote over a week later. It seems like we have had a coup. I fully support the opposition halting the operation of parliament, since it no longer has the confidence of the people. They should shut the place down until there is a confidence vote to sort this it. Since the government has no legitimacy, do I have to pay my taxes for this period?
The great Liberal pre-election payout has begun. $22 billion in 3 weeks. I did the math and it adds up to over $700 for every person in the country. Since it is my money, just send me the $700 and keep your stinkin' programs.
The tide must be turning. Even the wife wants her $700.
The great Liberal pre-election payout has begun. $22 billion in 3 weeks. I did the math and it adds up to over $700 for every person in the country. Since it is my money, just send me the $700 and keep your stinkin' programs.
The tide must be turning. Even the wife wants her $700.
Not posting for a bit
As I am sure you can tell, I have not posed for a bit. I have been on a 3 week contract, working 10 hour days. Not really a big deal, but if you go from no employment to working it takes some time to adjust. Also during that time, we sold our house. So the last few weeks were a bit stressful, what with keeping the house clean all the time, something we are not used to. We got a good price, so we are happy. Now we just need to find a place for us to live. Then I need a full time job. This will be a year to remember.
Anyway, the job is now over, so I can spend some more time keeping this up to date. Expect the rest of the trip blog put up over the next little while.
Anyway, the job is now over, so I can spend some more time keeping this up to date. Expect the rest of the trip blog put up over the next little while.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)