Put your tinfoil hat on

Dana at Canadian Comment finds this funny (which it is). However, I also find it a bit disturbing.

I grew up in the 70's, and was a big fan of shows such as Sesame Street. I do not think I ever saw this show, which appears to be British.

Just about every sentence that comes out of every character is a double entendre. It must have been planned that way. It makes you wonder if the show had some other purpose then just entertaining kids.

Now I am going to be watching everything I do to see if it I am being controlled by Sesame Street.

She's cheating on me.... with my Arch Enemy Part II

It seems I have stirred the Three Headed Dragon. In this post, my Gf's ex talks a bit about me. Note the first line:

Here's an entertaining post from one of my e-girlfriend's
fiance.

Now, perhaps it is just a typo, but to me there is a big difference between an ex-girlfriend and an e-girlfriend (which could be considered to be an online girlfriend). You may laugh, but these things happen. My uncle's wife left him for some guys she met online. This was about 10 years ago, so it was very unusual at the time.

Am I being too suspicious? Or not suspicious enough?

She's cheating on me.... with my Arch Enemy

The Gf has an old boyfriend who has a blog here.

Stop!

Do not go there!

I don't want to increase his traffic.

I am always coming upstairs to see her writing emails to this guy or looking at the lame links he sends. This guy lives in San Fran and is a typical left wing, Bush-hating moonbat. During the US election I had to put up with all manner of anti-Bush, anti-war, anti-Republican jokes that he sent her. (I got the last laugh).

Now, I am not the jealous type, but isn't it a bit strange to be taking to some guy who was your ex-boyfriend 10 years ago? We are soon to be married, and I think a certain someone should be focusing on a certain someone and not talking to another certain someone. I don't have contact with any of my exes.

This guy is sabotaging all my work. All that time and effort to convert her to the light side of the force and here she is dipping her feet in the moonbat pool when my back is turned. He is directly counteracting my evil plan(tm).

Does anyone know how to use the parental controls to filter out socialist, left wing crap?

P.S. Note that he has chosen the same blogger template. How weird is that?

So you say you want more military spending?

Thanks to Babbling Brooks and The Files of the Phantom Observer for bringing this to our attention and making it into a graphic for easy comprehension.

It is good to see that, at the height of deficit fighting in Canada we actually spent more inflation adjusted dollars on defence than we will in 2006.

So much for commitment to the military.

Life and Rights

I have always struggled with certain social policies, such as abortion and euthanasia. As a libertarian-leaning conservative, I do not think we should be preventing people from doing things to their body. If someone wants to kill themselves or take drugs, who am I say no? I do not agree with those actions, but it is their body. Does another individual, or even a group of individuals, know what is right for someone else? Even if they do, do they have any right to coerce that person into doing it?

This view is a bit harder to muddle through when discussing abortion. In one sense, a person has the right to do to their own body as they will, but, as libertarians say, your right to punch me in the face ends where my face begins.

What about those that cannot stand up for themselves? Does a woman's right to control her body trump the rights of an unborn child? How can a country that will not execute the most heinous of criminals condone the death of an unborn child?

Good questions all.

However, as Different River and The Hobbesian Conservative point out, this is going even further.

Peter Singer wrote in 1995 an article entitled "Killing Babies Isn't Always Wrong" in which he argued that there should be a ceremony some time after birth where the child is officially admitted into society as a person. The child could be killed before that and it would not be the same as killing a person. Among other things, he states that killing a seriously defective newborn is not wrong. Seriously defective is defined as one that can include lifelong medical treatment, but does not preclude one from living a productive and pleasant life. Is asthma a serious disability?

I bring these points forward to push for public debate on when life begins. The Europeans are already at this point. Should we define what our society is going to be like, or just leave it to some "experts" to decide?

I would be interested to see what The Monger has to say on this issue.

"They're fighting in the car again."

Now, don't get me wrong, I love the Gf.

When we met, the first thing to come out of her mouth was a Simpson's quote. I was hooked right then.

Before we met, I had some trouble connecting with woman. I love to argue and can be aggressive when making my point. The Gf is the first woman who can stand that quality about me. Not to brag, but I like to think I am smart. Not book type, 200 IQ smart, but I like to think I can recognize a logical position and reason out an argument. Not very tech minded though.

The Gf is the first woman I have met who is like me in this respect. Most women are either not smart enough to reason through an argument, or don't care enough about the argument. Most of the ones I met who do, are humourless.

I don't know if I was made for her, but she was definitely made for me. No one else has been able to stand me for this long.

However, at times she can really piss me off. Inevitably, this always happens when she falls back on what I call the Moonbat Debating Rules. Anyone who has visited the Democratic Underground has seen these in action. They generally follow these rule:

1. Make the most outrageous statement you can think of
2. Insult your opponent
3. Cover up any lack of evidence with wild conspiracy theories

Example: Bush=Hitler, you are a racist, the war was only about oil for Haliburton

I am used to her using these rules when we talk politics, but we she starts using the rules on me, I lose it.

Lately we have been fighting about money. We are looking at purchasing a business from a friend. It is a home business, so it would include buying their home and moving just outside the city. All these things we have discussed and it is something we both want to do. However, I am concerned that the price is too much, and the fact that it is a package deal (home + business) makes it difficult to sell in 10 years when we will want to move on. In addition, the house is missing some features that, although I can get by without them, will effect our ability to resell it and thereby make my exit strategy more difficult.

So, I have been the one dealing with this. I have visited the lawyers, real estate agents, banks, talked to friends who know something about business, dealt with the seller, etc.

I was in favour of the idea in principle, else I would not have started looking into it. However, after some research, I am not as convinced it is a good deal based on the price he wants and my ability to execute the exit strategy.

She says I am lazy and I never follow anything through.

Any big decision, I take my time. It took me 6 months to buy this computer. I never rush into these things, and this decision is big. We are talking about taking on debt load of 5 times the value of our present house. This is not something you rush into. If this doesn't work, it could wipe out all the financial gains I have made over the last 8 years.

I don't mind her disagreeing, I want to discuss it with her. We are a team. But when she starts saying I am lazy, and never follow anything through because more research makes me think the deal is not as good as we thought, that is below the belt.

So, I put a poll up in the sidebar. Vote and tell me what you think.

Update: The Gf put up a rebuttal in the comments. It's only fair to read here points before you vote.

Wow

Just as a get on to RightThinkingPeople, they put out this.

The above post is probably the best I have seen that sums up the main problem that "conservatives" face in Canada.

If you agree with what Pianoman is saying, true conservative government is a long, long ways away.

Great post.

Does the Prime Minister know our national anthem?

The Gf told me that while she was watching the live memorial service for the 4 RCMP officers on the CBC, she noticed that, during the french portion of the national anthem, Paul Martin stopped singing and resumed singing when the english portion started again.

She noted that he looked flustered and had a "I wish that camera was not pointed at me" look on his face.

I did not see this myself, so I cannot comment. Did anyone else notice anything like this?

A few to add to the roll

I wanted to bring your attention to the following blogs:

Kate at small dead annimals

Although I may not always agree with her, she says what she thinks. Also, I think one of her latest posts is being misrepresented in the comments.

Don't let them intimidate you.

Also, RightThinkingPeople

I just recently came across this blog and was inpressed by the analysis on various issues. I think they have caught the mood/feelings of some of the conservatives in this country.

The Freaks Come Out at Night

or at least for Senate Committees.

On Monday, the Senate Committee on Defence was in Edmonton to solicit advice from Canadian citizens on the composition of the Canadian Forces. Specifically, they were looking for ideas on the size, capabilities, equipment and role of the CF.

I used to have no respect for Senators and the Senate. I saw them as a bunch of unelected, lazy, patronage appointments and I wondered who's ass I had to kiss to get such a plum job.

Well, the above may or may not be true, but they sure have some patience. Of the approximately 20 presentations, about half were pro military, the other half I will refer to as "nutbar".

It seems that whenever the government asks for the opinion of its citizens on a subject, such as defence, the people take it as a cue to come and complain/comment on just about anything.

I won't comment on the pro military presentations, as it is the nutbar ones that were most interesting. The first guy to get up was all about the evil things CSIS has been doing to the Muslim community. He had no evidence of these "atrocities" except to say that CSIS agents were (gasp) calling up and talking to Muslims. What, no torture, beheadings, etc? Just talking? Surely he could have some up with something better that that.

Then there was a string of aging hippies/peaceniks (and believe me, they looked the part) who talked about how the environment/BMD/Bush/America/ was the biggest threat to Canada and how the Canadian Forces should be used to help people, etc. I got the impression they felt the CF would be best used giving out food and teddy bears to people, or shoveling snow in Toronto. Some had shiny, fancy documents that laid out their great plans for the Committee. There wasn't a coherent argument among them.

I will give the Committee members credit. They sat through the whole thing and treated each presenter seriously, no matter how wacko.

My favourite presentation of the night: The woman with the sign protesting the Official Secrets Act and how it was treating immigrants. Kudos to the Senator who, during his question, pointed out to her that what she really wanted to protest was Bill C-36, since the Official Secrets Act deals with what the government and government workers are allowed to release to the public (I believe this legislation has been replaced).

Most delicious piece of irony: One presenter made some comment towards Tommy Banks about lazy politicians, to which the chairman replied, "Tommy Banks is the most hard working Senator". This may be true, but it is up there with being called the smartest idiot or best politically informed Hollywood actor.

Damn them with faint praise.

Note: Laurie Hawn, an ex-airforce major who ran for the CPC in the last election and lost to Anne McLelland, was there giving his 2 cents.

Update: I forgot to add this point to earlier to this post. One thing I did notice was a certain question asked by the committee members. After most of the "peacenik" presentations, some form of the question "should Canada even have a military" would be asked. Everyone this question was put to answered yes. even the guy you wanted to cut the military budget by 90%.

Mark my words, this point will be made in the final report with some sort of statement about how the vast majority of Canadians support the military.

Thanks to the Monger

The Monger posted a summary of some of the stuff on this site and, in one day, doubled the traffic.

This is a testament to either his popularity or my lack thereof.

This blog was started because I thought it might be fun, and to get some writing experience.

Still, it is nice to know that others are reading and, maybe, getting something out of it.
Else, this becomes some mastibutory ego stroking.

Thanks Monger, I will add you to the sidebar.

A Bit of Humour

From Blackfive check out this

Step 1. Tie the balloons (pictured below) to your car [Blackfive note: you could tie them to someone else's car]

Step 2. Drive VERY FAST

Step 3. Watch people freak out

Step 4. Tell the nice officer you thought they were real

Then view the photo at the bottom of the post.

Where do I get me some of these?

The Canadian Connection

Kate over at Small Dead animals has this post that I find interesting regarding the UN Oil-for-Food program and Canadian involvement in, if not covering up, delaying the truth. Note the comments by James Halifax.

This is a similar to an idea that Mark Steyn recently wrote in an Article entitled "The Power behind the Thrones" regarding powerful people seldom heard about in Canada.

And here I thought Canada was too small for grand conspiracy theories and Star Chamber-esque secret societies. Perhaps I can spend less time on the US nutjob websites to get my conspiracy fix.

One Man's Terrorist....

...is Another Man's Freedom Fighter.

Or is he?

This question has always plagued me. In my heart I know that the use of bombings, etc, in the defence of some ideals perhaps was not moral, but definitely was legitimate. How could I reconcile the Afghan "freedom fighter" with the Palestinian "terrorist".

Lucky for me I have Lee Harris, a man much smarter than I, who put together this essay on why Palestinian terrorism is different.

I highly recommend this to anyone who has ever struggled with the right and wrong of terrorism.

The Path for Canadian Conservatives

(I hope this post is not too long. With the upcoming Conservative policy convention, I thought this might be a good time to put forward some ideas on the policy direction of conservatives in Canada. Mr. Harper, feel free to steal any of these ideas. - MB)

Introduction

1. The Conservative response to the latest Liberal government budget has led to talk that conservatism in Canada is dead. The Conservative Party of Canada has betrayed conservative values with it support for and lukewarm criticism of this budget. Canadians do not know what the CPC stands for. A policy convention set for next month should clear up these questions, but there are several types of conservatism that the party could embrace. Will the CPC embrace the religious, traditional views of social conservatives, the big spending, big government of U.S Republican conservatives, or the small government less taxes of libertarians or some mixture of these values? Which brand of conservatism the CPC selects will greatly effect its electability as well as the future of all Canadians.

Aim

2. The aim of this paper is to outline a political philosophy that conservatism in Canada should adopt.

Discussion

3. The Problem: The problem the CPC faces in developing a policy is the seeming pull of factions within it. Social conservatives want to defend what they see is an assault on traditions, while progressive conservatives support such ideas as same sex marriage which they see as a rights issue. Most conservatives agree that smaller government and lower taxes are a positive development, yet defending assaults on tradition or defending rights costs money and forces the government to be more intrusive in the lives of Canadians. These ideas seem to contradict each other. In order to unite conservatives and to bring those not initially predisposed to vote conservative over to our cause, a political philosophy for the party must be chosen that unites these seemingly disparate views.

4. The Policy: The policy that bridges this gap should have the following two planks as its base:

a. Personal Freedom and Responsibility: This idea is that Canadians are intelligent, responsible citizens and know better that the government what is best for themselves and should be allowed the freedom to make that choice. No government official, no matter what their training, education or credentials knows better than I what is best for me. When, inevitably as happens with non perfect beings, mistakes are made, citizens should be responsible for those choices. Freedom to choose without the responsibility of the outcome, positive or negative, is not truly freedom.

b. Smaller Government: Government is inherently inefficient. Any service to a citizen that must go through a third party before being delivered back to the citizen will cost more than if the citizen found the service for themselves. For this reason, services to Canadians should, as much as possible, be delivered to citizens directly by providers, without the intervention of the government. There may be certain services the government must still provide, (for example, such as defence), but these services should be outsourced as much as possible. The government may still have a role to set standards, provide and ensure a certain minimum level of service, and monitor industry for compliance, but this should be the exception, not the rule.

5. Policy Examples: The following are some suggestions of how the two planks of the above political philosophy would be applied to major policy areas that face Canadians:

a. Social Issues: The suggested way to deal with these issues could be employed with a number of social issues. Based on the principle of smaller government and personal freedom, the government should get out of the marriage business. Any person should be allowed to marry any other, provided they retain the metal faculties to make such a decision. This would preclude those under a certain age and the marrying of inanimate objects or animals. In this sense, why should the government care who at citizen marries? The only reason to care is if citizens are claiming married status that does not meet the definitition in order to avoid paying taxes. Remove the tax breaks for people who are married and this problem solves itself. This may not satisfy social conservatives, but in all reality, anyone who believes that Canadian society would turn back the clock to a time when there was no divorce and homosexuality was not open, is wrong. Social conservatives should be approached and told that, on these subjects the goal should not be to change the behaviour of others, but to ensure that their tax dollars are not being used to condone this behaviour. This approach would apply to other issues such as abortion.

b. Optional Government Programs (Social): Under this heading I include spending on Healthcare and Education policy. Based on the principle that government is inefficient, the government should get out of funding healthcare. This may appear as a completely unsellable policy. However, certain other actions could be taken in concert with this to allay that perception. For example, if the government were to stop funding health care, taxes would be reduced by that same amount, resulting in no net loss of the level of spending in health care. The spending would simply transfer from citizen to government to health care provider to the more direct citizen to healthcare provider, eliminating the middle man and the efficiencies that the extra level of bureaucracy provides. This may be a difficult proposal for Canadians to accept. However, Canadians are intelligent and would see that this would actually lead to more money being spent on health care without an increase in cost. It would also increase personal freedom by allowing citizens to spend their money as they saw fix, allowing them to get the drugs or procedures they deemed important. A certain number of concerns about this plan would have to be countered to ensure wide acceptance. Two of the primary concerns would likely be the cost of catastrophic coverage and how the poor or disadvantaged would be provided for. Two suggestions to address those concerns would be as follows:

(1) Phase in the program to allow private insurance to cover services no longer covered by the government. Private insurance already covers some additional health costs, this would simply increase that amount. This would also provide for an increase in private jobs.

(2) The government could continue to provide health coverage to certain persons, say under a certain income level. This would address the concerns of persons being left with no medical coverage.

The key factor in convincing Canadians to support cuts to social programs is that it must be accompanied by an equal cut in taxes. A “go slow” and phased approach could assist in increasing the acceptance of these ideas.

c. Clear Areas of Federal Jurisdiction: Within this area are items that would be difficult to outsource or responsibilities that should not be outsourced, such as defence and foreign affairs. These departments would be focused on achieving the goals of securing our citizens and protecting Canadians. This would be a “Canada First” policy and this philosophy should be clearly articulated. For example, on the US Ballistic Missile Defence program, Canada would support it as it goes towards securing our citizens.

d. Economic Issues: In line with the principle of freedom and smaller government, the CPC would advocate maximum economic freedom. Citizens and companies are free to spend their money as they wish. In addition, corporations would receive a tax cut at least equal to the amount the government pays out in various regional development funding schemes. This would probably mean greater tax relief than what is spent on these schemes, due to the elimination of the middle man. It would also have the effect of removing the unfairness and difficulty of choosing one company over another.

e. Taxation: This is the key area of the platform. It must be communicated that the lowering of taxes benefits all Canadians, and in effect increases wealth by eliminating the middle man and money spent to administer and audit how the money is spent. This should be easy to communicate considering the many spending scandals over the last ten years by the Liberal government.

Conclusion
6. The suggested policies should go far in uniting the conservative base while, due to the “progressive” view towards personal choice issues, bringing some support from the left of the political spectrum. Although social conservatives may not be satisfied, it is questionable if any “turning back of the clock” on social issues in possible. The best that social conservatives should expect is removal of their tax support for lifestyle choices they do not agree with. This, of course, goes both ways and assures social liberals that their tax dollars do not support lifestyle choices with which they do not agree. Reduced taxes would appeal to all but the most die hard statists and smaller government increases personal freedom while improving the efficiency of tax dollars by removing the middle man.

Out of the Doghouse

I just dropped $5k on our honeymoon/wedding trip to Asia today, with another $5-6k yet to be paid. We are leaving on 20 March and will be back by 17 April. I am thinking about blogging the trip, so there may be blogging on the site while I am away.

It looks like everything is a go, so the Gf should be happy, which means my life will be less miserable.

As soon as the trip was paid for, I called the Gf to let her know the good news. She was happy but then immediately started asking various questions about which flight we were taking, etc. I had no idea I did not really care. I am still trying to come to the realization of how much money I have just spent and she is asking questions about stuff I do not have to worry about for at least 3 weeks, like which airline we are on.

I love the travel people. Just after you have handed over the check and buyers remorse is setting in, they are sure to give you a quick "I am sure you are going to love it".

I am sure I will love it too. But $11k love it?

That is what I am not too sure about.

Eleven thousand dollars so the Gf won't be mad at me. What have a gotten myself into?

My Post Budget Analysis - Who Cares?

I mentioned today that I would talk about the budget. I see nothing to talk about. A bunch of empty platitudes and a lot of useless spending, why waste my time.

I will comment on the budget info I mentioned yesterday.

What I wrote before the budget was released seems to be correct. However, the total military increase is said to be $12.8 billion instead of $12 billion. I have seen nothing to indicate that the report that $9 billion of the money is previously announced spending is not true. One new point is that the $3.8 billion new spending (or $12.8 billion new + old spending) will not be doled out equally over 5 years. Peanuts the first few years and then much more of that money starting in 2008.

Does anyone out there think this government will still be around by 2008? I will bet Warren Kinsella's life that there will be an election before 2008.

Warren Kinsella's name has now appeared on my blog. When he is googling his name tomorrow, Warren will come to my blog, read what I wrote and slap me with the threat of a lawsuit.

Instant fame!

I have to do something to increase traffic on this site. Then maybe I can sell some advertising space and make some money on this baby.

The GF's calls for me to get a job are getting louder and I am not sure how long I can hold her off.

Unfortunately for me, I cannot be sued as I do not exist. I am a robot build by Rod Love (Karl Rove's equally evil but less successful twin).

P.S. Karl Rove/Rod Love - the names are similar but not the same. Perhaps I have stumbled on to something....Hey, who are you? How did you get in here? What?! What are you doing???!! Let go of me! Hey, don't rip the pajamas.....

Encouraging Signs for the Canadian Military

As I write this, the budget has not yet been released. Rumours abound (on the front pages of national newspapers) that the military will receive about $12 billion more dollars. I will wait and see. However, I notice that it is already being said that this will be over 5 years and $9 billion has already been announced. So $600 million a year for the next 5 years in new spending.

Funny, it doesn't sound like a lot when you say it like that. Perhaps because it isn't.

More on that tomorrow.

Today I would like to talk about encouraging changes to the way the military does business that I have noticed "on the coal face". To be honest, defence needs more money, but if I was the Prime Minister, I would not give one cent until they sorted their act out. There are signs that this is happening.

Anyone who knows me is aware that I am no fan of the senior leadership in the military. I see them as a bunch of old ladies who I would not follow out of a burning building. Why to I feel this way? Over the last ten years of my military service I have seen absolutely no leadership from any of them. A great quote that you often see in the military: Lead, Follow, or get out of the way". Our Generals have forgotten this and simply act as a block, getting in the way.

For years those of us in the military have know about the problems. We spent countless hours in the Mess discussing them and telling everyone who would listen what they were and how to fix them. None of it is rocket science, and I my ego is not so big that I think I have some unique insight into the problems. However, the problems are not that unique. If a lowly guy like me can clearly see the problems and solutions, then a senior officer with many years more experience should surely see it as well. Or he could steal my idea. We are not an organization big on credit, more on getting the job done. Yet nothing gets done.

Perhaps it is not their fault. Maybe General X wanted to do something but knew it would not be supported or the political masters would nix it, or something like that. Too bad. You get paid the big bucks to face and overcome these types of problems. If you cannot do your job you should have the decency to quit. Or did you think being a general was all backrubs and fancy umbrella drinks?

There is one event that I felt clearly demonstrated this lack of focus in the Canadian Forces. This was the Chief of Defence Staff's message. One (or even several) time(s) a year the CDS would put out a message to be read by every member of the CF. This would usually touch on such topics as the state of the military, where were we going, updates on various projects, etc. I was always struck by the dichotomy between what I was facing and what he thought was important. The CDS would always talk about what the CF was doing to stop harassment/racism, or some new personnel software which would make our lives easier, or some new pay raise.

Think about that. The focus of the guy in charge of the defence of our country was not on the defence of our country, but on the cause du jour. Instead of talking about what he was doing to make the military stronger so that it would be best able to face the tasks set by our citizens, he was making sure all soldiers would have their sex change operation paid for. * That always profoundly disturbed and disgusted me, and was probably a big factor in my retirement.

So, as you can see, I don't have a lot of time for some of our past senior officers.

However, that is changing. Over the past 6 weeks, profound changes have been going on. I can see this even from my position in lower middle management. Our Area Commander, BGen Beare, has cancelled a major Reserve exercise in his area because it does not meet with the focus of the Army. As well, he has completely changed our training focus. Whether or not you agree with his decisions, at least the man has a vision and the will to pursue it. This is a far cry from the wishy-washy types we used to be saddled with.

It all starts at the top and works its way down. I do not know the new CDS, General Rick Hillier, but he seems like a no nonsense guy who sets goals and works to meet them. Most people in the military are focused on results. They do not care so much on what the goal is they just want their leaders to have one and to lead them to that goal.

We may have found some leaders.

And good luck to our former CDS, Gen Ray Henault. You should fit right in with those gum flapping, do nothing, mushheads in Europe.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

* A good story about the CDS before Henault, Gen Baril. He was fond of taking about the soldier who had a sex change operation as some sort of proof of what a progressive organization the CF was. On one occasion, so the story goes, some officer challenged him on this. The CDS then launched into one of his legendary rants defending the decision (He used to have a video camera follow him around on occasion, getting footage for archives, etc. When this question came up it was standard operating procedure for the camera operator to focus the camera at the ground, to prevent the rant from being taped). Unfortunately, the officer asking the question happened to be a psychiatrist and promptly refuted every one of his points.

Evil Genius Karl Rove

Finally released from Evil Rove HQ, authentic transcripts of the discussion and decision of the Evil Plan (tm) used by the Republicans to defeat John Kerry.

Rove's Brilliant Plan

Thanks to Tim Blair for this.

Better sailors based on how you use the stuff between your legs

Trudeaupia and Occam's Carbuncle beat me to this.

The Royal Navy announced a drive to recruit gays and lesbians.


Funny, I thought the Royal Navy was in the business of recruiting sailors.