Saturday, December 31, 2005

4 Out Of 5 Psychologists Agree That Liberals Have A Dog Fetish Problem

Energy Minister David Emerson is the latest Liberal to come out of the dog fetish closet. Campaigning in BC the Liberal cabinet minister compared NDP leader Jack Layton's smile to that of a boiled dogs head..... ???? whaaaa??? Now I am not really up on my Cantonese insults, but I am guessing that is similar in North American insult terms to say a shit eating smile. So well done David another attack on Jack, with a racial slur to boot, well done indeed.
Stephen Harper and the Consevative's must be living the dream right now, not only are the winning the campaign, they now see the Liberals bashing the NDP, and have mounted a pre-emptive strike on any Liberal attacks on them. The new Conservative Ad Campaign warns Canadains to expect the Liberals to use the remaining time left in the election campaign to attack the Conservatives. Wow an attack ad attacking attack ads...... has Karl Rove moved north, I gotta hand it to the Conservatives they have got game this time around.
Its New Years Eve, 24 days until E-day and folks all bets are off, I predicted another Liberal minority when this whole mess started, but I am not sure now, I am positive about 2 thing 1: that Canada will have another minority government, and 2: heads are gonna roll in the Martin campaign super structure.
Happy New Years all, all the best in 2006.

Tuesday, December 27, 2005

Hey Mike Klander, Um Ya I Wanted To Write Something Witty But, Um I Couldn't Think Of Anything, And Oh Ya You Are An Asshole, Phew That Felt Good.

Wow Paul Martin's team of young hot shot PR types are really doing a great job eh? First Liberal blowhard Scott Reid came out and said the Canadians would spend their childcare premiums on beer and popcorn. Now a Liberal exec from Ontario Mike Klander posts a picture of Olivia Chow and a Chow Chow, with the witty remark Seperated at Birth.... genius. It didn't end there, He then went on to post some even wittier remarks calling Chow's husband NDP leader Jack Layton an asshole, cuz he had nothing better to say and well because it was true. Good work Mike a racial slur, and then a disparging remark... wow what a wit. Hey Mike Merry Chirstmas I notice that Paul Martin has taken your picture off the Liberal Party of Ontario Website, photo and position vacant, how does that feel buddy, betcha don't feel so bright now. You know what sucks, I am not a Liberal party exec, I am just a politico bitch who can make fun of whom ever I like, so here it goes, wait for it, are you ready for the wit, you sir are one step up from an asshole, you sir are a dogs ass. Merry Elexmas all.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005

Dear Quebec, I Love You, Now Shut The Hell Up

I haven't been posting much lately, what with the holidays or is it Christmas, whatever it is, there is a full house right now, so I spend most of my time eating and drinking, and well just can't quite find a quite moment to post.
So what is going on with Elexmas, well we have the 2 strongest federalist parties screaming at each other about Quebec independence..... while the Bloc well they just sit back and count seats. I love Quebec, I lived in Montreal for 8 years, I believe its the greatest city in Canada, if not the world, so I have held off any criticism of the belle provence for a long time. So excuse moi whilst I rant a bit. The first thing I have to say about the separtist movement in Quebec is that I get it, my ex girlfriend is a francophone and well I have experienced the Quebecois culture firsthand, most Quebecers have no desire to seperate from Canada, but are smart enough to know that voting Bloc federally or even P.Q. provincally offers them a strong voice that is hell bent on protecting Quebec's interests. Politics in Quebec is outstanding, it is filled with spunk and passion, the Quebecois are most definately the most intelligent voters in the country, especially federally. The shear threat of a strong speratist movement in Quebec, sends shivers down the spine of any federalist governing party in Ottawa. This ace up the sleeve has allowed Quebec to dictate Canadian policy, and elect Prime Ministers from Quebec 3 of the last 4 times.
So what are the Conservatives and Liberals going on about, why are these 2 federalist parties poking sticks at the hornets nest that is Quebec independence....... well although it is a virtual impossibility, I think the knowledge that a majority government in Canada is only possible, if a party can pick up at least a moderate amount of seats in Quebec. My question is then, why are the Libs and Cons debating each other about seperation and federalism, and not making any attempt to demonize or attack the Bloc. The Bloc have a free ride in this election, Duceppe simply has to go along for the ride, appear in a few debates, kiss some babies, do some speeches in Quebec and Montreal and well keep is nose clean of any faux pas..... all the while he can sit back and grin over his egg nog as Harper makes promises that Quebec will be represented at any International meetings, and well Martin raps himself in the Canadain flag lamely proclaiming that federalism is in his DNA.
Harper's claim that the Liberals want a seperatist government to gain power provinically in Quebec, inorder to devert attention from the sponorship scandal and proclaim themselves as the heroic defenders of federalism, is well right at least in the point that the Liberals might much rather have the P.Q. running the province of Quebec, rather then a strong opposition, bitching and whine about all things federalist. The P.Q. is much more effective as an opposition then it is as party of power.... one only has to look at the labour unrest within Quebec in the last few years, to realize the kind of crap the P.Q. can pull when not tied down to the burden of governing. So yes Mr Harper, yes I think the Liberals both federally and maybe even provincally would much rather have a seperatist government running Quebec, at least that way they might shut the hell up and actually do some work for once.

Pat Robertson, God, And Intelligent Design, Take One In The Pooper In Pennsylvania

A judge in Dover PA, has ruled that Intelligent Design cannot be taught along side Biology. He claims that ID is not based on science and has to many ties to creationism and religious antecedents, and is therefore unconstitutional violating the law which separates church from state.
Wow good on ya judge, doesn't take a freaking genius to realize that ID is a joke, that ID is a ploy by the religious right to get more mind control religious Bologna in America's classrooms. So how did America's Pope Pat Robertson react, well he said wide grin and all that: "I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city,"........ Wow is there like a neo con curse playbook, if you delete God and add terrorist, isn't that almost the same thing that Bill O'Reilly said about San Francisco.
Hey dig the photo I thought it was great that a neo con icon Like Charleton Heston was going all French on a monkey.... Strangely arousing at 9 in the morning.

Friday, December 16, 2005

Full Text Of Harper's 1997 Speech

We must remember folks that this speech is about 8 years old, Steven Harper was a private citizen at the time, and he was talking to a crowd of Neo-Cons. But I ask you, can a man with such conservative, and negitive views about much of Canadian society, really be a Prime Minister, who represents all of Canada, and not just the wild west? It is a long read but, I think you will find his view of the NDP as proof of the devil being involved in the affairs of men, and his stance on bilingualism particularily rich. Thanks to the Globe And Mail for posting the full text on line, enjoy:
Ladies and gentlemen, let me begin by giving you a big welcome to Canada. Let's start up with a compliment. You're here from the second greatest nation on earth. But seriously, your country, and particularly your conservative movement, is a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world.
Now, having given you a compliment, let me also give you an insult. I was asked to speak about Canadian politics. It may not be true, but it's legendary that if you're like all Americans, you know almost nothing except for your own country. Which makes you probably knowledgeable about one more country than most Canadians.
But in any case, my speech will make that assumption. I'll talk fairly basic stuff. If it seems pedestrian to some of you who do know a lot about Canada, I apologize.
I'm going to look at three things. First of all, just some basic facts about Canada that are relevant to my talk, facts about the country and its political system, its civics. Second, I want to take a look at the party system that's developed in Canada from a conventional left/right, or liberal/conservative perspective. The third thing I'm going to do is look at the political system again, because it can't be looked at in this country simply from the conventional perspective.
First, facts about Canada. Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it. Canadians make no connection between the fact that they are a Northern European welfare state and the fact that we have very low economic growth, a standard of living substantially lower than yours, a massive brain drain of young professionals to your country, and double the unemployment rate of the United States.
In terms of the unemployed, of which we have over a million-and-a-half, don't feel particularly bad for many of these people. They don't feel bad about it themselves, as long as they're receiving generous social assistance and unemployment insurance.
That is beginning to change. There have been some significant changes in our fiscal policies and our social welfare policies in the last three or four years. But nevertheless, they're still very generous compared to your country.
Let me just make a comment on language, which is so important in this country. I want to disabuse you of misimpressions you may have. If you've read any of the official propagandas, you've come over the border and entered a bilingual country. In this particular city, Montreal, you may well get that impression. But this city is extremely atypical of this country.
While it is a French-speaking city -- largely -- it has an enormous English-speaking minority and a large number of what are called ethnics: they who are largely immigrant communities, but who politically and culturally tend to identify with the English community.
This is unusual, because the rest of the province of Quebec is, by and large, almost entirely French-speaking. The English minority present here in Montreal is quite exceptional.
Furthermore, the fact that this province is largely French-speaking, except for Montreal, is quite exceptional with regard to the rest of the country. Outside of Quebec, the total population of francophones, depending on how you measure it, is only three to five per cent of the population. The rest of Canada is English speaking.
Even more important, the French-speaking people outside of Quebec live almost exclusively in the adjacent areas, in northern New Brunswick and in Eastern Ontario.
The rest of Canada is almost entirely English speaking. Where I come from, Western Canada, the population of francophones ranges around one to two per cent in some cases. So it's basically an English-speaking country, just as English-speaking as, I would guess, the northern part of the United States.
But the important point is that Canada is not a bilingual country. It is a country with two languages. And there is a big difference.
As you may know, historically and especially presently, there's been a lot of political tension between these two major language groups, and between Quebec and the rest of Canada.
Let me take a moment for a humorous story. Now, I tell this with some trepidation, knowing that this is a largely Christian organization.
The National Citizens Coalition, by the way, is not. We're on the sort of libertarian side of the conservative spectrum. So I tell this joke with a little bit of trepidation. But nevertheless, this joke works with Canadian audiences of any kind, anywhere in Canada, both official languages, any kind of audience.
It's about a constitutional lawyer who dies and goes to heaven. There, he meets God and gets his questions answered about life. One of his questions is, "God, will this problem between Quebec and the rest of Canada ever be resolved?'' And God thinks very deeply about this, as God is wont to do. God replies, "Yes, but not in my lifetime.''
I'm glad to see you weren't offended by that. I've had the odd religious person who's been offended. I always tell them, "Don't be offended. The joke can't be taken seriously theologically. It is, after all, about a lawyer who goes to heaven.''
In any case. My apologies to Eugene Meyer of the Federalist Society.
Second, the civics, Canada's civics.
On the surface, you can make a comparison between our political system and yours. We have an executive, we have two legislative houses, and we have a Supreme Court.
However, our executive is the Queen, who doesn't live here. Her representative is the Governor General, who is an appointed buddy of the Prime Minister.
Of our two legislative houses, the Senate, our upper house, is appointed, also by the Prime Minister, where he puts buddies, fundraisers and the like. So the Senate also is not very important in our political system.
And we have a Supreme Court, like yours, which, since we put a charter of rights in our constitution in 1982, is becoming increasingly arbitrary and important. It is also appointed by the Prime Minister. Unlike your Supreme Court, we have no ratification process.
So if you sort of remove three of the four elements, what you see is a system of checks and balances which quickly becomes a system that's described as unpaid checks and political imbalances.
What we have is the House of Commons. The House of Commons, the bastion of the Prime Minister's power, the body that selects the Prime Minister, is an elected body. I really emphasize this to you as an American group: It's not like your House of Representatives. Don't make that comparison.
What the House of Commons is really like is the United States electoral college. Imagine if the electoral college which selects your president once every four years were to continue sitting in Washington for the next four years. And imagine its having the same vote on every issue. That is how our political system operates.
In our election last Monday, the Liberal party won a majority of seats. The four opposition parties divided up the rest, with some very, very rough parity.
But the important thing to know is that this is how it will be until the Prime Minister calls the next election. The same majority vote on every issue. So if you ask me, "What's the vote going to be on gun control?'' or on the budget, we know already.
If any member of these political parties votes differently from his party on a particular issue, well, that will be national headline news. It's really hard to believe. If any one member votes differently, it will be national headline news. I voted differently at least once from my party, and it was national headline news. It's a very different system.
Our party system consists today of five parties. There was a remark made yesterday at your youth conference about the fact that parties come and go in Canada every year. This is rather deceptive. I've written considerably on this subject.
We had a two-party system from the founding of our country, in 1867. That two-party system began to break up in the period from 1911 to 1935. Ever since then, five political elements have come and gone. We've always had at least three parties. But even when parties come back, they're not really new. They're just an older party re-appearing under a different name and different circumstances.
Let me take a conventional look at these five parties. I'll describe them in terms that fit your own party system, the left/right kind of terms.
Let's take the New Democratic Party, the NDP, which won 21 seats. The NDP could be described as basically a party of liberal Democrats, but it's actually worse than that, I have to say. And forgive me jesting again, but the NDP is kind of proof that the Devil lives and interferes in the affairs of men.
This party believes not just in large government and in massive redistributive programs, it's explicitly socialist. On social value issues, it believes the opposite on just about everything that anybody in this room believes. I think that's a pretty safe bet on all social-value kinds of questions.
Some people point out that there is a small element of clergy in the NDP. Yes, this is true. But these are clergy who, while very committed to the church, believe that it made a historic error in adopting Christian theology.
The NDP is also explicitly a branch of the Canadian Labour Congress, which is by far our largest labour group, and explicitly radical.
There are some moderate and conservative labour organizations. They don't belong to that particular organization.
The second party, the Liberal party, is by far the largest party. It won the election. It's also the only party that's competitive in all parts of the country. The Liberal party is our dominant party today, and has been for 100 years. It's governed almost all of the last hundred years, probably about 75 per cent of the time.
It's not what you would call conservative Democrat; I think that's a disappearing kind of breed. But it's certainly moderate Democrat, a type of Clinton-pragmatic Democrat. It's moved in the last few years very much to the right on fiscal and economic concerns, but still believes in government intrusion in the economy where possible, and does, in its majority, believe in fairly liberal social values.
In the last Parliament, it enacted comprehensive gun control, well beyond, I think, anything you have. Now we'll have a national firearms registration system, including all shotguns and rifles. Many other kinds of weapons have been banned. It believes in gay rights, although it's fairly cautious. It's put sexual orientation in the Human Rights Act and will let the courts do the rest.
There is an important caveat to its liberal social values. For historic reasons that I won't get into, the Liberal party gets the votes of most Catholics in the country, including many practising Catholics. It does have a significant Catholic, social-conservative element which occasionally disagrees with these kinds of policy directions. Although I caution you that even this Catholic social conservative element in the Liberal party is often quite liberal on economic issues.
Then there is the Progressive Conservative party, the PC party, which won only 20 seats. Now, the term Progressive Conservative will immediately raise suspicions in all of your minds. It should. It's obviously kind of an oxymoron. But actually, its origin is not progressive in the modern sense. The origin of the term "progressive'' in the name stems from the Progressive Movement in the 1920s, which was similar to that in your own country.
But the Progressive Conservative is very definitely liberal Republican. These are people who are moderately conservative on economic matters, and in the past have been moderately liberal, even sometimes quite liberal on social policy matters.
In fact, before the Reform Party really became a force in the late '80s, early '90s, the leadership of the Conservative party was running the largest deficits in Canadian history. They were in favour of gay rights officially, officially for abortion on demand. Officially -- what else can I say about them? Officially for the entrenchment of our universal, collectivized, health-care system and multicultural policies in the constitution of the country.
At the leadership level anyway, this was a pretty liberal group. This explains one of the reasons why the Reform party has become such a power.
The Reform party is much closer to what you would call conservative Republican, which I'll get to in a minute.
The Bloc Quebecois, which I won't spend much time on, is a strictly Quebec party, strictly among the French-speaking people of Quebec. It is an ethnic separatist party that seeks to make Quebec an independent, sovereign nation.
By and large, the Bloc Quebecois is centre-left in its approach. However, it is primarily an ethnic coalition. It's always had diverse elements. It does have an element that is more on the right of the political spectrum, but that's definitely a minority element.
Let me say a little bit about the Reform party because I want you to be very clear on what the Reform party is and is not.
The Reform party, although described by many of its members, and most of the media, as conservative, and conservative in the American sense, actually describes itself as populist. And that's the term its leader, Preston Manning, uses.
This term is not without significance. The Reform party does stand for direct democracy, which of course many American conservatives do, but also it sees itself as coming from a long tradition of populist parties of Western Canada, not all of which have been conservative.
It also is populist in the very real sense, if I can make American analogies to it -- populist in the sense that the term is sometimes used with Ross Perot.
The Reform party is very much a leader-driven party. It's much more a real party than Mr. Perot's party -- by the way, it existed before Mr. Perot's party. But it's very much leader-driven, very much organized as a personal political vehicle. Although it has much more of a real organization than Mr. Perot does.
But the Reform party only exists federally. It doesn't exist at the provincial level here in Canada. It really exists only because Mr. Manning is pursuing the position of prime minister. It doesn't have a broader political mandate than that yet. Most of its members feel it should, and, in their minds, actually it does.
It also has some Buchananist tendencies. I know there are probably many admirers of Mr. Buchanan here, but I mean that in the sense that there are some anti-market elements in the Reform Party. So far, they haven't been that important, because Mr. Manning is, himself, a fairly orthodox economic conservative.
The predecessor of the Reform party, the Social Credit party, was very much like this. Believing in funny money and control of banking, and a whole bunch of fairly non-conservative economic things.
So there are some non-conservative tendencies in the Reform party, but, that said, the party is clearly the most economically conservative party in the country. It's the closest thing we have to a neo-conservative party in that sense.
It's also the most conservative socially, but it's not a theocon party, to use the term. The Reform party does favour the use of referendums and free votes in Parliament on moral issues and social issues.
The party is led by Preston Manning, who is a committed, evangelical Christian. And the party in recent years has made some reference to family values and to family priorities. It has some policies that are definitely social-conservative, but it's not explicitly so.
Many members are not, the party officially is not, and, frankly, the party has had a great deal of trouble when it's tried to tackle those issues.
Last year, when we had the Liberal government putting the protection of sexual orientation in our Human Rights Act, the Reform Party was opposed to that, but made a terrible mess of the debate. In fact, discredited itself on that issue, not just with the conventional liberal media, but even with many social conservatives by the manner in which it mishandled that.
So the social conservative element exists. Mr. Manning is a Christian, as are most of the party's senior people. But it's not officially part of the party. The party hasn't quite come to terms with how that fits into it.
That's the conventional analysis of the party system.
Let me turn to the non-conventional analysis, because frankly, it's impossible, with just left/right terminology to explain why we would have five parties, or why we would have four parties on the conventional spectrum. Why not just two?
The reason is regional division, which you'll see if you carefully look at a map. Let me draw the United States comparison, a comparison with your history.
The party system that is developing here in Canada is a party system that replicates the antebellum period, the pre-Civil War period of the United States.
That's not to say -- and I would never be quoted as saying -- we're headed to a civil war. But we do have a major secession crisis, obviously of a very different nature than the secession crisis you had in the 1860s. But the dynamics, the political and partisan dynamics of this, are remarkably similar.
The Bloc Quebecois is equivalent to your Southern secessionists, Southern Democrats, states rights activists. The Bloc Quebecois, its 44 seats, come entirely from the province of Quebec. But even more strikingly, they come from ridings, or election districts, almost entirely populated by the descendants of the original European French settlers.
The Liberal party has 26 seats in Quebec. Most of these come from areas where there are heavy concentrations of English, aboriginal or ethnic votes. So the Bloc Quebecois is very much an ethnic party, but it's also a secession party.
In the referendum two years ago, the secessionists won 49 per cent of the vote, 49.5 per cent. So this is a very real crisis. We're looking at another referendum before the turn of the century.
The Progressive Conservative party is very much comparable to the Whigs of the 1850s and 1860s. What is happening to them is very similar to the Whigs. A moderate conservative party, increasingly under stress because of the secession movement, on the one hand, and the reaction to that movement from harder line English Canadians on the other hand.
You may recall that the Whigs, in their dying days, went through a series of metamorphoses. They ended up as what was called the Unionist movement that won some of the border states in your 1860 election.
If you look at the surviving PC support, it's very much concentrated in Atlantic Canada, in the provinces to the east of Quebec. These are very much equivalent to the United States border states. They're weak economically. They have very grim prospects if Quebec separates. These people want a solution at almost any cost. And some of the solutions they propose would be exactly that.
They also have a small percentage of seats in Quebec. These are French-speaking areas that are also more moderate and very concerned about what would happen in a secession crisis.
The Liberal party is very much your northern Democrat, or mainstream Democratic party, a party that is less concessionary to the secessionists than the PCs, but still somewhat concessionary. And they still occupy the mainstream of public opinion in Ontario, which is the big and powerful province, politically and economically, alongside Quebec.
The Reform party is very much a modern manifestation of the Republican movement in Western Canada; the U.S. Republicans started in the western United States. The Reform Party is very resistant to the agenda and the demands of the secessionists, and on a very deep philosophical level.
The goal of the secessionists is to transform our country into two nations, either into two explicitly sovereign countries, or in the case of weaker separatists, into some kind of federation of two equal partners.
The Reform party opposes this on all kinds of grounds, but most important, Reformers are highly resistant philosophically to the idea that we will have an open, modern, multi-ethnic society on one side of the line, and the other society will run on some set of ethnic-special-status principles. This is completely unacceptable, particularly to philosophical conservatives in the Reform party.
The Reform party's strength comes almost entirely from the West. It's become the dominant political force in Western Canada. And it is getting a substantial vote in Ontario. Twenty per cent of the vote in the last two elections. But it has not yet broken through in terms of the number of seats won in Ontario.
This is a very real political spectrum, lining up from the Bloc to reform. You may notice I didn't mention the New Democratic Party. The NDP obviously can't be compared to anything pre-Civil War. But the NDP is not an important player on this issue. Its views are somewhere between the liberals and conservatives. Its main concern, of course, is simply the left-wing agenda to basically disintegrate our society in all kinds of spectrums. So it really doesn't fit in.
But I don't use this comparison of the pre-Civil War lightly. Preston Manning, the leader of the Reform party has spent a lot of time reading about pre-Civil War politics. He compares the Reform party himself to the Republican party of that period. He is very well-read on Abraham Lincoln and a keen follower and admirer of Lincoln.
I know Mr. Manning very well. I would say that next to his own father, who is a prominent Western Canadian politician, Abraham Lincoln has probably had more effect on Mr. Manning's political philosophy than any individual politician.
Obviously, the issue here is not slavery, but the appeasement of ethnic nationalism. For years, we've had this Quebec separatist movement. For years, we elected Quebec prime ministers to deal with that, Quebec prime ministers who were committed federalists who would lead us out of the wilderness. For years, we have given concessions of various kinds of the province of Quebec, political and economic, to make them happier.
This has not worked. The sovereignty movement has continued to rise in prominence. And its demands have continued to increase. It began to hit the wall when what are called the soft separatists and the conventional political establishment got together to put in the constitution something called "a distinct society clause.'' Nobody really knows what it would mean, but it would give the Supreme Court, where Quebec would have a tremendous role in appointment, the power to interpret Quebec's special needs and powers, undefined elsewhere.
This has led to a firewall of resistance across the country. It fuelled the growth of the Reform party. I should even say that the early concessionary people, like Pierre Trudeau, have come out against this. So there's even now an element of the Quebec federalists themselves who will no longer accept this.
So you see the syndrome we're in. The separatists continue to make demands. They're a powerful force. They continue to have the bulk of the Canadian political establishment on their side. The two traditional parties, the Liberals and PCs, are both led by Quebecers who favour concessionary strategies. The Reform party is a bastion of resistance to this tendency.
To give you an idea of how divided the country is, not just in Quebec but how divided the country is outside Quebec on this, we had a phenomenon five years ago. This is a real phenomenon; I don't know how much you heard about it.
The establishment came down with a constitutional package which they put to a national referendum. The package included distinct society status for Quebec and some other changes, including some that would just horrify you, putting universal Medicare in our constitution, and feminist rights, and a whole bunch of other things.
What was significant about this was that this constitutional proposal was supported by the entire Canadian political establishment. By all of the major media. By the three largest traditional parties, the PC, Liberal party and NDP. At the time, the Bloc and Reform were very small.
It was supported by big business, very vocally by all of the major CEOs of the country. The leading labour unions all supported it. Complete consensus. And most academics.
And it was defeated. It literally lost the national referendum against a rag-tag opposition consisting of a few dissident conservatives and a few dissident socialists.
This gives you some idea of the split that's taking place in the country.
Canada is, however, a troubled country politically, not socially. This is a country that we like to say works in practice but not in theory.
You can walk around this country without running across very many of these political controversies.
I'll end there and take any of your questions. But let me conclude by saying, good luck in your own battles. Let me just remind you of something that's been talked about here. As long as there are exams, there will always be prayer in schools.

Thursday, December 15, 2005

Bush vs. Martin

The US Ambassador to Canada David Wilkins has warned Paul Martin and the Liberals to leave US/Canada relations out of the Canadian election. To which Martin showing a rare set of stones said 'I will not be dictated to'..... and he was hammering the US on softwood lumber... OK.... and the enviroment...whaaa?...... well before the election. Don't get me wrong, or better yet I will use a Martinism, let me make it perfectly clear, I am an as unabashed Bush basher as anyone, I think he is a dolt and a failure and has done nothing but make the world worse since he became president, but for Martin to us Bush's unpopularity (especially in Canada) to try and bolster his own, rings shallow to me. Let us remember that the Bushies are in the Whitehouse until 2008, ummm we could have oh maybe 2 or 3 different governments and maybe a coupla different PMs in that time. So Paul leave the Bush bashing to the professionals, like say me and leftwing bloggers like me, and fix the things like softwood lumber, and the enviroment the old fashion Canadian way with diplomacy, and good common sense.

Sunday, December 11, 2005

Tories Offer $25 A Week For Beer And Popcorn?

Sunday is the one day of the week where I can catch up on Canadian politics. My stories I call them, start with CBC's Sunday, and then I watch CTV's Question Period. This morning on Sunday, Liberal strategist/blowhard Scott Reid made a comment to the effect that the Tory's childcare proposal amounts to nothing more then a $25 dollar a week stiphen that we the people will probably spend on beer and popcorn. Wow good to see that Scotty has such faith in the good judgment of the Canadian taxpayer. Arrogant off the cuff comments like that are political suicide during an election campaign, especially when the Liberal's opponents are painting them as arrogant and governing with an air of entitlement.
Scott Reid appears every week on Question Period, he sits in a roundtable discussion with fellow party blowhards of the Conservative Party and the NDP, funny he was conspicous in his absense on this weeks addition. Hmmm I wonder if Paul Martin gave him a talking to, I have this image of poor Scotty mouth duct taped, eyes pried open ala Clockwork Orange, being bombarded with Liberal talking points and maybe a smathering of election ethics..... I hope to see you next week Snotty Scotty, should be a firey roundtable for sure.
Healthcare Smealthcare: Bum Foot Addition

So Thursday is basketball night in Annapolis, about 8:15 my dad, silly man tried to drive to the net on me, sure enough he got a step on me, but that was the last comfortable step on his right foot for say I don't know 4-6 weeks. So at first he was thinking okay I can walk it off, then he decided to take off his sneaker, no swelling, not a bad sign. Finally at 9:00 he let me drive him to the hospital/healthcare center. There was one other person there, an older fellow who sounded like he had a bit of a bad cough.... The doctor who was on call was dad's family doctor, that's good right, the nurse sat dad done on a little cot, gave him a little bag of ice, then disappeared. We waited we waited, its 10:00 no doctor no nurse, dad is Christ I would rather be uncomfortable and miserable at home, then uncomfortable and miserable here. 10:45, fuck dad says I am becoming impatient, 10:50 the good doctor arrives... Asks a few questions, then poked and prodded his foot saying does this hurt, how about this... Anyway five minutes of high speed doctoring and the doctor says come back tomorrow morning at 8:30 for xrays, the doctor was half way out the door when I was like um ah hey could we maybe get some crutches and some nice painkillers.... Right said the doctor I am not sure if we have crutches... I point to the corner, I had been eyeing them all night, doctor fully out the door now I will get the nurse to give you some pills... 4 Tylinols...yipee. So there you have it, an hour and 45 minutes in a cot and my dad was looked at and released in all of 5 minutes. I mean I know Thursday is Survivor, and CSI night but wow... You think the good doctor could have arrived a little faster, no sense me missing my shows either.

A Comedy Legend Dies

The great Richard Prior died yesterday. Prior who has been battling Multiple Sclerosis for many years, was an extraordinarily influential comedian whose potty mouth and self-confessional comedy revolutionized comedy. R.I.P Richard we will miss ya.

Tuesday, December 06, 2005

New and Improved?

Changed the name of this blog, and also the little blurb that accompanies it, why, I am not sure, a case of early morning maddness I guess.

Sunday, December 04, 2005

Harper and The Conservatives Win Week One of Elexmas 2006

Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party have all the mojo in the early stages of the Canadian election campaign. The Conservative campaign ploy of rolling out policy proposal early in the morning, has the opposition on the defensive and reactionary and has Harper looking confident all around. The boldest early campaign move was the Conservative promise to cut the GST by 2% within the next 5 years. This idea was poo pooed by most economists, but seems to have garnered a fair amount of support by the voting public.
Paul Martin for his part seemed to have been taking aback by this idea, his reaction to it was a mumbly stumbly press conference, where he simply promoted his plan to cut income taxes for the middle class. When asked if Canada could afford a GST cut, he deflected the question and returned to his talking point of how it makes more sense to cut personal income taxes for the middle class. Martin and the Liberal never recovered from the GST low blow from the Conservatives, and didn't even campaign on Saturday.... can anyone say emergency strategy secession.
Jack Layton and his Dippers came out of the box swinging, first they stood up for the beleagered auto industry in Ontario, with an automobile industry recovery proposal, long on ideas, but a little stetchy on economics. They then later in the week threw some strong words at the Bush Admin regarding the softwood lumber debacle, saying that unless the US honor the decisions of the international and even North American court decisions regarding tariffs, and pay back all the money they owe Canada, then we have no other choice then to slap our own tariffs on Canadain oil sold to the States...... big words, yes, right approach, I am not sure. I would hate to agree with the Conservative's but why help one industry at the expense of another. What is killing the dippers now and for the forseeable future is the defeatest attitude promoted by the likes of Buzz Hargrove, which would like to see Canadians vote Liberal where the NDP is weak, with soul prupose of insuring a Liberal minority, with the hope that the NDP have the balance of power. The outcome of the election may mirror what Hargrove is promoting, but if the NDP ever want to be anything other then a 3rd party, they have to campaign like a party the believes it can govern, if they continue to run with the mantra of fear of anyone but the Conservatives, they will be nothing more then the looney left lackey cousins of the Liberals, and may as well fold or try and unite the left.
Finally for the Bloc well what can you say, the whole team Quebec thing was the only thing that made any waves outside Quebec. Duceppe has it easy all he has to do is kiss a few babies, and maybe try to promote the Bloc to some Allophones in Montreal. The Bloc is a sure bet in Quebec, it is just a matter of how large their sweep might be.
So there you have it, I expect that the Liberals might come out swinging early next week... the mud might be slung a bit as well. They are gonna have to do something cuz right now they are having their ass served to them on a platter, by all the parties, and Christ the Bloc isn't even trying.

Bert and his evil twin Liberal Star Candidate Michael Ignatieff

PM Paul Martin's obsession with rolling out "star" candidates seems to be biting him in the butt. Michael Ignatieff a Harvard prof, accomplished writer yada, yada, must have seemed like a no brainer choice as a Liberal star candidate option. However, his twisted if not Cheneyesque views on torture, have made him an easy target for the opposition, and well must be another collective d'oh in the Liberal campaign juggernaut, which s off to a really slow start.

Thursday, December 01, 2005

Pick Your Poison

Merry Elexmas one and all. Yes, the opposition finally found the stones to topple the minority Fiberal government, forcing PM Paul Martin to visit the Governor General and set a January 23 election date.

Most pundants are predicting a real mudslinger of an election. One that will see Martin's Fiberals try to provoke fear of a Reformatory secret agenda. Harper's Reformatories are most apt to beat the drums of corruption, and Fiberal mismanagement. Little Layton's Socialists are probably going to hammer the Fiberals with claims of broken promises, unattained Kyoto protocols, and failing education, and healthcare systems. Finally, Duceppes' Nasty Separatists, who are virtually guaranteed 50-60 seats in Quebec, are going to campaign with what is best for Quebec, bla bla bla, in the best interests of Quebec bla, oh ya and by promoting separation? No not that, worse, a national Quebec hockey team.

We are in the early going right now, but the first leader to really step in it must have been Harper, not one day in and already he played right into the fear mongering Fiberals hands by bringing up the gay marriage issue. Most Canadians even if uncomfortable with the whole issue have kinda become resigned to it, its an issue of human rights, and well, we as Canadians like to think of ourselves as progressive in the realm of human rights. Harper however, today may have gathered some traction from yesterdays slip, by promoting the idea of a Tory gov't cutting 2% off the GST in the next 5 years.... its hard not to support a little more cash in your pockets, so that is a safe move by Harper.

Martin and the Fiberals are about right where I thought they would be, first they attack Harper likening him to Scrooge, they then set their sights on the Bloc and theTories with boisterous claims as the only party that protects and promotes federalism.

The NDP and Bloc have been relatively quiet in the early going. It was a bit of a rough start for the NDP as on the very first day of the campaign their website went down, d'oh. Layton did make some spending promises to a group of university students in Toronto, saying that NDP would get the extra funds by eliminating any additional corporate tax cuts. The Bloc have made a bit of a splash by throwing out the idea I mentioned earlier of a National Quebec hockey team. Hard to say where they may be going with this idea, is it a cheap play to stir up Quebecios nationalism, electoneering, Quebecers love their hockey, or what? They would have one helluva team, compete for a medal in the olympics for sure.

I believe this election is similar to a football game, the team or party that does not fumble, that holds on to the ball, will most likely be the victor. Like any close football game, a late game turnover, in this case a faux pas, a blown photo-op, a regretful case of the misspeak, could be disasterious. So gentlemes hold your tongues, be weary of factories which might outfit you in say a weird condom- like latex suit, and for godsakes no cowboy getups.