Harper vs Williams - Round ? - Battleground Ontario?!

Ok, I admit I have lost count of the number of times Harper and Williams have gone toe to toe since the whole offshore royalties and equalization "event" hit the airwaves. It has been a lot.

Now I can see how Williams could get worked up about this, but it has been close to two years. Is this confrontational blowhard attitude really still required? I mean whose this going to hurt in the end? Why the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that's who.

Now the CTV is reporting that Williams will make good on his threat to campaign against Harper in the upcoming elections. Oh, I forgot to mention, this includes Ontario!

I am not a lawyer and don't pretend to be but would this not define Williams as a "third party advertiser" according to the Elections Canada Act?

The Canada Elections Act regulates third parties who engage in election advertising. A third party may be a person or a group. The Act defines a group as an unincorporated trade union, trade association or other group of persons acting together by mutual consent for a common purpose. A corporation may also be a third party.

Candidates, federal registered political parties and the electoral district associations of registered political parties are not third parties.

What is "election advertising"?

"Election advertising" is defined in section 319 of the Canada Elections Act. "Election advertising" may be interpreted as a message that is:

1. transmitted by any means during an election
2. transmitted to any person or persons with whom the originator of the message does not have some common cause or connection, and
3. intended to influence how an elector might vote, by promoting or opposing a registered party or the election of a candidate, including a message that takes a position on an issue with which a registered party or candidate is associated

Some questions that I would like to see answered:

1. Does this mean Williams will need to register as a third party advertiser? Even if he doesn't expressly take out media in his fight against Harper he will still get free air time courtesy of the networks.
   
2. Would his expenses count towards the limit on third party advertisers? Or would he be counted as a pundit? Like those "strategists" that appear on shows.
   
3. Would he ride on the campaign bus/plane?
4. What would the pundits say if a gun lobbyist was out campaigning with a Conservative candidate? Or for that matter a pro-choice advocate campaigning with a Liberal or NDP candidate?
   

Anyone know?

Condemn what is happening in Guelph!

I ask that everyone post a comment here or post their own blog post condemning the crap that has been going on in Guelph. These shenanigans have no place in civilized political discourse.

If you don't know what I am talking about read the back story here.

NOTE: All four major political parties in Guelph have released a joint press release about this, see below.

---

Frank Valeriote, Tom King, Mike Nagy and Gloria Kovach denounce criminal damage to property: Joint Statement

GUELPH — August 29, 2008 - Frank Valeriote along with the other candidates in the Guelph by-election have unequivocally denounced the criminal damage that was done to at least ten homes and 6 vehicles in Guelph which had Frank Valeriote lawn signs in the early hours of Friday morning. They made their statements at the home of one of the victims this afternoon.

Families woke up in the early morning to see the brickwork of their houses spray painted with political graffiti as well as the brake lines to their automobiles cut.

This violence follows on the extensive damage to campaign signs that has been occurring to varying degrees to Liberal, Conservative, NDP, and Green signs throughout the by-election period.

“What happened in the early hours today is a despicable and cowardly act that endangered innocent people’s lives,” said Valeriote. “The cutting of the brake lines was intended to at the very least to severely injure people, who have chosen to participate in one of the most important processes this country has to offer to its citizens- they chose to exercise this right and have a political sign on their lawn. We live in a lawful and peaceful society where we have the freedom to express ourselves politically. No one should be subject to this kind of violence and intimidation,” Valeriote concluded.

Frank Valeriote and Tom King spent most of the day visiting and consoling the owners of the houses that have been criminally vandalized. “I join Frank Valeriote in condemning these vicious attacks in ourcommunity,” said Tom King. “The vandalism to political signs and the targeting of private homes and property must stop immediately. This kind of activity has nothing to do with the NDP or the Liberals. We’re sad to see politics take such an ugly turn. We hope the police will find the criminals responsible and prosecute them to the full extent of the law.”

“Greens totally disapprove of any acts of vandalism. Political motivated attacks on people’s homes and property insults the values that Canadians hold sacred regarding safe a free elections” said Mike Nagy.

Gloria Kovach agreed with all the candidates stating ” This is an escalation in behaviour and his kind of activity has no place in Guelph especially whe we all strive for free and fair process”.

All the candidates denounce the criminal violence, and give their sympathies to the victims whose private property was damaged.

---

Our thoughts are with the Big Easy

Yikes, another hurricane is streaking towards New Orleans. Hopefully they have learned their lessons well from Katrina.

What the Hell is going on in Guelph?

I a was shocked to hear about the wide spread vandalism going on in Guelph. Apparently the by-election in Guelph has gotten people all fired up. This is good, but NOT when it expressed with the destruction of private property and the cutting of brake lines.

I abhor this this display of criminality, the discourse of politics has no place for this. As if the destruction of campaign signs (of all parties) wasn't bad enough we now have this.

The cutting of break lines is a clear attempt at intimidating Liberal party supporters. That is unbelievably shocking!

I call on anyone with information on these crimes to call Crime Stoppers at 1-800-222-8477.

Harper Cross Examined in Cadman Libel Case

Read all about it here.

I am not a lawyer so I am hoping someone can explain to me the Liberal strategy involving the expert paper submitted as part of Liberal defence. The paper was written by a political scientist. As an aside, why they heck are they called scientists?

I don't see how attempting to link the Cadman affair previous scandals involving Mackenzie King and Sir John A MacDonald helps the Liberals. The premise seems to be that these Prime Ministers didn't sue their opponents so Harper shouldn't either. This logic seems tortured.

1. The Sir John A MacDonald scandal was proven
2. The Mackenzie King scandal was proven
3. The Cadman scandal has not been proven (add your own yet if you so wish)
   

Isn't it dangerous to try and compare Harper to other scandals? That is what his lawyer argued to get the paper thrown out. The defence of no one else has bother to sue for this seems to be not much of a defence. It reminds me of my son complaining that his friend didn't get into trouble for throwing that rock, why should he.

As for this passage:

“The Prime Minister's legal actions are an attempt to use the courts to interfere with the official opposition's freedom of political expression and thereby give his party an advantage over his principal political opponents,” wrote Mr. Russell [the author of the paper].

“Such an injection of legal action into our political debates, were it to succeed, would give the government party a political advantage over its opponents.”

That is utter bullcrap. Perhaps the threat of libel suits would keep the MPs from all sides a little more civil, and and little more honest in their mudslinging. You can say anything in QP and be protected from legal action, this only invites smear and unfounded allegations from MPs on all sides of the political spectrum. Watching QP is a waste of time, nothing productive comes out of it. Everyone acts like spoiled children.

We live in interesting times!

Well well well, the tables have turned.

I thought Obama was the reformer, who was going to bring change we can believe in or some claptrap. Turns out McCain has scooped Obama.

This is brilliant strategy, McCain takes a little known, but relatively young female Governor of Alaska and makes her his running mate.

She is young, considered a maverick in her own party, and has been known to attack corruption within the GOP ranks. Did I mention she was a woman!

This move could open up a demographic to McCain, democrat working class men and women. The very demographic that Clinton won throughout the primaries and Obama turned his back on.

I thought it was a mistake for Obama not to take Clinton, it is looking even more foolish now.

Alternative Universe?

I think I may have accidentally transitioned between parallel universes last night.

The Conservatives have released two new campaign style ads, and get this....they're positive ads? No really, stop laughing. They are positive ads. Not "contrast ads", not attack ads, not negative ads.

They are positive ads, you can view the first one here courtesy of CTV.

This is a pretty smart move on the Conservative's part. One of the biggest sticks the Liberals can use against the Conservative's is their so called "meanness" and tendency to use "American Style Politics". Whatever that means.

These ads are positive, they will help counter the Liberal spin. Interesting to note since they are positive ads, they are not using the "Stephane Dion is not a leader" tact. They must be pretty confident that that messaging has stuck to the electorate.

I would like to see the entire campaign to be attack ad free, but I doubt we will make that.

Harper's Election Strategy

The Globe and Mail had an interesting article on Harper's election strategy. Basically to sum it up, while a majority is nice, the main game plan is to destroy the Liberal party.

It's an interesting strategy. The idea being to throw the Liberals into chaos. Make them fight legal battles, make them fight an election they can barely afford, if the Liberals don't win a minority they will go through yet another leadership review when many of the candidates still have debts from the last one to pay off.

I say brilliant strategy.

Remember, in 2004 Stephen Harper reduced the Liberal majority to a minority. In 2006 Stephen Harper rallied the troops and led them to a minority government. In 2008 (hopefully 2009) they will march onward to victory again. They have the momentum.

Harper will fight for the North!

Once again, PMSH is working hard to extend our sovereignty to the North. The Globe and Mail is reporting that the Canadian Government is boosting the funding for Arctic mapping.

Funding has been extended to an additional 100 million dollars over the next five years. This program was first mentioned in the 2008 budget.

One of the most interesting paragraphs in the entire story is the last one:
It's his fourth visit in three years. Mr. Harper said this week's trip is historic because he will hold Canada's first-ever federal cabinet meeting north of the 60th parallel.

To me, this shows a lot of dedication and concern for the Arctic. Of course the Opposition can only talk about what they haven't done yet. Yes there is more to do in the Arctic, icebreakers etc still need to be ordered, but this government has done more for the Arctic in 2.5 years then the Liberals did in 13 years.

Disgusting crap from some Libloggers

And I thought it was the Conservatives who were supposed to the mean spirited jerks who didn't care about people's feelings and made fun of people's illnesses?

But no, instead we have such beacons of morality as Red Tory making fun of the fact that Margret Thatcher has dementia. He is joined in his mocking by other similar asshats who like to poke fun of peoples misfortunes because they were a prominent conservative.

I surely hope that I don't become such a partisan hack that I will make fun of other people, and encourage others to do the same when a prominent Liberal becomes ill or dies.

Shame!

Hell no she can't say no!

Andrew Coyne is arguing that the Governor General could always say no to PMSH's request to dissolve Parliament.

He is of course correct, in theory. It is within the GG's rights to say no to the Prime Minister's request's to dissolve Parliament, and even ask the Leader of the Opposition to try and form government. But to do so will turn her back on decades of convention.

It has been close to a hundred years since a Governor General has declined a Prime Minister's request to dissolve the house. To suddenly do so now will surely end her tenure and indeed put the entire institution into question.

One would only have to think back a few years to when Chretien dissolved Parliament really early in his mandate to keep the opposition off guard. As an aside, the voters didn't even punish Chretin for that, that alone also puts doubt into the whole theory that voters will punish the party that caused an election.

Now personally, I still beseech PMSH to keep his promise on the fixed election dates. It was his law, he should respect it.

Go and make political hay with Stephane Dion's pitiful excuses to not talk to you until after the by-elections. I mean, how pathetic. I don't see how waiting for the by-election results will hurt Harper. The Conservative's didn't hold any of those seats anyway. If they keep the same vote count they win, if they lose some votes it is still a draw, the Government isn't supposed to do well in by-elections.

Enough with the Lies about the Afghanistan Mission

Perhaps I was trolled, but I responded to Liblogger CastorRouge's blog post "By The Numbers: Afghanistan" .

I started to respond as a comment and soon realized it had ballooned out way to big, so I shall respond with my own blog post.

The point of my comment was to highlight the your ability to use statistics to make the Conservatives look bad and ignore reality.

It is Liberal propaganda that the mission was changed by the Conservatives. No one forced the Conservatives to send them there, they were already there!

Paul Martin's government sent them to the south. Bill Graham the then Defence Minister went on his "Pre-body tag tour".

FACT: Paul Martin's Liberals sent the CF to the south. Check the dates, do you really think the Conservatives were able to change the mission and deploy thousands of troops in region within weeks of being elected? Crap, they were not sworn in until 6 Feb 06.
FACT: Parliament voted to extend the mission in 2006. Even after it was quote/unquote changed to be more aggressive.
FACT: The Liberals supported the second extension.
FACT: The Conservatives purchased additional RG-31s to protect our troops.
FACT: The Conservatives sent Leopard tanks in region to help protect our troops.
FACT: The Conservatives leased additional Leopards to protect our our troops and fix a deficiency.
FACT: The Conservatives have purchased C-17s to move our equipment and people around. Oh, and to help deliver humanitarian aid.

I think I destroyed your point about the Government sitting on their hands about troop safety. And I think I countered your points on the allegation of the Conservative Government "changing the honourable peacekeeping mission the Liberals had in mind".

Don't support the mission if you don't want to, its your right. Just don't bury you hand in the sand.

Obama's big mistake

HOLD THE PRESSES!

Experience isn't bad anymore? I thought Hillary Clinton was not fit for POTUS because of her experience leading to insider status. As in...part of the problem.

So now, Obama decides to bring in some with lots of experience. Someone who can help shore up his lackluster foreign policy credentials. Someone who can help bring in Pennsylvania, a crucial swing state in the road to the Whitehouse.

On paper it looks brilliant, in practice it could backfire like mad.

So experience is bad when it is Hillary Clinton, but it is good when it is Joe Biden. Joe Biden will help bring in the working class Democrats, but not like Hillary would have. Hilliary would have brought in women and the working class. Obama blacks and youth. Youth are a key demographic, but they rarely vote, perhaps Obama would have been the one to bring them to the polling station.

Joe Biden could also cause serious damage to Obama. His attacks from before will surely make good attack ads, and Biden's own remarkable ability for going off message could also cause some troubles.

This could not have helped mend the broken bridges between the two main camps, the Democratic party could be divided seriously over this. Think Chretien/Martin wars. I wonder if Hillary supporters will now just stay home.

Obama is already polling 5 points back from McCain. That has to be serious warning sign to the Democratic establishment.

96,815 legal deaths a year

Yes that number is correct.

With all this talk of abortion going on between Dion and Harper I thought I would see just how many are performed in a single year.

In 2005 96,815 abortions were performed. In comparison 339,270 births were recorded in 2004/2005, the year is calculated as 1 July - 30 June for the births. For the abortions I am not sure, I am assuming calendar year.

I hope I am not the only one who finds this disturbing.

In Defence of the "Christian Conservative"

DISCLAIMER: I have never met the "Christian Conservative", nor have I met Gloria Kovach, nor have I been really following the Guelph campaign to date other then what I have read on the Blogging Tories and Liblogs.

Apparently Liberal blogger Jeff Davidson thinks he has landed a one/two punch on Gloria Kovach with his open letters. His weapon of choice..."Christian Conservative: a.k.a Andrew Prescott. The only problem with this is that I don't see the issue in all this.

His thesis is that Christian Conservative's views must be that of the party and of Ms. Kovach. To me, this is silly.

Both the Liberal and Conservative parties are big tent parties, they both welcome people with diverse interests and beliefs. This is what makes Canadian politics so bland.

The Liberals have members that oppose same sex marriage, are pro-life, or might be considered more socially conservative. The Conservatives have people that are for same sex marriage, and are pro-choice.

The Liberals and Conservatives may attract people who tend towards one side of these moral issues or the other. But both welcome them.

Why should Christian Conservative be any different? Why are his views supposed to be seen as, or representative of government policy? I see no reason why Ms. Kovach should even respond to these classless smears.

Christian Conservative declares that his views are not necessarily the views of the Conservatives. It is right on his blog.

All opinions expressed here are solely my own, and not necessarily reflective of the views of the Party, its leadership, its general membership, my EDA, or my local Conservative candidate.

At the end of the day he has the right to freedom of speech and expression. If he wants to blog as under a pseudonym all the power to him. I doubt he is really trying to remain anonymous as he posted a picture of himself on his blog. And if he was trying to remain anonymous who the heck cares. Being President of the Guelph Conservative party shouldn't prevent that. It is perfectly reasonable to hold views that are not inline with everything in the Conservative party's policy documents.

Heck, my views on decriminalizing weed and off street prostitution are not exactly strong conservative law and order policy views.

As for him not being a proud Guelphite, I say poppycock. He blogs about the by-election often, and the impact the Green Shift will have on Guelph. Maybe he just figures the GTA is close enough for people not familiar where Guelph is located. I mean, its not a large city or anything.

Keep your promise Prime Minister - Part II

As I discussed before I don't want an election. I don't want Harper to see the GG and ask for her to dissolve parliament, at least until they lose a confidence vote.

I just don't.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has created made a promise and even created a bill to enshrine it in law. I want Stephane Dion's Liberals to bring down the government if they have the fortitude to do it.

Now your naysayer’s will complain about the income trust flop, they might mention David Emerson, likely Michael Fortier but that is different. The income trust was for tax leakage, Emerson and Fortier for cabinet representation. I can't see how anyone can think the income trust decision was based on partisan gain, well, anyone in this reality. Dissolving parliament yourself will be for partisan gain.

I want you to keep governing, keep introducing legislation in the house, and be tactful, diplomatic, work with the opposition parties. Invite the party leaders over for Tuesday breakfasts at 24 Sussex to discuss current matters, or have the house leaders meet the Conservative house leader.

How will the opposition leaders spin that offer in their favour? They can't, they say repeatedly you are a bully, but in this case you won't be. You will be trying hard to make parliament work, and if they force an election they will look bad. But if they obstruct, threaten, cry or whine, make the vote’s confidence votes. We can't afford to stand still.

Now the Liberals will call you a bully, they will call you mean by making all the votes matters of confidence; just keep replying in the calm and professional manner that the Liberals are obstructing for partisan gain and rhetoric, . And as these confidence matters wind their way through the house and get voted on, the Liberals will have a choice, they can stand on principles and their feet and actually vote, or run away with a case of the democratic flu. It will be their choice.

What in the world is Russia doing?

It seems a few Russian troops are finally pulling back to their South Ossetia bases. That being said, the Russians are still being naughty little fellows. They are doing such wonder and humane things like:

• Captured Georgian prisoners being handcuffed and paraded around
• Russian soldiers entered the port of Poti, and start searching all the containers
• Russian soldiers stealing US Humvees that were still in region after their training exercise
• Russians scuttling Georgian naval vessels
• Russians attempting to enter another Georgian army base
• Allegations they are destroying infrastructure
  

It really is a good thing they have peace in their hearts, lord help Georgia if they didn't.

/sarcasm

Yet Another Poll, but that was is intriguing I swear!

As we get closer and closer to pulling the plug on this session of Parliament you can be darn sure we will all be inundated with polls.

This one is quite surprising IMHO. The poll is showing that Canadians are actually warming to the idea of an election. The results are also quite interesting:

Residents of Alberta and Atlantic Canada were the keenest on an election, with 47 per cent agreeing it was time to go to the polls. Forty-six per cent of the residents of Saskatchewan and Manitoba agreed with the statement, as did 42 per cent of Quebecers.

British Columbians were the least keen for an election at 33 per cent, followed by Ontarians at 36 per cent.

On party popularity, the survey said the Conservatives maintained their substantial lead in western Canada, and picked up support in Quebec, Ontario and Atlantic Canada since early July so they are now in a statistical dead heat with the Liberals in those three regions. In Quebec, the Bloc Quebecois had 34 per cent of the popular vote, well ahead of the Liberal and Conservative parties which were tied at 25 per cent.

We all know the Conservatives are very strong in the west, and judging from Conservatives I read, see, and talk to they are also more in interested in having an election. This poll seems to validate that. From what I have read, Atlantic Canada is also turning to the Conservatives as they will be hard hit with the Green Shift.

What may be a potential bright light for the Conservatives is that support for an election is weakest in Ontario. This could mean motivated Conservatives out hustling and out campaigning Liberals and NDPers who are not as interested in another election.

It seems that the Conservative base is much more motivated, and this is further evidenced by the blue machine's ability to out fund raise all the other federal parties by massive margins.

Of course this is yet another poll, so your mileage my vary.

Splish Splash Chretien's taking a bath

in the media limelight.

According to CTV former Prime Minister Jean Chretien is "ripping" into Prime Minister Stephen Harper for his failure to attend the Olympic's opening ceremonies.

Full disclosure here, I have always had a soft spot for Jean Chretien. While I don't agree with his politics, I respect his scrappiness, tenacity, and willingness to fight for what he believes in. I mean come on, who can't at least smile at his willingness to literally strangle those who invade your personal space.

That being said, I don't agree with him here. There is no need for PMSH to attend the opening ceremonies. Who cares, if he would rather tour some part of Canada talking to Canadians all the power to him. Jean Chretien is wishing he could have it both ways.

JC himself didn't go to every single Olympics he could have. Is his line of reasoning that it is OK to skip the opening ceremonies as long as the host country isn't a major trading partner?

The Olympics are supposed to be about international competition between all the countries of the world, regardless of their stature. When politics enter the Olympics, an already shaky foundation cracks more. I am sure Stephen Harper isn't the only prominent world leader not attending the Olympics.

Personally I don't care that much about the Olympics, but I do wish we could avoid partisan sniping from ex Prime Ministers looking to regain some time in the spot light. He is not even a sitting MP anymore. One would think it would be uncouth to talk smack now.

Russia starting the Georgia pullout

It seems that Russia is starting to pull out of Georgia. Or at least pretending too.

Their still are troops and tanks near the Georgian capital, and the Russians are talking about a buffer zone around South Ossetia. The buffer zone would be 14 KM into Georgia proper.

The West is still insisting on Russia pulling out completely, but more and more it seems like empty rhetoric.

Pakistan post Musharraf??

I came into work today had an interview then decided to catch up on some news this AM. Much to my surprise I found out the Pakistani President Pervez Musharra has stepped down.

I was quite surprised, I figured he would have fought the impeachment until the bitter end. I guess I underestimated him.

I have mixed feelings on President Musharraf. On one hand, he was a pretty good ally in the war on terror, even if some felt he could do more. On the other hand, he was divisive, and was rapidly losing the support of his people. Some could say, he was radicalizing the population.

Now that the opposition parties have finally managed to unseat him, perhaps they can no focus on the real issues of Pakistan. Issues like a crumbling economy, and raising violence in the territories, and rampant extremism.

Russia still not abiding by the ceasefire terms?!

It isn't clear what is going on in Georgia right now, but it seems that Russian troops still are not withdrawing, but plan to do so on Monday.

They have also apparently blown up a key east-west railway bridge.

Does anyone think we can take Russia at their word? I have serious doubts, and isn't this the second ceasefire that was signed by Russia?

Finally the Kandahar governor is replaced

Finally, Asadullah Khalid is being replaced as the Kandarhar Governor.

This cannot come soon enough. Allegations of corruption and torture have undermined his credibility. And he also hasn't gotten it done in his province. By done I mean defeat the Taliban.

We need a strong leader in this position who has strong ethics and morals. Hopefully his replacement can succeed where he has failed.

Open the flood gates?!

Canada finally has won some medals! Three in fact, 1 gold, 1 silver, 1 bronze. I can't help the fact that I still don't care. Why should I care about some silly, self-absorbed "elite" athlete competing in events I don't care about? Well, I guess there is always nationalism or something.

I do not at all follow Silken's thoughts on this:
Back at home, Canada's collective hand-wringing over the lack of medals may be based on a mistaken belief that the country has a strong sports culture, said Silken Laumann, a three-time Olympic medallist.

"We have this perception that we are into sports, that we're a sports-minded country, but when you look at it, inactivity and obesity are a real challenge in this country and the sports we follow are professional male sports," said Laumann, who thrilled the country during the 1992 Barcelona Olympics, winning a bronze medal following a severe training accident that threatened her career.

I can't at all subscribe to that inane school of thought. She is confusing sports with entertainment. Oh, and women's hockey is great too!

I am sorry, hockey, football, basketball etc are marketed and sold as entertainment, not sport. We do not watch NHL hockey to live the dream of some professional overpaid athlete, we watch it to be entertained. When we are not entertained, we stop watching. The professional leagues are very aware of the importance of entertainment value, you can tell this by each professional league tweaking the rules and game play over the years to create more entertainment value.

Am I wrong to feel this way? I don't think so.

Russia committing war crimes

It seems that Russia has been filmed committing war crimes in Georgia. The group Human Rights Watch claims to have evidence. Will the Left still defend Russia then?

From the Doh! Category

Prime Minister Stephen Harper had better start on his multivitamins and get lots of rest in the near future if there is to be an election.

In his pre-election swing across Canada, Stephen Harper has been stopping around the country visiting ridings, making funding announcements and otherwise being a thorn in Stephane Dion's side.

Well, perhaps he is getting tired as he confused the date that the great providence of Newfoundland and Labrador joined the best country in the world (if you exclude Olympic medal count :)).

Russia still occupies Georgia

The Russians are still violating their truce agreement with the Georgians. Apparently the Georgians can also forget about ever getting their territories back as well.

So know the Russians are going back on their word, and dictating terms. Last I checked no country had recognized South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states.

And the West does nothing but offer stern words to Russia. We to start talking sanctions at the very least.

Keep your word Prime Minister!

The Globe and Mail has a short news wire story talking about Prime Minister Stephen Harper's musings about doing something to address the dysfunctional government.

I have only one thing to say, don't go back on your word. You gave your word to the Canadian people when you passed the fixed election dates. I may not always agree on policy, but I will always respect a politician who keeps his word, but I will never respect a politician who breaks his word for partisan gain.

The Left versus Common Sense

I know, I know, no contest :)

I am continually amazed at the sheer "out to lunchness" coming from the so called enlightened Left.

Liberal blogger Liberal 4evr has a wonderful post about South Ossetia. Wonderful because it is so easy to dissect. It makes a nice light break from real work :)

It is amazing out there in media land, all are making their best to make the Russians the bad guys, Georgia invades a U.N. protected area, kill Russian peacekeepers, bomb civilians in the capital, over 3000 dead in south ossetian and they make the president of georgia the hero?

Wait? South Ossetia is a UN protected safe area? That is BS, it is not. Show me a link anywhere credible that backs that up? 3000 dead? Human Rights Watch alleged that the Russian death toll figure of 2,000 was unfounded and presumed it to be due to the result of an alleged "massive Russia propaganda machine which constantly repeats claims of genocide and exaggerates the scale of casualties." Russian peacekeepers? Originally, it was 500 Russians, 500 South Ossetians, 500 North Ossestians, and 500 Georgians under an OSCE mandate. Of course, the Russians armed the South Ossetians. UN peacekeepers don't tend to arm one of the sides. And let's not forget that the Georgians and the South Ossetians (maybe the Russians too) have been skirmishing over that area for years. Dozens killed over the years.

We see a few thousand people listening to sakashvili in the georgian capital, the media talks about the victims in geogia, under 50 people killed so far, but if we want to know what is really going on we have to watch the online Russia today to see georgians in their capital actually blaming sakashvili for all their pain, he is in a lot of trouble, geogians are already stating to blame him in great numbers but it is nowhere to be seen in our "independent media", the refugees of the war he started are not getting any help and lost everything because of his stupid decision to take on Russia, he must of had a go ahead from someone, he can't be that dumb.

Liberal 4evr you seem to have lost your period :) Oh wait, I found it at the very end. Wait a minute, are you taking the word of the Russian media over the likes of CNN, BBC, and Sky News? Seriously? Really? The same Russian media where if you are critical of Putin or the establishment you get poisoned or otherwise murdered? Of course I wouldn't blame the Georgians from being a might ticked off at their President over this fiasco.

I hate propaganda, it is, by far the most dangerous form of information that could cause a wider war. And as for the american politicians, I say this, Kosovo, Bosnia, seperated from Yugoslavia, and you said they had the right, and Serbia had no right to try to get them back with military violence, georgia tried to do the same thing Milosevic did, so whats the difference here???

I agree, propaganda is bad. However, your analogy is flawed, Yugoslavia basically disintegrated once Tito died. Croatia, Bosnia etc fought for their independence against Serbia who was trying to hold the failed state together. The UN put thousands of peacekeepers they to monitor the peace and disarm the combatants. There were war crimes committed by all the different sides, and there were a lot of sides. NATO intervened in Kosovo due to the prolonged, systematic ethnic cleansing that was occurring. They didn't intervene when civilians died during the course of "normal" fighting. Russia would have a lot more moral high ground if they hadn't invaded, and continue to occupy swaths of Georgia countryside.

If he was wrong then is not sakashvili wrong also? Should he not end up at the Hague? And another word "Iraq". So you have no high ground here, none what so ever. War is wrong on both sides, but one has to know the truth of how it started....

Repeat after me, Milosevic engaged in systematic state sponsored ethnic cleansing. So far there is little evidence that the same occurred in South Ossetia. Oh wait, the Russians claim this.

I have to give the BBC credit, they have started to talk about both sides, more about the georgian side, but also the other in a smaller tone.

I see, the BBC isn't a total loss then. Media bias indeed. You know, I must have missed the memo where all the media suddenly turned into stark raving mad and war waging bumpkins.

Coal use vs the GDP

A commenter posted on my blog about the record usage of coal in response to my post on the decrease in gasoline usage in the United States. He is right, the United States is using more coal now.

But honestly, what do you expect?

As the economy grows, more energy is required. Bringing more energy on the grid takes time. Most of the renewables are not reliable enough yet, so, old ways of creating energy are restarted. Coal plants work, they are reliable, and pretty cheap. Until greener alternatives come online, coal will be used to handle peak demand.

As you can see by this chart, coal usage has kept pace to, or lagged behind GDP growth. (Please note: I am neither an economist, nor a statistician, if there is an issue with the graph please don't attack me personally over it. I am not trying to misrepersent the truth here. I gathered the numbers from the link the poster had in his comment, and from sources I googled online.)

Hopefully, scrubbers and other clean coal technology can be employed to mitigate the health and environmental risks associated to coal power. This is irrespective of which side of the climate change debate you fall under.

This is the same issue the Ontario government is having trying to decommission the old coal fired generating stations.

Guess what we are using 800,000 less a day of?

Barrels of oil, that's what.

The Globe&Mail is reporting that the US is using 800,000 less barrels of oil a day. This downward trend is expected to continue through 2009.

What can we learn from this? The Green (as in our money) Shift (as in distribute the green to core constituencies) is not required. Market forces did the trick. Damn capitalism.

Due to reduced demand, oil prices have dropped. The market has corrected. Since we are a petroleum currency, the dollar has dropped to 0.94 USD. This should help our beleaguered manufacturing and services industries.

Also, as the Canadian and American people drop their SUVs and trucks for smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles, they are unlikely to switch back to SUVs and trucks even if the dollar continues its downward trend. (I can't see it going too much lower).

If Stephane Dion is so foolish to force an election and fight over this issue, I will be sure to campaign hard against it. Putting a price on carbon is one thing, I can deal with this. Taking my upper-middle class tax dollars (single income at that) and giving it to their core constituents is a complete other thing.

You're FU@(ing kidding me?!?!?!

This is awful!

As usual PETA falls to yet another new low. I really don't know what more to say.

Typical Liberal Double Standards

Uncouth, loud mouth Liberal MP Robert Thibault is again eating his foot. In this story he is now attacking Government Senate Leader Marjory LeBreton.

Senator Marjory LeBreton has served Canada for decades, she has worked with every single Conservative Prime Minister since John Diefenbaker, and she was personally attacked by an MP who should have known better.

Of course we all know what the reaction would be if a Conservative said that. It would be paraded on the MSM as further proof of knuckle dragging Conservatives wanting to put women "back in their place" and to stay pregnant and bare foot in the kitchen.

You only have to remember the reaction to poor Peter McKay's comments to Alexa McDonough.

Let's compare the two qoutes:
McKay said

"I think you better stick to your knitting and win your own riding."

Thibault said

"(I do not stand by) the intent (or spin) that idiots like Marjory LeBreton would put onto my comments. Marjory should go back to making tea for Brian Mulroney and stay out of serious people's business,"

Thibault insults intelligence and sex while be quoted for Hill Times. McKay says a comment of questionable sexism in the cut and thrust of a radio debate and immediately apologizes.

Seems like a significant difference.

Time to intervene in Georgia?

This seems very end of the world, but I think we need to intervene in Georgia. This assumes that the west wishes to maintain moral the high ground.

The left is already crying that the Americans are behind this war. That the Georgians are responsible for bringing this on themselves. The the world is responsible for this because of how we dealt with other secessions. I am looking at you Kosovo.

It is complete crap.

Tensions have been rising in that area for months. Clashes between the Georgian and the Ossetian forces have been escalating in the days prior to the attack. Russian jets have flown over Georgia. Russia has been arming the Ossetians for years.

Georgia decided to act.

Georgia has overplayed their hand, perhaps they were looking for NATO protection. Russia decided to kick the Georgian's out of South-Ossetia territory. So much for their peacekeeping. They are also threatening to attack Georgia forces in another territory, Abkhazia. Opportunistic? Did I mention the forces they sea lifted in?

But now Russia has invaded Georgia proper, what possible excuse can hold that? How will this protect their so called citizens?

Will we standby and let the old Russian bear re-assert itself and put old satellite states under their thumb again? We will let Putin do this? He after all is one of the main players in Russia in this crisis. Are we surprised?

If the West is serious about supporting democracy, if the west is serious about containing threats, then they must condemn Georgia for their reckless attack, and they must condemn Russia for attacking Georgia proper.

The West must be willing to stand up, and back their condemnation with economic and military action.

Even more lies, damn lies, and statistics

This summer is a hot summer, we swear! This was reported awhile back, I have just been slow posting it.

I remember hearing about this on the radio on the way back from work (in my small commuter car!) and I was staring dumbfounded at my radio. How could this be? What statistic magic or slight of hand could prove this?

The skeptic in me immediately started thinking, what the heck, were they counting the nights in the average or something? Sure enough, that was the reason according to the radio.

To be honest, that upset me. People are not going to remember that it was the daily lows being slightly above average, they will remember that it was a warmer then average summer. And they will demand action.

Now when I think of a warm summer (and I doubt I am alone), I think of hot, hazy days. Not slightly muggy nights.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

More evidence of bad science

The Ottawa version of "24 Hours" -- the free daily commuter newspaper -- had a front page on "Climate Questions". NOTE: The newspaper is presented in Flash (boo) and I had Flash errors trying to link to it. Just ignore them. You also have to switch pages to the third page. Sorry.

A new Canadian study suggests that many scientists studying the affects climate change on different species could come up with faulty conclusions due to their scientific laziness. The IPCC provides 31 different climate models, but most biologists only use one model.

Most alarmingly, of the 65 studies that have used the IPCC models, only five have used more then one model.

This is a alarming, as these studies are being used to shape climate change policy across the world. I guess it is easy to take shortcuts and not finish your research when the first model validates your preconceived notions that climate change is going to reshape the world.

Now this revelation doesn't prove or disapprove the underlying issue of climate change, and mankind's impact on it. But it certainly adds ammunition to people whom contest that there is too much bad science surrounding the whole climate change debate.

This reminds me of the story a year and a half back on the so called study that proved global warming was causing more (and more violent) hurricanes. You can read about this here.

Regardless of the facts of climate change, the policy set from this kind of research will cost billions, perhaps harm the economy, and change the living standards for millions of people in the industrialized world. Surely it behooves the world's scientists to at least make sure their research is sound, and validated by multiple climate models.

Canada disbands the SAT in Kabul

According to CTV, Canada is finally disbanding the military's Strategic Advisory Team (SAT) in Kabul. This is really unfortunate, the SAT was able to make a big impact in the Afghanistan government.

The dedicated corps of senior officers posted there were able to help with strategic planning across many Afghan departments, it was a capability that the Afghan government didn't have, a capability the Canadian government couldn't deploy without the CF. Their loss will be missed.

Let's not also forget that the SAT helped on the humanitarian side as well, one of the things they did was adopt an orphanage.

The truth behind the Youth Criminal Justice Act

An anonymous poster left this fantastic (and telling) comment on my recent blog post "Lies, damned lies, and statistics".

I remember years ago, I was receiving training about this new act, and the police officer giving the training called it the "Can't charge anybody act". That is a scary proposition.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics

I have been meaning to look into the crime statistics for sometime. I wanted to examine the reports that crime is falling. I wanted to check if this was true for violent crime and more specifically youth crime.

Well it seems that Lorrie Goldstein has done most of this already in his commentary published in the Sun chain of newspapers today.

The central thrust of his thesis is that crime is way up if you look at the historical trends since crime statistics have been tracked. That is, look back to 1962.

My parents, and grandparents have said this for years, but they are old crotchety smelly old people so they always think that the crime is up. Old people are afraid of the “young thugs”. Turns out they were right.

Perhaps the most telling part of the entire commentary was this quote lifted from a Liberal Solicitor General to the House way back in 1971. Jean-Pierre Goyer was complaining about the high cost of keeping criminals incarcerated. Something present day Liberals and left wing people use as an argument against the Conservative “Tackling Violent Crime” bill.

Mr. Goyer said "The present situation results from the fact that (the) protection of society has received more emphasis than the rehabilitation of inmates. Consequently, we have decided from now on to stress the rehabilitation of offenders, rather than the protection of society."

Yikes. I am sure this is somehow taken out of context :)

Majority of Canadians want to renegotiate NAFTA?

The following poll was done by Angus Reid back on July 22nd. It is an interesting read. Liblogs blogger James Curran also talks about it here.

The key findings of the poll:

1. 46% think the U.S. has benefited more from NAFTA than the other North American countries; Mexico at 30%, Canada at 7%
2. 52% want to renegotiate NAFTA, 18% happy with status quo, 11% want Canada to leave NAFTA
3. 50% think NAFTA has not benefited Canadian workers at all
4. More than half see at least moderate benefits for Canadian employers, Canadian manufacturers and the Canadian economy in general

I think the key points here are that the majority of Canadians feel that there has been at least moderate benefit to Canadian employers and the economy, and that only a small percentage of respondents want out of the pact completely. It is also interesting that support for the renegotiation of NAFTA is pretty consistent across party lines. Also, a plurality of Canadians feel that the USA has benefited the most out of NAFTA. Though, I have to wonder if the Americans in the rustbelt feel the same way?

I think there has been a decrease in support for NAFTA due to the political posturing by the candidates during the American primaries. And after the November election interest in NAFTA will decrease, and no one but conspiracy nuts will be wanking about it.

The bottom line is that while points in NAFTA could be improved upon, overall, it has been very successful for all parties involved.