Quebec and Ontario are not "going to carry higher emission-reduction burdens", but will of course continue to soak up the equalization payments that the oil-sands projects generate for the Canadian economy.
Thanks hypocrites.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Sunday, December 6, 2009
More truth about recycling
After a researching the benefits of recycling a few years ago, I realized that there was little benefit to recycling most of what we actual do recycle. I found out through research and talking to people the following things:
Now we have another article with more experts, making most of the same points above, saying recycling is nothing but a shame. Somehow I am sure, the leftists will say that these experts are not experts at all. No, they are merely shills of the land waste industry, fossil fuel industry, or the mob. They don't want to hear the truth.
Whenever I read another article about this, I always think of the Penn and Teller episode on recycling. That was a good watch.
- Much of what we recycle ends up in landfills anyway for lack of a buyer
- Plastic is particularly bad to recycle, as it is almost impossible to make high quality plastic from recycled plastic (I talked to an actual plant manager of a plastics factory)
- It costs millions of dollars to run these programs
- Most businesses don't recycle, they are not part of the curbside programs. The same goes for apartment buildings
Now we have another article with more experts, making most of the same points above, saying recycling is nothing but a shame. Somehow I am sure, the leftists will say that these experts are not experts at all. No, they are merely shills of the land waste industry, fossil fuel industry, or the mob. They don't want to hear the truth.
Whenever I read another article about this, I always think of the Penn and Teller episode on recycling. That was a good watch.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
What's next, boycotting Remembrance Day?!
Once again, the Opposition parties have shown how out of touch they really are. How petty, how mean, and how disgusting they are. They claim the high ground, they claim (with some reason) that the Conservatives are mean spirited and petty. And then they go and boycott the non-partisan ceremony yesterday marking the 20th anniversary of the Dec. 6 l'Ecole Polytechnique massacre.
They claim it is because they can't stand beside a Minister that represents a government that has "rolled back the fight for women's equality and safety". They specifically argue that the Conservative policies of abolishing the gun registry, and the reduction in budget to the Status of Women program.
It is of course all a crock.
Liberal and NDP MPs voted with the government to abolish the gun registry. Does this mean the Liberals and the NDP are anti-women? The gun registry would do nothing to protect women in an event.
The reduction of funding to the Status of Women program was not a reduction in funding to women's programs in general. In fact, the Conservative Government took that 5 million from the SoW, and an an additional 5 million and put that into other women's programs that are aimed at directly serving women, such as a programs aimed at integrating immigrant women in major cities.
The odd thing is that 14 parlimentarians and staff including NDP MP Libby Davis, and Liberal MP Judy Sgro placed white roses in vase to represent the 14 women gunned down that fateful day. No Bloc MP bothered to show up at all.
Simply disgusting politics, I am sure somehow Warren and others will blame the Conservatives for this.
They claim it is because they can't stand beside a Minister that represents a government that has "rolled back the fight for women's equality and safety". They specifically argue that the Conservative policies of abolishing the gun registry, and the reduction in budget to the Status of Women program.
It is of course all a crock.
Liberal and NDP MPs voted with the government to abolish the gun registry. Does this mean the Liberals and the NDP are anti-women? The gun registry would do nothing to protect women in an event.
The reduction of funding to the Status of Women program was not a reduction in funding to women's programs in general. In fact, the Conservative Government took that 5 million from the SoW, and an an additional 5 million and put that into other women's programs that are aimed at directly serving women, such as a programs aimed at integrating immigrant women in major cities.
The odd thing is that 14 parlimentarians and staff including NDP MP Libby Davis, and Liberal MP Judy Sgro placed white roses in vase to represent the 14 women gunned down that fateful day. No Bloc MP bothered to show up at all.
Simply disgusting politics, I am sure somehow Warren and others will blame the Conservatives for this.
Monday, November 30, 2009
"TortureGate" decisively disputed?
TortureGate, TortureGate, how do I dispute thee?
TortureGate, TortureGate, how do I dispute thee?
TortureGate, TortureGate, how do I dispute thee?
Switching metaphors, Mr Colvin, it's one, two, three strikes you're out in the old smear game!
Hopefully the Liberals and the rest of the opposition will let reason take hold, and stop the smears against the Canadian Forces and the government. Some how though, I doubt it.
TortureGate, TortureGate, how do I dispute thee?
TortureGate, TortureGate, how do I dispute thee?
Switching metaphors, Mr Colvin, it's one, two, three strikes you're out in the old smear game!
Hopefully the Liberals and the rest of the opposition will let reason take hold, and stop the smears against the Canadian Forces and the government. Some how though, I doubt it.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Blatchford sets the record straight?
Reading Christie Blatchford's latest column seems to destroy Colvin's credibility. I am sure the left will just disregard everything that is being said, and still call for an inquiry.
After reading her column, I think there is even less to the story then before. From her column, the facts seem to be:
- Colvin visited the first prison on May 16, 2006
- ICRC rated the prisons as "not that bad", "not the worst in Afghanistan", inmates were "...in reasonably good condition", and received "enough food"
- Colvin only sent 3 emails in 2006
- Only one in the first three months of 2007
- Vast majority written about the same time the Globe and Mail was breaking the story on the abuses in the Afghanistan story
- Colvin only spent a day and a half outside the wire
- Prisoners were not simple farmers etc, they were all tested for gun shot residue, or were caught with large amounts of Pakistani cash.
Seems that Colvin is on a vendetta against a "hyper-secretive" government. Get ready for him to jump to politics as a candidate for the Liberal Party.
And in slightly unrelated news, on the radio today, I heard some women say that GSR tests prove nothing. She "wouldn't be surprised" that a large percentage of Canadians wouldn't pass a GSR test. Wow, some peoples kids.
After reading her column, I think there is even less to the story then before. From her column, the facts seem to be:
- Colvin visited the first prison on May 16, 2006
- ICRC rated the prisons as "not that bad", "not the worst in Afghanistan", inmates were "...in reasonably good condition", and received "enough food"
- Colvin only sent 3 emails in 2006
- Only one in the first three months of 2007
- Vast majority written about the same time the Globe and Mail was breaking the story on the abuses in the Afghanistan story
- Colvin only spent a day and a half outside the wire
- Prisoners were not simple farmers etc, they were all tested for gun shot residue, or were caught with large amounts of Pakistani cash.
Seems that Colvin is on a vendetta against a "hyper-secretive" government. Get ready for him to jump to politics as a candidate for the Liberal Party.
And in slightly unrelated news, on the radio today, I heard some women say that GSR tests prove nothing. She "wouldn't be surprised" that a large percentage of Canadians wouldn't pass a GSR test. Wow, some peoples kids.
200 billion and counting
According to the Fraser Institute, Canada has poured more then 200 billion dollars in corporate bailouts and welfare since 1994.
In my opinion, the money quote is this one:
“The illusion of corporate welfare directed to the automotive industry in 2009 was the illusion that jobs were being saved. No, they were not. Instead of jobs being cut at General Motors or Chrysler, they were simply cut elsewhere or prevented from being created at other automotive companies that would have increased production to meet market demand in the absence of GM or Chrysler in the marketplace.”
This is exactly the position I argued for last winter. Most people responded with a "Hmmm, never thought of that.". Damn these sheep. Damn those politicians that pander to them.
Your tax dollars at work:
You can see from the chart that the corporate welfare peaked in the dying days of Paul Martin's government. With a two year trend (only two years of data with the Conservatives) you see that the trend was moving downwards. This will of course change once this "conservative" government's bailouts to GM and Chrysler are factored into this.
I was against the bailouts, but I do (somewhat) accept that their was little choice once the Americans elected President Obama and moved towards bailing out the automotive industry.
[h/t]
In my opinion, the money quote is this one:
“The illusion of corporate welfare directed to the automotive industry in 2009 was the illusion that jobs were being saved. No, they were not. Instead of jobs being cut at General Motors or Chrysler, they were simply cut elsewhere or prevented from being created at other automotive companies that would have increased production to meet market demand in the absence of GM or Chrysler in the marketplace.”
This is exactly the position I argued for last winter. Most people responded with a "Hmmm, never thought of that.". Damn these sheep. Damn those politicians that pander to them.
Your tax dollars at work:
You can see from the chart that the corporate welfare peaked in the dying days of Paul Martin's government. With a two year trend (only two years of data with the Conservatives) you see that the trend was moving downwards. This will of course change once this "conservative" government's bailouts to GM and Chrysler are factored into this.
I was against the bailouts, but I do (somewhat) accept that their was little choice once the Americans elected President Obama and moved towards bailing out the automotive industry.
[h/t]
Saturday, November 28, 2009
A big brass set is required
The National Post gets it mostly right with their editorial about McGuinty's complete inaction and two-tier justice out in Caledonia. It really must stop.
Hard to believe that Ontario has become a place where the ability to peacefully protest against injustice is denied based on the colour of your skin.
Terrible.
However, the National Post doesn't get it all correct:
On another occasion, the Mohawks were even seen waving Canadian flags with the Maple Leafs cut out the centre. These flags were then tossed in mud without consequence.
That National Post does get it wrong about criticizing the native's defacing Canada's flag. There is nothing illegal about this, and is a form a freedom of speech, even if it is something I would never do.
Hard to believe that Ontario has become a place where the ability to peacefully protest against injustice is denied based on the colour of your skin.
Terrible.
However, the National Post doesn't get it all correct:
On another occasion, the Mohawks were even seen waving Canadian flags with the Maple Leafs cut out the centre. These flags were then tossed in mud without consequence.
That National Post does get it wrong about criticizing the native's defacing Canada's flag. There is nothing illegal about this, and is a form a freedom of speech, even if it is something I would never do.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Iggy - Even more inspired by the Americans
Seems Iggy is taking all his cues from America these days. Not content with just supporting torture and the Iraq war, Ignatieff is now supporting American style politics.
Checkout the last "demand" from Ignatieff:
"The name of the leader of the sending member's party must be included in any ten percenter and the leader must explicitly the content of the product."
That seems pretty darn American to me. I am sure we have all seen their campaign ads before.
Maybe Michael Ignatieff should explicitly say he is defeated and whining. Maybe he could have added a little message like this to the bottom of his letter to the Speaker:
"My name is Michael Ignatieff, and I explicitly acknowledge that I am at a lost of what to do to improve our poll numbers, so instead of policy, I come up with faux scandals and whiny letters. "
Do you think Canadians notice these faux scandals? Judging by the poll numbers, I don't.
Checkout the last "demand" from Ignatieff:
"The name of the leader of the sending member's party must be included in any ten percenter and the leader must explicitly the content of the product."
That seems pretty darn American to me. I am sure we have all seen their campaign ads before.
Maybe Michael Ignatieff should explicitly say he is defeated and whining. Maybe he could have added a little message like this to the bottom of his letter to the Speaker:
"My name is Michael Ignatieff, and I explicitly acknowledge that I am at a lost of what to do to improve our poll numbers, so instead of policy, I come up with faux scandals and whiny letters. "
Do you think Canadians notice these faux scandals? Judging by the poll numbers, I don't.
Another MS posting
And nothing to do with Microsoft.
When I heard about the promising new breakthrough in MS treatment the other day, I spent a bit more time getting re-acquainted with all the resources out there.
I came across a "Focus on MS" section at the National Post. It has a lot of great articles on MS. I encourage all to take the time to read through some of it. MS afflicts a lot of people.
When I heard about the promising new breakthrough in MS treatment the other day, I spent a bit more time getting re-acquainted with all the resources out there.
I came across a "Focus on MS" section at the National Post. It has a lot of great articles on MS. I encourage all to take the time to read through some of it. MS afflicts a lot of people.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Promising MS Breakthrough
Dr. Paolo Zamboni has a revolutionary new theory about Multiple Sceroisis. Its not an autoimmune disease, its a vasular disease!
Its an astonishing theory that promises to turn the world of MS research on it's head. W5 will have an investigative report on it tonight, you read about it here.
I have a lot of family afflicted with this disease, I sure hope Dr. Paolo Zamboni is onto something here.
Its an astonishing theory that promises to turn the world of MS research on it's head. W5 will have an investigative report on it tonight, you read about it here.
I have a lot of family afflicted with this disease, I sure hope Dr. Paolo Zamboni is onto something here.
Janine Krieber to join the NDP?
By now most of you have heard that Janine Krieber (Stephane Dion's partner/wife/whatever) had a good venting post up on her Facebook page today. It has since been
taken down, too bad.
The Globe and Mail have reproduced the posting here. Its also been translated to English for those of us amongst us whom don't speak both official languages. As a side not, can we please stop using the word rogue?
What I find most interesting is her last paragraph:
I am starting a serious reflection. I will not give my voice to a party that will end up in the trashcan of history. I am looking around me, and certain things are attractive. Like a dedicated party that doesn't challenge its leader at every hiccup in the polls. A party where the rule would be the principle of pleasure, and not assassination. A party where work ethic and competence would be respected and where smiles would be real.
Now what does that mean to you? I read it and immediately thought she (and perhaps Mr. Dion) would jump to the NDP. The other choice that jumped to mind was the Bloc, but I can't see a staunch federalist like Mr. Dion jumping to them. NDP could pick up another Quebec MP, and an high profile one with "green" credentials to boot.
What do you all think?
PS: I agree with her, the Liberal Party will end up in the trash heap of history, and you can plot the demise from the infighting that Paul Martin started. Jean Chretien was the last Liberal Party leader I could respect. You don't have to agree with someone to respect them.
taken down, too bad.
The Globe and Mail have reproduced the posting here. Its also been translated to English for those of us amongst us whom don't speak both official languages. As a side not, can we please stop using the word rogue?
What I find most interesting is her last paragraph:
I am starting a serious reflection. I will not give my voice to a party that will end up in the trashcan of history. I am looking around me, and certain things are attractive. Like a dedicated party that doesn't challenge its leader at every hiccup in the polls. A party where the rule would be the principle of pleasure, and not assassination. A party where work ethic and competence would be respected and where smiles would be real.
Now what does that mean to you? I read it and immediately thought she (and perhaps Mr. Dion) would jump to the NDP. The other choice that jumped to mind was the Bloc, but I can't see a staunch federalist like Mr. Dion jumping to them. NDP could pick up another Quebec MP, and an high profile one with "green" credentials to boot.
What do you all think?
PS: I agree with her, the Liberal Party will end up in the trash heap of history, and you can plot the demise from the infighting that Paul Martin started. Jean Chretien was the last Liberal Party leader I could respect. You don't have to agree with someone to respect them.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Say what now?
Early one morning, Sharon Abbott was delivering newspapers to homes in Toronto's west end. Police Sergeant Stephen Ruffino observed her car double-parked outside an apartment. Then he saw her re-enter the vehicle, turn left without signalling, drive without a seatbelt and swerve from side to side. When she got out again, Sgt. Ruffino tried to stop Ms. Abbott and give her a warning, but she failed to stop and identify herself several times. So he briefly scuffled with her, handcuffed her and detained her for 45 minutes.
Although the HRTO found no "conscious" racism on Sgt. Ruffino's part, it nonetheless concluded his actions were motivated by a deep-seated prejudice ... of which he was apparently entirely unaware.
How does this not make MPPs stand up and take notice of the out of control human rights tribunal in Ontario boggles the mind.
Read the full article to really shake your head.
One would think, that a police officer should have the expectation that his lawful commands would be obeyed regardless of the skin colour. Not that blacks would be docile and compliant...
Although the HRTO found no "conscious" racism on Sgt. Ruffino's part, it nonetheless concluded his actions were motivated by a deep-seated prejudice ... of which he was apparently entirely unaware.
How does this not make MPPs stand up and take notice of the out of control human rights tribunal in Ontario boggles the mind.
Read the full article to really shake your head.
One would think, that a police officer should have the expectation that his lawful commands would be obeyed regardless of the skin colour. Not that blacks would be docile and compliant...
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Another day, another Liblog to bash
OK, this is getting to be a bit of a habit. Seems most of my posts lately are about bashing poor Libloggers. C'est la vie. It is kind of fun :)
At least this Liblogger is trying to rally the troops, put forth ideas, and start a discussion. Too bad many of his ideas are stupid, impractical, or not in the domain of the federal government. You read his rant here. To be fair, I do agree with some of them.
Things that need to be legalized
1) marijuana,
2) prostitution
3) euthanasia.
Yes. Yes. Hell no. At least any proposal but forth to date. No euthansia should ever be legalized unless it can only be initiated by the person to die. No doctors, no family, just the patient gets to decide. Assuming they pass a psyche examine. Any other approach opens up avenues for abuse.
Needed Federal Programs
1) Dental dental
2) Full day Kindergarten and Playschool
3) Natonal Drug plan
No. No. No. For many reasons, first amongst them, the constitution. Those are all provincial responsibilities.
Full day kindergarten and playschool? First of all, my kid already has full day kindergarten. Unless you mean pre and post school. If your school board only offers half day kindergarten, talk to your trustees.
Upgrading of national standards
1) $10 hour National minimum wage indexed to inflation
2) Miniumum 4 weeks vacation a year. This is the European minimum.
3) Massive increase the number of ridings. The hinterlands have way too much electoral clout.
Number one is a provincial regulation. Many provinces are already doing this, or are in the process. You do realize that this will hurt many small businesses right? When Ontario raised the minimum wage a few years ago, almost every Dennys closed in Ottawa. You may not like Dennys, but they employeed dozens.
Why should employers, many of which are small companies in the service industry be responsible for distributing income? Furthermore, over 1/3 of all minimum wage earners are teenagers. They are not necessarily living poverty.
Again, number two is a provincial responsibility, unless it is only for federally regulated industries. Also, many places already give more then 2 weeks of vacation. I have 4 weeks, my parents have 4 weeks, most of my friends have 3 or 4 weeks. Unions already get their members sweet deals. The private sector is in a benefits race to attract and keep top talent.
For number three, I am not sure what the average population per riding is, but there is little that can be done to fix this without causing massive internal strife. Again, the constitution will cause issues. You would need to add seats, you cannot remove seats from provinces for several reasons:
1. They are all grandfathered to have at least as many seats as they had in the 33rd parliament.
2. They have to have at least as many MPs as senators.
3. They can't drop more then 15% in any given reshuffling.
Things that need to be abolished
1) Native Rights
2) The Senate.
3) Family Unification
One and three are agree with. Number two I am not so sure. Are you aware that your opinions are not at all like the Liberal party?
4) The ability of employers to bring in unskilled temporary workers. The Canadian tax payer should not be paying to have temporary unskilled workers brought in just so the Tim Horton's and company can undercut wages of Canadians. If they want workers, they can pay the piper.
Integrating immigrants is really quite simple. If you bring in well educated immigrants that are fluent in English, they will integrate. It will not matter a lick what their background or skin colour is. On the other hand, if you bring in non English speaking uneducated immigrants to clean toilets and serve donuts at Tim Hortons, you have recipe for what happened in Europe, viz, poor race relations, xenophobia and illegal immigration. It is really that clear cut and Kenney should know this. Every expert on immigration does.
The temporary works are mostly for farm work, and mostly because they can't hire Canadians to do the work. Same for all the unskilled workers. Canadians don't want to do the work. During the oil boom a few years ago in Alberta, Tim Horton's employers were paying 20 dollars and hour, and still couldn't fill their positions. Labour shortages are bad for the economy.
5) The Monarchy
Why? So we can be more American? Its a nice tradition that odds pomp and dignity to our cerimonies. Gives people a nice symbol to enjoy. Replace the GG with a head of state will accomplish nothing. Many countries have powerless Presidents too. Removing the Monarchy and GG would require a huge consitutional change.
Since many of your opinions are not Liberal, I have to wonder what makes you a Liberal? It seems, your Liberal streak manifests itself through big national programs that you would implement despite the fact that it intrudes on areas of provincial responsibility. That would annoy Quebec a lot!
At least this Liblogger is trying to rally the troops, put forth ideas, and start a discussion. Too bad many of his ideas are stupid, impractical, or not in the domain of the federal government. You read his rant here. To be fair, I do agree with some of them.
Things that need to be legalized
1) marijuana,
2) prostitution
3) euthanasia.
Yes. Yes. Hell no. At least any proposal but forth to date. No euthansia should ever be legalized unless it can only be initiated by the person to die. No doctors, no family, just the patient gets to decide. Assuming they pass a psyche examine. Any other approach opens up avenues for abuse.
Needed Federal Programs
1) Dental dental
2) Full day Kindergarten and Playschool
3) Natonal Drug plan
No. No. No. For many reasons, first amongst them, the constitution. Those are all provincial responsibilities.
Full day kindergarten and playschool? First of all, my kid already has full day kindergarten. Unless you mean pre and post school. If your school board only offers half day kindergarten, talk to your trustees.
Upgrading of national standards
1) $10 hour National minimum wage indexed to inflation
2) Miniumum 4 weeks vacation a year. This is the European minimum.
3) Massive increase the number of ridings. The hinterlands have way too much electoral clout.
Number one is a provincial regulation. Many provinces are already doing this, or are in the process. You do realize that this will hurt many small businesses right? When Ontario raised the minimum wage a few years ago, almost every Dennys closed in Ottawa. You may not like Dennys, but they employeed dozens.
Why should employers, many of which are small companies in the service industry be responsible for distributing income? Furthermore, over 1/3 of all minimum wage earners are teenagers. They are not necessarily living poverty.
Again, number two is a provincial responsibility, unless it is only for federally regulated industries. Also, many places already give more then 2 weeks of vacation. I have 4 weeks, my parents have 4 weeks, most of my friends have 3 or 4 weeks. Unions already get their members sweet deals. The private sector is in a benefits race to attract and keep top talent.
For number three, I am not sure what the average population per riding is, but there is little that can be done to fix this without causing massive internal strife. Again, the constitution will cause issues. You would need to add seats, you cannot remove seats from provinces for several reasons:
1. They are all grandfathered to have at least as many seats as they had in the 33rd parliament.
2. They have to have at least as many MPs as senators.
3. They can't drop more then 15% in any given reshuffling.
Things that need to be abolished
1) Native Rights
2) The Senate.
3) Family Unification
One and three are agree with. Number two I am not so sure. Are you aware that your opinions are not at all like the Liberal party?
4) The ability of employers to bring in unskilled temporary workers. The Canadian tax payer should not be paying to have temporary unskilled workers brought in just so the Tim Horton's and company can undercut wages of Canadians. If they want workers, they can pay the piper.
Integrating immigrants is really quite simple. If you bring in well educated immigrants that are fluent in English, they will integrate. It will not matter a lick what their background or skin colour is. On the other hand, if you bring in non English speaking uneducated immigrants to clean toilets and serve donuts at Tim Hortons, you have recipe for what happened in Europe, viz, poor race relations, xenophobia and illegal immigration. It is really that clear cut and Kenney should know this. Every expert on immigration does.
The temporary works are mostly for farm work, and mostly because they can't hire Canadians to do the work. Same for all the unskilled workers. Canadians don't want to do the work. During the oil boom a few years ago in Alberta, Tim Horton's employers were paying 20 dollars and hour, and still couldn't fill their positions. Labour shortages are bad for the economy.
5) The Monarchy
Why? So we can be more American? Its a nice tradition that odds pomp and dignity to our cerimonies. Gives people a nice symbol to enjoy. Replace the GG with a head of state will accomplish nothing. Many countries have powerless Presidents too. Removing the Monarchy and GG would require a huge consitutional change.
Since many of your opinions are not Liberal, I have to wonder what makes you a Liberal? It seems, your Liberal streak manifests itself through big national programs that you would implement despite the fact that it intrudes on areas of provincial responsibility. That would annoy Quebec a lot!
Lies, damned lies, and Liberal half-truths
I read everything, and I mean everything. I read the Globe and Mail, the National Post, CBC, CTV, Toronto Star, Blogging Tories, Liblogs, Macleans, and Progressive Bloggers. I am sure I am missing some out of this list. The point is, I read everything I can get my hands on about politics, policy, and news. I don't just read news sources to reinforce my own view. Occasionally I stumble across idiots, and I take the time to refute them harshly. I have done this to Liblogs, and BloggingTories. Ignorance knows no side.
This afternoon I stumbled across a blathering fool of a blogger on Liblogs. This blogger tries to make a case of incompetence on the part of the Conservative government in relation to their H1N1 vaccination program. A program that has had some issues, but when viewed in the larger context, has been pretty darn successful to date.
Let's view his ramblings point by point, I shall quote him as I go.
Health Minister Aglukkaq ordered 1.8 million doses of unadjuvanted vaccine in September. That order had to be placed to cover off the expected needs of pregnant women, which was forgotten, apparently, when the same Minister got around to placing her original order in August.
The order wasn't forgotten, it wasn't ordered. You see, there is no research that points to adjuvanted vaccines being harmful to either the mother or the fetus. None, zip, zero. Why did we order unadjuvanted vaccines then? Because there is no evidence that it doesn't hurt the mother or the fetus. There hasn't been enough research yet to be medically certain.
It was decided that it was better to err on the side of caution, that being said many pregnant women received the adjuvanted version as they were in the high-risk groups.
The August "order" was among the last placed worldwide.
So what? Placing an order in March for a vaccine that is not ready to be produced is no more efficient. Canada has a contract, we jump the queue, and go to the front of the line in terms of production.
The 1.8 million dose order for non-adjuvanted vaccine then disrupted and delayed GSK's "bottling" of adjuvanted vaccine, which was intended for use in the broader population. This delay caused line ups and general mayhem along the vaccination distribution system as there was a shortage of vaccine, which exists to this day.
At the same time, GSK wasn't able to get the non-adjuvanted product ready quick enough anyway and the government had to order 200,000 doses from another supplier in Australia.
Sigh. When the immunization programme started, cities had thousands and thousands of vaccine doses. The line ups were caused by the sheer fact that you cannot immunize everyone at once. And poor organization at the local level for the vaccination rollout.
For the first few weeks, vaccination clinics were going full bore immunizing the high risk groups. It is only now that there is some shortages due to the interruptions in the production line to make the unadjuvanted version.
Even as late as Oct 24th, barely half of Canadians were planning on getting the shot. Only 30% of Canadians get the seasonal flu shot. Its hard to fault cities and the federal goverment for making plans based on the best available data at the time.
Regarding Australia, would you rather have the government not try and get other supplies?
All the while, mass confusion amongst the health providers and pregnant women as to what really was the advice of the government.
Really? All advice I have heard was consistent.
Rather, these women should get the advanced form of the vaccine that includes a booster to increase immune response, she said.
Last week, the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada also said all evidence suggests that adjuvanted vaccines are just as safe as non-adjuvanted vaccines. But the preferred version for pregnant women is the non-adjuvanted version because there hasn't been a lot of research on the use of the adjuvant in pregnancy.
Now we hear that Aglukkaq has approved the non-adjuvanted GSK product for use by everybody. Another day...another change in plan...this ordering fiasco and not realising GSK bottling challenges is something that needs a thorough review when this is all over.
She has approved the vaccination for everyone as the non-adjuvanted vaccine has been available for sometime now, and they likely figure everyone who was going to get the non-adjuvanted one has already. They ordered more then what was needed. There are not 1.8 million pregnant women in Canada.
There has been a definite glossing over of the truth along the way. It was in September that the mantra began: “In Canada, we are lucky that the issue is not whether we will have enough vaccine for everyone who needs it, but how quickly we can immunize everyone,” said Dr. Butler-Jones, Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer. While the Health Minister intoned her now all too familiar, “The Government of Canada will ensure that all Canadians who need and want the H1N1 vaccine will get it.” Aglukkaq's Butler-Jones laying tracks so that the provinces can be blamed for the failure in distribution that they new was coming. At the same time, a Minister providing an assurance bereft of any time frame against which to apply future accountability and responsibility. Typical.
You cannot immunize 33 million people at once. Over 50 million doses of vaccine was ordered, many more millions will be immunized by Christmas. The line ups (in my community anyway) were not very long after the initial rush.
Neither of these comments reflected what these officials could and should (and maybe did) know about GSK packaging shortcomings.
Yes, the one legitimate point, they should not have interrupted the the production of the adjuvanted vaccine. But that is the benefit of hindsight. Easy to see the errors.
Now lets look at the big picture.
- Canada has rolled out more vaccine per capita then any other country in the world.
- Canada has rolled out more the twice the vaccine per capita then the US
- A pandemic of fear was caused by the deaths of two young children that caused long line ups
- The perception of scandal is more media (and Liberal) generated then a reflection of widespread unease
- Nearly 2/3s of Canadians think the Government has done a fair job.
- Canada has produced about 8.5 million doses of the vaccine.
See the big picture. It is disgusting that the Liberals are trying to politicize this issue, even as their MPs try to hysterically jump the queue. I am looking at you Hedy Fry!
Might I suggest fist bumping Hedy?
This afternoon I stumbled across a blathering fool of a blogger on Liblogs. This blogger tries to make a case of incompetence on the part of the Conservative government in relation to their H1N1 vaccination program. A program that has had some issues, but when viewed in the larger context, has been pretty darn successful to date.
Let's view his ramblings point by point, I shall quote him as I go.
Health Minister Aglukkaq ordered 1.8 million doses of unadjuvanted vaccine in September. That order had to be placed to cover off the expected needs of pregnant women, which was forgotten, apparently, when the same Minister got around to placing her original order in August.
The order wasn't forgotten, it wasn't ordered. You see, there is no research that points to adjuvanted vaccines being harmful to either the mother or the fetus. None, zip, zero. Why did we order unadjuvanted vaccines then? Because there is no evidence that it doesn't hurt the mother or the fetus. There hasn't been enough research yet to be medically certain.
It was decided that it was better to err on the side of caution, that being said many pregnant women received the adjuvanted version as they were in the high-risk groups.
The August "order" was among the last placed worldwide.
So what? Placing an order in March for a vaccine that is not ready to be produced is no more efficient. Canada has a contract, we jump the queue, and go to the front of the line in terms of production.
The 1.8 million dose order for non-adjuvanted vaccine then disrupted and delayed GSK's "bottling" of adjuvanted vaccine, which was intended for use in the broader population. This delay caused line ups and general mayhem along the vaccination distribution system as there was a shortage of vaccine, which exists to this day.
At the same time, GSK wasn't able to get the non-adjuvanted product ready quick enough anyway and the government had to order 200,000 doses from another supplier in Australia.
Sigh. When the immunization programme started, cities had thousands and thousands of vaccine doses. The line ups were caused by the sheer fact that you cannot immunize everyone at once. And poor organization at the local level for the vaccination rollout.
For the first few weeks, vaccination clinics were going full bore immunizing the high risk groups. It is only now that there is some shortages due to the interruptions in the production line to make the unadjuvanted version.
Even as late as Oct 24th, barely half of Canadians were planning on getting the shot. Only 30% of Canadians get the seasonal flu shot. Its hard to fault cities and the federal goverment for making plans based on the best available data at the time.
Regarding Australia, would you rather have the government not try and get other supplies?
All the while, mass confusion amongst the health providers and pregnant women as to what really was the advice of the government.
Really? All advice I have heard was consistent.
Rather, these women should get the advanced form of the vaccine that includes a booster to increase immune response, she said.
Last week, the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada also said all evidence suggests that adjuvanted vaccines are just as safe as non-adjuvanted vaccines. But the preferred version for pregnant women is the non-adjuvanted version because there hasn't been a lot of research on the use of the adjuvant in pregnancy.
Now we hear that Aglukkaq has approved the non-adjuvanted GSK product for use by everybody. Another day...another change in plan...this ordering fiasco and not realising GSK bottling challenges is something that needs a thorough review when this is all over.
She has approved the vaccination for everyone as the non-adjuvanted vaccine has been available for sometime now, and they likely figure everyone who was going to get the non-adjuvanted one has already. They ordered more then what was needed. There are not 1.8 million pregnant women in Canada.
There has been a definite glossing over of the truth along the way. It was in September that the mantra began: “In Canada, we are lucky that the issue is not whether we will have enough vaccine for everyone who needs it, but how quickly we can immunize everyone,” said Dr. Butler-Jones, Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer. While the Health Minister intoned her now all too familiar, “The Government of Canada will ensure that all Canadians who need and want the H1N1 vaccine will get it.” Aglukkaq's Butler-Jones laying tracks so that the provinces can be blamed for the failure in distribution that they new was coming. At the same time, a Minister providing an assurance bereft of any time frame against which to apply future accountability and responsibility. Typical.
You cannot immunize 33 million people at once. Over 50 million doses of vaccine was ordered, many more millions will be immunized by Christmas. The line ups (in my community anyway) were not very long after the initial rush.
Neither of these comments reflected what these officials could and should (and maybe did) know about GSK packaging shortcomings.
Yes, the one legitimate point, they should not have interrupted the the production of the adjuvanted vaccine. But that is the benefit of hindsight. Easy to see the errors.
Now lets look at the big picture.
- Canada has rolled out more vaccine per capita then any other country in the world.
- Canada has rolled out more the twice the vaccine per capita then the US
- A pandemic of fear was caused by the deaths of two young children that caused long line ups
- The perception of scandal is more media (and Liberal) generated then a reflection of widespread unease
- Nearly 2/3s of Canadians think the Government has done a fair job.
- Canada has produced about 8.5 million doses of the vaccine.
See the big picture. It is disgusting that the Liberals are trying to politicize this issue, even as their MPs try to hysterically jump the queue. I am looking at you Hedy Fry!
Might I suggest fist bumping Hedy?
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Courage - my word!
Now this is one brave and determined young lady. And finally someone not afraid to speak her mind, and call out the nationalists for what they are, a national disgrace.
As the bright lights of national television created an something of a chilling aura around the 150 slogan-chanting Quebec nationalists, a small determined woman named Suzanne Reny walked up to the front lines of the protest and told them they were all a disgrace.
Someone should ask her to run for Parliament, I don't think she would back down from anything.
PS: In video clips I saw on the news, one "brave" masked man held a Quebec flag like it was a spear towards the riot police, and kepted motioning as if he would stab them. Brave indeed.
As the bright lights of national television created an something of a chilling aura around the 150 slogan-chanting Quebec nationalists, a small determined woman named Suzanne Reny walked up to the front lines of the protest and told them they were all a disgrace.
Someone should ask her to run for Parliament, I don't think she would back down from anything.
PS: In video clips I saw on the news, one "brave" masked man held a Quebec flag like it was a spear towards the riot police, and kepted motioning as if he would stab them. Brave indeed.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Michael Byers -- Way out in left field
Michael Byers has written an editorial published in the Toronto Star calling for all left-wing parties to form a coalition to seek to topple the Conservatives to prevent them from forming government. His editorial is shallow, lame, and typical lefty logic. It's also hard to read, many of his "paragraphs" consist of a single sentence, not that I usually criticize grammar, as my own grammar is not quite up to par, but even I noticed his short paragraphs.
Whoops, I am mis-characterizing his editorial, it is not a coalition, its just an agreement where the parties promise not to run candidates in each others ridings.
Let's take this blow by blow.
Negative ads have prejudiced voters against Michael Ignatieff, and brought Stephen Harper within reach of a majority government. The Conservatives now lead the Liberals by about 10 percentage points.
That is one interpretation, but a seriously wrong one. The ads were having little to no affect on Ignatieff until he decided to bring down the government and force an election that no one wanted. Many non-partisan, but committed Liberal voters totally switched off at that point, and were quite angry as they didn't want an election. I am sure my informal poll is fairly representative of average Canadians. Ignatieff did this to himself.
The situation seems unlikely to improve. The Prime Minister's divisive partisan tactics have diminished the public's respect for politicians in general. In just four years, he has changed the tone of media coverage and public discourse, shifting the mood of the nation toward cynicism and selfishness.
Any examples? Sure Harper is partisan, but he is hardly alone in this. Most MPs from all parties suffer from this. To blame just Harper is bordering on the ridiculous.
Liberal infighting has not helped, while the NDP has missed two opportunities – on climate change and macroeconomic policy – to capture the national imagination with bold ideas.
Indeed it hasn't. As for the bold ideas, they have been talked about the NDP for years and found wanting. Perhaps, the electorate don't like your ideas?
There is only one surefire way to prevent a Harper majority. The Liberals and NDP should agree to not run candidates against each other in the next campaign.
Ah yes, the non-coalition coalition. I suppose such crazy ideas as good policy are out of the question?
In each riding, the party whose candidate fared worst in the last election would pull its current candidate out, or refrain from nominating one.
That worked so well for Ms. May.
Both parties would win more seats, with the Liberals potentially forming a majority government.
Based solely on the results from October 2008, the agreement would, in itself, deliver 30 to 40 additional seats to the Liberals and another five to 10 seats to the NDP.
Says who? You? You have just lost every bit (of what little) credibility you had. Do you really think that every Liberal voter would switch to the NDP? You're complete insane to think that. I would wager that the majority of Liberal voters would vote Conservative over NDP in most ridings.
The Bloc Québécois would not be part of the deal but could be expected to win around 40 seats in total.
Importantly, what is proposed is not a coalition, but a one-time ceasefire between two opposition parties whose combined vote share last time was significantly higher (44.4 per cent versus 37.6 per cent) than the Conservatives.
Outside of one riding, the NDP are not really a factor in Quebec. And your percentages again assume (incorrectly) that all Liberal voters would vote in-mass for the NDP. That might be somewhat true for NDP voting Liberal, but not Liberal voting NDP.
No effort would be made to coordinate platforms, though the absence of debilitating head-to-head races between Liberals and New Democrats would direct both parties' attention onto the Conservatives.
Nor would the agreement extend to post-election power sharing. If the Liberals were in a position to form a minority government, they would be free to seek support from any of the other parties – including the Conservatives.
No consistent platform, but a coalition nevertheless. Mr Byers must really think Canadians are stupid.
The only post-election condition in the agreement should be an unqualified public commitment to holding a national referendum on proportional representation within the first year.
The commitment would include the provision of sufficient public funding to ensure in-depth discussion and widespread knowledge of the arguments both for and against the proposed change.
Oh man, not PR again?!?! Why oh why? Voters have consistently voted down all versions of PR, because they don't work. I have said it once, and I will say it again, no solution to the democratic deficit involves more politicians. PR would just lead to more minority governments.
Proportional representation would produce a much fairer allocation of seats than our current first-past-the-post system and boost voter turnout and political engagement by making every vote count.
Many New Democrats might wish to make the immediate introduction of proportional representation a condition of the ceasefire agreement, since a referendum might not produce the desired result.
Again, no facts, just statements. Why would PR affect voter turnout? A more likely fact is that people don't vote because people don't care. Either Liberal, or Conservative governments basically plot the same course, the ship is just tilted a little to either side depending on the party.
However, such an approach would enable the Prime Minister to make proportional representation the principal issue in the campaign, instead of his record and the alternative policies offered by the other parties.
The Prime Minister wouldn't need to make PR the central issue, he could make the coalition the central issue.
A ceasefire agreement would likely be opposed by some insiders, in both parties, who benefit from the existing system. It would certainly inconvenience some candidates who have already been nominated, and would have to stand down. Most, however, would probably accept that larger, more important interests are in play.
Some would oppose it for partisan reasons, some would oppose it because you, in your lefty stupid logic would restrict choice.
The ceasefire agreement, once struck, could be expanded to include the Green party, which has always sought proportional representation and would benefit substantially from it.
The Greens obtained nearly 1 million votes (6.8 per cent) but no parliamentary representation in the last election. They finished second in five races, though the party's only realistic chance of winning a seat in the next election is in the B.C. riding of Saanich-Gulf Islands, where Elizabeth May is running and the Liberal finished second to the Conservative last time.
An arrangement could be made to rectify this lack of representation by giving all five second-place Greens a clear run in the next election, with May having that opportunity in her new riding – in return for the Green party withdrawing its candidates from every other race.
Ah yes, basically try and appoint 5 Green candidates, and again restrict choice to the other 303 ridings. Again, why do you the majority of Liberal and NDP voters would vote Green over the Conservatives? There is NO reason to think that.
The chances of the Liberals forming government appear to have slipped away. The future of the country is in the balance. Whether we like it or not, the parties of the progressive centre have reached a decision point.
Will we let an outdated electoral system deliver a majority Conservative government on the basis of the preferences of less than 40 per cent of voters – and less than 25 per cent of those Canadians who are eligible to vote?
What is so scary about a majority? We have suffered under Liberal majorities, some provinces have suffered under NDP majorities, again, Canada didn't disintegrate. You are just sore to have lost again. You would be more then happy for the Liberals of NDP to form a majority government with 38% of the vote like Chretien did, but you are not OK for the Conservatives to do the same.
You are a biased partisan hack with a shaky grasp of reality who write crap for the Star. Your entire premise assumes that Liberal voters will all switch to the NDP in those ridings. It is crazy to even think that.
Whoops, I am mis-characterizing his editorial, it is not a coalition, its just an agreement where the parties promise not to run candidates in each others ridings.
Let's take this blow by blow.
Negative ads have prejudiced voters against Michael Ignatieff, and brought Stephen Harper within reach of a majority government. The Conservatives now lead the Liberals by about 10 percentage points.
That is one interpretation, but a seriously wrong one. The ads were having little to no affect on Ignatieff until he decided to bring down the government and force an election that no one wanted. Many non-partisan, but committed Liberal voters totally switched off at that point, and were quite angry as they didn't want an election. I am sure my informal poll is fairly representative of average Canadians. Ignatieff did this to himself.
The situation seems unlikely to improve. The Prime Minister's divisive partisan tactics have diminished the public's respect for politicians in general. In just four years, he has changed the tone of media coverage and public discourse, shifting the mood of the nation toward cynicism and selfishness.
Any examples? Sure Harper is partisan, but he is hardly alone in this. Most MPs from all parties suffer from this. To blame just Harper is bordering on the ridiculous.
Liberal infighting has not helped, while the NDP has missed two opportunities – on climate change and macroeconomic policy – to capture the national imagination with bold ideas.
Indeed it hasn't. As for the bold ideas, they have been talked about the NDP for years and found wanting. Perhaps, the electorate don't like your ideas?
There is only one surefire way to prevent a Harper majority. The Liberals and NDP should agree to not run candidates against each other in the next campaign.
Ah yes, the non-coalition coalition. I suppose such crazy ideas as good policy are out of the question?
In each riding, the party whose candidate fared worst in the last election would pull its current candidate out, or refrain from nominating one.
That worked so well for Ms. May.
Both parties would win more seats, with the Liberals potentially forming a majority government.
Based solely on the results from October 2008, the agreement would, in itself, deliver 30 to 40 additional seats to the Liberals and another five to 10 seats to the NDP.
Says who? You? You have just lost every bit (of what little) credibility you had. Do you really think that every Liberal voter would switch to the NDP? You're complete insane to think that. I would wager that the majority of Liberal voters would vote Conservative over NDP in most ridings.
The Bloc Québécois would not be part of the deal but could be expected to win around 40 seats in total.
Importantly, what is proposed is not a coalition, but a one-time ceasefire between two opposition parties whose combined vote share last time was significantly higher (44.4 per cent versus 37.6 per cent) than the Conservatives.
Outside of one riding, the NDP are not really a factor in Quebec. And your percentages again assume (incorrectly) that all Liberal voters would vote in-mass for the NDP. That might be somewhat true for NDP voting Liberal, but not Liberal voting NDP.
No effort would be made to coordinate platforms, though the absence of debilitating head-to-head races between Liberals and New Democrats would direct both parties' attention onto the Conservatives.
Nor would the agreement extend to post-election power sharing. If the Liberals were in a position to form a minority government, they would be free to seek support from any of the other parties – including the Conservatives.
No consistent platform, but a coalition nevertheless. Mr Byers must really think Canadians are stupid.
The only post-election condition in the agreement should be an unqualified public commitment to holding a national referendum on proportional representation within the first year.
The commitment would include the provision of sufficient public funding to ensure in-depth discussion and widespread knowledge of the arguments both for and against the proposed change.
Oh man, not PR again?!?! Why oh why? Voters have consistently voted down all versions of PR, because they don't work. I have said it once, and I will say it again, no solution to the democratic deficit involves more politicians. PR would just lead to more minority governments.
Proportional representation would produce a much fairer allocation of seats than our current first-past-the-post system and boost voter turnout and political engagement by making every vote count.
Many New Democrats might wish to make the immediate introduction of proportional representation a condition of the ceasefire agreement, since a referendum might not produce the desired result.
Again, no facts, just statements. Why would PR affect voter turnout? A more likely fact is that people don't vote because people don't care. Either Liberal, or Conservative governments basically plot the same course, the ship is just tilted a little to either side depending on the party.
However, such an approach would enable the Prime Minister to make proportional representation the principal issue in the campaign, instead of his record and the alternative policies offered by the other parties.
The Prime Minister wouldn't need to make PR the central issue, he could make the coalition the central issue.
A ceasefire agreement would likely be opposed by some insiders, in both parties, who benefit from the existing system. It would certainly inconvenience some candidates who have already been nominated, and would have to stand down. Most, however, would probably accept that larger, more important interests are in play.
Some would oppose it for partisan reasons, some would oppose it because you, in your lefty stupid logic would restrict choice.
The ceasefire agreement, once struck, could be expanded to include the Green party, which has always sought proportional representation and would benefit substantially from it.
The Greens obtained nearly 1 million votes (6.8 per cent) but no parliamentary representation in the last election. They finished second in five races, though the party's only realistic chance of winning a seat in the next election is in the B.C. riding of Saanich-Gulf Islands, where Elizabeth May is running and the Liberal finished second to the Conservative last time.
An arrangement could be made to rectify this lack of representation by giving all five second-place Greens a clear run in the next election, with May having that opportunity in her new riding – in return for the Green party withdrawing its candidates from every other race.
Ah yes, basically try and appoint 5 Green candidates, and again restrict choice to the other 303 ridings. Again, why do you the majority of Liberal and NDP voters would vote Green over the Conservatives? There is NO reason to think that.
The chances of the Liberals forming government appear to have slipped away. The future of the country is in the balance. Whether we like it or not, the parties of the progressive centre have reached a decision point.
Will we let an outdated electoral system deliver a majority Conservative government on the basis of the preferences of less than 40 per cent of voters – and less than 25 per cent of those Canadians who are eligible to vote?
What is so scary about a majority? We have suffered under Liberal majorities, some provinces have suffered under NDP majorities, again, Canada didn't disintegrate. You are just sore to have lost again. You would be more then happy for the Liberals of NDP to form a majority government with 38% of the vote like Chretien did, but you are not OK for the Conservatives to do the same.
You are a biased partisan hack with a shaky grasp of reality who write crap for the Star. Your entire premise assumes that Liberal voters will all switch to the NDP in those ridings. It is crazy to even think that.
Duffy vs Stoffer
Seems like an uneven battle to me.
For those of you whom haven't see the segement where Duffy and Stoffer battle it out on CBC, it is below.
After reading some of the coverage and press about this I was expecting a much worse confrontation. Instead, we get this, disappointing and somewhat childish exchange.
To me both sides look like amatures.
Duffy looks positively Liberal with his constant interuptions. I find on average Liberals, tend to interrupt other speakers more often then either the NDP or Conservative pundits, MPs, or party hacks. Stoffer looks like the back-bencher he is, "I don't have my report", what's up with that? Come to the nationally televised show prepared next time buddy.
Don Martin chimes in with some rubbish, I am really not sure why Don Martin dislikes Duffy so much. Martin doesn't refute any of Duffy's points, other then to say Stoffer is amiable.
The original Canadian Press report that Duffy attacks can be read here.
Jane Taber has a few thoughts here as well.
What do you all think? What Duffy out of line with his attacks? Was Stoffer out of line by singling out Duffy? Chime in below.
My personal opinion is both were amature hour, Duffy was not professional, but was well researched, and Stoffer was ill-prepared (forgot his report) and unable to articulate anything else but "Harper appointed senators and he said he wouldn't". Maybe Stoffer didn't think he needed his report on left-leaning CBC?
For those of you whom haven't see the segement where Duffy and Stoffer battle it out on CBC, it is below.
After reading some of the coverage and press about this I was expecting a much worse confrontation. Instead, we get this, disappointing and somewhat childish exchange.
To me both sides look like amatures.
Duffy looks positively Liberal with his constant interuptions. I find on average Liberals, tend to interrupt other speakers more often then either the NDP or Conservative pundits, MPs, or party hacks. Stoffer looks like the back-bencher he is, "I don't have my report", what's up with that? Come to the nationally televised show prepared next time buddy.
Don Martin chimes in with some rubbish, I am really not sure why Don Martin dislikes Duffy so much. Martin doesn't refute any of Duffy's points, other then to say Stoffer is amiable.
The original Canadian Press report that Duffy attacks can be read here.
Jane Taber has a few thoughts here as well.
What do you all think? What Duffy out of line with his attacks? Was Stoffer out of line by singling out Duffy? Chime in below.
My personal opinion is both were amature hour, Duffy was not professional, but was well researched, and Stoffer was ill-prepared (forgot his report) and unable to articulate anything else but "Harper appointed senators and he said he wouldn't". Maybe Stoffer didn't think he needed his report on left-leaning CBC?
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Warren - Way out of line
Seriously??????
Warren Kinsella is blaming the Prime Minster Stephen Harper for a Bloc MP voting in the House today to protect the gun registry? Warren, are you actually blaming PMSH for a lack of common sense from a Bloc MP? Lame.
Oh, perhaps that Bloc MP had no idea that the vote would be the blow out that it was. After all, at the end of the day, his vote didn't make a difference. Perhaps the Tories knew it was going to be a blow out, and hence just wanted to say their entire party supported it.
Here is an idea, perhaps one of the Liberals voting to scrap the gun registry could have stayed home instead?
And then this post about extra and unneeded portions of the vaccination being exported.
Here is a possibility Warren, to help other countries? You know, actually be the generous, world citizens that Liberals pretend to be? But no, Warren believes he is entitled to his entitlements, and would rather stockpile antigen that they can't be used instead of actually exporting it to countries that can use it.
Typical.....
Hopefully you will soon be muzzled, as you are way out of line these days. Go back to being thoughtful, and full of ideas like you used to be a few years ago. I enjoyed that Warren.
Warren Kinsella is blaming the Prime Minster Stephen Harper for a Bloc MP voting in the House today to protect the gun registry? Warren, are you actually blaming PMSH for a lack of common sense from a Bloc MP? Lame.
Oh, perhaps that Bloc MP had no idea that the vote would be the blow out that it was. After all, at the end of the day, his vote didn't make a difference. Perhaps the Tories knew it was going to be a blow out, and hence just wanted to say their entire party supported it.
Here is an idea, perhaps one of the Liberals voting to scrap the gun registry could have stayed home instead?
And then this post about extra and unneeded portions of the vaccination being exported.
Here is a possibility Warren, to help other countries? You know, actually be the generous, world citizens that Liberals pretend to be? But no, Warren believes he is entitled to his entitlements, and would rather stockpile antigen that they can't be used instead of actually exporting it to countries that can use it.Typical.....
Hopefully you will soon be muzzled, as you are way out of line these days. Go back to being thoughtful, and full of ideas like you used to be a few years ago. I enjoyed that Warren.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Liberals - Entitled to their Entitlements
In years past, at least Liberal entitlements were just our tax dollars, and not (potentially) the lives of our children and loved ones.
How pathetic of a person do you have be to act like this? She is practically wetting her pants in fear, only thinking of herself.
I am so glad she is thinking of herself, while my wife and children get turned away daily at the clinics no matter how early she gets there.
Iggy, kick her pathetic, blubbering butt out of your caucus.
How pathetic of a person do you have be to act like this? She is practically wetting her pants in fear, only thinking of herself.
I am so glad she is thinking of herself, while my wife and children get turned away daily at the clinics no matter how early she gets there.
Iggy, kick her pathetic, blubbering butt out of your caucus.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Listen to the Don
He is absolutely, positively right.
Like kids at the candy store, and no it doesn't matter that the Liberals did the same or worse. No it doesn't, unless you are a simple, blind, apologist.
Looking at the sudden success the Wild Rose party is having, who wants to join me in starting the Wild Geese party?
Friday, October 9, 2009
And the winner of the Teen Choice Awards go to.....
Barrack Obama, the winner of the 2009 Teen Choi^@%#%^...Nobel Peace Prize.
I was a little surprised to hear that Barrack Obama won the Nobel peace prize. I mean, I know there have been some shady winners in the past (Yasser Arafat, Al Gore), but this is beyond the pale.
Which sucking sycophant nominated the orator? The nomination deadline for the Nobel Peace prize is on or before January 31st of the given year, Obama's inauguration was January 20th 2009.
A quick informal poll taken at work (high tech firm) had everyone shocked, surprised, and laughing at the stupidity of the award.
In 11 days or less, Barrack Obama has won the Nobel Peace prize....Teen Choice Awards indeed.
I was a little surprised to hear that Barrack Obama won the Nobel peace prize. I mean, I know there have been some shady winners in the past (Yasser Arafat, Al Gore), but this is beyond the pale.
Which sucking sycophant nominated the orator? The nomination deadline for the Nobel Peace prize is on or before January 31st of the given year, Obama's inauguration was January 20th 2009.
A quick informal poll taken at work (high tech firm) had everyone shocked, surprised, and laughing at the stupidity of the award.
In 11 days or less, Barrack Obama has won the Nobel Peace prize....Teen Choice Awards indeed.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Let's all stretch now
Is this a scandal? Conservatives appointing Conservative friendly people to positions? Is it really a scandal?
Depends.
Depends if the people are qualified for their positions. If they are qualified, as in, their qualifications are more then just the amount of money they donate then I am fine with this. It only makes sense for a government to appoint people whom have similar ways of thinking. If they are not qualified, then it becomes an issue.
In the latest attempts at scandal, the NP brings some pretty tenuous connections to the table. Let's take a look at some of them:
Judy Dreeshen - Conservative Campaign Worker
That's true, she was a campaign worker, for her husband! Have you ever heard of Earl Dreeshen? I haven't. He is a backbencher. It also seems that Mrs Dreeshen was a member of the Alberta OCRT since September 2007. That experience seems some what relevant to new posting.
Joe Spina - Brampton Progressive Conservative MPP, 1995-2003
Since when is being an ex-politician a barrier to taking on government positions? Many ex-politicians move on to these sorts of assignments.
Jeffrey Keefe - Donated to Conservative Party Candidate in 2006
Wow! He donated up to the 5,100 dollar campaign limit in 2006? Like, 3 years ago? How many Canadians would be barred from government positions if you couldn't have ever donated to a political party?
Suzanne Dery - Donated to former Conservative MP Luc Harvey
Ditto.
Arthur Lust - Donated to Conservative MP John Baird in 2008
Ditto. And this time it was only 1,100 dollars.
James Walsh - Donated to Conservative Party in 2004
5 years ago!
Some in their list have actual dollar amounts beside their names, others don't. If they don't have a dollar amount beside their name does it mean it was only a couple hundred dollars or so? I mean, seriously?
Some of the appointments deserve scrutiny, but some of the scrutiny is just petty.
Depends.
Depends if the people are qualified for their positions. If they are qualified, as in, their qualifications are more then just the amount of money they donate then I am fine with this. It only makes sense for a government to appoint people whom have similar ways of thinking. If they are not qualified, then it becomes an issue.
In the latest attempts at scandal, the NP brings some pretty tenuous connections to the table. Let's take a look at some of them:
Judy Dreeshen - Conservative Campaign Worker
That's true, she was a campaign worker, for her husband! Have you ever heard of Earl Dreeshen? I haven't. He is a backbencher. It also seems that Mrs Dreeshen was a member of the Alberta OCRT since September 2007. That experience seems some what relevant to new posting.
Joe Spina - Brampton Progressive Conservative MPP, 1995-2003
Since when is being an ex-politician a barrier to taking on government positions? Many ex-politicians move on to these sorts of assignments.
Jeffrey Keefe - Donated to Conservative Party Candidate in 2006
Wow! He donated up to the 5,100 dollar campaign limit in 2006? Like, 3 years ago? How many Canadians would be barred from government positions if you couldn't have ever donated to a political party?
Suzanne Dery - Donated to former Conservative MP Luc Harvey
Ditto.
Arthur Lust - Donated to Conservative MP John Baird in 2008
Ditto. And this time it was only 1,100 dollars.
James Walsh - Donated to Conservative Party in 2004
5 years ago!
Some in their list have actual dollar amounts beside their names, others don't. If they don't have a dollar amount beside their name does it mean it was only a couple hundred dollars or so? I mean, seriously?
Some of the appointments deserve scrutiny, but some of the scrutiny is just petty.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
I am just wishing the Liberals would shut up
Oh my god, why can't the Liberals and their supporters just shut up. Do they really think, the the Conservatives had anything to do with their logo? That sounds absolutely lunatic, WK should start to stand for whacked out krack head.
Childish name calling, baseless accusations, making up excused for an election absolutely no one wants.....and they wonder why the are dropping in the polls.
A "C" with a maple leaf in the centre, yup, no one could think that up on their own.
Get a grip.
Update: So I guess the Conservatives also invented a time machine and went back into the past and had the Royal Canadian Air Force model their logo after them. Those evil bastards.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Bring on the lawsuit?
C A I T I - O N L I N E slanders one of Canada's newest Senators with a despicable blog by smear. CAITI-ONLINE is an annoying farce, but they should be careful about what they print. If I was Doug Finely I would sue over this, take all their money, then donate it to charity. It has never been proven that Mr Finely bribed anyone.
Now if CAITI posted "HARPER BREAKS ANOTHER PROMISE, APPOINTS MORE SENATORS", that is something I could agree with.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Unbelievable!
I have been meaning to blog about this for awhile, but have been unable to stop getting angry about it every time I thought of it. How hard is it to call out major and requested stops?
Only in the City of Ottawa can bus drivers fail to do the simplest thing and have managers at OCTranspo spin away the problem. And now it has cost us taxpayers five thousand dollars. Perhaps the ATU should pay this fine.
Manager of Performance and Quality Vincent Patterson tells CFRA News drivers can be distracted by things on the road and miss a stop announcement.
Nice excuse. If they can stop they bus they can call out the stop. What distractions can there be when the bus is stopped?
Simple solution to this problem. Any bus driver that gets 5 complaints lodged against them gets suspended without pay and a warning on their file at OC. They can then get some coaching on how to call out stops. If they get 10 complaints lodged against them they get fired. How simple is that?
Follow the ESA and put improvement plans in for these drivers, whey they fail that fire them. Do you really want a driver that is incapable of shouting out a stop driving yourself or your loved ones around?
Fire. Them. All.
PS: 7 million dollars for this system? My god this seems expensive. Heck, at 5000 dollar fines, let them fine us. It would be cheaper then this system by far.
Only in the City of Ottawa can bus drivers fail to do the simplest thing and have managers at OCTranspo spin away the problem. And now it has cost us taxpayers five thousand dollars. Perhaps the ATU should pay this fine.
Manager of Performance and Quality Vincent Patterson tells CFRA News drivers can be distracted by things on the road and miss a stop announcement.
Nice excuse. If they can stop they bus they can call out the stop. What distractions can there be when the bus is stopped?
Simple solution to this problem. Any bus driver that gets 5 complaints lodged against them gets suspended without pay and a warning on their file at OC. They can then get some coaching on how to call out stops. If they get 10 complaints lodged against them they get fired. How simple is that?
Follow the ESA and put improvement plans in for these drivers, whey they fail that fire them. Do you really want a driver that is incapable of shouting out a stop driving yourself or your loved ones around?
Fire. Them. All.
PS: 7 million dollars for this system? My god this seems expensive. Heck, at 5000 dollar fines, let them fine us. It would be cheaper then this system by far.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Blatchford Weighs in on "sexist judge"
Christie Blatchford weighs in on this debacle. I think the Globe and Mail should be ashamed at how they treated the judge on this. Seriously ashamed and Blatchford was right to take her employer to task.
Remember, the media spins everything, try not to react without understanding the full context. Good advice I need to remember to follow to :)
Remember, the media spins everything, try not to react without understanding the full context. Good advice I need to remember to follow to :)
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Text of O'Brien Judgment
Maybe I am in the minority, or perhaps naive, but I have serious issues with the charges of sexism being leveled against Justice Cunningham. I mentioned these before. I cannot believe that in 2009 we have sexist judges sitting on the bench. This could be my naive part.
I also have doubts about the impartiality of the media in the reporting of this "scandal/issue/etc". So I decided to find the judgment and read it for myself. I pasted it here for you enjoyment. Some commentary at the bottom.
[61] The next witness relied upon by the Crown for corroboration was Lisa MacLeod, the MPP for Nepean-Carleton. When she learned in July 2006 that Mr. O'Brien was considering running for Mayor, she arranged a meeting with him. They met July 31st at her constituency office where Mr. O'Brien was accompanied by Mr. David Gibbons. Ms. MacLeod was pleased there might be a Conservative in the mayoralty race and offered Mr. O’Brien some advice regarding the names of potential campaign workers. During the course of their conversation Ms. MacLeod, stated that, in the context of what Mr. Kilrea might do if he were not a candidate, Mr. O'Brien said, "somebody was talking to Terry about an appointment." It wasn't clear who that was.
[62] After telling the Crown she was at the time more interested in the campaign and its people and how excited she was about the people Mr. O'Brien would draw into his campaign, the Crown asked, "Uh-hum, And this discussion with respect to a Parole Board appointment..." At that point, quite properly, the defence objected. After some discussion Ms. MacLeod said, "I believe it was the National Parole Board. Again, it came up casually, 1think once or twice... but we focused generally on (who) would be suitable campaign managers for a Conservative candidate for mayor..." After another question, she responded, "My best recollection is we're talking to Terry about an appointment" which she believed was to the National Parole Board."
[63] During cross-examination, the defence was able to demonstrate that there were a number of rather significant things going on in her life when she gave "her statement to the police in early May 2007. She was commuting regularly to Toronto for her work, leaving her husband and child in Ottawa. As well, in March 2007, her father was diagnosed with cancer. Defence counsel put her statement to her during cross-examination and without reciting her evidence in detail, I conclude that any references to Mr. Kilrea being in line for an appointment were casual, beyond the real subject matter of their conversation and really quite peripheral to the matters at hand. She agreed there was "a considerable rumour mill out there" and at one point told the police officer that "90% of it is rumour" and that her job was to try and figure out what is fact and what is fiction. Initially, during examination-in-chief she testified that Mr. O’Brien said, "somebody was talking to Terry about an appointment". That morphed into “we're talking to Terry about an appointment", following which the Crown introduced the subject of the National Parole Board. She agreed with defence counsel that since May 2007 she had offered several alternatives as to what might have been said by Mr. O'Brien. When asked, "... can you say definitely, just for example, when I say the term "we're", can you say definitely the words that fell from his lips weren't something like "we were", she responded, "Well, in the context of his campaign, I, I, didn't ask him. So I really couldn’t speculate." Later, she was asked, “You didn't know whether in fact it was Mr. Kilrea who initiated discussions about an appointment" to which she responded, "No." And later, "And you didn’t know whether this was an appointment that Mr. Kilrea was working on himself?", to which she responded, "Correct." And then, "...and you didn’t know whether this was a discussion that had taken place in the past. Correct?", to which she responded, "Yes."
[64] Taken as a whole, I cannot conclude that Ms. MacLeod's evidence is corroborative of Mr. Kilrea’s assertion that the "offer" was still outstanding in late July 2006. Ms. MacLeod's recollection of a brief; casual portion of her conversation is so imprecise that, through no fault of her own, I must assign it little weight. The various alternatives as to what might have been said by Mr. O'Brien give me real pause such that I cannot determine with any degree of certainty what was said and whether what was said related to something in the past or something that was ongoing. Nor can I conclude it was said in the context of someone looking after Mr. Kilrea or Mr. Kilrea pursuing an appointment on his own. It could just as easily have been a reference to Mr. Kilrea pursuing an appointment through Mr. Baird, something Mr. O'Brien has testified he encouraged Mr. Kilrea to do.
I bolded what I thought was the most interesting piece. I thing the Justice's talk of commuting, cancer etc were to mitigate any potential embarrassment on Lisa McLeods part for her "imprecise" testimony. She wasn't able to provide any details on her conversations, and the defence turned her testimony on its head. She herself admitted that she presented several alternatives to what was said.
Perhaps she would have been happier if the Justice said she wasn't a believable witness instead of just a distracted participant?
I also have doubts about the impartiality of the media in the reporting of this "scandal/issue/etc". So I decided to find the judgment and read it for myself. I pasted it here for you enjoyment. Some commentary at the bottom.
[61] The next witness relied upon by the Crown for corroboration was Lisa MacLeod, the MPP for Nepean-Carleton. When she learned in July 2006 that Mr. O'Brien was considering running for Mayor, she arranged a meeting with him. They met July 31st at her constituency office where Mr. O'Brien was accompanied by Mr. David Gibbons. Ms. MacLeod was pleased there might be a Conservative in the mayoralty race and offered Mr. O’Brien some advice regarding the names of potential campaign workers. During the course of their conversation Ms. MacLeod, stated that, in the context of what Mr. Kilrea might do if he were not a candidate, Mr. O'Brien said, "somebody was talking to Terry about an appointment." It wasn't clear who that was.
[62] After telling the Crown she was at the time more interested in the campaign and its people and how excited she was about the people Mr. O'Brien would draw into his campaign, the Crown asked, "Uh-hum, And this discussion with respect to a Parole Board appointment..." At that point, quite properly, the defence objected. After some discussion Ms. MacLeod said, "I believe it was the National Parole Board. Again, it came up casually, 1think once or twice... but we focused generally on (who) would be suitable campaign managers for a Conservative candidate for mayor..." After another question, she responded, "My best recollection is we're talking to Terry about an appointment" which she believed was to the National Parole Board."
[63] During cross-examination, the defence was able to demonstrate that there were a number of rather significant things going on in her life when she gave "her statement to the police in early May 2007. She was commuting regularly to Toronto for her work, leaving her husband and child in Ottawa. As well, in March 2007, her father was diagnosed with cancer. Defence counsel put her statement to her during cross-examination and without reciting her evidence in detail, I conclude that any references to Mr. Kilrea being in line for an appointment were casual, beyond the real subject matter of their conversation and really quite peripheral to the matters at hand. She agreed there was "a considerable rumour mill out there" and at one point told the police officer that "90% of it is rumour" and that her job was to try and figure out what is fact and what is fiction. Initially, during examination-in-chief she testified that Mr. O’Brien said, "somebody was talking to Terry about an appointment". That morphed into “we're talking to Terry about an appointment", following which the Crown introduced the subject of the National Parole Board. She agreed with defence counsel that since May 2007 she had offered several alternatives as to what might have been said by Mr. O'Brien. When asked, "... can you say definitely, just for example, when I say the term "we're", can you say definitely the words that fell from his lips weren't something like "we were", she responded, "Well, in the context of his campaign, I, I, didn't ask him. So I really couldn’t speculate." Later, she was asked, “You didn't know whether in fact it was Mr. Kilrea who initiated discussions about an appointment" to which she responded, "No." And later, "And you didn’t know whether this was an appointment that Mr. Kilrea was working on himself?", to which she responded, "Correct." And then, "...and you didn’t know whether this was a discussion that had taken place in the past. Correct?", to which she responded, "Yes."
[64] Taken as a whole, I cannot conclude that Ms. MacLeod's evidence is corroborative of Mr. Kilrea’s assertion that the "offer" was still outstanding in late July 2006. Ms. MacLeod's recollection of a brief; casual portion of her conversation is so imprecise that, through no fault of her own, I must assign it little weight. The various alternatives as to what might have been said by Mr. O'Brien give me real pause such that I cannot determine with any degree of certainty what was said and whether what was said related to something in the past or something that was ongoing. Nor can I conclude it was said in the context of someone looking after Mr. Kilrea or Mr. Kilrea pursuing an appointment on his own. It could just as easily have been a reference to Mr. Kilrea pursuing an appointment through Mr. Baird, something Mr. O'Brien has testified he encouraged Mr. Kilrea to do.
I bolded what I thought was the most interesting piece. I thing the Justice's talk of commuting, cancer etc were to mitigate any potential embarrassment on Lisa McLeods part for her "imprecise" testimony. She wasn't able to provide any details on her conversations, and the defence turned her testimony on its head. She herself admitted that she presented several alternatives to what was said.
Perhaps she would have been happier if the Justice said she wasn't a believable witness instead of just a distracted participant?
Sorry Girls
but there is nothing wrong with what the judge said in his ruling.
Why must everything be judged through the lenses of sexism? Give me a break.
In his ruling, Judge Cunningham said that "the defence was able to demonstrate that there were a number of rather significant things going on in her life when she gave her statement to the police. … "
"She was commuting regularly to Toronto for her work, leaving her husband and child in Ottawa," he read in his ruling. He concluded that her evidence was not corroborative of the Crown's main witness and said, "I must assign it little weight."
Look at the last sentence of the paragraph, that his the main thrust of the judge's argument in dismissing MPP Lisa MacLeod's testimony.
Now maybe the judge his a sexist prick, and maybe if we look at past judgments we can see a pattern, but this judgment is not sexist. Gender had nothing to do with. Nothing is substantially changed by switching the gender in his text.
In his ruling, Judge Cunningham said that "the defence was able to demonstrate that there were a number of rather significant things going on in his life when he gave his statement to the police. … "
"He was commuting regularly to Toronto for his work, leaving his wife and child in Ottawa," he read in his ruling.
It is pure speculation to say the judge wouldn't have said such a thing if it wasn't Lisa MacLeod, rather it was Luc MacLeod.
Why must everything be judged through the lenses of sexism? Give me a break.
In his ruling, Judge Cunningham said that "the defence was able to demonstrate that there were a number of rather significant things going on in her life when she gave her statement to the police. … "
"She was commuting regularly to Toronto for her work, leaving her husband and child in Ottawa," he read in his ruling. He concluded that her evidence was not corroborative of the Crown's main witness and said, "I must assign it little weight."
Look at the last sentence of the paragraph, that his the main thrust of the judge's argument in dismissing MPP Lisa MacLeod's testimony.
Now maybe the judge his a sexist prick, and maybe if we look at past judgments we can see a pattern, but this judgment is not sexist. Gender had nothing to do with. Nothing is substantially changed by switching the gender in his text.
In his ruling, Judge Cunningham said that "the defence was able to demonstrate that there were a number of rather significant things going on in his life when he gave his statement to the police. … "
"He was commuting regularly to Toronto for his work, leaving his wife and child in Ottawa," he read in his ruling.
It is pure speculation to say the judge wouldn't have said such a thing if it wasn't Lisa MacLeod, rather it was Luc MacLeod.
Monday, August 10, 2009
The last word on Sotomayor
I remember a few years ago as the same sex marriage debated raged, many on the left argued that the ultimate test of the acceptability of any proposal was if you could switch “gay” for black and not have it seem racist. This argument is often used in other contexts as well.
Let’s take Sotomayor’ infamous 2001 comment and apply the same test shall we, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
Now to change this around slightly, “I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life.”
In a show of hands now, who finds this comment to be racist now? If a white male judge made this comment or a comment similar he would never have been appointed to the Supreme Court, let alone confirmed.
Of course it’s ok for visible minorities to be racist against the white man. They have to atone for all their centuries of oppressing minorities etc.
Of course it makes sense for Obama to appoint her, he after all seems to be more than willing to play the race card against white policemen with comments that could be construed as racism.
Or should we call it reverse racism? Nah, reverse racism is a stupid term. Racism is racism.
Let’s take Sotomayor’ infamous 2001 comment and apply the same test shall we, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
Now to change this around slightly, “I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life.”
In a show of hands now, who finds this comment to be racist now? If a white male judge made this comment or a comment similar he would never have been appointed to the Supreme Court, let alone confirmed.
Of course it’s ok for visible minorities to be racist against the white man. They have to atone for all their centuries of oppressing minorities etc.
Of course it makes sense for Obama to appoint her, he after all seems to be more than willing to play the race card against white policemen with comments that could be construed as racism.
Or should we call it reverse racism? Nah, reverse racism is a stupid term. Racism is racism.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Left-wing not GOP flogging the birther horse
An interesting commentary over at the Daily News about left-wingers and not the GOP pushing the birther story. The commentary argues that the liberals have the most to gain from the inordinate amount of media attention focused on this conspiracy theory.
The birther story is easy to spin as an example of GOP extremism with an important side benefit of changing the story from Obama's increasingly shaky looking healthcare reforms.
The best paragraph in the article is the concluding paragraph:
Yes, it's true. A new poll shows high numbers of Republicans doubting whether Obama was, in fact, born in the U.S. But a 2007 poll found a third of Democrats convinced that the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, occurred with the foreknowledge of the Bush administration. The pervasiveness of such conspiracies about the government's complicity in the deadliest assault on American soil is far more worrying than groundless doubts about the legitimacy of the President's birth certificate.
The birther story is easy to spin as an example of GOP extremism with an important side benefit of changing the story from Obama's increasingly shaky looking healthcare reforms.
The best paragraph in the article is the concluding paragraph:
Yes, it's true. A new poll shows high numbers of Republicans doubting whether Obama was, in fact, born in the U.S. But a 2007 poll found a third of Democrats convinced that the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, occurred with the foreknowledge of the Bush administration. The pervasiveness of such conspiracies about the government's complicity in the deadliest assault on American soil is far more worrying than groundless doubts about the legitimacy of the President's birth certificate.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Another bailout
The so-called Conservative government of Canada has decided to bailout another company. This time the venerable and vulnerable Air Canada gets to receive tax-payers largess to the tune of 250 million dollars.
This is getting pathetic. A Conservative government is picking winners and losers all over the place. Luckily, I think I have discovered the magic formula the government is using to pick its winners and losers. I shall write this is "pseudo code". Hopefully this isn't too complicated for the non-technical:
if [big partisan politically active union] represents employees of [big company] then
interfere with market and pay out millions/billions
else if riding of [important and vulnerable MP/minister] then
interfere with market and pay out millions/billions
else
lecture Canadians on the evils of picking winners and losers and do nothing
I still don't understand the logic of saving a few thousand factory jobs and not a few thousand "jobs of the future that are in the knowledge economy". If we have to interfere, let us at least pick jobs that are creative, knowledge based, and drive innovation. Not jobs that insert widget A into widget B.
This is getting pathetic. A Conservative government is picking winners and losers all over the place. Luckily, I think I have discovered the magic formula the government is using to pick its winners and losers. I shall write this is "pseudo code". Hopefully this isn't too complicated for the non-technical:
if [big partisan politically active union] represents employees of [big company] then
interfere with market and pay out millions/billions
else if riding of [important and vulnerable MP/minister] then
interfere with market and pay out millions/billions
else
lecture Canadians on the evils of picking winners and losers and do nothing
I still don't understand the logic of saving a few thousand factory jobs and not a few thousand "jobs of the future that are in the knowledge economy". If we have to interfere, let us at least pick jobs that are creative, knowledge based, and drive innovation. Not jobs that insert widget A into widget B.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Dear Monte Solberg
I think you have made a mistake, your blog isn't twitter. You are drowning out everyone's posts from page one of the BloggingTories. Please stop! Lot's of interesting posts are getting knocked off the front page. As of the time of this writing, you have 9 blog entries on page one.
Regards.
Regards.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Why Canada Needs the Bomb
I have jokingly said for years that Canada needs to develop a nuclear arsenal; I no longer think this is a laughing matter. Canada needs to develop a nuclear arsenal and a delivery system for these weapons in the next 8-12 years, failure to do will place the national security of Canada in great peril. Canada must create a strong national defence policy, backed up by a bigger, stronger, tougher and more advanced Canadian Forces, that is capable of maintaining, and using nuclear weapons should the need every arise.
DISCLAIMER: My intent is to generate an interesting and provocative debate on this subject. So let's debate in an honest, respectful manner.
In the next paragraphs I will try and build a case for why Canada should develop its own nuclear arsenal. I will layout the threats as I perceive them, the benefits of having a nuclear arsenal, and discuss why nuclear weapons are a viable option for the security of Canada.
Canada is blessed in several key ways to be well positioned in the future as a global heavyweight. Canada has three key resources that could make it an attractive target for other countries:
DISCLAIMER: My intent is to generate an interesting and provocative debate on this subject. So let's debate in an honest, respectful manner.
In the next paragraphs I will try and build a case for why Canada should develop its own nuclear arsenal. I will layout the threats as I perceive them, the benefits of having a nuclear arsenal, and discuss why nuclear weapons are a viable option for the security of Canada.
Canada is surrounded by potential enemies, from the Americans to the south, to the Russians to the north. The Americans historically have launched wars and raids against Canada and other countries in North and South America. The Russians are the Russians, enemies from the cold war, no one in their right mind should trust them to be altruistic.
Currently, neither of these countries are our enemies, in fact, the Americans are our closest friends and allies. We enjoy the longest undefended border in the world, and our culture and economy are very tightly integrated. Despite this, I still can easily foresee a time when Canada and the United States will be enemies; the reason is resources and territory.
Canada is blessed in several key ways to be well positioned in the future as a global heavyweight. Canada has three key resources that could make it an attractive target for other countries:
- A large percentage of the world's remaining freshwater supply
- One of the largest and yet untapped oil and energy reserves in the world in our oil sands
- Territorial control of the vast majority of the Arctic, one of the last unexplored areas of the world.
Peak oil and peak water will start to rear its head in the near future. Oil is obviously a finite resource, and the way we use water makes fresh drinking water a finite supply as well. Canada has a large percentage of the world's available freshwater, and a very small percentage of the world's population. Soon, countries will start asking to buy our water. And when/if we say no, the relations between water rich and water poor countries will start to degrade. It doesn't seem too outlandish to envision a future where water rich countries square off with water poor countries.
I do not sure trust the US to look after our interests when their own interests collide. This is not a slight against the Americans by any means, but the first and foremost duty of any government is to look out for the welfare of their own people.
Furthermore, the vast majority of the Arctic falls within Canada's borders, though many countries wish to challenge our claim to the Arctic. The Americans, Russians, and Danes spring to mind most readily.
The Arctic is a natural resource of utmost importance. Not only is the Arctic the last unexplored area of Earth, it is believed to hold vast untapped reserves of oil, gas, and other important commodities. The wealth in the Arctic is unbelievable. In addition to all this natural wealth, should the shipping lanes in the Arctic clear; the amount of shipping that will pass through the Arctic waters will rival that of the Panama Canal.
Canada has a wealth of natural resources, strategic territory in the Arctic, and strong superpower or near superpower neighbours that will be more than happy to take what is ours if given the chance.
Given this reality, and these threats, Canada needs to do something to protect itself and maintain a strong bargaining position. Unfortunately, the cold hard facts dictate that Canada will not have the resources or the will to maintain a large standing army, navy, and air force to act as a deterrent to possible aggression. The investment required to act as a credible deterrent to the Russians and Americans will be much larger then we can afford without drastic cuts to social programs. These cuts to the social fabric may be desirable, but are simply not practical at this point in time. Canada could not sustain a CF with a budget of 50 billion a year.
A nuclear program will be much cheaper to startup and maintain over the long term then increasing DND's budget by 400% or more.
I don't really have any idea how much it costs to create, maintain, and enhance a nuclear arsenal, I do however feel it will be much less then the additional billions required to increase the size of the CF. Canada has the technological knowhow to quickly create effective nuclear weapons, likely within months. A ballistic missile program will take more time to put together, but is not as important as the bomb itself.
A strong Canadian Forces, backed with a strong nuclear deterrent will allow Canada to bargain from a position of strength, and help ensure that we don't get the short end of the stick.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Rest in Peace Wafergate
So, does "wafergate" as some media outlets and bloggers call it have any legs? Is this faux scandal dominating conversations around both the boardroom table and the kitchen table? Or is this a complete tempest in a teapot?
In my opinion this story is a complete and utter waste of time. The media outlets, bloggers, and others looking to make this a wedge issue or spin it for partisan game need to give their heads a shake.
There is no story here! Warren Kinsella, a prominent though massively partisan blogger is once again throwing out insults and trying to spin this this into a story. The sad thing is, I used to read WK as he had some insightful stuff to say. But that was when he was on the outside looking in, and not that he is back in the war room he is a venomous little troll.
In his latest posting WK proudly hosts the video that "proves" Stephen Harper didn't consume the host, or at least that's what he thinks.
As Michael Geist has written tonight on his top-ranked blog, Radio-Canada - a fully-funded agency of the Harper government, last time I checked - has gone after YouTube for hosting the now-infamous clip I and others posted two days ago. Before it was yanked, that little YouTube video was seen by more than 50,000 people around the globe - which may explain why Rad-Can was pressured to get it off the Internet. (CP and the Star have a segment of the video posted by "Kramet1" here.)
But, in pushing to censor the video, the Harper Cons have drawn yet more attention to Harper's mistake, one that many Catholics consider sacreligious - and, moreover, revealed themselves to be in the full-on (but ineffective) damage-control mode.
Anyway. Here's the video again. I will keep posting it, over and over, until they give up.
You could call me, ahem, a willing host for this one.
Not only is WK desperately trying to manufacture outrage and create a story, WK is also trying to lay the foundation of a conspiracy theory. What is going though his head?
This "controversy" has been laid to rest. The priest has come on record saying that the Prime Minister did consume the host.
The priest who delivered the homily at the funeral mass of former governor-general Romeo LeBlanc said Stephen Harper behaved properly when he took part in the communion service last week.
“The Prime Minister did consume the host; he did not put it in his pocket,” said Father Arthur Bourgeois, who had been a friend of Mr. LeBlanc for 30 years.
Oh, and WK feel free to keep posting the video, since it has been proven the Prime Minister did consume the host you will just keep looking like the petty little hack that you have become.
Thankfully, at least some of the LibLoggers are seeing this "scandal" for what it is. Hattip to you RedTory!
In my opinion this story is a complete and utter waste of time. The media outlets, bloggers, and others looking to make this a wedge issue or spin it for partisan game need to give their heads a shake.
There is no story here! Warren Kinsella, a prominent though massively partisan blogger is once again throwing out insults and trying to spin this this into a story. The sad thing is, I used to read WK as he had some insightful stuff to say. But that was when he was on the outside looking in, and not that he is back in the war room he is a venomous little troll.
In his latest posting WK proudly hosts the video that "proves" Stephen Harper didn't consume the host, or at least that's what he thinks.
As Michael Geist has written tonight on his top-ranked blog, Radio-Canada - a fully-funded agency of the Harper government, last time I checked - has gone after YouTube for hosting the now-infamous clip I and others posted two days ago. Before it was yanked, that little YouTube video was seen by more than 50,000 people around the globe - which may explain why Rad-Can was pressured to get it off the Internet. (CP and the Star have a segment of the video posted by "Kramet1" here.)
But, in pushing to censor the video, the Harper Cons have drawn yet more attention to Harper's mistake, one that many Catholics consider sacreligious - and, moreover, revealed themselves to be in the full-on (but ineffective) damage-control mode.
Anyway. Here's the video again. I will keep posting it, over and over, until they give up.
You could call me, ahem, a willing host for this one.
Not only is WK desperately trying to manufacture outrage and create a story, WK is also trying to lay the foundation of a conspiracy theory. What is going though his head?
This "controversy" has been laid to rest. The priest has come on record saying that the Prime Minister did consume the host.
The priest who delivered the homily at the funeral mass of former governor-general Romeo LeBlanc said Stephen Harper behaved properly when he took part in the communion service last week.
“The Prime Minister did consume the host; he did not put it in his pocket,” said Father Arthur Bourgeois, who had been a friend of Mr. LeBlanc for 30 years.
Oh, and WK feel free to keep posting the video, since it has been proven the Prime Minister did consume the host you will just keep looking like the petty little hack that you have become.
Thankfully, at least some of the LibLoggers are seeing this "scandal" for what it is. Hattip to you RedTory!
A Sad State of Affairs
I find it very sad, and perhaps a telling indicator of our society today when hundreds of reporters and other media types will research and investigate every little detail of Michael Jackson's life and death, but fail to spend the seconds required to properly honour our fallen Canadian heroes.
Dear media, especially CTV (as you are the one I watch) please take the time to get the soldier’s ranks, and the abbreviations of those ranks correct when airing the stories on the news. It is very frustrating for a long time serving member to see the complete lack of effort your editors or producers take when creating the copy for the anchors to read or the media to be displayed. I am sure Wikipedia will have a good reference for the service and regimental ranks and their abbreviations.
Please take the extra few seconds to get this right, it is the least we can do.
Dear media, especially CTV (as you are the one I watch) please take the time to get the soldier’s ranks, and the abbreviations of those ranks correct when airing the stories on the news. It is very frustrating for a long time serving member to see the complete lack of effort your editors or producers take when creating the copy for the anchors to read or the media to be displayed. I am sure Wikipedia will have a good reference for the service and regimental ranks and their abbreviations.
Please take the extra few seconds to get this right, it is the least we can do.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Montreal Gazette on the CHRCs
The Montreal Gazette takes Jennifer Lynch and her CHRC to task for their inability to learn from past mistakes, and their desire to restrict our liberties. The Gazette even seems to be starting to lean towards removing all restrictions on freedom of speech. At least that is what I am reading into this paragraph.
Pretty hard to disagree with that sentiment.
Abolish Section 13 Now!
Sunday, June 28, 2009
This is being proud to be gay?!?!
I call this indecent exposure!
I wasn't there, but the first Google search for Pride 2009 pictures yielded me these shocking examples. I wonder if these proud people were arrested for indecent exposure?
I mean, what the hell is this? I sure hope they are wearing sun screen.
If those pictures were shown in a movie, it would be R rated. This is a double standard plain and simple.
Pride 2009 tries to make this event a family friendly event!
Family Pride celebrates Pride Week 2009 with a rich and exciting line-up of events for everyone in the family on Saturday June 27 and Sunday June 28 from 11am - 6pm.
Family friendly?!
Let's look at these pictures again! How can any responsible person take their children to this parade? There is nothing wrong with the naked human body per se, but I don't won't my children to be exposed to a stranger's naked body as they walk down the street. You want to walk around naked in your house, go for it.
This is awful, plain and simple.
It is time to take back our country, if you don't want filth like the above displayed for all to see during a parade then you had better donate your time or money to a party that will fight to prevent this sort of despicable display, a party that will fight for real honest to god family values. For me, today, this is the Conservative Party of Canada.
Their is nothing wrong with being gay. There is nothing wrong with gays and lesbians marrying. I mean, why can't they be just as frustrated and unhappily married as the rest of us heterosexuals.
There is however something wrong with parading through downtown Toronto naked, and getting away with it because you are gay, or celebrating gay pride week.
This whole event sickens me, but of course you know our favourite kooks were in attendance during this parade, that's right, Jack, Olivia, and Lizzy. Standing up for real Canadian values it seems. I know I gather my family around the kitchen table discussing real issues like: "Why the hell can't people parade down the streets of Ontario's capital naked?" Way more pressing then actual issues like how to make the streets safer, or how to re-jig the EI system so that it is fair and transparent for everyone across all the regions of Canada, or even how to not bankrupt Canada via stimulus spending.
Now somehow, I, or the Conservative Party will be made out to be bigoted and racist, pricks that have a big hate on for gays and lesbians, and nothing could be further from the truth. I have no problem with gay pride week, I have a problem with naked men regardless of orientation parading through downtown Toronto.
I wasn't there, but the first Google search for Pride 2009 pictures yielded me these shocking examples. I wonder if these proud people were arrested for indecent exposure?
I mean, what the hell is this? I sure hope they are wearing sun screen.
If those pictures were shown in a movie, it would be R rated. This is a double standard plain and simple.Pride 2009 tries to make this event a family friendly event!
Family Pride celebrates Pride Week 2009 with a rich and exciting line-up of events for everyone in the family on Saturday June 27 and Sunday June 28 from 11am - 6pm.
Family friendly?!
Let's look at these pictures again! How can any responsible person take their children to this parade? There is nothing wrong with the naked human body per se, but I don't won't my children to be exposed to a stranger's naked body as they walk down the street. You want to walk around naked in your house, go for it.
This is awful, plain and simple.It is time to take back our country, if you don't want filth like the above displayed for all to see during a parade then you had better donate your time or money to a party that will fight to prevent this sort of despicable display, a party that will fight for real honest to god family values. For me, today, this is the Conservative Party of Canada.
Their is nothing wrong with being gay. There is nothing wrong with gays and lesbians marrying. I mean, why can't they be just as frustrated and unhappily married as the rest of us heterosexuals.
There is however something wrong with parading through downtown Toronto naked, and getting away with it because you are gay, or celebrating gay pride week.
This whole event sickens me, but of course you know our favourite kooks were in attendance during this parade, that's right, Jack, Olivia, and Lizzy. Standing up for real Canadian values it seems. I know I gather my family around the kitchen table discussing real issues like: "Why the hell can't people parade down the streets of Ontario's capital naked?" Way more pressing then actual issues like how to make the streets safer, or how to re-jig the EI system so that it is fair and transparent for everyone across all the regions of Canada, or even how to not bankrupt Canada via stimulus spending.
Now somehow, I, or the Conservative Party will be made out to be bigoted and racist, pricks that have a big hate on for gays and lesbians, and nothing could be further from the truth. I have no problem with gay pride week, I have a problem with naked men regardless of orientation parading through downtown Toronto.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Iggy has quite the tar-baby here
So, the Leader of the Official Opposition, Michael Ignatief has himself quite the tar baby here. And yes, any left-leaning readers out there, I am not being racist, rather referring to the sticky situation Mr Ignatieff has himself in.
What is this situation you ask?
If the Liberals side with the Bloc and NDP to bring down the government, this will put the brakes on any as of yet unallocated stimulus money making it out the door. I am not sure what this will do for any already allocated funds.
If Ignatieff pulls the plug because "the evil heartless Conservatives are not getting the money out the door soon enough" he will be adding a delay of at least 2 months to the process. Also, the Conservatives will hammer the three oppositions parties throughout the election campaign about putting the brakes on the "much needed" stimulus money.
The Liberals will also be hammered as opportunistic, as they head for the polls because they smell weakness in the Conservative polling numbers. The Conservatives will hammer the Liberals over this as well.
If the Liberals vote with the Government on the ways and means motion, the NDP and Bloc will hammer them about supporting the Conservatives. Though I wonder if that really means anything. The Bloc are irrelevant outside of Quebec, and the NDP are mostly irrelevant all over Canada.
The NDP are likely maneuvering to embarrass the Liberals here, as I am not sure if they will do well in this election with their numbers down, and Liberals measurably stronger with their new Leader. The NDP are hoping that my prediction will come to fruition.
My predication is that the Liberals will resort to Dion tactics, that is, loudly denounce the "heartless Conservatives" yet develop a case of the democratic flu when it comes to the actual vote. Either the whole party, or just enough members to ensure the Conservatives carry the vote.
What do you all think?
What is this situation you ask?
If the Liberals side with the Bloc and NDP to bring down the government, this will put the brakes on any as of yet unallocated stimulus money making it out the door. I am not sure what this will do for any already allocated funds.
If Ignatieff pulls the plug because "the evil heartless Conservatives are not getting the money out the door soon enough" he will be adding a delay of at least 2 months to the process. Also, the Conservatives will hammer the three oppositions parties throughout the election campaign about putting the brakes on the "much needed" stimulus money.
The Liberals will also be hammered as opportunistic, as they head for the polls because they smell weakness in the Conservative polling numbers. The Conservatives will hammer the Liberals over this as well.
If the Liberals vote with the Government on the ways and means motion, the NDP and Bloc will hammer them about supporting the Conservatives. Though I wonder if that really means anything. The Bloc are irrelevant outside of Quebec, and the NDP are mostly irrelevant all over Canada.
The NDP are likely maneuvering to embarrass the Liberals here, as I am not sure if they will do well in this election with their numbers down, and Liberals measurably stronger with their new Leader. The NDP are hoping that my prediction will come to fruition.
My predication is that the Liberals will resort to Dion tactics, that is, loudly denounce the "heartless Conservatives" yet develop a case of the democratic flu when it comes to the actual vote. Either the whole party, or just enough members to ensure the Conservatives carry the vote.
What do you all think?
Saturday, May 30, 2009
That's quite the 'tar-baby' he has gotten himself into
I am getting so incredibly tired of faux-outrage. In the latest example of Liberal faux-rage, they unfocused Liberals are attacking the young Pierre Poilievre over his use of the term "tar-baby".
The Honourable Member said:
“On that side of the House, they have the man who fathered the carbon tax, put it up for adoption to his predecessor and now wants a paternity test to prove the tar baby was never his in the first place,” he said. He repeated the line again later.
The Honourable Member, Ralph Goodale responed in typical faux-rage:
"In addition to being a pejorative term, which might well prove to be unparliamentary, the parliamentary secretary might consider that there are many authorities both in this country and many others that consider the term racist," said Goodale.
Faux rage is so annoying.
What does the internet say about "tar-baby'?
Wikipedia says
"Although the term's provenance arose in African folklore, some Americans now consider "tar baby" to have negative connotations revolving around negative images of African-Americans.[2] In recent years, several politicians who have publicly used the term have encountered some controversy, mocking, and censure from African-American civil rights leaders, members of the popular daily media, and other politicians.[3][4][5][6][7][8]. Regardless, the history of 'the tar baby' in its original form by far precedes the accusations of its racist associations."
Dictionary.com says:
–noun
a situation, problem, or the like, that is almost impossible to solve or to break away from.
You can also see the term used by the Toronto Star and Liberal Lloyd Axworthy.
When I first heard the qoute from Pierre, I thought immediately of the tar sands, then went to the more racist connotation, before realizing he meant sticky situation. I have heard that tar baby was a racist slur, but have never heard it in usage. I likely read it was racist slur somewhere.
At the end of the day, people need to grow a bit of a thicker skin and stop being so PC. Clearly it wasn't intended to be racist. Clearly.
The Liberals just need to "stick to their knitting" (oh my I am so sexist) and carry on with whatever crap they spew. IE, EI is a unity issue??? I don't even know where to start with that one.
The Honourable Member said:
“On that side of the House, they have the man who fathered the carbon tax, put it up for adoption to his predecessor and now wants a paternity test to prove the tar baby was never his in the first place,” he said. He repeated the line again later.
The Honourable Member, Ralph Goodale responed in typical faux-rage:
"In addition to being a pejorative term, which might well prove to be unparliamentary, the parliamentary secretary might consider that there are many authorities both in this country and many others that consider the term racist," said Goodale.
Faux rage is so annoying.
What does the internet say about "tar-baby'?
Wikipedia says
"Although the term's provenance arose in African folklore, some Americans now consider "tar baby" to have negative connotations revolving around negative images of African-Americans.[2] In recent years, several politicians who have publicly used the term have encountered some controversy, mocking, and censure from African-American civil rights leaders, members of the popular daily media, and other politicians.[3][4][5][6][7][8]. Regardless, the history of 'the tar baby' in its original form by far precedes the accusations of its racist associations."
Dictionary.com says:
–noun
a situation, problem, or the like, that is almost impossible to solve or to break away from.
You can also see the term used by the Toronto Star and Liberal Lloyd Axworthy.
When I first heard the qoute from Pierre, I thought immediately of the tar sands, then went to the more racist connotation, before realizing he meant sticky situation. I have heard that tar baby was a racist slur, but have never heard it in usage. I likely read it was racist slur somewhere.
At the end of the day, people need to grow a bit of a thicker skin and stop being so PC. Clearly it wasn't intended to be racist. Clearly.
The Liberals just need to "stick to their knitting" (oh my I am so sexist) and carry on with whatever crap they spew. IE, EI is a unity issue??? I don't even know where to start with that one.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Deficit or Debt? No, they are not interchangeable words
Oh dear god, sometimes I wonder why I even bother reading the Libloggers! One of their bloggers had a posting that caught my eye on the aggregator mostly because I knew it would be easy picking to take apart, and hey, I am feeling lazy tonight.
RGM Unlimited was pontificating about the 85 billion dollar deficit, and how Stephen Harper was saying how it could be bigger if required when he addressed a group of Quebec mayors.
RGM Unlimited was pontificating about the 85 billion dollar deficit, and how Stephen Harper was saying how it could be bigger if required when he addressed a group of Quebec mayors.
- All you lefties whined and cried to get deficit financing to help the "needy". You all whined when the budget came down, and made clucking sounds about how it wasn't enough. Now you whine if it might get bigger? You're all taking your cues from iffy.me and are flip-flopping around like a dying fish.
- It's not a 85 billion dollar deficit, unless you mean, a cumalative over 5 years. Or perhaps better sad, the Canadian government will be adding ~85 billion to the Canadian debt over the next 5 years. Stop trying to scare people with big numbers
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Let me explain to you how the Internet works
Liblogger Darryl Raymaker needs to go back to school to learn how the Internet works. His post is utter garbage, but I will focus only on one part in particular. It is late, and I have to work tomorrow.
His post is rambling, but near the end talks about Don Martin's article:
But the excesses of the Harperites are even too much for Martin. His column today describes the tasteless ads and gives his readers the address of the Conservative website on which the ads can be found. The domain name is registered in the Balkans – Montenegro, to be exact, which as an aside he tells us is governed by a coalition. The web administrator is based in Arizona. The Conservatives have taken as much trouble to obscure the particulars of the website as Mulroney did to hide the cash he got from Schreiber. In addition Martin tells us that websurfers have told him that the domain is used frequently to exhibit pornography!
Oh my god, not pornography on the Internet!!!! Some people host pornography on the Internet under the top level domain of ".me"?
Don and Darryl are talking about the new Conservative attack website www.ignatieff.me.
Darryls thesis is that the Conservatives are trying to hide that fact that they designed and put up the site. His prove is that the domain is "registered in the Balkans". I guess he doesn't understand how top level domains work on the Internet. Every single country in the world is assigned a top level domain, such as ".ca", ".me" is Montenegro's TLD.
Oh wow, damn Europeans are in on this conspiracy too.
The fact that the website is hosted in Arizona is also meanlingless, perhaps the webhosting company had a good deal on, and it was cheaper then hosting it themselves, or in Canada. You can buy hosting space almost anywhere, and you usually go for the cheapest. The website is not hosted in Montengro.
They picked ".me" as the TLD because its like "me", as in Ignatieff is all about himself. Or perhaps, because the Liberal Party already registered Ignatieff in all the other TLDs :)
And lastly, if the Conservatives were really trying so hard to hide their involvement in that site, they really should remove the "Authorized by the Registered Agent for the Conservative Party of Canada" tag line at the bottom of the site.
Yes Darryl, the Conservatives have taken a lot of trouble to hide who is behind that site! Don't worry, one day you too can understand how domain names work. And one day, you might get a brain.
His post is rambling, but near the end talks about Don Martin's article:
But the excesses of the Harperites are even too much for Martin. His column today describes the tasteless ads and gives his readers the address of the Conservative website on which the ads can be found. The domain name is registered in the Balkans – Montenegro, to be exact, which as an aside he tells us is governed by a coalition. The web administrator is based in Arizona. The Conservatives have taken as much trouble to obscure the particulars of the website as Mulroney did to hide the cash he got from Schreiber. In addition Martin tells us that websurfers have told him that the domain is used frequently to exhibit pornography!
Oh my god, not pornography on the Internet!!!! Some people host pornography on the Internet under the top level domain of ".me"?
Don and Darryl are talking about the new Conservative attack website www.ignatieff.me.
Darryls thesis is that the Conservatives are trying to hide that fact that they designed and put up the site. His prove is that the domain is "registered in the Balkans". I guess he doesn't understand how top level domains work on the Internet. Every single country in the world is assigned a top level domain, such as ".ca", ".me" is Montenegro's TLD.
Oh wow, damn Europeans are in on this conspiracy too.
The fact that the website is hosted in Arizona is also meanlingless, perhaps the webhosting company had a good deal on, and it was cheaper then hosting it themselves, or in Canada. You can buy hosting space almost anywhere, and you usually go for the cheapest. The website is not hosted in Montengro.
They picked ".me" as the TLD because its like "me", as in Ignatieff is all about himself. Or perhaps, because the Liberal Party already registered Ignatieff in all the other TLDs :)
And lastly, if the Conservatives were really trying so hard to hide their involvement in that site, they really should remove the "Authorized by the Registered Agent for the Conservative Party of Canada" tag line at the bottom of the site.
Yes Darryl, the Conservatives have taken a lot of trouble to hide who is behind that site! Don't worry, one day you too can understand how domain names work. And one day, you might get a brain.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)