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.
Monday, November 30, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)