Winnipeg Conservative

New site

2008-09-10T00:03:00.002-05:00

It has been a while and because of many things, including helping on the campaign, it could end up being light or nonexistent, but this site is neat.

Block the carbon tax

Out of semi-retirement

2008-01-14T15:32:00.000-06:00

Like him or hate him, supporting Ezra Levant in his "Human Rights Commission" fight is something all free people, left, right and centre, should do.

Belina leaves; a haiku contest breaks out

2007-04-11T13:13:00.000-05:00

I'm sure we've all heard the news.

I can't say that I'm all that upset. The political scene in Canada always seemed that much worse when she was there--from curiously-timed floor-crossing to dog comments (yes, Peter said it, I think, but so what?)

There have been some funny comments about this (especially this one at Cherniak's site) but I most like RumbleStrip's idea of a haiku contest, even though he doesn't quite get the "haiku" part right. Brian Lemon sets him straight, though.

My entry:

Politics will not
Be the same without you there.
This is a good thing.

More Wowchuk upchuck

2007-03-28T14:43:00.000-05:00

I missed talking about one part of the interview before.

"...in reality there was a very low voter turnout and 62% voting against the Wheat Board is not an accurate number."

So you deign to know what those who didn't vote would have said? You purport to know the minds of others?

Give it up, Rosanne. If the vote didn't go the way you wanted, say just that. But we live in a democratic society and it was a democratic plebiscite. Voter turnout was what it was. Deal.

Rosanne Wowchuk: choice denier

2007-03-28T13:35:00.000-05:00

Recently, western Canadian farmers voted for freedom. A freedom already enjoyed by eastern Canadian farmers, BTW. Now, some people are screeching from the rooftops, "See! See! Farmers don't want to destroy the Wheat Board!" But of course when you read the actual results, you realize that what farmers want is choice. Choice to market their grain either with the WB or independently. 62% voted for that.

And then I was listening to CJOB and Kacey Wilson had on Rosanne Wowchuk, MB Agriculture Minister. NDP. And her responses made me wonder no more why the NDP, both provincially and federally, have no credibility.

(For the audio, click here and fast forward to 46:20.)

First off, she began by attacking the questions. That's right, don't accept the results;
attack the questions. Her quote: "...62% voting against the Wheat Board is not an accurate number...if you cancel out the flawed question which said 'do you want choice or maintaining the Wheat Board' in fact it was a very low percentage that said they wanted barley removed from the Canadian Wheat Board."

Then she goes on to be disingenuous about the will of the farmers:
"If you take out the flawed question and you just look at the results of the question 'do you want barley maintained under the Wheat Board?', those results far exceed the results that say 'remove barley from the Wheat Board'."

Yeah, ignore one of the questions. You think it's flawed, but I think it's perfectly legitimate. Do farmers want no CWB, CWB monopoly, or the CWB as an option? You could lump 2 questions together either way--say that 62.2% of farmers want the CWB not to be forced upon them (my take on it); or you could say that 86.2% of farmers want the CWB kept. (Of course, that last one ignores the fact that 48.4/86.2, or 56% of those who want to keep the CWB, want not to be forced to use it.) But I think it's clear: farmers don't want the CWB crammed down their throats. Oops. Western Canadians, as our eastern counterparts already have that choice. Funny, that.

Then, she completely blew away the argument (her own!) to keep the CWB: that with competition, the CWB wouldn't be able to compete. Uh, of course, haven't people been saying that if the CWB were good, it would be able to compete because it gets better prices?

"If the federal Minister is going to go to a dual-market system, he has to address the issues of infrastructure and how the Canadian Wheat Board will survive when they are in competition with buyers of grain."

And then:

"If he thinks that they can operate when they don't have an infrastructure system, no elevators, and no control on many things, I don't see how the Wheat Board can stay in barley marketing when they have to compete with the other people who have all the infrastructure."

I had a giant Whiskey Tango Foxtrot moment then. Is or isn't infrastructure already in place? And wouldn't free-market buyers create said infrastructure were it not in place? You know, to make things easier on farmers?

Oh, forsooth, howsoever did grain farmers ever make it without the hallowed Canadian Wheat Board?

Wake up, Wowchuk. The Wheat Board is hated by most farmers; most farmers want freedom to choose to whom they sell their grain. And it's obvious you don't. Sucks to be on the losing side, eh? You'll likely find that out in a big way later this year.

What's that sound?

2007-03-28T13:31:00.000-05:00

It's the sound of a Liblogger destroying his credibility.

Partisanship aside

2007-02-13T20:33:00.000-06:00

I have to echo some other Blogging Tories:

I'm a partisan and I can't say I like the man's politics, but I could never wish this on anyone.

Get well soon, Mr. Dosanjh.

David Keam, conservative?

2007-02-13T19:56:00.000-06:00

I was listening to CJOB this afternoon when an ad for Best Sleep Centre came on.

Here's a link to the ad, but I don't know if it's a permalink. So i transcribed the good bits here:

"Hard enough to pay the rent this month for small business and our tired government wants to give us all a day off. According to them the planet is about to boil and they gather in a room {and} come up with, 'I know, a holiday! That will get us re-elected.'

...

It's the got to pay for the government's latest grand scheme event."

Is David Keam a conservative? It sounds like he's not a fan of the provincial NDP. Liberal? Maybe, but somehow I doubt it.

One more for our side.

I'm really glad I bought my bed there last year. Bravo, David Keam!

Don't they even attempt to appear impartial?

2007-02-07T16:57:00.000-06:00

I was just watching Mike Duffy Live and they had a couple of commentators on, talking about the Mark Holland ordeal.

The commentators--Fife and some woman from the Red Star--both agreed, and I'm somewhat paraphrasing, that "it's good that he learned the lesson (to speak judiciously) now because he's going to be a rising star in the Liberal party."

In other words, they're glad he got his gaffe out of the way so that he gan go on to be a glorious frontrunner in the LPC (Lying Party of Canada).

Aren't they at least supposed to appear to be non-partisan? Fer cryin' out glayvin.

Robbed

2007-01-26T13:49:00.000-06:00

On Monday, my house got broken into and robbed. They didn't take anything of sentimental value, just stuff that can be replaced.

I've been chewing on this for a couple of days because I was feeling a lot of things.

First, anger. How dare they?
Second, fear. What if it happens again?
Third, peace. Que sera sera.

I'm upset that they broke into my place and took the stuff for which I've worked so hard.
I'm scared now that I know that I'm vulnerable (but not stupid--an alarm system is going in before I replace the stuff).
I'm at peace because it wasn't me, specifically, that was targeted--there were a bunch of B&Es in the neighbourhood that day.

If they catch the thief/thieves, then whatever they get will satisfy me. Because I know that, whatever side of the spiritual spectrum you stand, after man's punishment, it'll be either a) God will take care of all that at some point, or b) my karma will run over their dogma (bad joke). In other words, I'm a live and let live kinda guy. If you steal my stuff, it's just stuff. But woe betide you when you get caught. Not if, but when.

The conservative in me agrees with the cop who came over to dust for fingerprints (there were none): the current sentences for such a crime are laughable, and regardless of what the screechers would say, it is a deterrent because, well, you can't rob someone if you're in jail. And if by robbing someone you risk a boatload of time in jail, I'd like to think it would make people reconsider a day job.

The compassionate person in me wants to reach out to the person/people and help them. Because they obviously need help--financial, emotional, whatever.

The twain are not mutually exclusive, BTW.

I got robbed. They took stuff. They left irreplaceable stuff. And they didn't take the most important thing: my principles, my dignity, or my sense of fairness.

Or my ability to write a rambling blog post. :P

Blogging the premiere of Little Mosque on the Prairie

2007-01-09T19:02:00.000-06:00

I'm already offended. They're portraying prairie people as stupid, prejudicial, non-understanding hicks. The cops are shown as people who don't know sarcasm or a joke when they hear one, the townsfolk are shown as idiots who can't recognize praying, and everyone but the Muslims are portrayed as backwards. Not a single Muslim is shown as a buffoon, an idiot, or even close to imperfect.

What if the roles were reversed? What would the backlash be? What if the Muslims were portrayed as the backwards, rigid, non-understanding dolts?

The imam moving to the prairies was horrified to be taken into custody after talking about suicide while in a lineup at the airport. "This is Allah's plan for me." "It's not like I dropped a bomb on him." "If I'm throwing my life away then so be it." (He was talking about the sacrifice of moving from the Centre of the Universe (aka Toronto) to the prairies.

The talk show host was portrayed as a rabble-rousing (I never thought I'd like to use that term) anti-Muslim crap-spouting bigot.

"The Saudis couldn't find the moon unless there was oil spouting from it" was a comment from one of the Muslims. (Wow, does the CBC's anti-everyone bias ever end?)

Mayor Fitzy from Corner Gas is in this show, at least as a talking extra.

This is politically correct drivel. Further, it's a bad show. All that makes me, more and more, believe that we should stop forcing taxpayers to fund the CBC.

More on the Wheat Board

2006-12-23T13:02:00.000-06:00

I find it funny the liberals scream about having choice. Most of the time. But then when it comes to marketing choice, like western farmers having the choice to market their wheat howsoever they may choose, they clam up and say "we are Borg."

I mean really, they rail and bray against the tyranny of the majority tromping on the rights of the minority when it suits them, but then scream about the majority ruling when it doesn't. So let's say for argument's sake that 95% of farmers want a single-desk system to market their wheat, leaving 5% of farmers who want to market their own. Even if one farmer wants to sell his wheat outside of the Wheat Board, what's the problem?

And the real nub of this is that, if the WB is so great, even if open to competition, the WB would still garner a majority of the wheat.

Moreover, it appears to me to be NEP--wheat style. Why is it mandatory for farmers west of the MB/ON border to go through the WB but not farmers east of said border? Strange things a-happenin'.

I suspect that, if the books were open to audit by the AG (I'm not so sure they can be open to her, because the WB isn't a fully government-run operation), there would be some rather odd things in there. The secrecy surrounding it and the pedal-to-the-metal attempts to stop any audits by liberals reminds me of another time. Something smells funny here.

Welcome to the Conservative Party

2006-12-20T10:23:00.000-06:00

H/t: Jack's Newswatch

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a good NDP-er, and was very much in favor of the redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Conservative, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father.

He responded by asking her how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn’t even have time for a boyfriend, and didn’t really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, “How is your friend Audrey doing?”

She replied, “Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA . She is so popular on campus, college for her is a blast. She’s always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn’t even show up for classes because she’s too hung over.”

Her wise father asked his daughter, “Why don’t you go to the Dean’s office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your 4.0 GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.”

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father’s suggestion, angrily fired back, “That wouldn’t be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I’ve invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!”

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, “Welcome to the Conservative Party”.

Notes

2006-12-20T09:57:00.000-06:00

I know, as someone would say, blogging has been ass lately, but that's because of work and travel and stuff. But a few notes:

I just listened to Stéphane Dion on CJOB with Richard Cloutier. Dion is a dead-ringer (voice wise) for Roch Carrier.
What's the deal with the Wheat Board? It's an anachronism from earlier times used to fortify the marketing power of individual farmers using a collective. But in the current time of half-million dollar tractors and most farmers working 8 or 10 sections of land, as well as marketing know-how gained either in University or in the real world, how relevant is it? But fine. Keep it. But how about opening it up to choice--or even better yet, how about making it at least fair--so that farmers in western Canada have the choice to sell outside of the wheat board, as do eastern farmers. Or if you make it a law that you must sell through the wheat board (wow, even typing that made me see a hammer and a sickle), then make it so that eastern farmers must sell through them, too. Actually, I was kidding about that. Don't make Canada more communist. Open it up and if the Wheat Board is so good as they say it is, then it'll be able to run all by itself. There has been plenty of heated debate over at SDA about this one.
A private clinic in Winnipeg is selling MRI time to the public health care system. Good for them. And no, you Henny Pennys out there, the sky isn't falling. The only result is that everyone is getting MRIs more expiditiously.
The Senate is, by and large, not happy with plans to make it representative. Nor are liberals and Liberals. As a Simpsons character would say, the ironing is delicious.
Give the Green Party leader time in the debates. I think there should be a mechanism to allow party leaders if either the polling numbers or the numbers in the previous election are over a certain threshold--let's say, 4%.
Give it up, people. Kyoto is nothing but a wealth-distribution scheme. Essentially, if I want to pollute more, I pay another country to buy their "credits" so that my pollution is within "targets". I'm all for pollution reduction, but let's go about it smartly, rather than just giving money to other countries so that we can pollute. Say, for example, financial incentives to industry within the country to cut emissions.
Finally, kudos to Kate over at Small Dead Animals. She won Canadian blog of the year, and rightly so. I read her blog daily, even when I'm out of the country. Keep up the good work, Kate!

Wow.

2006-12-08T18:15:00.000-06:00

I've been really busy with work. But I had to note this:

Bill Graham invokes Godwin's Law.

Classy. Very classy.

A contest. Put on by Conservatives. In our country. I'm not making this up.

2006-10-26T10:25:00.000-05:00

I'm not allowed to make this up.

Man, now that we can say "Prime Minister Harper", and even though it's been 9 months, mocking those ridiculous ads still cracks me up, even if it is passé, even if it reeks of kitsch.

There's a contest in the Conservative blogosphere (there's a word I don't use too often; it's kind of being overused, I think, but I digress...) wherein we win a prize if we can display the most blatant liberal MSM bias.

This is funded by Conservatives, out of their own pockets. Not the government, not a lobby group. Just ordinary people like you and me.

Let's go win us some money!

It's Animal Farm all over again...

2006-10-24T02:34:00.000-05:00

All religions are equal, but some are more equal than others.

See what selective appeasement does? I **knew** there was anti-Christian bias at the Beeb. (And of course, the Ceeb as well.)

What will you do about it?

(For that matter, what will I?)

And while I'm (not) talking about Quebec

2006-10-21T17:19:00.000-05:00

This is nothing but total posturing and pandering.

I've been learning about this recently, and--surprise surprise (and please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I am)--it doesn't matter what you say about Quebec, nation or not, distinct or not, whatever; if they have a referendum and vote 100% to secede, they cannot leave without assent from all the provinces. Thus I'm just astounded at the pantywaist approach Chretien took in the 1995 referendum. And it pains me to say this, but for all his failings, Trudeau had it right when he asserted in 1980 that a referendum wouldn't mean anything.

Wow, I lose more and more respect (of what little I already had) for Liberals every day.

And then comes this. It's the story that won't go away and has got to be a nightmare for the so-called natural governing party (or as I like to call them, the naturally corrupt and arrogant party).

It's enough to drive a guy to the Conservatives. ;)

Oh fer cryin' out loud

2006-10-21T16:56:00.000-05:00

I was going to keep my (blog) mouth shut on the whole affair, really I was, but then Taliban Jack decided to open his yap.

Okay, if he told the Liberal MP that they've already got her (in dual reference to his dog and Belina), he should apologize. Soon and get it over with. Because really, it was silly and I imagine in the heat of the moment and not meaning that much. And besides, with what Belinda's done (to both him and Mrs. Domi), I don't know if I were in MacKay's shoes that I'd be able to have the decorum he had only to infer she's a dog. MUCH more offensive things would come out of my mouth.

But.

a) he should not apologize for telling Alexa McDonut to stick to her knitting--it's a common expression used especially on the east coast, one that means that a person should stick to what he/she knows about and not delve into unknown territory, especially against someone who knows the topic inside out; this is not a sexist comment for a couple of reasons--first, because of its real intent--to be a colloquial way of saying "stick to what you know"; but second, because if any part of it is sexist, it's because Taliban Jack is making it so by inferring that knitting is solely a womans' endeavour.

b) if Taliban Jack had a little more credibility (read: A LOT) it wouldn't sound ridiculous for him to tell MacKay to resign; I mean, how much credibility can a guy have when insisting we negotiate with the Taliban?

c) "it certainly will discourage women from seeking public office" -- hmm, let me see; politics? Isn't it called a bloodsport somewhere? If someone can't handle the rough and tumble of making it through their teens then yes, maybe he/she doesn't have the jam to make it as a politician; otherwise, I say to Jack, stick to your knitting. And no, you won't get an apology out of me for that.

Later on in the article, the oft-repeated line about the dog not actually being Peter's is used again. I suggest that that's not true, that the dog is a family dog. If the reporter had bothered to do his/her homework.

Finally about this topic, I'd like to say that this is really much ado about nothing. Or much ado about very little. Doesn't this pale in comparison to Reg Alcock saying about Asian-Canadian Inky Mark "frankly, if I was going to recruit somebody, I'd go further up the gene pool"? Or for that matter, how about the only communist Prime Minister in Canadian history, PET, telling an honourable member in the chamber to "f--- off", later passing it off as "fuddle duddle"?

Hello pot, meet kettle. And here's the nice cauldron you've been searching for.

On Garth

2006-10-19T13:26:00.000-05:00

Who the *** cares? Good riddance to someone who had to air dirty laundry in public, rather than discuss it in private--like anyone with an iota of common sense would do.

Wake me up when Taliban Jack isn't caving to the bastards in Afghanistan or when the Liberals don't have either an America-bashing elitist with a one-sided mind on war crimes or a spend spend spend neo-Communist running their party.

I feel I'm going to be asleep for a long time.

Hey, did you hear?

2006-09-11T06:05:00.000-05:00

One in five Canadians is a moron.

Wanna know what else? 53% of them have their heads up their asses (also shown in the article). You think it's because of U.S. foreign policy and not because they hate us for our freedoms? Dream on.

Let us NEVER forget this day, 5 years ago.

God bless America. I, for one, stand with you.

Unbelievable...literally!

2006-09-04T02:07:00.000-05:00

I was just looking around for a laugh, and so I decided to see what virulent hatred was being spewed at Rabble.

I'm shocked.

There must be a shortage on tinfoil these days, because as I read this thread, it became clearer and clearer to me that the people were serious--that they believe that the Bush administration perpetrated this upon their own people! As a physicist, and a cynical one (but not as cynical as others), I can vouch that all the assertions in here are accurate.

And then, watching a little TV, as I am wont to do, I saw a commercial done by the Canadian wing of the World Wildlife Fund, talking about global warming (I thought the PC Police had abandoned the term in favour of "climate change"). A woman is having a meeting of the world's leading greenhouse gas-emitting countries. America is goofing off and the hostess has to shush him.

Wow, subtle as a box of hammers. And twice as clever.

What a load of anti-American bullshit. This Canadian feeling of holier-than-thou, we're morally superior to you, put you guys down at every opportunity crap is really getting on my nerves. The United States is our best friend and ally. Or, at least, they're supposed to be. But as a nation, we don't treat them as such, and it makes me sick to my stomach.

When I was a younger lad, I worked at a bar right close to the international border. Since the drinking age in Washington State was 21 and in BC it was 19, our main clientele came from across the line.

And let me tell you, I could tell the Americans from the Canadians right away, without even talking to them. How?

The Americans were the most polite, courteous, non-stuck-up people in the place.
The Canadian women were princesses, snobs, looked down their noses at you, and wouldn't be caught dead sharing the same room with you. The American women always had a good word to say, were always willing to give you a "hello", and genuinely enjoyed talking to anyone and everyone.
The Canadian guys brooded and looked as though they wanted to knock you out. The American guys were your best friends, even though you might have only met 3 minutes prior.

Yes, I could definitely tell the Canadians from the Americans, and we (Canadians) didn't fare too well.

So please, cut the "we're better and smarter and more sophisticated than you" crap. They're our allies and friends. And they've constantly shown it--I mean, if your supposed best friend talked trash about you and constantly stabbed you in the back, you'd cut your losses and disavow him as your best friend. We've done this to the Americans, but they've been nothing but good to us, despite our insanity. In fact, it's a wonder they didn't cut their losses about 10 years ago and invade us (and how would we stop them? With 2 Sea Kings and a leaky submarine?).

It's time to grow up, Canada.

Sincere thanks, Brian

2006-08-29T15:58:00.000-05:00

Brian Neale closed up shop on what is considered by many to have been the premiere Canadian news aggregator. Now we're left with the OK Bourque and the OK but cluttered Drudge, as well as (in my opinion) the overly-editorialized Jack's Newswatch.

Or are we?

Check out the newest news aggregator in Canada, one that has quickly become one of my first stops each day and it in the process of revamping things to fill the gap left by Brian's departure. Go check them out.

it's been a while

2006-08-27T13:41:00.000-05:00

I've still bee in summer vacation mode, and frankly political blogging hasn't been at the top of my list.

But I've been noticing recently that so-called progressive bloggers can't stop slagging Conservatives, and that is precisely what sunk the libs in the last election. (Remember beer and popcorn?) And methinks that the slagging is likely because a) the Liberals are in a shambles, b) the Dippers can't seem to make any gains, and c) most Canadians are (some shocked to be) pleased with the Harper government. (I think the last is partially because we're not used to a decisive government which, like them or hate them, this one is).

Answer to guttergirl's question: (and this may out this anonymous blogger, but that doesn't concern me much), I was teaching a course on storm chasing.

And I'm still digesting the stuff in the Middle East, so I'll refrain for commenting on it. At least for now. ;)

Media circus

2006-08-08T16:16:00.000-05:00

First there was Reuters photographers faking photographs.

And then Christina Lawand of CBC completely and deliberately takes PM Stephen Harper out of context. I can tell she doesn't like him, but that's not reporting. That's editorializing. (I bet she didn't think she was going to get caught!)

No wonder people don't watch CBC (or much in the way of TV newscasts) anymore.

Snicker!

2006-07-04T14:00:00.000-05:00

I've been terribly busy with work and putting in a new lawn and teaching a class, but this struck me as great:

Take the test: are you a leftist?

h/t Canadian Sentinel

Imagine...

2006-06-15T09:21:00.000-05:00

I know two wrongs don't make a right and it would be a little bit schadenfreude ofme, but wouldn't it be poetic justice if this were actually true?

Of course, the way it's spelled out, the Conservatives have made no overtures about this--it's simply the Liberal mouthpieces spewing out their vitriol and, surprise surprise, the Glib and Wail giving them press space.

Quick hits

2006-05-23T11:01:00.000-05:00

43%. As it says on my MSN, take THAT, Dithers. I suppose it just goes to show that when you stand for something, even when people don't agree with that for which you stand, you garner support.

So whatever happened to the sky falling and the country falling into great social peril with us being ruled over by goose-stepping theocrats?

Thought so.

And really, this is one of the biggest non-stories I've ever read. If the media and the Dippers are grasping at straws like this and Harper's belly size, well, what does that say?

Responding to a comment

2006-05-01T20:54:00.000-05:00

I usually respond to these in the comments section itself, but the questions raised are good enough that I think I'll share my answers here.

Guttergirl asked: "I want to hear your opinion about the lowering of the flag and ending speeches with God Bless Canada."

Glad you asked, guttergirl.

As for lowering the flag, I'll defer to the keepers of the traditions, the military people who know better. Lowering the flag on the Peace Tower (which I finally visited just over a month ago) was a partisan feel-good exercise started during the Chretien era. Tradition says that we should fly our flags (save possibly for the home base flags of the fallen soldiers) high during times of war--not to do so is tantamount to surrender. And believe me, we're in a time of war. The time to lower the flags, nationwide, for the fallen soldiers is on Remembrance Day.

On to "God bless Canada". I'm a Catholic, but want to look at this from as neutral point of view as I can.

It's an invocation, or a hope, or a greeting. Nothing more. Let me put it this way: when someone says to me at Christmas, "Merry Christmas", I don't get upset. Nor should I, as I celebrate Christmas. But what about the occasions when someone says "Happy Hanukkah" to me? Do I make like The Champ and lose it? Do I snap? Of course not. It's meant in a friendly way, as a gesture of goodwill. Does Harper say "God bless Canada" to infuriate people? No, he means "may good things come upon our great country".

Next time he says it, people, chill out. Don't say that he's being "too American". Don't say that he's blurring the lines between the famous "separation of church and state" (which was originally meant to protect the church from state persecution, as well as the opposite. And American, to boot). Remember that he's just wishing well upon Canada.

A parade

2006-05-01T20:47:00.000-05:00

Today I was at work and there was a commotion outside.

Turns out there was a parade going on. I'm not completely sure what it was about, but I know it was run by moonbats. How do I know?

Signs:

"President Bush, President Harper"
"Bring home our troops"
"Stop weaponizing space"
"No integration"
"No soldiers on our streets"

Yes, because Harper is just Bush's puppet.
Yes, because our troops are doing no good and have no prode in what they're doing abroad.
Yes, because we have no threat to our sovereignty or, for that matter, our very lives.
Yes, because we define ourselves simply by our being Not American.
Yes, because soldiers are all crazed gun freaks who will make us into a military dictatorship.

Moonbat asshats.

a quickie

2006-04-27T22:58:00.000-05:00

Before I go to bed, I have to write this down.

Last night I went to a movie with a friend. Before said movie, a voice directly behind me was loudly pontificating.

The voice was talking about how Americans are all stupid and killers and terrorists, and Canadians and Britons are smart and peacable. The rhetoric was just astounding. And this person was spouting this stuff because he wasn't all that keen on seeing the movie, RV, and it sounded like it was ostensibly because it starred Americans (and yet was filmed primarily in Alberta).

The kicker?

The person spewing this leftist anti-American hatred was about 8 years old.

So either he leanred it from Mom and Dad (Mom with him didn't rebut his silliness) or he learned it in school. Either way, it was sickening and I had to tell myself "he's just a kid, and he has no idea what he's talking about."

Catholic condom ban to be lifted?

2006-04-24T22:49:00.000-05:00

I'm really surprised this item hasn't gotten more press.

As a woefully underinformed Catholic. I need to do more research into the actual reasoning for the ban in the first place.

Wow.

2006-04-24T22:44:00.000-05:00

Now here is someone in a high position who actually gets what the price of freedom is.

I now have a much more profound respect for Prince Harry.

h/t Sham.

On second thought,

2006-04-04T10:50:00.000-05:00

I won't get rid of the comments.

Comments

2006-04-04T10:29:00.000-05:00

Well, it's happened. Thanks to an anonymous fucktard, I've decided not to feed trolls anymore, and in that vein turned off the comments.

Karl, yes, you figured out who I am. Whoop de ding dong. You found some of my other writings. Big deal. You claim to be a government worker (although personally I think you're a 14-year-old kid with nothing better to do, judging by things you've said). Well if you are a government worker, then you reek of your own hypocrisy by posting during office hours, after castigating me for doing what you thought was the same. Now you know what my profession is and likely where I work. Now do you understand?

I have better things to do than feed trolls. Comments therefore off.

Thanks, Karl. You're a peach.

Left vs. right: the battle rages on

2006-04-04T08:42:00.000-05:00

I just read a very interesting article. I tend to agree with it. Why?

Well, I know a lot of people who are vehemently on both sides of the political spectrum. And I have to say, I see very little vitriol coming from people on the right, while people on the left seem to have more of a tendency to be extremely vonomous.

That's not to say that most liberals are like this; I'm just saying that in my personal life (and it seems that others have seen this), I've seen more leftists frothing at the mouth and pulling off childish stunts and rants than rightists.

I could never see myself doing such a thing, and I feel the same about my conservative friends.

I'm just saying.

Semi-hiatus

2006-03-31T09:11:00.000-06:00

I'm sure all one of my reader(s) has (have) noticed the light blogging. Or for that matter, the heavy non-blogging.

And it seems I'm not the only one to do so. Marzi echoes why I haven't felt the need recently. News is news and sometimes (a lot of the time) the commentary from the other Blogging Tories mirrors my own and is so much more eloquent.

But I'm sure that when Parliament opens up again next week, I'll have plenty of fodder for my cathode ray cannons.

Finally, a Prime Minister. Thank God.

2006-03-31T08:39:00.000-06:00

Like the title says, this is how a Prime Minister should be acting, not like nonsense-spewing, dithe ring idiots.

It's about time.

I have a troll!

2006-03-03T12:54:00.000-06:00

I feel like my posting, lazy though it sometimes is, is finally getting through.

Why?

Because I have a troll. A skulking, anonymous troll who doesn't want to nut up and reveal him/herself.

That's fine. I don't have much time for them, especially when some of the comments posted include implying that I was on the clock when blogging, and gratuitous profanity.

I've hit the bigtime, baby!

Checking in

2006-02-24T09:12:00.000-06:00

To my reader:

Heehee.

I've been uninspired recently, so blogging will be relatively light.

In the meantime, here's a joke someone sent me:

An Alberta cowboy was tending to his herd in a remote pasture when
suddenly a brand-new BMW advanced out of a dust cloud towards him. The driver, a young man in a Brioni suit, Gucci shoes, Ray Ban Sunglasses and YSL tie, leaned out the window and asked the cowboy, "If I tell you exactly how many cows and calves you have in your herd, will you give me a calf?" The cowboy looks at the man, obviously a yuppie, then looks at his peacefully grazing herd and calmly answers, "Sure, why not?"

The yuppie parks his car, whips out his Dell notebook computer, connects it to his AT&T cell phone, and surfs to a NASA page on the Internet, where he calls up a GPS satellite navigation system to get an exact fix on his location which he then feeds to another NASA satellite that scans the area in an ultra-high-resolution photo. The young man then opens the digital photo in Adobe Photoshop and exports it to an image processing facility in Hamburg , Germany. Within seconds, he receives an email on his Palm Pilot that the image has been processed and the data stored. He then accesses a MS-SQL database through an ODBC connected Excel spreadsheet with hundreds of complex formulas. He uploads all of this data via an email on his Blackberry and, after a few minutes, receives a response.

Finally, he prints out a full-color, 150-page report on his hi-tech, miniaturized HP LaserJet printer and finally turns to the cowboy and says, "You have exactly 1586 cows and calves."

"That's right. Well, I guess you can take one of my calves," says the cowboy.

He watches the young man select one of the animals and looks on amused as the young man stuffs it into the trunk of his car.

Then the cowboy says to the young man, "Hey, if I can tell you exactly what your business is, will you give me back my calf?"

The young man thinks about it for a second and then says, "Okay, why not?"

"You're a consultant for the New Democratic Party." says the cowboy.

"Wow! That's correct," says the yuppie, "but how did you guess that?"

"No guessing required." answered the cowboy. "You showed up here even though nobody called you; you want to get paid for an answer I already knew, to a question I never asked; and you don't know anything about my business........ Now give me back my dog."

The volume getting turned down

2006-02-10T10:27:00.000-06:00

Now that the hysteria and firing inward has slowed, I'm leaning to the side of "I don't have enough information about this; nor am I likely to get it, so trust in Harper that there's a bigger plan in play that I don't know about."

It is true, though, that Harper wasn't disingenuous at all. I watched the CBC interview everyone's pointing to, the one where he talks about how outlawing floor-crossing would open up a bigger can of worms than the crossing itself. I remember thinking "wow, I didn't know that" at the time. Which is why he's Prime Minister and I'm not.

I hereby nominate Occam for the best quote on Harper I've seen since the election. The quote?

"[Harper has] just proven he can be a bit of a son of a bitch when he has to."

Beautiful. And true. And why not? Don't we want a PM who can make the tough decisions when there are few good options?

I thought so.

More thought on Emerson

2006-02-06T20:40:00.000-06:00

Please tell me it's a bad dream. That and the unelected senator/party hack being selected to cabinet.

Or better yet, tell me it's part of a master plan that I haven't seen yet. Because I don't want to have endured 8 weeks of campaign garbage and boundless anxiety and stress and paid my dues as a volunteer and reasoned with die-hard liberals, just to have Harper do something we'd expect from him or him or him.

Please tell me that Emerson is going to have to go through a byelection (but if so, I feel sorry for the residents of Vancouver-Kingsway). Please tell me that Fortier is just going to kick ass, take (Lib scammer) names, and get the hell out of there within a year. Please tell me that Emerson isn't actually becoming a Conservative--that he'll still sit as a Liberal but be in cabinet--a rare thing to do, but not illegal or impossible.

Or hell, just go to the press tomorrow and take it back, telling us that doing so was an ill-informed decision.

Whatever it is, something (hope, maybe) tells me that this isn't the end of this, that Harper is going to show us why doing this was all part of a greater plan. Why it had to happen this way, and that all is not as it seems.

Something tells me. I just hope that something is right.

Otherwise, we might see this come back, and him as our next small-c conservative Prime Minister.

Emerson crosses the floor for a cabinet position?

2006-02-06T09:56:00.000-06:00

If this is true, it's just as wrong as when Belinda did it.

Edit: it seems I'm not the only one pissed off about this.

I think I'm going to be sick

2006-01-30T01:42:00.000-06:00

As we all know, earlier this week Prime Minister Designate Stephen Harper went to the hospital because of some respiratory difficulties.

I'm working the night shift and was perusing some sites. One of them is Babble. Suffice it to say I don't think I'll be going there very much from now on. Why?

The absolute vitriol and hatred and schadenfreude displayed by some of the posters left me speechless in this thread. These so-called "progressives" openly admit to a) hoping/rooting for Harper not to be doing well ("How do we know it wasn't just someone trying to smother the son of a bitch?", "Let me put it as clearly as possible - if I had the opportunity to save Stephen Harper's life, I would not do so. And as he died, I would tell him why I chose not to.") and b) threatening to ban anyone who disagrees with them--despite the "progressives" thinking they believe in free speech ("Look - get it through your head - we've heard all this shit before and we are NOT going through it again. Supporting civil union is not acceptable here. Speaking on behalf of those who support it is not acceptable here either. ... If you wish to continue here, I suggest you drop it, because it WILL lead to you being banned.")

And these people consider themselves to be enlightened?

Sheesh.

An interesting night out...

2006-01-29T04:33:00.000-06:00

Friday night a bunch of friends and I got together at a local tavern to celebrate my recent birthday.

At the table of my friends, among others, were a couple of strong NDP supporters. They also happen to be a married lesbian couple.

When they found out I am a strong CPC supporter and, in fact, had a Bruinooge sign on my lawn during this last campaign, one of them came over to talk politics with me.

One of the main issues they had with the CPC was this: "Harper and the Conservatives want to take away my marriage to that beautiful woman over there." Which left me speechless. Which is very difficult to do, by the way. I then spuuttered and pointed her to the CPC platform where it states plainly that any existing same-sex marriages would not be annulled or repealed if the same-sex marriage law were repealed. A grandfather clause, so to speak. The spectre of this legislation being reversed was brought up early in the campaign. And letting the cat out of the bag early, so to speak, seemed to work for the Conservatives. Why? Well, because conventional wisdom has it that if/when a bill to repeal the legislation now in place were to be introduced, it would be voted against and die on the table anyway. Thus, Harper could say that he did what he said he'd do, in allowing a free vote, thereby appeasing the social conservative side, and he'd also have same-sex marriage still there after the votes, appeasing those who fear the hidden agenda socon kitten killing homophobe insert fearmongering phrase here. Smart strategy.

Another issue they had with the CPC was the health care issue. It was admitted that, under Martin, wait times have become untenable. But she told me that she fears private delivery of public health care would result in all the best doctors going to private care, thereby leaving the publicly delivered part of the system in a lurch. Um, the problem lies with the slashes that were made to University programs in the first place. Or at least a big part of it. If you increase the capacity for Canadian Universities to graduate more medical prefessionals, you thereby make sure the system improves. Or at least doesn't get any worse. Just throwing more money at the situation (the Liberals' and NDP's plan of attack) would do nothing to solve the problem because the problem is already that physicians' time is already stretched to the max. More physicians is the answer.

We ended off our ideological discussion with agreeing that we definitely have different viewpoints, although I think I opened her eyes to the fact that she had been victim to a lot of the fearmongering and I hope I positively informed her about what the facts are, not what the scare tactics tried to say. In turn, she said she hopes I'm right about Harper having a moderate agenda and sticking to it.

I bet if the Conservatives deal with their moderate agenda, the 5 priorities that really seem to matter to all Canadians, the Conservatives may just have a couple of votes added to their tally next time.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

2006-01-24T09:40:00.000-06:00

...your new Member of Parliament for Winnipeg South,

ROD BRUINOOGE!

Prime Minister Stephen Harper

2006-01-24T00:05:00.000-06:00

I love those words...

Happy Birthday To Me!

2006-01-24T00:03:00.000-06:00

My representative, Rod Bruinooge, beat Reg Alcock tonight!

The vote difference was just over 100 votes, which means a recount, but I'm confident Rod will be representing me in Ottawa. And dude knows exactly where I live! :D

My birthday is technically today (January 24).

I couldn't ask for a better present.

Harper rally

2006-01-22T16:08:00.000-06:00

Early this afternoon there was a rally with Stephen Harper and some of the Manitoba CPC candidates.

I walked into the lobby of the hotel and immediately stopped. There was no room to move! And the best part--there were people there of all ages and backgrounds. Young, not-so-young, white, asian, male, female. It was amazing to see. And everyone had smiles on their faces!

I'm not very good at guessing crowd sizes, but I'd conservatively say (heehee) that there were close to 1000 people there. The mood was electric, and the speech was passionate, full of hope and forward looking. I'll have a picture or two about it later.

Now I'm in Rod's office doing some odd jobs that need doing.

Just happy to be part of the team.

Nothing to report

2006-01-20T12:52:00.000-06:00

It seems there wasn't much talk about the election while I was in Montréal. At least not amongst my colleagues. What little talk there was hinged on throwing the Liberals out and giving Harper a try.

Of course, it turns out Harper was in town for a rally one of the nights I was available, but I didn't know about it until afterwards. D'oh! It would have been great to meet him personally and take in some of that campaign energy that's even evident on TV when he speaks.

Prime Minister In Waiting.

An interesting trip

2006-01-16T11:21:00.000-06:00

This afternoon I get on a plane and am off to Montréal. I work in the federal government and will get a chance to see, if it's talked about, what the fed employees think in that city.

I'd respect Bloc supporters. They have principles and stand by them, even though I might not agree with them. I'd respect NDP supporters. They also have (for the most part, except for Jack!'s health care thing a couple of years ago) principles. I'd definitely respect CPC supporters because, well, I am one. And of course we have principles. I would not respect Liberal supporters because a) any fed employees supporting them are just supporting the pigs-at-the-trough mentality, scared for their own hides, and b) anyone believing that "Paul Martin isn't scary" or "Stephen Harper is scary" is loopy.

As I've said before, anyone who tells me they're voting Liberal I will immediately tell him/her that he/she owes me twenty bucks. Again, I know, I likely won't get any money, but it'll be great to start up a spirited conversation.

Hopefully I'll have something to report on when I get back on Thursday evening.

Really?

2006-01-15T22:07:00.000-06:00

I have no doubt that the email shown here didn't come from the CPC. Why?

Well, first off, it would be stupid of anyone in Cook's position, even if he did feel those sentiments, to let them be known. That said, most CPC members don't want to play with the majority of social programs, except the silly socialized child care proposal.

Second off, computer experts have determined that the email originated in St. Petersburg, Russia. This is a place where from people a) spam lots and b) can send anonymous email. If Cook were to send an email like this, would he go through the trouble of sending it by an untraceable server? This humble blogger thinks not. He'd just send it from his own email, and make sure it was only sent to people he really trusted.

Due to both of these things, I can only conclude that this email is a fake, intended to scare the simple-minded into voting other than CPC because of the scary "HIDDEN AGENDA". If this works then I'd be very surprised.

And BTW, I won't say explicitly who I think made this email up, but I'll give you a hint: he disdains those who like beer and popcorn.

Something that could end up giving us a bit of a headache, a real one, is this one, although I think it was handled well. But this will be one to watch. Now it's time for me to go see if Cherniak is doing the Snoopy hope dance.

Interesting tactic

2006-01-14T23:48:00.000-06:00

...and a good one, I think. Peer pressure, for lack of a better term.

They've got new radio ads using person-on-the-street interviews (real or contrived, I don't care) to hammer home the point that the Martin and Liberal legacy is and will be apathy about everything except lining their own pockets.

These ads are not brutal, and they use opinions by ordinary Canadians or "ordinary Canadians". They're cutting to the heart of the matter.

And what's more, I think they walk the fine line between "attack" and "edgy truth", a line the Liberals crossed so very badly last week.

Here are the ads.

Toronto Star article

2006-01-14T15:57:00.000-06:00

There's an article in the Star today that talks about the Toronto area and their views of the Liberals and the Conservatives.

At first I was just reading this article and then after a while I found myself alternately laughing and yelling at the screen. I felt I had to rebut this article here, because it's so funny and stupid.

The premise is this: the writer went around talking to normal people all round the 905 area code. The responses were essentially in question to "what do you think of Harper and Martin?" I'll clip and respond as I find stuff to rebut. Here goes.

"I'm not too keen on the Conservatives, but how else can you house clean?" computer technician Dave Archibald says over lunch at a Port Hope doughnut shop. A former ironworker, Archibald grew up in a union household and describes himself as "basically a New Democrat."

"I still remember (former Conservative prime minister) Brian Mulroney," he says with some distaste. "But something has to be done about the corruption."

Amen, brother. We must never forget the corruption the Liberals have perpetrated upon Canada. It's unprecedented.

...

"I'm scared of the Conservatives because of Harris," says unemployed security officer Gord Bell, as he cradles 5-month-old daughter Colleen in the front hall of his Pickering townhouse. "It's hard to forgive and forget. I still may end up voting Liberal. I've always favoured the Liberals. But the Conservatives look quite good right now ... A change in government may be what we need."

Scared of Conservatives because of Harris. Am I wrong in saying, then, that despite the pain he inflicted, Harris did exactly what he said he'd do? If so, then tell me what's scary about what Harper is putting forth. Personally, in some areas, I don't think he goes far enough. But that's just a Winnipegger's (formerly a Vancouverite's) opinion.

What would finally convince him?

"Someone has to do something about gun crime. I have two kids and don't know if we can walk down the street in Toronto ... That's what driving me to the Conservatives. They say they'll do something. But I don't know if they are lies or not. If they can seriously do something about guns and crime, that would be a benefit."

Of course, you know whether or not the Liberals are lying. Snicker.

A few blocks away, Troy Gibson, a 32-year-old event planner, says that for the first time in his life, he's going to vote Conservative.

"My parents tell me to go Liberal again," says Gibson, who lives at home with his mother and father. "But there's too much blood in the water. I'm thinking Stephen Harper now, even though he is inexperienced. His proposals are clearer than Martin's."

Troy's father, Fred, who has retired from the high-technology business, says he will stick with Martin.

"I am a Liberal. I don't always agree with them but I identify with them most closely ... I would like an independent leader who doesn't always follow the U.S. That's not the way with Harper."

Well, so much for the Conservatives being the party of stodgy old men.

In Markham, consultant Reg Jordan says he found Harper too frightening in 2004. "The gay thing (Harper's opposition to same-sex marriage) really turned me off his party. That is scary.

"But this time, I think he's going to leave abortion alone. His fiscal policy is better ... His social policy is on the edge of scary, but I don't think he'll do anything there."

And in the end, Jordan says, he sees no alternative.

"You just can't vote for the Liberals."

"The gay thing? The one where he said he'd allow a free vote in Parliament if someone else proposed a bill? Why are you scared? Because actual democracy scares you? And of course he's going to leave abortion alone. Oddly enough (in my opinion). He said exactly that.

...

A few houses away, mortgage broker Karu Selliah expresses the uncertainty of someone who is not happy with the Liberals but not sure if he can trust the Conservatives.

"I'm 50-50," he says. "So far, I support the Liberals. I like what they say about gun control and gas prices; hopefully, they will do something. I'm still supporting the Liberals."

Gun control? Ummm buddy, don't know know handguns are already ostensibly banned? When Martin announced this policy plank, I thought, in the words of Don Brodka (from the Simpsons), "If I wanted smoke blown up my ass I'd be at home with a pack of cigarettes and a short length of hose."

In Richmond Hill, software engineer Chris Gorgani is just preparing to sit down to dinner with his family. But he's willing to stand at his door and tick off some of the issues that he says are important.

First and foremost, he says, is health care. "None of them will deliver. The Conservatives are going to privatize; the Liberals just flash a little more money. Neither has a proper plan."

But the bottom line, he says, is that the Liberals have to go.

"I've voted Liberal the past several elections. But this time, I think it will be the Conservatives. Paul Martin should be sitting in the opposition chair."

Gorgani says he is making his choice with some trepidation and hopes Harper wins only enough seats to form a minority government.

"I'm not a Conservative. The Conservatives are a mirror image of the Republicans in the U.S. But let's give them a chance."

Mirror image of the Republicans? DUDE! The CPC is to the left of the Democrats!

In Oshawa, Monique Collins says she feels badly for Martin. A long-time Liberal voter, she went with the Conservatives in 2004 and says she'll do the same again.

"I feel we need change," she says. "I like Stephen Harper's approach. He has a fresh, new image. The Liberals want to control your life from birth to death. Mr. Harper tried to give you back your life — to a point.

"It may not all work out. But at least it will be an attempt."

Exactly. Give him a chance. Harper cannot possibly mess it up any worse than Martin!

...

In Port Hope, retired Bell employee Jaci Michaelis wrestles with her decision. "I'm undecided. I'm not Conservative, but I may vote for them. I'm getting closer to voting for them.

"Maybe we should let them in so they can fall flat on their face and wreck us like Mike Harris did. I'm afraid of what they don't say as much as what they do say. So, maybe I'll vote New Democrat, or Liberal — or Conservative."

You're afraid of what they don't say? So you must be scared of everyone. Because almost nobody says they're going to take an axe and chop your arm off. Just because they're not saying it doesn't mean they're not thinking it, right? Sheesh. This is the same logic as the Liberals used (oops, logic? silly me) in their ad. You know, the one that "wasn't approved", "was personally approved by me", and "some idiot approved".

A few doors away, Maureen Godfrey and Bruce Beatty invite me into their kitchen, where they pick up a conversation they've been engaged in for some time. Both cast ballots for the Liberals in 2004, which helped local MP Paul Macklin to squeak in by 313 votes. But this time, Beatty, a retired Pitney-Bowes worker, is edging toward the Conservatives.

"I'm fed up with the Liberals," he says. "It doesn't mean I won't vote for them. I'm on the fence. The Liberals are too lax with law and order. And that Young Offenders Act is a crock.

"But then I hear Harper on that same-sex thing or the abortion issue. When I read what he'd said (that he would allow a free vote in Parliament on banning same-sex marriage), I said `I'm not voting for him.' Then, Martin said all of that stuff about the notwithstanding clause (Martin has promised to amend the Constitution so that elected MPs would no longer have the power to override certain kinds of Supreme Court decisions) and I disagree with that."

On same-sex marriage: that he'd allow a free vote. Ooh, scary that democracy might be practised. On abortion: he has no plan to do anything. Ooh, scary. Although to me, abortions on demand (at private clinics, no less) up to the date of delivery is scary. Call me a scary socon or neocon or whatever derogatory name you like. I'm big. I can take it.

"Oh, I do too," says Godfrey, a bookkeeper. "We don't vote for judges. They're just supposed to interpret the law.

Good point. And I think that's the most compelling reason not to vote Liberal.

...

Godfrey shakes her head. "I'll vote for Martin," she says. "I prefer him to Harper. I don't trust Harper. For some reason, there's something about him. As a woman. He has this little smirky smile. I just don't like it."

Smirky smile. Okay. Scary Harper, but you can't put your finger on it. That's thinking!

Indeed, if the Liberals have any hope in the 905, their best chance seems to lie with those voters, often women, who still can't stomach Harper. I run into plenty of them, too.

"Anybody but Stephen Harper," says Markham graphic designer Ann Orr.

"I will vote Liberal because I absolutely don't trust the man."

Orr lists Conservative policies, from gay marriage to child care, that she finds lacking or just plan wrong. But she keeps coming back to Harper.

"I just hope everyone gets their act together and doesn't give us a Conservative government ... If people think Stephen Harper has changed, they'll be in for a rude shock."

"I absolutely don't trust the man." Does that mean that you trust Martin? If so, wow. I mean, wow. Gay marriage--I've mentioned this twice. I won't repeat. I can't change your mind on child care, I guess. On this, I believe Martin's plan is just plain wrong. So that's just a complete disagreement, and I can respect that. But blind fear based on who knows what? Come on.

In Pickering, nurse Natasha Johnston says that while the Liberal government has been good in most areas, it went too far when it legalized same-sex marriage. She also doesn't approve of Martin's plan to remove Parliament's right to overturn certain kinds of Supreme Court decisions.

But she says she could never vote for Harper — not under any circumstances.

"There's just something about him," she says. "It's not his looks. There's just something about him."

"Something about him. That's great logic.

A few doors away, Jacqueline Brackett shakes her head vehemently when asked about Harper.

"All he wants to do is take away, not give," she says. She'll be voting Liberal.

Unlike Martin, who gave. Except it was to his buddies and political lackies. In brown envelopes. I'm not making this up.

At a Canadian Tire store in Ajax, Ron and Leslie Spaeth say they too have no time for Harper.

"A snake in the grass," says Ron, a trucker.

"He never looks you straight in the eye," says Leslie, a computer trainer. "He reminds me of (Ontario Liberal Premier) Dalton McGuinty."

Okay, I'm willing to bet a lot of money these people have never met Harper in person. But let's just say they have. He never looks you straight in the eye? Really? And yes, I suppose these people are being metaphorical. If so, please educate me as to how Harper isn't looking you straight in the eye. He's released his platform. He's not ducked a question. He's answered everything honestly. So please, enlighten me, O Ontari-airy-o voters.

In Markham, 23-year-old Sarah Comper is making dinner when I appear at her front door.

"I'm looking at the Liberals," the Ryerson University business student says. "It's not that I like the Liberals. It's that I don't like the Conservatives.

"Stephen Harper scares me. I just don't know why."

Again, brilliant reasoning. That's the kind of thinking I want voting on the future of my country.

Up the street, pharmaceutical sale representative Cathy Fullarton says she's always voted Liberal. "It's a scary thought," she says, referring to the recent sponsorship scandals associated with the Liberals. "I don't tell my neighbours."

But she doesn't think Harper would make a good prime minister.

"He doesn't seem firm," she says. "I see him as being swayed — especially when dealing with foreign countries ... like the United States or China."

Right. Because Martin was so good at dealing with the States. Besides, when dealing with friends and allies, you need compromise. Jean Poutine and Martin couldn't understand that, and as a result our relationship with the United States is frosty, to say the least.

Still, there are some female voters in the 905 region who are amenable to Harper.

Lucy Cunningham is a business development manager in Richmond Hill. She says she voted for the NDP in the last election, but this time will support the Conservatives.

"We need change," she says. "New blood." As someone who has lived in Alberta, she says she is not repelled by Harper. Quite the contrary.

"He's straightforward. He's good looking too. He's younger. And maybe the younger generation should have a chance at running Canada. ...

"I know he loves Canada. Having said that, I don't see him as reaching out to a diverse culture."

I like the way this woman thinks.

In nearby Markham, Mary Brown says she too is not put off by Harper. She's planning to switch her vote to the Conservatives because she thinks, as finance minister during the sponsorship scandal, Martin should take some responsibility for whatever money was wasted.

Definitely. Lying or incompetent, he had to have been. And I'm not comfortable having the PM of our country be either.

...

Another possible source of Liberal support lies among voters who have been paying little attention to the past seven weeks of an election campaign that has not gone well for Martin.

At a Rona building supply store in Brampton, Bell Canada manager John Marsella says he hasn't been following the campaign and will probably vote Liberal "because I've always been a Liberal kind of guy."

Oh good. The Liberals may benefit from people who haven't been paying attention. Isn't that just a great bunch of people to have voting. People who have lo idea what's going on.

Man, this article really got me going. I suppose, though, it serves to remind me that not all voters pay as much attention as I do. Does that make me a political junkie? ;)

Too true...

2006-01-13T00:44:00.000-06:00

I know I've been posting nothing much but lame spoofs and links to other good blog entries recently, but a guy's gotta work and have a social life, y'know?

That being said, I completely agree with N's take on things. We cannot, must not let up now. Don't let up until all the votes are counted, and even then don't let up until all the lefties are done their inevitable whining about a dirty campaign and how the media wouldn't cut them some slack.

Don't let up.

Not.

One.

Inch.

Implosion

2006-01-12T20:03:00.000-06:00

Paul Martin actually torpedoed

his entire re-election campaign in one second.

The English Debate.

Notwithstanding.

Beer and popcorn, too.

In Canada.

The ads didn't help.

Choose your Canada.

The Charter

2006-01-12T19:57:00.000-06:00

Paul Martin
actually announced

he wants to
remove
the Notwithstanding Clause

in our Charter.

The Canadian Charter.

Of Rights And Freedoms.

In our Charter.

In Canada.

We did not make this up.

Choose your Canada.

Phew

2006-01-12T18:01:00.000-06:00

Well, they did it. They couldn't withdraw him from the race, because the last day to do that was January 5. But they did make sure that until and unless he's acquitted (okay, the press release says "until charges ... are resolved"), and he's elected (which is pretty doubtful right now), he will not be a representative of the CPC.

Net loss: 1 seat.

Net gain: immeasurable credibility.

I'll take that trade-off any day.

Stephen Harper? Scary?

2006-01-12T07:42:00.000-06:00

Canadi-Anna has a wonderful, passionate post about why the "Harper is scary" meme is such a crock. She dispels, one by one, the misgivings and misunderstandings of a left-leaning target of the scaremongers.

Will it work?

They're right, this is going to hurt...

2006-01-11T23:59:00.000-06:00

Unless proper action is taken. And I mean now.

So there is one fleck of mud that will stick. And frankly, rightly so.

Personally, as a die-hard Conservative, I wouldn't want this guy running.

As has been said many times before, it's not just imopropriety that's wrong, it's the appearance of impropriety. We were (and still are) demanding that Goodale step down because of the investigation; so should Derek Zeisman. He should step away from being a candidate, and the Conservatives should, as Paul says, cede the seat. It would show that what's good for the goose is good for the gander--that the Conservative Party is serious about clean government and clean people therein. It would show that the CPC isn't afraid to lose a seat because of some asshattery. Worse off, though, I fear that if they don't have him step down, the Libs can point to it and say "see, they don't really believe in accountability.

Of course, on second thought, the Libs wouldn't be able to get away with it. The "they're no better than we are" argument (from them) is the same as saying "look at us again, we're crooked and unaccountable." But the NDP or Bloc could ream them a new one on it. And besides all that, politics aside, like Quaker Oats, it would be the right thing to do.

Who knows? You might be able to salvage the seat anyhow--the second-place finisher in the riding's nomination, if he/she wanted to, could run for the last 10 days and potentially win, buoyed by the display of ethics in the CPC.

No matter how I look at it, buddy has to go. It would reek of hypocrisy not to do so.

Please, CPC braintrust.

Mike Duffy: smackdown!

2006-01-10T21:22:00.000-06:00

I'm watching the CTV NewsNet coverage of the after-debate festivities. The Liberals released (on their website) their new attack ads today, and then retracted one saying the Conservatives would have the armies in the cities, implying martial law.

Mike Duffy was talking with the Liberal Strategist (the other Duffy?) about the and accused the strategist of trying to intimidate Mike (during a commercial break) into changing the subject. He said, and I'm paraphrasing, I think, "I will not be intimidated and I will do my job of journalism!" Mike Duffy smacking down a Liberal? Now I've seen everything!!!!

It seems

2006-01-10T08:27:00.000-06:00

...that on my last post, Chuppa agrees with me about Harper's closing statement. Good, now I don't feel alone in the wilderness about that.

Now that the dust is settling and it seems the majority of people agree that Harper is clearly in the lead and needs to, as Angry puts it, walk on eggshells, I wonder openly about the best track for the Conservative leader to take for the next 13 days.

He pretty much has 2 choices. He can

Keep his mouth shut and let the Liberals self-destruct, or
Keep on keeping on, with sensible platform announcements and public engagements, nothing too radical.

Personally I like option 2, because it precludes the Liberals from steering the tone of the election, keeps them from trying their silly fearmongering, and it keeps Harper foremost in peoples' minds.

Pedal to the metal, Stephen. This thing is yours. I want my birthday present.

Closing statements

2006-01-10T01:30:00.000-06:00

Right now all the focus, of course, is on PM's idiotic statement about banishing the notwithstanding clause. That's fine.

Angry touches on Harper's profound yet glossed-over statement about enshrining property rights into the Charter. He expounds on it much better than I ever could have.

But I want to touch on something I haven't seen anyone talk about yet. (Of course, I might have missed something someone wrote--I tend to miss things once in a while...) I want to talk about the leaders' closing statements. Specifically those of Harper and Martin.

For the sake of completeness, though, I'll comment on the other ones, too. (Transcript is here.)

Layton seemed stuck on one message all night--the "we'll make Parliament work for the working people, we'll hold whomever accountable, so please elect more NDP members." That's fine, except that it got a bit tiring, knowing what he was going to say in response to every question--deflect, bridge, vote NDP. He sounded like a walking (okay, standing there) TV ad. His closing statement was more of the same.

Duceppe was bluntly honest, and I like that about him. "The Bloc will make strategic alliances whenever it's expedient to the desires of Quebeckers." This is straight-shooting at its finest. I don't agree with his politics, but damn, the man gets his point across, even when he can't properly pronounce 70% of the words he's saying. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

(Side note here: okay, you caught me, I'm straying off the closing statement part here because Paul essentially said nothing but "I love Canada, and Stephen Harper will destroy Canada as we know it because, fundamentally, let me be very very clear about this, my number one priority is how much I love being Prime Minister".) Through the debate Martin seemed to have the election equivalent of Homer Simpson's makeup gun and he, like Homer, had it set on "whore"--all kinds of different things in the gun, and hoping one of them would stick. Harper is scary. Harper would override rights. Harper would increase taxes. Harper would put us into deficit by cutting taxes. In essence, he seemed barely restrained in his panic at seeing the polls over the past couple of days. Too bad for him he opened his mouth early in the debate and lost himself the election.

Finally, and paint me as a partisan shill (because that's exactly what I am), Harper sounded like a Prime Minister. Notice I didn't say "in waiting". He calmly and succinctly told Canadians his plan for Canada on finances, crime, and accountability. He was self-deprecating, thereby showing his humanity. After his statement, as Jack started talking, I turned to my friend and said, "wow, now that was a good closing statement" and she agreed.

One thing for sure: this debate was a lot more interesting to watch (in my opinion) than the last one. Of course, the self-destruction of the Liberals helped my enjoyment. ;)

The Notwithstanding Clause

2006-01-09T22:19:00.000-06:00

I watched the debate tonight and I can't help but think that someone in the Liberal camp wants Paul Martin to be Kim Campbelled.

Remove the notwithstanding clause? Are you serious? First off, that would never gain traction because of the consensus needed. But more importantly, he's proposing giving near absolute power over our country to a gaggle of unelected partisan hacks.

That's about the scariest thing I've ever heard come out of PMPM's mouth.

I won't say majority, although after tonight it appears more possible. But I think Paul Martin is pretty much done as Prime Minister. And he likely took down a whole bunch of Liberal MPs with him tonight.

Good riddance.

Strahl vs. Solberg: the saga continues

2006-01-09T00:12:00.000-06:00

Seriously, folks, if you haven't read Chuck Strahl's blog (Monte's has been around for a lot longer, so I know you ALL do), now's the time to start.

Monte makes me chuckle.

Chuck makes me laugh out loud. Like his most recent post.

It's good to have a little bit of levity what with the exhausting holiday season just having finished (I'm Ukrainian), winter giving us the blues, and this long election campaign.

I hadn't even noticed

2006-01-07T04:22:00.000-06:00

...but JL is right.

If you're running a campaign, don't be ultra hypocritical!

Then again, I don't mind. ;)

Sigh of relief

2006-01-07T01:34:00.000-06:00

It appears to be more likely that this is going to be getting the smackdown I was hoping for. And that it apparently deserves.

When this comes to be seen more closely under the microscope, if it's panning out like Monte says and like the (still only alleged) press release says, the CBC reporter should be ordered to post a story on the full Conservative tax platform, and then summarily fired. Yes, fired. This kind of blatant bias and half-truth smearing is sickening. It's bullshit. Can his ass.

Say it ain't so!

2006-01-06T23:30:00.000-06:00

If this a) turns out to be true and b) isn't offset by a different tax structure, we're done.

Please tell me there's more to the story that we don't yet know.

Edit: of course it is offset by other tax reforms, including the GST cut and others, but don't expect that to be mentioned. Sigh.

Update, 12:40 AM: M K Braaten is reporting that a "Reality Check" will soon be on the CPC website denouncing this report as absolutely false. Here's hoping.

Star editorial

2006-01-05T05:43:00.000-06:00

Okay, this is disingenuous.

It starts off fairly, but they just can't help but let the bias leak out. And at times it's mendacious, too. (I love that word!)

"On gun crime, the Liberals have caught attention by promising to outlaw handguns, and they favour tougher sentencing."
I haven't heard about the tougher sentencing (not that it isn't there--I just haven't heard of it) but it's blatantly silly of them to conveniently forget to mention that we already have a handgun ban in Canada. But never mind, this one doesn't bother me too much. It's the next one that gets my blood boiling.

"On social law, the Conservatives promise a vote in Parliament to reverse the law allowing gay marriage."
On the Toronto Star editorial board, I call BULLSHIT. The only mention of this was when a reporter asked Harper about his stance, and he said (and I'm paraphrasing here) that, if an MP were to propose they have a vote, then he would allow a free vote. IF. That ain't a promise, doodleheads. It's an option. So this is just stupid and biassed.

Then again, it is the Star...

Oh well...

2006-01-04T23:24:00.000-06:00

So much for that idea.

Never mind that, though.

I'm currently working a bunch of night shifts so, in keeping with recent non-happenings on this front, blogging will be light.

But let me make a couple of points.

The polls are encouraging. And oddly enough it makes me a bit nervous because of all the scared people who could potentially change their NDP vote to a Liberal vote in a strategic vote. I'll say it like someone on a blog's message thread did today: strategic voting is stupid, lazy, and morally dishonest. Which means that Liberals would do it if they could.
ITscam is really going to smoke someone. I'm just waiting for Martin and Goodale to have a public blowout. Personally I don't think Goodale will survive in his riding.
The CBC is seeming to be fair to the Conservatives. Who'da thunk it?!
The new Conservative ads, both TV and radio, are pretty good. I like the "Ottawa" radio bit the best, as it made me laugh out loud. Of course, so did "Entitlements", which would have been my fave, had the production value not been as amateurish as it is. But maybe that's the idea--get the public in the mindset that the Conservatives aren't slick--they're just like you and me. Which would be kinda smart.
The so-called "negativity" of the Conservative ads, especially the "Entitlements" one, is nothing (and actually true!) compared to the Liberals' one in 2004. You remember the one--it fired a gun into your face. And now Stephen Taylor has posted a Conservative-positive voice-over-ed version of the exact same ad. It's brilliant.
Stephen Harper has finally pulled out one of the big guns I had been expecting all along--questioning Paul Martin about CSL and how he manages not to pay Canadian taxes. Good. Although perhaps a bit early. Then again, I'm not a political strategist.
In my neighbourhood, I only saw a few campaign signs last night, while I was out for a run. 3 for the Conservatives and 2 for the Liberals. Is everyone waiting, is everyone undecided, or is it just that people don't want to put up campaign signs?

Hopefully I'll be volunteering for Rod some more after these night shifts. If so, I'll write about anything else here.

ITScam: an oddity

2005-12-30T16:51:00.000-06:00

So it was the NDP that pushed the RCMP for an investigation. Not the Conservatives, although they likely have the most to gain from such a thing. Interesting.

Know what it makes me think? Here's the Winnipeg Conservative's Revelation Forecast (©):

Stephen Harper and Jack Layton already have a loose coalition/agreement going on. Jack does Stephen's dirty work during the election (notice how the NDP isn't even bothering to attack the CPC?) and Stephen co-operates with Jack in the new Parliament when he's Prime Minister.

Think about it. Stephen gets the Liberals smeared and the MSM can't blame those "scary, angry Conservatives" for stopping the gravy train. Jack gets his ideas listened to, and supports a minority Conservative government for a while. Legislation that they can both agree to gets passed, and Canada moves forward.

What Jack hasn't figured out is that Stephen would likely need him at some point, anyhow, to co-operate on some things. So in essence Stephen isn't really conceding anything. Just making Jack feel like he's getting something. But what Stephen gets in return--it's pure gold: the Canadian public seeing him in action, not as a scary angry man, but as a thoughtful, intelligent man who loves Canada. Which leads to even more seats in the next election--2007, 2008, whenever.

Brilliant strategy.

If it's even true. ;)

In the campaign office

2005-12-15T16:10:00.000-06:00

Right now I'm sitting in Rod Bruinooge's campaign office. I came here to volunteer my services, and I'm happy to do whatever I can. He has me as the reception guy right now.

Until a couple of days ago, I had never met Rod. He's a smart, articulate, yet soft-spoken man, not at all like the blustery windbag Reg we have in our riding now. Rod would be a refreshing change.

Understandably the office is not very busy right now--people are likely more focussed on Christmas and spending time with family--as I will be once my flight to the west coast leaves on Saturday morning. Oh yeah, and it's been snowing for about 2 days now so that doesn't exactly help.

The negative campaigning from the Liberals has started, albeit weak. A speech from 8 years ago? To a partisan crowd? That was meant to be (and was) humourous? Ooh, take THAT, Stephen!

2 things. First, if that's all the Liberals have, then their attacks are going to need spice. Second, and I think more importantly, what does that say about their internal polling? They only resort to attacks when the numbers don't look good. And after beer and popcorn, AdScam, HRDC, long guns, GST (in many ways), among others, it doesn't surprise me.

But remember: when in trouble, the Liberals can be as dangerous as a cornered rat. Dirty. All teeth. Rabid.

Let's hope (and I think it's the case) that Stephen Harper has something big to unleash in January, a few days before election day. Last time he didn't and look where it got him.

Un. Dirty word. Believable.

2005-12-13T20:52:00.000-06:00

All of a sudden, PMPM favours an elected senate.

Give me a break. First he and Chretien thumbed their noses at Reform Party policy that included exactly this and recently ignored senate elections in Alberta. NOW he decides he likes the idea of an elected senate?

3 questions:

Is it my imagination or are the Liberals' ideas coming more and more to the right, in essence trying to steal from the Conservative platform?
Is there anything this guy won't say to get elected?
Does anyone even believe what PMPM says anymore?

H/T to Joel Johannesen.

Seriously, folks, this is sickening. I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. Vote for ethics in government. Vote for a Prime Minister who wants to make his country better, not his pocketbook. Vote for real change. Vote Conservative.

All I want...

2005-12-11T17:27:00.000-06:00

My birthday is January 24. I'm serious.

Canada, I only want one thing for my birthday. Okay, it's four words but it means one thing:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Beer and popcorn

2005-12-11T17:19:00.000-06:00

Okay, does anyone doubt that

had a Conservative said something this callous they would be done,
had this happened in mid-January we would no doubt be talking about Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and
regardless, this could sink the Liberals' ship?

Message to Stephen and the strategists (sounds like a rock band, doesn't it?): this quote .... this set of quotes is gold. Absolute gold. Use it, along with whatever other bombshells you must have agains the Liberals, but use it wisely, sparingly, and with a sense of "here's why we'll treat you and your money with respect".

Get involved

2005-12-11T11:03:00.000-06:00

So yesterday i was perusing my local Conservative candidate Rod Bruinooge's website and there was some new information there: the location of their campaign office. Turns out it's a short walk from my place. Sweet.

I walked over to the office and introduced myself to Rod and some of the volunteers. I asked for a sign (2, actually) to be put up in my yard, and asked how I could help. I start volunteering for Rod on Thursday, when work won't interfere.

Rod and one of the volunteers, Wade, came to my place and together the 3 of us put up the (big) signs in my yard--they're prominent and very visible to passersby. I have a lot of road frontage on my yard, at least by Winnipeg standards.

I'd encourage all of you, if you have some free time over the next month and a half, to help out wherever you can. My job with Rod will likely be putting up signs. That's fine. I'm just happy to be on the team.

Hidden Agenda

2005-12-06T10:35:00.000-06:00

Wanna know? Click the link for the hidden agenda. Limited time offer only.

Google bomb idea h/t to Robert Phillips.

I don't have any kids, but...

2005-12-06T09:51:00.000-06:00

The talk about the Liberals' plan for national communist daycare enrages me; what enrages me more is the sheep who support this disaster waiting to happen.

First off, the argument about parents having no choice but to put their child into daycare is well taken. But you know why they have no choice? Because they're overtaxed! A couple where one spouse is making $50000 and the other stays at home with the child, bringing in $0, pays more tax than a couple where both work, each bringing in $25000. This isn't likely meant to be discriminatory against parents who choose to stay at home with their kids, but it is.

The Conservative plan doesn't include as much money as the Liberal plan, and that's just fine by me. Because as many have already pointed out, this reeks of HRDC and Gun Registry. $10 billion over 10 years? Ask the government of Québec how their socialized daycare program is going compared to original budget estimates.

But further to the offer of $1200 a year (for children 6 and under--admittedly they could do better than that, but wait for the end of this paragraph), the Conservatives have another ace up their sleeve--not yet announced, but it will be--tax cuts which will facilitate parents who want to stay at home with their kids instead of having Jane Q. Daycare (sexist, I know, but the vast majority of daycare workers are female) raise the child.

But further, I have no problem with people wanting to put their children in daycare. That's their choice. I personally think that the better option is to have the child raised by Mom and Dad, but that doesn't make me want to stop others from sending their kids to daycare if they so desire: call me a libertarian. (Please!) ;)

I suppose what I'm getting at is this: the individual planks of the Conservatives' child care plan are small; however, fit them together with tax reform and income splitting, and the planked floor is much sturdier than the Liberals' ever will be. (And that's assuming the Liberals would even stick to their promises--remember the abolition of the GST?)

Tuesday musings

2005-12-06T09:37:00.000-06:00

I have a day off work and can actually afford the time to do some reading and nosing around.

Does anyone else think that Belinda's ramblings are ironic and silliness of the highest order? I mean, it's the Liberals who have advanced the cause of Québec separatism due to their own selfishness. And nobody's talking about the elephant in the room, which will come to stomp everyone if the Liberals are elected to power. Trust me. The sentiment in Alberta isn't from just a few rogues.

On the Liberal Party website, there's a really funny image button--one that's meant seriously, but as Warren points out, it's ironic. The image, in both English and French:

Heh.

Election platform

2005-12-05T15:12:00.000-06:00

The conservative platform is dominating the political news these days. The other parties are having a difficult time just keeping up and responding. My favourite one so far, the can't lose, guaranteed-to-make-the-Libs-cringe-and-squirm plank is the one about cutting the GST. It's brilliant. It capitalizes on the Christmas shopping we're all doing, on which we all pay 7%; it points out the Liberals' lie in 1993 to scrap the GST; and contrary to what some Lib pundits are saying, it's a tax cut for everyone, benefitting everyone.

The other planks I've seen so far don't surprise me, of course, because I've known about the hidden agenda ever since I got my secret decoder ring, but the message has been (grudgingly, it seems) accepted in the media. This campaign already has oodles more momentum than the one in 2004 did. Let's just hope they can keep it up for another 7 weeks. With the break at Christmas, of course. (Note to ultra-hyper-sensitive Liberals: I meant to say Christmas-Hanu-Kwanzaa-Festivus....ah screw it, "240 dollars".)

Since this campaign has started, Ottawa roommates Chuck and Monte have been on fire with great writing, personal insight, and an electronic jousting match that I want to see more of. Go check them out!

I'm waiting...

2005-12-04T19:45:00.000-06:00

I e-mailed my local conservative candidate, Rod Bruinooge, asking a) for campaign signs for my (hidden--like the agenda, ha ha) lawn and b) how I can help, seeing as how I work shiftwork and can sometimes help at unusual-for-ordinary-working-Joe times.

He hasn't gotten back to me yet.

I hope it's just because it's the weekend.

171-133

2005-11-28T18:45:00.000-06:00

What a beautiful set of numbers.

Bring on the election!!!!

Why I'm going to vote Conservative in the next election

2005-11-22T08:08:00.000-06:00

I've read their platform. I've talked about it, even.

But in today's Calgary Sun letters, Rick Plesnik puts it so succinctly:

"Let's see. If I vote for the Conservatives, they promise to reduce my personal income taxes, clean up government, go after those responsible for AdScam, and return power back to the provinces as set out in the Constitution. On the other hand, if I vote for the Liberals, they promise to give back about $200 of money they already taxed away from me, five years from now -- maybe. Gee, tough call!"

That was very well said, Rick. I don't think I could have done it better myself. :)

Scott Brison, you're going to win the asshat of the year award if you keep this up

2005-11-19T18:20:00.000-06:00

Scott Brison is showing the Liberals' election strategy cards a little early.

The statements he's making are just brutally mendacious (I love that word!) statements about the "scary" Conservatives. About how, if elected, the party will immediately kill all single mothers and eat their babies (okay, I'm being hyperbolic here). But we've heard this song and dance before, trying to scare the "cosmopolitan" vote to vote for the Liberals. What a sad tactic, come to think of it--having to scare someone into voting for you. Rather than making people believe you'd be the best for the job, you make them believe the others would be the worst for the job.

Want to know what the Conservatives would do if elected? Click here to see the dreaded hidden agenda. And nowhere does it mention anything about hot button issues such as abortion. (Which I think is a shame! We're the only "civilized" country in the world where it's legal to have an "abortion" up until the second the baby is born. Sad.)

Scott Brison's actions and words are telltale signs of a desperate, tired old guard. That, at least, makes me smile. :)

Reverse discrimination

2005-11-19T18:18:00.000-06:00

Okay, I already knew there was a stigma associated with being a stright white male. But this goes way too far. I mean, I'm all for inclusiveness and diversity, but hey, how about hiring the best people for the job?!

Asshats.

Sitting and waiting...

2005-11-16T00:53:00.000-06:00

Grumble silly me, hit the wrong button and lost my post. I hope I can remember it all.

First off, amen, brother!

I've been think about how Paul Martin and his Liberal cohorts (including the MSM) are so incredibly hypocritical and it makes my head spin. I'm talking about a Christmas election, and here's why.

If Paul Martin's Liberals were brought down tomorrow, a Christmas election wouldn't be the only possible outcome!!!!! The timing of the election, once it's certain one needs to be held, is determined by one person and one person only: Paul Martin. So for him to connivingly and mendaciously (a fancy word for "in a lying way") say that "if there's a Christmas election, the opposition is to blame, not us" is unreal. And even more mind-boggling is how the MSM eat this up.

Second, the Liberals are so seemingly against mentioning Christmas at all, most of the time, lest they offend people of some other religion. To make the statement, then, that a Christmas election would be bothersome is a direct about-face from their usual operations. How hypocritical. (And BTW I have many non-Christian friends and they don't give hoot one about whether someone says "Merry Christmas" to them--they know it's meant as a gesture of goodwill, so they take it as such. Crazy common sense people.)

Third, what's wrong with a Christmas election anyhow? It seems when you ask the Liberals, no time is good for an election. Personally, I'm not even going to be in Winnipeg at Christmas, but if an election were called for Christmas Day, I would either vote by proxy, vote by computer (if that's available), or, by God, fly out to Winnipeg for the day. Not voting because it's inconvenient is a direct slap in the face to every single soldier who gave his or her life for this country.

Stephen, please don't play any more games. Pull the plug and introduce a non-confidence motion now. I don't want the Liberals in my pocket anymore. Please. Drop the hammer. Take them out. I'll be there to support you.

Just do it now.

Ka-Blamo

2005-11-01T18:29:00.000-06:00

Sometimes Joel Johannesen just makes my sarcasm detector explode.

In a good way.

Gomery tidbits, just like everyone else

2005-11-01T17:04:00.000-06:00

Chrétien quotes:
"One small program in a very large government."
Damn right, bucko. It is a very large government. I just wonder if you meant to put it that way--almost making it so CTV couldn't make it not sound pejorative!

"I wanted the money for the program to be used for national unity."
Isn't it ironic, Jeanny boy, that the money you and your cronies stole will ostensibly have gone to the potential breakup Canada. Dumbass.

"Il était au courant comme j'étais au courant." Translation: "He knew as much and at the same time as I knew."
"He" is Paul Martin. Essentially Jeanny boy is saying that, contrary to his assertions, Paul Martin did know about the program, and early. In fact, Chrétien knew about the program early on--that is to say, at its inception. Logically, then, Paul Martin, according to Chrétien, knew about the sponsorship program at the beginning. My conclusion, then? Martin was/is both lying and incompetent.

Sadly, right now if the government is to fall (which I dearly hope it does), it'll be because of Smilin' Jack Layton. He holds the balance of votes to topple the Libs. Great.

Of course, even if the government does fall, will the sheep east of the Lakehead even care? Or will they vote for "the devil they know instead of the devil they don't"? If so, then I'm afraid western separation will become very possible. As well as Québec.

Please, Canada, get rid of them. I keep hearing that the Liberals have already paid dearly for this. HUH? Who are you kidding? They've gotten off with a slap on the wrist. But if I don't pay my taxes for a year (or a few), they'll be on me like a fat kid on a Smartie.

Speaking of the devil you know argument, how is that even remotely intelligent? How could anything be worse than the corrupt lying thieving asshats we have in now? HOW?

As a final thought, I just wonder: how will Sheila Fraser and John Gomery, the people who know this subject more intimately than anyone, vote?

My bet is it won't be for the big red corruption machine.

where's the anger?

2005-11-01T14:05:00.000-06:00

gomery's first report was released today. apparently paul martin is exonerated. how? if he was the finance minister during this, he was either lying or incompetent. either one doesn't paint a rosy picture for the liberals. or shouldn't.

but the most interesting thing of the day for me was question period. smilin' jack was irate. gilles duceppe was mad. ed broadbent stood up and smacked the liberals.

but the conservatives were calm.

now, i understand that the conservatives are in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" quandary. if we get mad, we're angry conservatives. if we stay calm, we have no passion. but this time, at least, i would like to haev seen stephen harper stand up, smack down his papers, and demand, in the booming voice i know he has, the resignation of paul martin and the immediate calling of an election.

that would have been sweet.

shaking my head...

2005-10-26T22:27:00.000-05:00

what he said.

i didn't blog about this, because it has been pretty crazy around the wc's household. but i was suckered in, too. hook, line, and sinker.

i'm not saying that i would have done better, but those who doggedly pursued this (pallister et al.) should know how.

very amateur, guys.

is canadian blood services run by bureacratic moonbats?

2005-10-24T17:34:00.000-05:00

i like to think of myself and most conservatives as having common sense. you know, the kind that's startling uncommon these days. here's an example.

when i turned 17, i became eligible to give blood. my mother had always given blood, and i saw it as not an option--just something i had to do. (had i been raised by a socialized daycare, would i have given blood? what do you think? but i digress.)

i gave blood more or less regularly, time and schedule permitting, until i moved to halifax in 2001.

then it happened.

i gave blood like normal, going to the clinic, sitting/laying in that dentist-chair-like chair, feeling the poke in the arm (i was always a righty, literally and figuratively...go figure), walking over to the counter to get my peach drink and cookies, and going home.

all was well.

until i got that letter in the mail.

"dear sir: (i'm paraphrasing here) when you gave blood last time, we did tests on it, as we always do. these tests came back positive for hepatitis (b or c, i can't remember). we did more accurate, more sensitive tests, and those determined that you do not, in fact, have hepatitis of any sort, nor do you have any other disease that would normally disallow you from donating blood. but since you tested positive, even though we later proved that test result to be erroneous, you may never give blood again."

i was seething.

put another way, you're saying that you proved that my blood is clean; therefore, i may never donate blood again.

apparently they are working on reversing this asshat decision, but i'm not holding my breath.

it's not like i'm trying to sink them. i think they do a valuable service--in fact, i think i'll go volunteer for them--i have a job (yes, lefties, i have a job!) that allows me days off and sometimes i have time to kill on said days off. but i'm trying to gently (???) apply pressure on them so that i, and thousands of other canadians, can give blood again.

clean blood. refused. what a country.

we (and north korea) lead the world!

2005-10-24T14:46:00.000-05:00

with deference to joel johannesen and a knowing, laughing, mocking nod to paul martin, i have to show you this.

i came upon (with a tip from nealenews) the home page for north korea (democratic republic of north korea, no less) and read the faq.

this silliness could almost completely come right out of the liberal party of canada's hatred of the united states (tm) propaganda. some select quotes:

"11. I want to know why North Korea has nuclear weapons. Why?

The DPRK has a nuclear deterrence as a life-insurance to protect the motherland. The US, who put the country inside the "Axis of Evil", and is threatening with a nuclear holocaust pre-emptive strike has created this situation and made this neccessary."

and then there's this goodie:

"17. I hear that North Koreans are very poor. Is this true?

By international standards, DPRK citizens enjoy a very high standard of living. In Socialist Korea, the state guarantees all citizens the right to quality healthcare, education, stipends for the disabled, retirement pensions and access to recreational facilities, as well as a wide array of other state-supported services. Indeed, DPRK citizens are guaranteed many provisions that are uncommon in many developed capitalist societies, which are home to real poverty. Unlike in many countries of the capitalist world, the DPRK is a state free of homelessness, unemployment, prostitution and starvation." (emphasis mine)

no anti-americanism here. but if you read closely, gee, i wonder whom they're talking about. or really, propagandizing about.

man, oh man, this is good. can you imagine pmpm blustering if he were to see this? he'd wind himself up into an absolute frenzy of leading. to wit: "no, we lead the world in freedom from homelessness, unemployment, prostitution, starvation, and all those other things those american capitalist bastards i hate have in droves there. but if we were to have prostitution, we'd legalize it because it's so, y'know, canadian."

ni-hi-hice!

2005-10-18T23:33:00.000-05:00

you know how they say men in uniform are hot?

how about these women in uniform?

rowr! :)

h/t blog quebecois.

if i had been drinking coffee...

2005-10-18T23:07:00.000-05:00

this article would have made me spit it out through my nose.

a couple of choice quotes:

"Conservatives tend to use other terms, starting with unprincipled, followed by reptilian analogies, and ending with angry spluttering noises. Beneath a Tory's denunciations, though, there's unmistakable professional admiration."

in other words, we're spitting, sputtering (well, i suppose we are, when we read tripe like this and are drinking coffee, but i digress...) wannabe-connivers. yes, john geddes, you nailed us. we want to be just like those overtaxing, pocket-lining liars currently in office and we admire them.

"Paul Martin's ... sabre-rattling ... looks ... more like a classic Liberal bid to strike a chord with voters who like a touch of anti-Americanism with their Canadian nationalism"

now i can get on board with that. plenty of canadians (and i'm sad to say it, most of them east of the lakehead) don't identify themselves as canadians. they identify themselves as not-american. and to me this is just sad. i have plenty of american friends. they're just the same as you and me. except they actually get to keep their money instead of ostensibly feeding it into liberal coffers.

"The old maxim that the party runs from the left and governs from the right is at the core of Clarkson's argument."

this is where i would have spit out coffee. paul martin governs from the right? is this guy on crack? of course he is--he's in toronto, and they're now giving out free crack kits and able to find them pretty much anywhere. unlimited abortions are a right of centre policy? same-sex marriage? communist health care? tax and spend to buy off the ndp? patronage appointments to the senate, supreme court, and governor general's office? socialized daycare? gun control? from the right? is this guy serious?

and i can't let this one go without comment:

"The Liberal bid to portray Harper's Conservatives as dangerous extremists only started to work, he argues, after the press bought into it."

after the press bought into it? it was the press who portrayed harper and the conservatives as scary extremists. it just took longer than usual for anyone to hear the constant chirping from the cbc.

i suppose an article like this is good for one thing: to keep me laughing.

h/t to neale news.

stolen thunder

2005-10-11T11:59:00.000-05:00

i was so busy this weekend, i couldn't post. not that i've been posting a lot recently, but that's all beside the point.

today m. k. braaten stole my thunder--thought the same thing as i did, that is, that it's extremely curious how pm dithers was so quick (relatively speaking) to get going on aid to the devastating earthquake in pakistan. it's just so stark, especially when considering how long it took him to do anything about the hurricane katrina disaster.

and he wonders why president bush doesn't answer his phone calls.

air travel costs

2005-10-07T02:21:00.000-05:00

i got pointed toward a blog today that's very interesting, in a couple of ways.

here's the story of the guy. in a nutshell, he's flying around north america on an unlimited travel pass, his goal to accumulate enough travel reward miles for the equivalent of 10 return business-class trips between vancouver and australia.

his blog is here.

the main point: he pays $7000 and in return he gets unlimited air canada travel across north america for two months.

check here to see how much our liberal lords and masters pay per flight. more than this guy paid for a month's worth of unlimited travel.

so my question is this: if members of parliament are going to travel more than once in a given month within north america (which many do), instead of a travel allowance, (if this offer is repeated), why not make them take on this plan? and if they want to slink off to miami for the weekend, hey, it's a perk of the job.

in the house today

2005-10-06T14:13:00.000-05:00

i was just watching question period and a couple of things prompted me to write.

first, annie get your guns pulled a no-no in the house, calling the conservatives' assertion that the gun registry has cost $2 billion a lie.

the speaker admonished her right away and told her he was sure she would want to withdraw the comment.

when annie withdrew the comment, the look on her face was a smirk. almost a smile, one might say. the kind of smirk that says "you forced me to apologize but i don't really mean it", a smirk that, to me, displays the utter contempt the liberals have for canadians and propriety and what is right.

then, something else occurred to me. bill graham was being hammered on contracts for military aircraft. for a few months now, i've been looking at him, wondering who it was he reminded me of. and then it occurred to me.

here's bill and who he reminds me of.

n'est-ce pas?

the surplus rebate offered

2005-10-06T09:21:00.000-05:00

people are going to try drawing comparisons between ralph klein's energy rebate and paul martin's "if you elect me you'll get a" surplus rebate.

there is a big difference. ralph isn't seeking re-election. paul is.

do the math.

Help the CTF

2005-09-28T15:57:00.000-05:00

with dingwall having resigned, it's time we spotted more waste. do so by gleaning the expense report site. for more details check out the CTF's call to help.

my personal contribution to this cause was made a couple of days ago.

my finding, which I emailed to david maclean:

David, I did some digging while at work last night and I came up with this one, which irked me.

Stephane Dion, Minister of the Environment.

"Atlantic tour". Feb 18-19, 2005.

link

Flight to Halifax and back (I can only assume from Ottawa): $4218.86.

I did a search of the **most expensive** short-notice return flight from Ottawa to Halifax on Air Monopoly, and the price I came up with was, after taxes, $1882.23.

There's something seriously wrong there.

First off, he doesn't **have** to fly executive class. That's just extravagant, especially with my tax dollars. I just did a quick search on Tango, and I came up with, get this:

$298.63.

Ludicrous.

I was looking around and found a few examples like this, but this was the most obscene.

A second poking around found Ujjal Dosanjh going to India and Sri Lanka after the tsunami. Taking along a gaggle of assistants, one of the trips cost us (just for Ujjal) $6198.46 for airfare, and add-ons brought it up to over $7500. "Ministerial travel" is what this one is called.

link

He also took along Robert Fry, at a cost of over $8000

link

and Ken Polk, for over $12000

link

They then repeated the trip, but this time to **China** and India.

Ujjal, over $12000

link

Robert Fry, over $7000

link

Joseph Li, over $6500

link

Jonathan Moser, $5000

link

Ken Polk, nearly $6500

link

and Ramesh Singal, over $10500

link

Total this up and for 2 trips for these people we paid about $75000.

This is disgusting.

Dave, Winnipeg

23:5 meme

2005-09-24T16:19:00.000-05:00

rules:
1. go into your archive.
2. find your 23rd post (or closest to it).
3. find the 5th sentence (or closest to it).
4. post the text of the sentence in your blog along with these instructions.

why are people all of a sudden mobilized to action for a few bucks, when right in front of their noses, for the last 13 years, theft of a much larger proportion has been going on?

heh.