What she did was incredibly stupid. But did she strangle a protester in front of TV cameras? Did she get arrested for drunk driving? Did she have numerous sexual relationships lying to her spouse?
What she did do was have a horrendous hissy fit while trying to get on an Air Canada jet - something about 90% have probably had fantasies of doing while dealing with that less than high quality airline/monopoly. I have a family member that once tore up and threw a voucher at an Air Canada attendants face due to the-ahum-extremely poor quality of service. I think the thing most people have problems with is the sense of entitlement in her rant. It's the I'm above the little guy mentality.
Given even that, can you really say that the character flaws she exhibited are worse than those above? She apologized and I think it's reasonable for her to stick this one through.
Now if she had assaulted an member of the Air Canada staff that would be something.
The Not-So-Democratic BQ
The Bloc's reaction to repelling the gun registry:
If all opposition members voted together, those parties would have enough votes to defeat the measure. But the Liberals and NDP allowed a free vote on the issue last fall, and enough of them voted with the Tories to abolish the registry.The Bloc's reaction to Proroguing parliament which does not force a single MP to vote their way:
(...)
All Bloc Québécois MPs voted against the bill. That party is now urging NDP Leader Jack Layton and Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff to order their troops to join them in blocking the Tories.
Duceppe accused Harper of trampling democratic principle with his ruthless partisanship.Democratic Principle seems only to apply when the Bloc decides it applies.
"His attitude is that if you're not for me you're an enemy, and if you're an enemy you're a Taliban."
Cut Healthcare
Canadians are concerned that healthcare cuts are coming. Here's the thing - it's completely rational for them to be worried about exactly that. Healthcare should be cut. It's the most obvious and effective way for the government to reduce spending - which is why the Liberals did it in the 90s.
It isn't hard to justify just look at the following pie graph of federal expenses:
Notice anything in particular. One of the biggest chunks of the federal budget pie is transfers to governments which includes healthcare.
If you had to cut somewhere, wouldn't you cut the biggest parts of the pie? I would be more than happy if they privatized the CBC, but for every 1% we attempt to cut from crown corporations, a similar 1% cut in transfers would have yielded 5 times the results.
If we were really interested in the most effective way to cut federal spending healtcare would have to be on the table. Could you live with 5% longer wait times? If it takes 4 weeks to get an MRI today, would most Canadians even notice it if it took an extra day longer to get it? Now switch it around and think about the logistics of trying to make cuts at the CBC...
It isn't hard to justify just look at the following pie graph of federal expenses:
Notice anything in particular. One of the biggest chunks of the federal budget pie is transfers to governments which includes healthcare.
If you had to cut somewhere, wouldn't you cut the biggest parts of the pie? I would be more than happy if they privatized the CBC, but for every 1% we attempt to cut from crown corporations, a similar 1% cut in transfers would have yielded 5 times the results.
If we were really interested in the most effective way to cut federal spending healtcare would have to be on the table. Could you live with 5% longer wait times? If it takes 4 weeks to get an MRI today, would most Canadians even notice it if it took an extra day longer to get it? Now switch it around and think about the logistics of trying to make cuts at the CBC...
A Tax Is A Tax
Wow. The stupidity in this is amazing:
It's the equivalent of saying that if you eat a thousand timbits over the next five years, you couldn't find one timbit to give up? Especially when you promised not take more timbits from someone else?
I refuse to believe that John Baird, or for that matter most of the Federal Tory caucus does not understand how ridiculous this all is. Either this is just a glaring blunder on the part of the federal Tories, or, and more likely, something else is going on that isn't being reported in this story.
These new fees are supposed to support 1.5 billion of security costs (I'm assuming based on this article) over the next five years. Over the next five years the federal government will spend well over a trillion dollars.
Ottawa is slapping higher security fees on airline travellers a week before the 2010 federal budget – yet insists Conservatives are staying true to their pledge not to raise taxes.
(...)
The government describes the new charges as “user fees,” rather than taxes. Some current government members once attacked the very item as an “air tax” while in opposition, but Mr. Baird dismissed such language Thursday.
It's the equivalent of saying that if you eat a thousand timbits over the next five years, you couldn't find one timbit to give up? Especially when you promised not take more timbits from someone else?
I refuse to believe that John Baird, or for that matter most of the Federal Tory caucus does not understand how ridiculous this all is. Either this is just a glaring blunder on the part of the federal Tories, or, and more likely, something else is going on that isn't being reported in this story.
Olympic Condom Shortage
I don't know whether to laugh or cry:
Health officials in Vancouver have already provided 100,000 free condoms to the roughly 7,000 ahtletes and officials at the Games. That's about 14 condoms per person. But as of Wednesday, those supplies started running dangerously low.I bet taxpayers are paying for all these "free" condoms too. Whatever happened to the government staying out of the bedrooms of the nation?
Danny Millions and the travesty of Socialized Medicine
The High Priest of Newfoundland's latest and greatest problem is that the surgery he underwent in the US was not medically necessary as he suggested. In reality the particular surgery he had was more cosmetic than it was medically necessary. The travesty of this issue is that Danny Millions truly doesn't understand the fuss:
Danny once mocked Stephen Harper - pushing the Liberal attack that he had a hidden agenda. This included a hidden agenda to push private health care in Canada. Maybe the true hidden agenda is that Danny wants the best care for himself only - and the rest of can be damned as far as he's concerned.
"This was my heart, my choice and my health," the Newfoundland and Labrador premier said late Monday from his condominium in Sarasota, Fla. "I did not sign away my right to get the best possible health care for myself when I entered politics."That's the whole point. We do have a right to the best possible health care. The problem is that this principle doesn't seem to apply when it comes to the healthcare system that we use everyday. Danny Millions, based on his beliefs, should be the first person to push for the change we so desperately need in Healthcare: CHOICE.
Danny once mocked Stephen Harper - pushing the Liberal attack that he had a hidden agenda. This included a hidden agenda to push private health care in Canada. Maybe the true hidden agenda is that Danny wants the best care for himself only - and the rest of can be damned as far as he's concerned.
Five Reasons Public Servant Pensions Should be Reduced
Talk is abound that civil service pensions are about to be reduced by the federal government in the coming spend thrift budget. Public Service Unions are crying bloody murder. The government, in a fiscal nightmare of partially its own creation, has NO other choice. There are five reasons I can think of that this is the right move, but I’m sure there are more.
1. We no longer have the money and we can’t cut anywhere else. The federal government has made it clear that it will not cut transfers to provinces, subsidies, and I doubt they will touch the defence budget. This means that reducing the operating expenses of the government is the only way out of a spiral of deficits and debts. Canadians no doubt will not tolerate cuts to healthcare our beloved socialist welfare state – reducing the cost of the public service is the last resort available to Ottawa.
2. Paying Public Servants more than the Private Sector is waste. If we want talented, bright, and experienced professionals to be attracted and stay in the public service we should offer salaries and benefits to them comparable to the private sector – NOT MORE. It’s just insanity to pay a group of professionals significantly more than the free market going rate. That is a needless waste of taxpayers money.
3. There’s a reason public servants retire earlier. According to a 2007 study, federal public servants retire earlier. No kidding. Who can blame them? If the pension was great enough why work longer? And hence the other problem this introduces for the federal government. A productivity gap emerges with how we are managing our public service. Public servants don’t work as long at the end of their career – this is the stage that is most generally the most beneficial for the government. In effect, the government is creating incentives for experienced high value workers to leave before they should.
4. Dropping Public Servant pensions will put pressure on reducing MP pensions. Public Servants aren’t the golden goose of pensions – Members of Parliament have those. The unions are right to point out that MPs should be willing to cut their own pensions before they go after theirs. Truly, I look forward to them pointing that out every time. Targeting public service pensions will put the needed pressure to reduce MP pensions that run in the +$100k range. Shouldn’t MPs have the wherewithal to secure their own retirements independently like millions of other Canadians? The truth is that pushing on this public service pension front, will also push MPs.
5. Lower Pensions mean higher salaries. I have to tell you that one of my greatest frustrations being a member of the modern day work force is the concept that many have that benefits should trump salaries. Employer after employer will use increases in benefits to justify lower salary increases. Dropping pensions will free up resources no doubt that should go to slaying deficits. But I would argue that it also gives future flexibility to increase the salaries of top performers in the public service who have gone unrecognized.
1. We no longer have the money and we can’t cut anywhere else. The federal government has made it clear that it will not cut transfers to provinces, subsidies, and I doubt they will touch the defence budget. This means that reducing the operating expenses of the government is the only way out of a spiral of deficits and debts. Canadians no doubt will not tolerate cuts to healthcare our beloved socialist welfare state – reducing the cost of the public service is the last resort available to Ottawa.
2. Paying Public Servants more than the Private Sector is waste. If we want talented, bright, and experienced professionals to be attracted and stay in the public service we should offer salaries and benefits to them comparable to the private sector – NOT MORE. It’s just insanity to pay a group of professionals significantly more than the free market going rate. That is a needless waste of taxpayers money.
3. There’s a reason public servants retire earlier. According to a 2007 study, federal public servants retire earlier. No kidding. Who can blame them? If the pension was great enough why work longer? And hence the other problem this introduces for the federal government. A productivity gap emerges with how we are managing our public service. Public servants don’t work as long at the end of their career – this is the stage that is most generally the most beneficial for the government. In effect, the government is creating incentives for experienced high value workers to leave before they should.
4. Dropping Public Servant pensions will put pressure on reducing MP pensions. Public Servants aren’t the golden goose of pensions – Members of Parliament have those. The unions are right to point out that MPs should be willing to cut their own pensions before they go after theirs. Truly, I look forward to them pointing that out every time. Targeting public service pensions will put the needed pressure to reduce MP pensions that run in the +$100k range. Shouldn’t MPs have the wherewithal to secure their own retirements independently like millions of other Canadians? The truth is that pushing on this public service pension front, will also push MPs.
5. Lower Pensions mean higher salaries. I have to tell you that one of my greatest frustrations being a member of the modern day work force is the concept that many have that benefits should trump salaries. Employer after employer will use increases in benefits to justify lower salary increases. Dropping pensions will free up resources no doubt that should go to slaying deficits. But I would argue that it also gives future flexibility to increase the salaries of top performers in the public service who have gone unrecognized.
David Miller The Conservative?
Ok maybe that title is a little premature. But the good Mayor of Toronto's recent comments regarding a property tax hike is telling: "You can't have a great city for free.. This budget is more than a balance sheet." In a nutshell There Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch (TANSTAAFL). That burst of insight coming from a member of the Toronto Yuppie elite is not only amazing but could be the first sign of a conversion of heart for the socialist mayor.
I once knew a civil servant who had spend decades in government. As a full disclosure here he did have Conservative views, although I can't be sure that he always did. One day he made a comment to me I will never forget: "The problem with healthcare is everyone figures it's free..."
You see my friend after all his years in government had come to the conclusion that the single most destructive thing that having government deliver as service will do is that the connection between individual responsibility and individual initiative is lost. Healthcare, to most Canadians is free. But nothing could be further from the truth. We pay for it in our taxes. It's the equivalent of thousands of dollars each year in our taxes.
But that doesn't stop us from treating it as if it were free. Because for us, it makes no different how much we abuse the system we will always pay the same taxes. It's like apartments that include utilities in rent. As a tenant in a rental I never worry about leaving a light on, or using too much water because to me it makes no difference. It's the Landlord's responsibility to worry about how much utilities I use. Simmilarly it's the government's responsibility to worry about the services it delivers - and believe it or not government's don't charge problem tenants more money if they need to because then it would be acting like a business instead of the romantic enlightened vehicle of modern day socialism.
That's why we have to be so careful in having the government provide a service that someone else can provide just as well.
David Miller's admission makes me smile. He's well on his way to coming to the conclusion that it's best that government do the least.
I once knew a civil servant who had spend decades in government. As a full disclosure here he did have Conservative views, although I can't be sure that he always did. One day he made a comment to me I will never forget: "The problem with healthcare is everyone figures it's free..."
You see my friend after all his years in government had come to the conclusion that the single most destructive thing that having government deliver as service will do is that the connection between individual responsibility and individual initiative is lost. Healthcare, to most Canadians is free. But nothing could be further from the truth. We pay for it in our taxes. It's the equivalent of thousands of dollars each year in our taxes.
But that doesn't stop us from treating it as if it were free. Because for us, it makes no different how much we abuse the system we will always pay the same taxes. It's like apartments that include utilities in rent. As a tenant in a rental I never worry about leaving a light on, or using too much water because to me it makes no difference. It's the Landlord's responsibility to worry about how much utilities I use. Simmilarly it's the government's responsibility to worry about the services it delivers - and believe it or not government's don't charge problem tenants more money if they need to because then it would be acting like a business instead of the romantic enlightened vehicle of modern day socialism.
That's why we have to be so careful in having the government provide a service that someone else can provide just as well.
David Miller's admission makes me smile. He's well on his way to coming to the conclusion that it's best that government do the least.
Tax Lovers
TD, the bank of extravagant service fees, has a CEO that is very fond of Tax increases. Apparently he is also very fond of making donations to the Liberal Party of Canada. After making such dastardly Liberal comments professing his unholy love with taxes, he was lambasted by the Tories in a press release. This has prompted a hurt Iggy Puff to rush in to defend his poor old bank exec. I'm not going to comment on the suitability of a sitting Prime Minister to criticize a CEO staking such a political stand, but I will say this: raising taxes has to among the dumbest ideas I can think of right now.
Remember the recession anyone?
Canada, and most of Western Civilization has just started to creep out of the death claws of the infamous greatest downturn "since the great depression." In the middle of all this we want to hit consumers with more of a tax burden?
This is a recipe for a disaster. Just as consumer confidence is rebounding the prevailing mood among bankers is "hey let's increase taxes?" Apparently this tactic seems to work in the magical fairy fairy land of banking executives, but out in real life if you take money away from people they will tend not to spend as much. If people aren't spending, businesses won't be hiring.
That recipe isn't exactly an agenda for a growing economy - it is a recipe for a real downturn GREATER than the Great Depression.
Throw Competitiveness out the door.
I just don't understand how in the hell anyone with as much economic education as the head of a major Canadian bank would suggest in a country like Canada that taxes be raised. Canada's competitiveness has long been hindered by a tax regime that effectively encourages the brightest and best to go elsewhere.
Whether it's doctors, engineers, or anyone that wants to succeed it's become increasingly difficult to do so here in the Great White North. Lower not higher taxes is what we need.
What ever happened to reducing spending?
The most amazing part of this whole debate is the complete negation of any alternatives over raising taxes to deal with the deficit. The federal government has well over doubled in size since the 1960's when adjusted for inflation and population growth. We have a national government that is increasingly getting more and more involved in our daily lives in areas it doesn't need to be.
Why not suggest that the federal government stop spending like a drunken sailor? What about not spending money on every infrastructure project under the sun as part an insane stimulus package? Why not do what every other Canadian out there has had to do in this recession - cut back?
Raising taxes would be just about as insane a suggestion right now as would be raising interest rates. The last thing the economy needs is a bad decision to be made right now. And what's worse, raising taxes has not shown to be an effective strategy to eliminate deficits. Let's not forget that the Tories introduced the GST to eliminate the deficit that existed years ago. It took a Liberal government cutting spending that actually brought the government into the black.
Remember the recession anyone?
Canada, and most of Western Civilization has just started to creep out of the death claws of the infamous greatest downturn "since the great depression." In the middle of all this we want to hit consumers with more of a tax burden?
This is a recipe for a disaster. Just as consumer confidence is rebounding the prevailing mood among bankers is "hey let's increase taxes?" Apparently this tactic seems to work in the magical fairy fairy land of banking executives, but out in real life if you take money away from people they will tend not to spend as much. If people aren't spending, businesses won't be hiring.
That recipe isn't exactly an agenda for a growing economy - it is a recipe for a real downturn GREATER than the Great Depression.
Throw Competitiveness out the door.
I just don't understand how in the hell anyone with as much economic education as the head of a major Canadian bank would suggest in a country like Canada that taxes be raised. Canada's competitiveness has long been hindered by a tax regime that effectively encourages the brightest and best to go elsewhere.
Whether it's doctors, engineers, or anyone that wants to succeed it's become increasingly difficult to do so here in the Great White North. Lower not higher taxes is what we need.
What ever happened to reducing spending?
The most amazing part of this whole debate is the complete negation of any alternatives over raising taxes to deal with the deficit. The federal government has well over doubled in size since the 1960's when adjusted for inflation and population growth. We have a national government that is increasingly getting more and more involved in our daily lives in areas it doesn't need to be.
Why not suggest that the federal government stop spending like a drunken sailor? What about not spending money on every infrastructure project under the sun as part an insane stimulus package? Why not do what every other Canadian out there has had to do in this recession - cut back?
Raising taxes would be just about as insane a suggestion right now as would be raising interest rates. The last thing the economy needs is a bad decision to be made right now. And what's worse, raising taxes has not shown to be an effective strategy to eliminate deficits. Let's not forget that the Tories introduced the GST to eliminate the deficit that existed years ago. It took a Liberal government cutting spending that actually brought the government into the black.
The Trouble In Calgary West
Rob Anders's troubles in Calgary West are being framed as a simple case of the horrible authoritarians in Harper's Conservative party managing from the top down. The opinions of the grassroots, we are told, are being ignored. Harper, we are told, once again is a hypocrite. Although I believe the Harper Tories have lost their way when it comes to some things I find myself being very suspicious of the characterization of this story by the media.
I trust Rob Anders. I've met him, talked to him, and got some pretty frank admissions from him in private that have led me to trust him. To the point that I am opt to believe Anders first before any allegation. If Rob Anders claims that Liberals have taken over his Board to oust him - I'm inclined to believe him.
Sure enough a quick google search on one"victim", Kennedy-Glans, reveals the most interesting alternative story courtesy of Ezra Levant written one year ago.
Just for the sake of some quick searches I decided to look up Dan Morrison the former President of the Calgary West EDA and the apparent leader of the Anti-Anders Board members in the Canadian Elections Database to see if I could find a contribution history.
Only two entries could be found for the year 2000. One was for a "D. Morrison" who contributed $315 to the Liberal Party of Canada. Another was for a "Dan Morrison" who contributed $300 to the New Democratic Party of Canada. Sounds like a real committed Conservative to me.
Now there may be plenty of Dan Morrison's out there. Yet this is still evidence that is supportive of Mr Anders claim that Liberal operatives have taken over his EDA.
With no clear list of which board members have resigned, I can't search for contribution histories on these other "victims" but somehow I doubt I would find much different results.
The only people that know for sure are the former board members of the Calgary West EDA, Rob Anders, and the CPC National Council. Though If I had to stake a bet on who's telling the truth it would be Anders.
I trust Rob Anders. I've met him, talked to him, and got some pretty frank admissions from him in private that have led me to trust him. To the point that I am opt to believe Anders first before any allegation. If Rob Anders claims that Liberals have taken over his Board to oust him - I'm inclined to believe him.
Sure enough a quick google search on one"victim", Kennedy-Glans, reveals the most interesting alternative story courtesy of Ezra Levant written one year ago.
Just for the sake of some quick searches I decided to look up Dan Morrison the former President of the Calgary West EDA and the apparent leader of the Anti-Anders Board members in the Canadian Elections Database to see if I could find a contribution history.
Only two entries could be found for the year 2000. One was for a "D. Morrison" who contributed $315 to the Liberal Party of Canada. Another was for a "Dan Morrison" who contributed $300 to the New Democratic Party of Canada. Sounds like a real committed Conservative to me.
Now there may be plenty of Dan Morrison's out there. Yet this is still evidence that is supportive of Mr Anders claim that Liberal operatives have taken over his EDA.
With no clear list of which board members have resigned, I can't search for contribution histories on these other "victims" but somehow I doubt I would find much different results.
The only people that know for sure are the former board members of the Calgary West EDA, Rob Anders, and the CPC National Council. Though If I had to stake a bet on who's telling the truth it would be Anders.
Skeletons
Miller's backing of Giambrone is most likely welcome news to the embattled TTC chair. Unfortunately it doesn't repair the damage that has been done. At this point Giambrone's sole concern is no doubt to salvage whatever he can from his personal and public life. Politics is a rough a life. Everyone has skeletons. It doesn't matter who you are. There are things we do everyday, most of which are not as immoral as what Giambrone did, that would still cause a media firestorm if anyone remembered the day we ran for public office.
George Bush II understood that all to well. Upon entering the arena of Presidential politics he made a public mea culpa for sins of the past that he did not elaborate on. It was a once and for all catch all apology indicating that he knew he had made mistakes in his past but he had learned from them. Once some of those skeletons started coming out about his drinking history during his campaign, the stories were short lived. The issue had already been dealt with.
Looking at Giambrone I think even he would admit that doing something similar would have been the wise choice to make. Secrets have a habit of coming to light eventually, given enough time. He would have been far better off to disclose his history of previous problems without going into details before his campaign was even out of the gate.
George Bush II understood that all to well. Upon entering the arena of Presidential politics he made a public mea culpa for sins of the past that he did not elaborate on. It was a once and for all catch all apology indicating that he knew he had made mistakes in his past but he had learned from them. Once some of those skeletons started coming out about his drinking history during his campaign, the stories were short lived. The issue had already been dealt with.
Looking at Giambrone I think even he would admit that doing something similar would have been the wise choice to make. Secrets have a habit of coming to light eventually, given enough time. He would have been far better off to disclose his history of previous problems without going into details before his campaign was even out of the gate.
Captain Condom
Wow : "The public health unit in London, Ont., is using comic-book-themed superheroes and a villain named the evil Sperminator to teach teens about safe sex."
The evil villain is a big dual handed Penis.... I was expecting a Wacko Abstinence promoting Christian character to play a doofus evil sidekick - but maybe they figured THAT was going to far.
The evil villain is a big dual handed Penis.... I was expecting a Wacko Abstinence promoting Christian character to play a doofus evil sidekick - but maybe they figured THAT was going to far.
Iggy's Abortion Woes
Iggy Puff's latest brilliant idea is to encourage abortions all across the world all in the name of improving women's health worldwide. Even as I write that I have to mentally sort out the concept. "More babies killed by ripping them from mother's fertile womb equals better womens health?" Or better still "More babies killed equals less child death rates?..." Holy Moly I think my brain just exploded!
If it's really about choice, let's make it about choice.
You know, once upon a time, the abortion issue was all about choice. We were told by the Brainy Harvard Professor Class out there that "it's a woman's body, it's woman's choice."
Great idea - what perchance ever happened to it? While the Brainy Harvard Professor Class try to justify their selective amnesia let's admit facts: choice is a thing of the past. There is no choice. There is only promotion. The word "Pro-Choice" is just a moniker now - Now their is no choice. Reproductive health can only be promoted by promoting abortion's for all. It's not a woman's choice. There's something wrong now if you choose something different.
I say if it's supposed to be about choice then let's make it about choice. Let women chose by not supporting either side.
Meddling in other Countries business?... Colonialism under any other name.
What about those countries that don't believe in Abortion you might ask? Iggy got asked that question. His response: “I respect the position of other countries but all I can talk for is what Canada ought to do..."
Let me translate for those of you who don't speak Brainy Harvard: "Not my problem."
I'm sure that those "other", less enlightened, base, and stupid countries that don't believe in the enlightened philosophies of the west will take Iggy Puff's words warmly.
Like a slap in the face.
Iggy's disrespect for anyone that disagrees with him goes one step further with this measure because it's not just the barbarians in the developing world that Iggy and the Liberal Party hate - it's also it's people like me.
Where is my choice in all this? Apparently I'm considered an anomaly to be disregarded. And I'm sure that some of the initiatives that Iggy Puff would like us to support would include somehow some of my tax money going to support his cause. It's effectively like they're reaching into your wallet, against your express will, and throwing it against a contentious issue you don't agree with.
Abandoning the center.
It's not about women dying in back alleys and it's not about "reproductive rights." Iggy's proved it by not respecting the choice of people not to have abortions.
It's about preventing "unwanted babies." It's about spreading pro-abortion propaganda. It's about using government resources to change opinions. It's about driving up abortions.
Which is amazing because I was under the impression that there was a sizable chunk of liberal people, Bill Clinton included, that were fans of legalized abortion believing that abortion laws only increase the incidence of abortion in the first place.
This opens up a unique opportunity for Stephen Harper believe it or not in this debate. Iggy Puff, in all his intelligence, has abandoned the center in the abortion debate. That leaves Harper to move in to fill the void.
And what's great about this, is that all Harper has to do seize the moment is to say and do nothing.
If it's really about choice, let's make it about choice.
You know, once upon a time, the abortion issue was all about choice. We were told by the Brainy Harvard Professor Class out there that "it's a woman's body, it's woman's choice."
Great idea - what perchance ever happened to it? While the Brainy Harvard Professor Class try to justify their selective amnesia let's admit facts: choice is a thing of the past. There is no choice. There is only promotion. The word "Pro-Choice" is just a moniker now - Now their is no choice. Reproductive health can only be promoted by promoting abortion's for all. It's not a woman's choice. There's something wrong now if you choose something different.
I say if it's supposed to be about choice then let's make it about choice. Let women chose by not supporting either side.
Meddling in other Countries business?... Colonialism under any other name.
What about those countries that don't believe in Abortion you might ask? Iggy got asked that question. His response: “I respect the position of other countries but all I can talk for is what Canada ought to do..."
Let me translate for those of you who don't speak Brainy Harvard: "Not my problem."
I'm sure that those "other", less enlightened, base, and stupid countries that don't believe in the enlightened philosophies of the west will take Iggy Puff's words warmly.
Like a slap in the face.
Iggy's disrespect for anyone that disagrees with him goes one step further with this measure because it's not just the barbarians in the developing world that Iggy and the Liberal Party hate - it's also it's people like me.
Where is my choice in all this? Apparently I'm considered an anomaly to be disregarded. And I'm sure that some of the initiatives that Iggy Puff would like us to support would include somehow some of my tax money going to support his cause. It's effectively like they're reaching into your wallet, against your express will, and throwing it against a contentious issue you don't agree with.
Abandoning the center.
It's not about women dying in back alleys and it's not about "reproductive rights." Iggy's proved it by not respecting the choice of people not to have abortions.
It's about preventing "unwanted babies." It's about spreading pro-abortion propaganda. It's about using government resources to change opinions. It's about driving up abortions.
Which is amazing because I was under the impression that there was a sizable chunk of liberal people, Bill Clinton included, that were fans of legalized abortion believing that abortion laws only increase the incidence of abortion in the first place.
This opens up a unique opportunity for Stephen Harper believe it or not in this debate. Iggy Puff, in all his intelligence, has abandoned the center in the abortion debate. That leaves Harper to move in to fill the void.
And what's great about this, is that all Harper has to do seize the moment is to say and do nothing.
The Trouble With Climate Man
Charest - Becoming Canuckland's official Climate Superhero - does not seem to want to stop driving up the Ottawa-Quebec divide on Climate Change. Apparently tying our emissions targets to those of the US doesn't exactly cut it for the Supreme Chancellor of La Belle Province. The trouble is he's dead wrong on this file for more than one reason.
No one cares
Literally. No one cares about emission targets. If you go up to average Joe Blow on the street corner in Barrie the chances of him complaining about 17 % below 2005 emission reduction targets versus 6% below 1990 levels are pretty low. Really I'm willing to bet money on it. What Canadians that do care about climate change really care about is reducing emissions. Publishing a piece of paper and putting a number on it does not make emissions amazingly reduce. Implementation is what actually matters. And quite frankly I don't think any of these targets are realistic, or practical so in the end I don't think it'll matter. But don't tell that to the Climate Man - emission targets matter!
Even Quebec hasn't met its targets.
Believe it or not even Canada's own Climate Superhero's province has not manage to met its aggressive emission targets. It was always said that the only time a jurisdiction in the world had shown in recent history a reduction of carbon emissions was in Russian during the economic crisis that followed the collapse of communism. Economies produce emissions. The more an economy grows, the more people are working. The more people are working, the more they are using their cars and burning. More companies are churning out products too as the economy grows. The more companies are churning out products the more electric they're using and therefore the more fossil fuels are being used to generate that electricity. I just can't understand how some people think by a magical fantasy carbon emissions are somehow going to drop.
I think Canada's Climate Man needs to get over himself.
No one cares
Literally. No one cares about emission targets. If you go up to average Joe Blow on the street corner in Barrie the chances of him complaining about 17 % below 2005 emission reduction targets versus 6% below 1990 levels are pretty low. Really I'm willing to bet money on it. What Canadians that do care about climate change really care about is reducing emissions. Publishing a piece of paper and putting a number on it does not make emissions amazingly reduce. Implementation is what actually matters. And quite frankly I don't think any of these targets are realistic, or practical so in the end I don't think it'll matter. But don't tell that to the Climate Man - emission targets matter!
Even Quebec hasn't met its targets.
Believe it or not even Canada's own Climate Superhero's province has not manage to met its aggressive emission targets. It was always said that the only time a jurisdiction in the world had shown in recent history a reduction of carbon emissions was in Russian during the economic crisis that followed the collapse of communism. Economies produce emissions. The more an economy grows, the more people are working. The more people are working, the more they are using their cars and burning. More companies are churning out products too as the economy grows. The more companies are churning out products the more electric they're using and therefore the more fossil fuels are being used to generate that electricity. I just can't understand how some people think by a magical fantasy carbon emissions are somehow going to drop.
I think Canada's Climate Man needs to get over himself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)