tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-95782242024-03-07T14:10:36.798-05:00BACK OFF GOVERNMENT!Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1214125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9578224.post-74273221713616312622013-12-31T08:34:00.000-05:002013-12-31T08:39:31.385-05:00Why Democrats Will Keep Wining In The United States<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Republicans-vs-Democrats.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /><img border="0" src="http://www.addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Republicans-vs-Democrats.jpg" /></a></div>
<span style="font-size: x-large;">W</span>atching the Obamacare roll-out has been so much fun. Seeing big government fail on a such a wide and wast platform sends tingles up my spine. Obama has discovered that Government is large, complicated, and slow to innovate. Further he's uncovered the amazing revelation that if you like your health care plan, Obama has absolutely no control over whether an Insurance company will cancel your plan - because (surprise, surprise neither he, the government nor the Democratic Party is a god. "Private Sector Velocity" is the barometer of success almost suddenly. Whatever happened to "If you've got a business, you didn't built that?" I thought Government was central source of all that good wholesome middle-class generating prosperity Obama is so fond for?<br />
<br />
Apparently Obama has undergone some "education" of his own.<br />
<br />
Yet all the political euphoria of watching the great Socialist of the 21st Century crumble in flames, did not erase the ever present thought in the very back of my mind that the essential conditions that lead to Obama being elected in the first place have not ended, and there are more reasons to believe that we will see a Democratic-Liberal America for the foreseeable future.<br />
<br />
<b>1) The Republicans Remain Divided. The Democrats United.<br />
</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Despite the disaster, the Democratic Party has never seem more united. The President, Harry Reid, and about ever Democrat standing has towed the line - No turning back. Sure there have been some wranglings from minor players, but there has been nothing coming close to the very internecine warfare that repletes the Republican Party nowadays. The very VERY public spats, the inability to agree on any shutdown or debt-ceiling strategy whatsoever speaks volumes about who the stronger party is. The Republicans have yet to decide whether Libertarians even have a place in their party. The Tea Party remains an issue of contention. And to make matters worse the Republican house just passed a controversial budget which risks splitting the Conservative movement in the US in two.<br />
<br />
Then there are the extremely public grenades thrown between Rand Paul and Christ Christie. Those two are doing more to help the Democratic cause if no one else. Marco Rubio & Paul Ryan are not far behind publicly shellacking each other over bad budget deals. <br />
<br />
There are more Republican bickering's and back-stabbings than there are Republican victories nowadays - We'll see if the prospect of President Hillary generates the appropriate level of motivation for the party to snap out of it - but I won't hold my breath in the mean time.<br />
<br />
<b>2) No One Will Remember Obamacare</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Despite the flaming burning white hot flames coming off of the ACA's rotting carcass, the brutal reality is that the voting public has the attention span of an insect - and maybe a dumb insect. The closest election is months away, and I doubt that this bad news extravaganza will continue for long. Eventually the system will settle out and even though people will be far worse off, they will move on adapt, and forget - because that's what people do. Sometimes that fact is lost on people in the centres of power, but it remains always true : people find ways of living with bad laws... And then they get used to them.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately this debacle is happening now. If this had happened a year from now in September of 2014 - then the Democrats would have a huge liability. As it stands right now, the anger will dissipate as time wanes on.<br />
<br />
<b>3) Repealing Obamacare is a Pipe Dream, and Republicans Who Promise It's Demise Are Toast</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
This I find a most interesting point lost on most Republicans. I took the Great Socialist 5 years to bring the ACA into implementation (and it still will take longer than that before all the changes come into effect). They were arrogant enough to presume they could re-write the rules of a multi-billion dollar industry as easy as pie - and now Republicans think we can repeal it with even less fuss? <br />
<br />
A general principle for me exists in life, that it takes at least twice as much effort and time to clean-up a mess than it does to create it in the first place. That should make Republicans ponder.<br />
<br />
You should under-promise and over-deliver. Obama, whether it's drawing red lines in Syria, or telling people "If you like your plan you can keep it," has habitually over-promised and under-delivered. <br />
<br />
Republicans would be best to get realistic, propose to "work to repeal" or make targeted changes to the law rather than follow the Obama recipe for stellar Success in Politics - and promise the improbable.<br />
<br />
<b>4) Women, Hispanics, and the African-American Vote</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
The Republicans need to take a little lesson from Canadian Conservatives and realise they can target minorities and win their votes without abandoning their principles. I'm sure there are plenty of Women, African-Americans, Hispanics and other minorities who detest taxes, distrust government, and are wary of a Government who spends too much. All Republicans need to show is a willingness to engage these people - something I've seen from no one on that side.<br />
<br />
With the Democrats set to nominate a woman (aka Hillary) my bet is that the Republicans will nominate another MWG (Moderate White Guy) as their Presidential candidate. Forget about the excellent other choices that would placate that dynamic - like Herman Cain, Sarah, Palin, Boby Jindal, Nikki Haley... No instead my bet is that Republicans will nominate someone like Chris Christie.<br />
<br />
Good Luck with that pair up.<br />
<br />
In Short the Republican chances for electoral success remain low. There could very well be some success in the 2014 Senatorial elections, but that would be in my opinion short lived. Until American Conservatives learn to target minority voters better, get realistic about Obamacare, and stop stabbing each in the back, they will find themselves low on victories high on anger for the foreseeable future.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9578224.post-53519619631531025992013-01-02T15:08:00.000-05:002013-01-02T15:08:24.057-05:00C.S. Lewis on The "Fiscal Cliff" Deal...<blockquote><i><br />
Congress approved a plan to end Washington’s long drama over the “fiscal cliff” late Tuesday after House Republicans surrendered to President Obama’s demand to let taxes rise on the nation’s richest households.<br />
(...)<br />
The bill will indeed shield millions of middle-class taxpayers from tax increases set to take effect this month. <b>But it also will let rates rise on wages and investment profits for households pulling in more than $450,000 a year, marking the first time in more than two decades that a broad tax increase has been approved with GOP support</b>.<br />
</i>(<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/house-members-meet-to-review-senate-passed-cliff-deal/2013/01/01/6e4373cc-5435-11e2-bf3e-76c0a789346f_print.html">link</a>)</blockquote>In Screwtape's words:<br />
<blockquote><i>"Now this useful phenomenon is in itself by no means new. Under the name of Envy it has been known to the humans for thousands of years. But hitherto they always regarded it as the most odious, and also the most comical. Those who were aware of feeling it felt it with shame; those were not gave it no quarter in others. The delightful novelty of the present situation is that you can sanction it - make it respectable and even laudable - by the incantatory use of the word <b>democratic</b>."<br />
</i><br />
</blockquote>-C.S. Lewis - "Screwtape Proposes a Toast"Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9578224.post-52049289207097798882012-12-23T09:12:00.002-05:002012-12-23T09:12:36.625-05:00Notes on the Fiscal CliffIt should be simple. Take a minority of Republicans and a majority of Democrats in the house, and make a deal. It would rip apart the Republicans and expose divisions like never before - but I'm sure that doesn't bother the Democrats, and Boehner doesn't have much of a choice.<br />
<br />
But something changed.<br />
<br />
Boehner tried his "Plan B." It should have gathered a minority of Republicans and majority of Democrats... But he couldn't get the votes.<br />
<br />
What that exposes is to things:<br />
1) The speaker is horribly out of touch with his caucus, and<br />
2) Republicans in Congress are more united than they would appear at first glance.<br />
<br />
The insanity of this is pretty obvious. The "fiscal cliff" is entirely man-made. Had the Republicans thought more strategically they would have never tied so much to one period of time... It was a self imposed host taking.<br />
<br />
Instead they would have split up the "cliff" into a variety of mini-cliffs. Each one could have been a negotiating period where a series of issue by issue reforms would tackled. Tax reform. Entitlements. Defense spending...etc.<br />
<br />
When these negotiations started I was convinced that the Republicans would self implode and a deal would get passed before Dec 31. <br />
<br />
Now, with this test of confidence in Boehner's leadership, I no longer believe it will happen.<br />
<br />
A deal requires two parties that can agree on something. Washington can only agree on a variety of small things... But they don't have a variety of small things on the table - all they have is big things that no one agrees on.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9578224.post-43856474007966629242012-10-13T20:39:00.000-04:002012-10-13T20:39:45.021-04:00Paul Krugman - Enemy of Reason<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://media.reason.com/mc/psuderman/2011_04/paul-krugman-notpraying.jpg?h=280&w=375" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="280" width="375" src="http://media.reason.com/mc/psuderman/2011_04/paul-krugman-notpraying.jpg?h=280&w=375" /></a></div>Krugman's latest piece in <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/12/opinion/krugman-triumph-of-the-wrong.html?_r=1"><b>NYT is a whopper</b></a>:<br />
<blockquote><i>If you look at the track record, the Obama administration has been wrong about some things, mainly because it was too optimistic about the prospects for a quick recovery. But Republicans have been wrong about everything.</i></blockquote>Really? Republicans have been wrong <b>about everything</b>? That's quite the statement to be made by the man who <a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/roots-of-evil-wonkish/"><b>attacked </b></a><a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/11/too-rosy-for-even-a-nobel-prize-winner/"><b>those who criticized</b></a> those very same rosy "optimistic" projections? I'm confused: was Krugam wrong then or now?<br />
<blockquote><i>Why did the administration get it wrong? It wasn’t exaggerated faith in the power of its stimulus plan; the report predicted a fairly rapid recovery even without stimulus. Instead, President Obama’s people failed to appreciate something that is now common wisdom among economic analysts: severe financial crises inflict sustained economic damage, and it takes a long time to recover.<br />
</i></blockquote>So, when Krugman defended these optimistic projections years ago he failed (along with others) to recognize that severe financial crises's "inflict sustained economic damage?" Just what did he think the crisis of 2009 was? A small correction? <br />
<p>The truth is that Krugman failed. The administration didn't just fail "mainly because it was too optimistic," it failed because it shut it's ears to anyone who told them they were wrong. A problem that they have yet to rectify. It's also a problem that Krugman also has to rectify.<br />
<p>So back to the other assertion that Krugman makes - that Republicans have been wrong about everything. A statement that sweeping deserves more than one argument, yet I can only find one in the void of Krugman's column (I honestly thought I heard crickets as I searched for it):<br />
<blockquote><i><br />
The latest devastating demonstration of that wrongness comes from the International Monetary Fund, which has just released its World Economic Outlook... this analysis concludes is that a disproportionate share of the bad news is coming from countries pursuing the kind of austerity policies Republicans want to impose on America.<br />
<br />
O.K., it doesn’t say that in so many words. What the report actually says is: “Activity over the past few years has disappointed more in economies with more aggressive fiscal consolidation plans.” But that amounts to the same thing.<br />
<br />
For leading Republicans have very much tied themselves to the view that slashing spending in a depressed economy — “fiscal consolidation,” in I.M.F.-speak — is good, not bad, for job creation.</i></blockquote>So, basically, after some calculated inferences from an IMF report about economies facing entirely different problems, on the other end of the planet, in some cases where taxes have been raised on the rich as part of "austerity" he concludes that cutting government budgets to induce job creation is a failure.<br />
<p>For this reason, and this reason alone he is concluding that "Republicans have been wrong about everything."<br />
<p>Firstly, that hardly proves an incapability of entire section of the US electorate from being able to be right about anything. I don't agree with Progressives, but I'm not foolish enough to make a claim that they have been wrong about "everything." But I suppose in the heat of keyboard pressing, words have a way of slipping by you without noticing... I have been guilty of that myself and am willing to give Krugman latitude and conclude he just chose a poor choice of words.<br />
<p>Secondly, ignoring Kruman's wild leap from the IMF report, the failure of austerity to provide results in some parts of the EU is hardly a final statement on the effectiveness of austerity. It is well more than reasonable to argue that job creation in the EU has yet to come as a result of austerity - - it has only been delayed and perhaps less so than without. The history of the US proves that. Clinton (the democrat) cut the size of government in the 1990s and jobs increased. But one only need to look north to my Country Canada for an example of a jurisdiction which has been making cutbacks with significant job growth and an unemployment rate lower than the US. Current reality and history time and time again proves Krugman wrong on this point.<br />
<p>No doubt the Republicans have been wrong about some things, and Obama has been wrong about many things, but clearly Krugman is wrong about by far the most things.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9578224.post-13038216971237343922012-01-20T14:25:00.000-05:002012-01-20T14:25:25.455-05:00Freedom of Conscience LostThis is utterly the worst decisions I have seen from Obama in a good long while. Strategically however it's brilliant:
<blockquote><i>Most healthcare plans will be required to cover birth control ...
<br>
(...)
<br>
...Churches, synagogues and other houses of worship are exempt from the requirement, but religious-affiliated hospitals and universities only get a one-year delay and must comply by Aug. 1, 2013.
<br>
(...)
<br>
“This ruling forces religious organizations to violate the fundamental tenets of their faith, or stop offering health insurance coverage to their employees,” said the Republican Policy Committee. “Time will tell whether those institutions choose the former or the latter course — but neither option should be necessary, if the administration had not taken such an unbending approach to appease its liberal base.”
</i>(<b><a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/205413-obama-administration-orders-health-plans-to-cover-birth-control-without-co-pays">link</a></b>)</blockquote>
Contraception is the ultimate wedge that Pro-Choice groups have used for years to divide the Pro-Life movement.
<p>
The Obama administration's choice could not have been more clever. <i>Pro-Life supporters who favor contraception should see this for what it is: a cleverly disguised attack on the right to freedom of conscience.
</i><p>
If I decide to do, or decide not to do, particular things that you may or may not agree with based on my own conscience I should be allowed to those things so long as they don't interfere with the rights of someone else. The decision to use contraception or not affects no one's rights. It's a personal decision. <b>There is no right to contraception by any stretch of the imagination</b>.
<p>
If we do anything less than respect people's decisions on these particular issues than we might as well eliminate the concept of a "conscience" all together in society. <i>Many died for that right throughout history - the right to believe in what many believe are crazy and ridiculous things that affect no one else.
</i><p>
<b>You don't have to oppose contraception to disagree with this decision</b>. All you have to be is someone that believes that someone's private life is his own business. <b>Libertarians should be shouting down this move first and foremost.</b>
<p>
<b>Liberals should be shouting down this measure as it is entirely inconsistent with a state that stays out of the "bedrooms of the nation." </b> It's a horrible abomination of anything any Progressive Democrat or Social Democrat has ever espoused. It's thought control on steroids. <b>It's state control of sexual decisions</b>.
<p>
<b>Social Conservatives and People of faith, and even those people of faith with differing beliefs on the issue of contraception, should object to this on MORAL grounds</b>. If we do not allow the free space in society for people to decide whether an act is moral or not we might as well forget about any other belief you may have. So long as the majority disagrees with you, you must shut up. <i>This is entirely inconsistent with the concept of each one of us having an immortal soul whose health depends on the decisions we make in this life. Those decisions require free will which God has given us - only for Obama to take away.</i>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9578224.post-24974939944862832502012-01-15T21:18:00.000-05:002012-01-15T21:18:37.528-05:00Fiberal Party of Canada RIPWhat's come out of the Liberals recent convention?
<br>
1) <a href="http://www.thestar.com/article/1115795--liberal-leadership-vote-opened-to-non-members"><b><i>A commitment to allow any tom, dick and harry to vote for the next leader of the party</i></b></a>.
<br><br>
2) <a href="http://www.hilltimes.com/news/politics/2012/01/15/crawley-wins-grit-party-presidency-by-nail-biting-26-votes-liberals-have-a/29303"><b>A Party President vote, hotly contested, with a nail biting internal division revealing 26 vote margin</b></a>.
<br><br>
3) <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/liberals-vote-to-keep-monarchy-legalize-pot-at-convention/article2303094/"><b>Unrealistic Potentially fatal Policy votes to legalize marijuana and a centralizing Trudeauesque like push to force provinces to provide access (aka fund) abortions</b></a>.
<p>
The end result is a third party, with a poor base, dwindling membership and now with an open invitation for any special interest group to swoop in and radically take control. Imagine had the old federal PCs passed a similar measure pre-merger - David Orchard's face off with Peter MacKay would have ended quite different.
<p>
And a third party divided it certainly is - Sheila Copps has managed to be rejected a second time by her own political home. The first time being when she was forced straight out of politics by the Paul Martin Dictatorship that took hold circa 2005. Her return represented a potential reversal in direction for a Liberal Party dominated by Martin turned Iggy Puff Dons. I would suspect that this will temper Bob Rae's leadership ambitions.
<p>
But to make matters worse, the Liberals have still not managed to figure themselves out policy wise. Legalizing Marijuana? Really? Just how do they expect they will do this and maintain an open border with the US? Magic?
<P>
Don't get me wrong, I would support the move in an ideal world, but I would also like to win the 649 - neither isn't happening to soon.
<p>
And then they lob a gift to Stephen Harper and craft a policy to penalize provinces who refuse to provide funding for abortions. It's like a Conservative fantasy come true.
<p>
Harper, dealing currently with an open abortion rebellion in his caucus from pro-life MPs unwilling to wait any longer finds a Liberal Party willing to give him something that will simultaneously unite his caucus in opposition while at the same time drive the banning-abortion issue solidly into the background.
<p>
And on top of everything about these policies - did anyone bother to ask if Canadians will care? When the average Canuck is changing his 2 year old's diapers at 3am, will he really care about legalizing pot? As the average Canuck is rushing to work in the morning will he/she give one iota about abortion?
<p>
Did anyone in the Liberal Party even think about what Canadians care about right now? I dunno... maybe like the Economy - I'm just throwing out wild ideas here!
<p>
Hold on wait here it comes... Another National Daycare Program will be suggested next... What a mess!Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9578224.post-54429733989253470422011-12-31T20:29:00.002-05:002012-01-03T08:50:03.726-05:002012 Predictions<b>1. The PCs will be defeated in Alberta.</b>
<p>
The PCs have had their 3 decade run. They're bereft of any new ideas. They've drifted into moderate political limbo so much that their wishy-washiness is eerily resembling the Federal Liberal Party.
<p>
In Alberta, political change seldom happens. But when it does it comes quick.
<p>
My bet is on the Wildrose Alliance winning government come May 31st.
<p>
<b>2. Jean Charest wins another term. </b>
<p>
Jean Charest's best before date passed last winter. The Quebec people know it. He's been in denial since... birth? His inability to recognize when the gig is up is starting to seem Chretienesque.
<p>
Yet his opposition is divided. He has no clear opponent. The PQ is in shambles.
<p>
The people of Quebec I believe are at a crossroads. There is a demographic crisis exploding in the province - it isn't having enough babies and yet it's welfare state is European in ambition. The population is very old, and there is an apprehension against mass scale immigration. The end result is mass scale erosion of Quebec's society, culture and an economy not keeping pace with the rest.
<p>
I firmly believe that this is facilitating the volatility we have seen in La Belle Province for years now. I expect it to culminate in the devastation of the PQ and the rise of another party as an alternative.
<p>
<b>3. We will not have an Ontario Election in 2012.</b>
<p>
I don't believe either of the provincial opposition parties are prepared to reface voters in 2012. Financially their base has been taped out by both a federal election and a provincial election in 2011.
<p>
Further, their is no impending challenge to Hudak or Howarth in their respective leadership roles.
<p>
The federal NDP is engaged in a serious leadership convention which will decide the fate of the Progressive movement in this country like nothing in the past half century. Provincial distractions, as Howarth I'm sure knows, can be a dangerous thing under those circumstances.
<p>
<b>4. Peggy Nash wins the NDP leadership.</b>
<p>
Mulclair is untrusted by the NDP brass. He hasn't had time to organize the Quebec base that would normally be his. I expect his candidacy has always been a measure to increase his standing within the party first and foremost.
<p>
Brian Topp I believe has failed to make a connection with the NDP base. He also has no seat. Without any parliamentary experience behind him, and an inability to debate well, he will find it difficult to compete with Mulclair. He also carries the baggage of being part of the ill-fated liberal-NDP-separatist "coalition."
<p>
Peggy Nash on the other hand has come from a union background, and as a former party president has those connections to make her palpable to the NDP establishment. She also has relatively low levels of baggage. My bet is with the NDP's preferential ballot she will emergence in front as everybody's second choice.
<p>
<b>5. Romney will be the Republican Presidential Candidate.</b>
<p>
The Republican Party has never been more in disarray. The level of division is amazing. No dominant candidates have emerged as front runners in the race. Romney, being the only consistent candidate polling wise, barely registers at 25%.
<p>
He'll win the nomination - because the other candidates are seen as far worse by either the GOP base or the establishment or both. Although I would expect Congressman Ron Paul to surprise many and further expose the heavy divisions percolating through the GOP these days. A win by him in Iowa or more states needs to be seen as what it is - a protest vote against the GOP establishment.
<p>
<b>6. Obama will still be President of the United States.</b>
<p>
Unfortunately for the US, Obama will win. Romney, bruised an bloodied from one of the most divided and scarring nominations, will be unable financially or organizationally to compete. Republicans won't unite with Romney. Obama will sail to re-election having one of the worst economic records in history.
<p>
But that's nothing to fret over for true Conservatives.
<p>
It's amazed me to watch the GOP having mental breakdowns over the fact that such notable Conservatives as Paul Ryan and Gov Chritie took a pass at the GOP nomination. Paul Ryan is more, and has acted more as a leader than Obama. So has Governor Christie. Ironically, young politicians will little power are having more influence in DC than old experienced politicians like Barak Obama.
<p>
I expect what will seem like defeat at first will turn into something else. Obama will be re-elected, but with a Congress firmly opposed to his agenda. There will be no taxing the rich. There will be no gross expansion of the state. There will be gridlock. And gridlock in government can sometimes be healthy.
<p>
Meanwhile principled Conservatives like Paul Ryan and others will emerge to challenge the status quo. It may not seem like it - but an Obama victory may manage to do the impossible: unite the GOP and keep Big Government in check.
<p>
<b>Now I Disclaim Everything</b>
<p>
Predictions are fun. They are also profoundly stupid. The concept that anyone can predict the outcomes of events depending on the individual choices of millions of people deserves to be ridiculed for the fantasy that it is.
<p>
Either people make successful predictions by making them so vague they have no way of loosing, or they make them so extravagant that when they do get one right it is noticed and the other barrage of wrong ones are forgotten.
<p>
Yet last year I did make some noticeably good calls. McGuinty is still Premier (Despite what the polls said would happen). There was an election going on in April as I predicted. Brad Wall is still Premier. But the NDP still rains in Manitoba. A 75% success rate can't be just luck can it?
<p>
<i>Three years of predictions:</i> <i><a href="http://backoffgov.blogspot.com/2009/01/top-ten-2009-predictions.html"><b>2009</b></a>, <a href="http://backoffgov.blogspot.com/2009/12/top-five-2010-predictions.html"><b>2010 </b></a>and <a href="http://backoffgov.blogspot.com/2011/01/2011-predictions.html"><b>2011</b></a>.</i>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9578224.post-45254075433413864892011-12-09T14:43:00.001-05:002011-12-09T14:46:53.190-05:00Sesame Street SocialismIt aint easy being green:
<blockquote><i>'A “food insecure” Muppet is helping to promote a national “Food for Thought” campaign that teaches poor families to seek out nutritious food and to eat on the taxpayers’ tab.
<p>
(...)
<p>
“What ‘Food For Thought’ does is remind people that eating healthy now gives them a good health outcome in the long term. So the folks you’re looking at up here, the programs that they represent, <b>what ‘Food For Thought’ does is really a deficit reduction strategy</b>, and we hope policymakers will take notice of that,” Greenaway said.
<p>
<b>Greenaway didn't elaborate further on how this would work towards deficit reduction</b>.</i>(<a href="http://cnsnews.com/news/article/sesame-street-muppet-pitches-government-dependence-free-food-school"><b>link</b></a>)
</blockquote>
First it was Obamacare, then Employment Insurance... pretty soon fighting obesity will be a '<i>deficit reduction strategy</i>.' So will National Day Care, and just about any other top-down government-run program Progressives can dream up.
<p>
Calling anything you like a '<i>deficit reduction strategy</i>' has now become one of those trendy political tag-lines politicians use over and over and over and over and over... <i>until finally it gets so bad everyone has a vomit moment and suddenly the political world moves on...
</i><p>
I can still remember when calling something a 'deficit' was trendy. Does anyone still remember the 'Democratic Deficit?' What about the 'Infrastructure Deficit?' You see that was back when fighting deficits was seen as a something everyone could agree with - anyone would have to be nuts to argue against eliminating a deficit wouldn't they?
<p>
<b>Really though is there anything nowadays that isn't a '<i>deficit reduction strategy?</i>'</b>
<p>
I've reached my 'vomit moment' how 'bout you?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9578224.post-21925766765237046512011-11-15T07:00:00.000-05:002011-11-15T07:00:06.390-05:00Dipper Keystone Twits<blockquote><i><b>Halifax</b> MP Megan Leslie is heading to Washington on Tuesday to <b>urge U.S. legislators to hold off </b>on deciding whether to approve the massive <b>Keystone XL</b> pipeline from Alberta to Texas.
<p>
(...)
<p>
“Harper’s been down there saying it’s a no-brainer,” Leslie said Monday. “But I don’t think he’s bringing the voices of a lot of Canadians. <b>That’s only a particular sector who think this pipeline’s a good idea</b>.”</i>(<a href="http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada/32931-leslie-goes-washington-fight-delay-pipeline-decision"><b>link</b></a>)</blockquote>
Did the NDP even consider the optics of having an Eastern MP, from their Eastern dominated caucus, go down to the US and argue against Western Oil?
<p>
It's not like the NDP doesn't have a good chunk of western MPs they could have chosen from. I'm just flabbergasted that a party that showed surprising political smarts in the last election besting the Liberal Party to become the official opposition would make such a terrible terrible decision.
<p>
It's the equivalent of sending Rob Anders (whom I do admire) to Halifax to argue against equalization.
<p>
Just a bonehead move.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9578224.post-53988013815557667342011-11-10T06:55:00.000-05:002011-11-10T06:55:35.077-05:00Fiberals Until The Very End<blockquote><i>New figures show that, despite the Liberal claim the party spent "very close" to what it was legally permitted on this year's campaign, it actually spent far, far less.
<p>
(...)
<p>
"Do you guys make this s--- up on the fly? Are you kidding me?" Ian McKay said in an e-mail. "You're so wrong it is laughable. Don't give up your day job if you're actually considering journalism as a future career," he continued.
<p>
"I cannot stand by and watch as you publish a piece that is complete and utter rubbish."</i>(<a href="http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2011/11/09/18946606.html">link</a>)</blockquote>
I expect that Justin Trudeau will immediately come out and offer a heartfelt sincere apology (filled with qualifications galore) on behalf of Liberals that he won't mean whatsoever.
<p>
Not to pick on Justin, this is a Fiberal Party wide problem.
<p>
It's called institutional arrogance. It's a pesky thing. Usually the first sign that you have it is you start believing you don't.
<p>
But, oh I forgot - the Liberal Party ran a brilliant campaign in 2011 and lost because of some sort of magical "disconnect" with voters... Arrogance, mission drift, and a profound hatred of anything rural, Western, or religious had of course not a thing to do with the result.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9578224.post-14395683927004837812011-10-25T21:07:00.000-04:002011-10-25T21:07:23.670-04:00The Political Career of Frank Klees, RIPMcGuinty must be giddy:
<blockquote><i>“There’s no doubt it makes it more challenging for both opposition parties,” a grim-faced Hudak acknowledged, portraying his former leadership rival Klees as a turncoat who ignored an edict that no Tory would vie to succeed retiring Speaker Steve Peters.
<p>
“Clearly, I’m disappointed. We all hoped Frank’s first goal would be to help us on the opposition benches in keeping this government on a short leash . . . Frank’s made a decision and Frank is Frank.”</i>(<a href="http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1075659--klees-to-run-for-speaker-throws-tories-into-disarray?bn=1"><b>link</b></a>)</blockquote>
I don't quite know what Frank is thinking. This makes no strategic sense Klees. Not for his career or for his agenda.
<p>
The only thing I think, is that Frank has chosen suicide. He's 60 years old. He must figure he can't wait out another PC leader for his shot. That's a bleak assessment - but I can't help but come to that conclusion.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9578224.post-50946615651683613172011-10-25T08:11:00.000-04:002011-10-25T08:11:17.960-04:00No TrespassingThe Tories seem to have decided that criminals shouldn't hold the balance of power in Canadian society:
<blockquote><i>The law would permit people threatened with violence to commit a reasonable act to protect themselves or others, as well as use force to protect their property from theft, damage or trespass.</i>(<b><a href="http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Tories%2Bloosen%2Bself%2Bdefence%2Blaws/5600158/story.html">link</a></b>)</blockquote>
Protect a person's right to self-defense?
<p>
Next you'll say we gotta protect people's right to own stuff (like a gun), and they're right to say whatever the hell they want without having a zealously bigoted bureaucrat coming after them for "offending" someone... That's just crazy talk isn't it?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9578224.post-6364160593766241852011-10-12T07:53:00.000-04:002011-10-12T07:53:17.008-04:00Obama's GE ImmeltismsIt's like watching bad car salesman go...
<blockquote><i>“<b>If Washington can agree on anything, it should be this — and it should be now</b>,” the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness said in the report, to be presented to Obama at a meeting in Pittsburgh on Tuesday.</i>(<a href="http://business.financialpost.com/2011/10/11/how-obama-can-create-jobs/"><b>link</b></a>)</blockquote>
Buy this car now! Limited time offer! If you and your wife can agree on anything agree on this!
<p>
The statement just makes no logical sense. It wraps itself in the cloak of "bipartisanship" by emphasizing agreement, yet at the same time holds an ultimatum indicating that the only thing that should be agreed on is this.
<p>
That alone presumes that Washington can "agree" on anything. Which further assumes that "agreement" is actually a good thing. Agreement and uniformity of opinion only comes through force - - Anything else is a lollipop land fantasy.
<blockquote><i>
“We never thought there was going to be a silver bullet to create jobs,” Immelt told Reuters in a telephone interview.</i></blockquote>
Ok, this is the point where the dealer realizes he's overselling... Time to cover your butt - - "Now I'm not saying there is such a thing as the perfect car..."
<p>
Gee Immelt, with this much fine-print people may not buy for fear of a hidden "first born child clause."
<blockquote><i>
“<b>What we want to offer the president is a very broad set of ideas that can help mo[v]e the economy forward</b>,” he said. “<b>It’s comprehensive and it’s specific</b>.”</i></blockquote>
(Insert Laughter here). How can it be both "specific" and "broad"... But don't forget it's also "comprehensive..."
<p>
Immelt's future as a car salesman is all but assured.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9578224.post-20485422914003651812011-10-01T07:08:00.000-04:002011-10-01T07:08:51.540-04:00Can't Drink This<blockquote><i>OTTAWA — <b>Energy drinks</b> such as Red Bull, Rockstar and Monster should be renamed “stimulant drug containing drinks” and <b>only be sold under the direct supervision of a pharmacist</b>, an expert panel for Health Canada has concluded.</i>(<a href="http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/09/20/energy-drinks-should-only-be-sold-under-supervision-of-a-pharmacist-health-canada-panel/"><b>link</b></a>)</blockquote>
Can't drink this. Can't eat that. Can't turn right. Can't move forward. Can't move back. Can't speak. Can't turn left. Can't jump. Can't drive. Can't own. Can't risk. Can't run. Can't walk. Can't crawl...
<p>
They might as well just tell us what WE CAN do. It would save a ton of time.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9578224.post-67823252801891930692011-09-30T08:05:00.001-04:002011-10-01T06:59:43.145-04:00Liberal Tobacco HypocritesThe Anti-Tobacco Liberals are apparently not so much so when the end justifies the means:
<blockquote><i>“I have done crazy things,” Holland says in the audio recording. “Like...and if anyone repeats this I’ll deny it (until) the cows come home...<b>I have gone to a shelter in the riding of St. Paul’s with a carton of smokes and said, ‘I’ll give you them after you vote.”</b> I have done that...but they were already smokers...”</i>(<a href="http://www.torontosun.com/2011/09/29/cigarettes-for-votes-offer-a-joke-liberal-official-says">link</a>)</blockquote>
Apparently this comment, according to Holland, was a joke. By the way this isn't her just denying it until <i>"the cows come home."</i>
<p>
People should be able to smoke whatever the hell they want so long as they don't harm others. The Ontario Fiberals should back off. Good luck on getting that from "Premier Dad." He'd rather ground us if we eat what we shouldn't, play where it's dangerous, and smoke what he'd rather not - and don't worry he'll make sure we make the right decisions on who to vote for - even if he has to exploit us in the process.
<p>
Update...
<p>
Holland <a href="http://www.globaltoronto.com/senior%2Bliberal%2Bofficial%2Bresigns%2Bover%2Bsmokes%2Bfor%2Bvotes%2Bcomment/6442492741/story.html"><b>has resigned</b></a>, after making her fake confession.
<p>
The Liberals are now jumping on the offensive accusing Hudak of having ties to big Tobacco... I kid you not. You can't make this stuff up.
<p>
If you're going to make an apology, make it right or don't make it at all.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9578224.post-30376784634690709892011-09-27T20:42:00.000-04:002011-09-27T20:42:53.038-04:00Saudi CanadaI'm sure Ezra Levant didn't intent on it, but one of the curious unintented consequences of the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SjZlqbDudI"><b>Ethical Oil Ads</b></a>, and their <a href="http://www.nationalpost.com/Saudi+Ethical+Warfare/5433024/story.html"><b>subsequent censure by CTV </b></a>at the behest of the Saudis, has been to expose just how much <b>influence the Kingdom of Saudia Arabia has in this country</b>.
<p>
The fact that the Saudi's even care about their portrayal in Canuckland speaks volumes in itself, let alone the relative ease that the ads were pulled, shows some terrifying truths about the moral and (ironically) the ethical decay prevalent in this country.
<p>
Canada is definitely a more ethical country than Saudia Arabia (Despite what some CTV reporters <a href="http://bcblue.wordpress.com/2011/09/22/ctvs-news-anchor-are-we-really-more-ethical-than-the-saudis/"><b>seem to believe</b></a>). But when our own media can't seem to stand up for our basic right to freedom of speech it definitely shows that our own historical ethicality is only half embraced by by our national elites. Can't fight the Saudi's - Lawsuits are too expensive. Notions of journalistic integrity are considered expedient by these Ivory Tower Newsmen.
<p>
<b>What's worse is that these members of the "media party" have shown a willingness to take on lawsuits when it suits them</b>. Damian Goddard was <a href="http://unambig.com/thought-crime-loses-damian-goddard-his-job/"><b>recently fired </b></a>by the CTV child Sportsnet for merely expressing support for the traditional definition of marriage. Obviously his bosses were not concerned about the costs associated with any future lawsuits from Damian. Again the concept of freedom of speech seems to lost on the Saudi dominated Media Party.
<p>
<b>Damian's lawsuit is pending, but obviously in this case the network in question decided that a potential lawsuit was worth the cost</b>.
<p>
<b>If anything the Ethical Oil ads have shown clearly that the Saudi way of doing things - oppresion, fear, and bullying - are rapidally finding a home in Canada.</b>
<p>
That is to say if networks like the CTV and Sportsnet have any say in it.
<p>
<i><b>It's a Saudi-Canada from now on</b></i>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9578224.post-77127790927529356812011-09-27T08:32:00.000-04:002011-09-27T08:32:45.006-04:00Education Inflation<blockquote><i>“Undergraduate education is almost the equivalent of what a high-school degree used to be – <b>almost everyone goes to university</b>,” she said.
<p>
(...)
<p>
Mr. Steele thinks “<b>students are being oversold on the idea of university</b>, and some people are going purely out of a desire to earn a bump in income.”
</i>(<b><a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/universitynews/university-education-no-guarantee-of-earnings-success/article2179803/">link</a></b>)</blockquote>
I bet McGuinty doesn't want many people reading this.
<p>
All of sudden cheaper tuition, more universities, and the "Education Premier" don't seem so useful anymore.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9578224.post-12430382501498455522011-09-27T08:14:00.000-04:002011-09-27T08:14:54.990-04:00CBC: Nothing To Hide<blockquote><i><b>A motion to call the corporation to testify before MPs was the first item of business this fall for the Tories on the access-to-information, privacy and ethics committee. It is expected to discuss Tuesday which witnesses to call.
<p>
The CBC is scheduled to present arguments before the Federal Court of Appeals on Oct. 18 about why the information commissioner should not be allowed to view certain records</b>.</i>(<a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-demand-cbc-explain-its-lengthy-access-to-information-battle/article2180476/"><b>link</b></a>)</blockquote>
What are they afraid of?
<p>
That well find out that Strombo smells? (Come one we all suspect it).
<p>
That the Mansbridge is actually a robot that the CBC built and designed to be a super-duper-Anchor during the Cold War?
<p>
That Lisa LaFlame is secretly a fairy princess (Oops! Wrong network).
<p>
Oh wait, I forgot, this was all explained in the latest Conservative Hidden Agenda Memo (TM): this is all a conspiracy by Harper to find out how the next episode of <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/story/2011/07/13/harper-murdoch-mysteries-cameo-cop.html"><b>Murdoch Mysteries ends</b></a>... That sly snake PM of ours...Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9578224.post-9313751333604050842011-09-26T21:43:00.000-04:002011-09-26T21:43:30.276-04:00Daring To Question The KingDoesn't always end well:
<blockquote><i>“If, Alexei Leonidovich, you disagree with the course of the president, there is only one course of action and you know it: to resign.”
<p>
Mr Kudrin responded with a jibe: “I will take a decision only after having consulted the prime minister.”
<p>
“You can get advice from whoever you want, with the prime minister if you want,” snapped back Mr Medvedev. “But as long as I am president, these decisions I will take myself.”</i>(<a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f12e3cc4-e85a-11e0-8f05-00144feab49a.html#axzz1Z72QvL9b">link</a>) </blockquote>
Putin should just get it over with: <b>have the coronation already</b>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9578224.post-24729357830364836242011-09-09T07:26:00.000-04:002011-09-09T07:26:01.921-04:00Here We Go Again...<blockquote><i>WASHINGTON, Sept 8 (Reuters) – U.S. President Barack Obama laid out a <b>$447 billion jobs package</b> of tax cuts and <b>government spending</b> on Thursday that will be critical to his re-election chances but he faces an uphill fight with Republicans.</i>(<a href="http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/09/08/u-s-faces-national-crisis-obama-says-in-jobs-speech-excerpts/"><b>link</b></a>)</blockquote>
Obama's taken the old adage "<i>IF AT FIRST YOU DON'T SUCCEED, TRY, TRY AGAIN</i>" a little too literally.
<p>
If Obama were a poker player, he'd be the sorry bum chasing his losses from the past stimulus package gamble that failed so badly to save face.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9578224.post-44638701388600449302011-07-15T07:17:00.000-04:002011-07-15T07:17:59.191-04:00The Best Decision EverTook <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2015062/Rebekah-Brooks-resigns-News-International-phone-hacking-scandal.html"><b>long enough</b></a>.
<p>
The NOTW phone hacking scandal I think is a classic example of organizations encountering failure and not knowing what the hell to do. Instead of adapting and trying to learn from the failure there almost seems to be a stubborn inertia that sets in - a type of unwillingness to accept there is a problem as the company (or government) acts like a deer caught in headlights... And if you aint ready to accept the failure signal, then you aint ready to change.
<p>
It's only a shame that NI seems to be learning only now. It came too late for 200 employees of NOTW and it will cost the company dearly in lawsuits - not to mention the loss in reputation.
<p>
That being said, the shark like feeding frenzy that's being unleashed is just silly.
<p>
If you don't like FOX news, it seems that wild accusations are your best friend right now. Never mind that NI is a huge corporation. Never mind that FOX news is just a small chunk of that company. Conspiracy theories don't depend on facts.
<p>
What happened here is that a company, a small chunk of a larger corporation, failed in a spectacular fashion - and maybe even criminally so.
<p>
The larger corporation is liable - as it should be. The smaller company had to be shutdown because the problem was so widespread. The larger company now has to find a way to survive and learn.
<p>
Unfortunately, as with centrally planned economies, as a conservative I know full well that the nature of decision making from the top down by people 2000 miles removed from the situation is that hardly anyone ever learn from their mistakes. Bottom-up is a lot more successful when it comes to learning and adapting.
<p>
Best of luck to NI in learning lessons from the top-down.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9578224.post-50893175650029552332011-07-13T08:11:00.000-04:002011-07-13T08:11:33.161-04:00The gun registry a waste of money?... No Really?It's a bizzare bunch of events not only as King Charest's government said <a href="http://backoffgov.blogspot.com/2011/07/gun-registry-seperatism.html?spref=bl"><b>it was considering a provincial gun registry</b></a> to replace the one about to get sacked by the Feds, then <b><a href="http://www.oxygentax.com/2011/07/re-gun-registry-seperatism.html">they said they wanted money</a></b> from the Feds to do it.
<p>
Hoeppner seems to be the only Tory to care to respond:
<blockquote><i>OTTAWA -- Provinces would be foolish to set up their own gun registry when the national database is scrapped this fall, said the Manitoba Conservative MP who led the charge against the federal long-gun registry last year.
<p>
“<b>(The registry) has been proven to be a complete waste of money and a complete waste of effort</b>,” Candice Hoeppner said.
<p>
“<b>It doesn't combat crime, it certainly doesn't combat violent crime. The registry does nothing to stop individuals from acquiring or being able to possess a firearm</b>.”</i>
</blockquote>
And those are the facts. If Quebec or Ontario, or Santa Claus wants a registry they can waste their own money.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9578224.post-34106104299636021602011-07-11T12:19:00.000-04:002011-07-11T12:19:31.801-04:00Gun Registry SeperatismThe Quebec government, stubbornly, <a href="http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/125294003.html"><b>is considering</b></a> passing a long-gun registry of it's very own if Ottawa turfs the federal one.
<p>
How quaint. How wonderfully "autonomous". The Feds don't want to continue the war against Canadian Red Necks then Hell! - we'll show those Anglophone Bastards and make up one of our own!
<p>
Quebec has every right to do whatever it pleases, but Quebequers would do well to pay attention the facts before they give King Charest their blessing to create a Provincial Registry:
<ul><li>
<b>Since the registry's mandatory implementation in 2003, a grand total of a whooping 47 registered firearms have been used in homicides out of 2441 (less than two percent). </b> It's obvious that criminals aren't stupid enough to register their firearms.(<b><a href="http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/media/nr/2007/nr20071116-2-eng.aspx">link</a></b>)
<li>
<b>The registry was originally budgeted to cost a net 2 million dollars. In reality (although the total costs are unknown) actual costs are known to be well over 2 billion dollars according to most estimates. </b> That's at minimum an average of 43 million dollars per registered firearm homicide. Putting it in other terms, that at least 36 RCMP officers a year per registered firearm used in a homicide that we could have hired (or 1700 RCMP officers total). The waste in money is staggering.
<li>
<b>The non-compliance rates have been absolutely horrendous. </b> Regardless if you accept gun advocate numbers of a 70% non-compliance rate or the Liberals 10%, the fact remains that several extentions of registration deadlines were made for good reasons. 70,000 firearms at minimum remain unregistered in this country. This failure can't be ignored.(<b><a href="http://www.lufa.ca/quickfacts.asp">link</a></b>)
<li>
<b>The registry has had no effect on homicide rates, total suicide rates, or any other indicator.</b> Registry advocates will no-doubt point to declining homicide rates since the 1990s as proof the registry works. Yet these same statistics were already declining by similar amounts before registry implementation. Nothing has gotten any better since the registry was passed. The registry has been ineffective in the truest sense of the word.(<b><a href="http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/news/display.aspx?id=12301">link</a></b>)
</ul>
In short the registry has done nothing except to waste taxpayer dollars that could have been spent doing things that could have actually reduced crime. It's treated Canadian hunters living in rural areas like criminals by placing them on a national registry - a distintion reserved for among others child molesters.
<p>
I can understand the need to do something to respond to the horrible attack that happened at the Ecole Polytechnique in 1989. However the registry has done nothing to prevent further such attacks from happening.
<p>
A far better approach to avoid future similar school shootings, would be to invest in better mental health iniatives, and other crime prevention measures that actually work.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9578224.post-55320140719859480092011-07-09T12:49:00.000-04:002011-07-09T12:49:38.353-04:00McGuinty: The Government Slasher<blockquote><i>OPSEU announced on its central website Friday it was launching a “mini site” to fight the Dalton McGuinty government’s plan to shrink the public service.
<p>
“Starting this summer, <b>Premier Dalton McGuinty will eliminate 1,900 vital public service jobs</b>,” the OPSEU website says. (<a href="http://www.torontosun.com/2011/07/08/province-to-announce-1900-job-cuts"><b>link</b></a>)</i></blockquote>
<p>
Back in January, <b>I postulated that McGuinty's government would be at the forefront</b> of most of the labor unrest that this <b>year of Austerity</b> is unleashing.
<p>
I've been surprised at just how much attention the unions have been placing in Ottawa - a government that is by all indications depending on expiring infrastructure projects, attrition, and retirements to both reduce expenses, the public service and so balance the budget.
<p>
McGuinty is depending heavily on <b>laying off members of the OPS</b> to get where his government should have been a long time ago. <b>What's worse is that McGuinty is probably having to do more cutbacks to fund the disastrous policies elsewhere in government currently eating away at funds.
</b><p>
Yet where is DePape holding up a "Stop McGuinty" sign? Where is "Working Families" coming out swinging against the horrible slash-and-cut McGuinty?
<p>
Their silence speaks volumes.
<p>
Just as Mike Harris's education policies in Ontario were actually borrowed from an Education commission started by the Bob Rae NDP, McGuinty is borrowing ideas from his right wing counterparts like Harper and Brad Wall to do what clearly needs to be done. Except that due to the blind partisanship of this country's Public Secotr Unions, he clearly is not facing the same level of "mob warfare" we've come to expect from the Canadian left.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9578224.post-1696426910685198442011-07-07T09:23:00.000-04:002011-07-07T09:23:52.166-04:00A Right To Pornography?<blockquote><i>A 21-year-old Michigan inmate has filed a lawsuit that contends <b>he's been stripped of civil rights because he isn't allowed to look at porn</b>, claiming his lack of access to the material gives him a "poor standard of living" and "sexual and sensory deprivation."(<a href="http://consumerist.com/2011/07/michigan-inmate-sues-because-hes-denied-porn.html">link</a>)</i></blockquote>
This is what happens when "positive rights" are given the same status as "negative rights."Unknownnoreply@blogger.com