Hepburn Gets Burned

First thing you learn in fancy-pants Jurnalizm Skool: check your sources. Over to you, Ms. Elliott:

I want to set the record straight about Bob Hepburn’s inaccurate assertions. I am focused on representing the people of Whitby-Oshawa and, despite what Mr. Hepburn suggests, I have absolutely no intention of resigning my seat. The confidence placed in me by my constituents is something that I will continue to work every day to retain.

My husband, Jim Flaherty, is honoured by the responsibility given to him by Prime Minister Stephen Harper over the last five years to serve as Canada’s finance minister during these difficult times. He continues to play a pivotal role in helping Canada demonstrate international leadership on economic matters. He has no intention of leaving his role in Ottawa to seek the leadership of the Ontario PC Party. Jim and I are united behind Tim Hudak.

Take note, kids: this is what happens when you do the Liberals' dirty work.

Anybody else care to stand up and be counted as one of the so called "leadership candidates"?

Happy Halloween!

[H/t: Hunter]

Heather Malice: "Harperites Don't Like People With Breasts"

Normally I make it a point not to read the filth written by Heather Mallick, and rather I choose to digest her insane ramblings through the mouth of Charles Adler. In one of her most recent rants she makes the claim "face it, Harperites don’t like people with breasts". As a Harper supporter, I have been lumped into this group. The Toronto Star should be ashamed of themselves for printing this garbage. I am a "Harperite" with 3 sisters, one of whom is currently fighting advanced stage breast cancer. My sister is about to lose a breast, and I'm reading that a "Harperite" like me hates people with breasts? So then by Heather's logic I won't "hate" my sister anymore, or at least by half. This statement is ridiculous and offensive. Many "Harperites" have wives, sisters, mothers, and daughters. Do we hate them? Is that what you are trying to tell me Heather?

At least now Mallick is getting paid by the Star and not the taxpayers. This bile was worse when my tax dollars were paying for it. I will never again visit the Toronto Star website for any reason nor send any exit links to their site. The Star should be ashamed for employing her. I'm endorsing a full boycott of the Star by any Stephen Harper supporter who does not hate breasts, especially those close to women who are fighting this awful disease. I strongly support donations to breast cancer research and treatment. Let's do as much as we can to help save our mothers, sisters, daughters, nieces, and even the random male who suddenly gets diagnosed . We are Harperites and we love the women in our families. We don't hate them because they have boobs. F**k you Heather Mallik.

Halloween Poll Questions

Happy Halloween! In honour of the day I have two poll questions. The first question; have you or will you wear a Halloween costume in public this year? The second question is dedicated to my nephew; should Halloween be a statutory holiday? He recently argued that Halloween should be an official holiday, and while I'm pretty sure how this poll will turn out, for his sake I had to ask. Perhaps it could be a day off school, but not a full blown stat holiday. Really my nephew was pissed off that he had to go to school on Halloween more so than he was advocating a new stat.

I've been seeing a lot of adults wearing Halloween costumes this past week, and I am curious to know how many of you are members of this club. If you are invited to a costume party and dress up for one night, that's acceptable; but when Darth Vader is bagging my groceries, I tend to roll my eyes in disapproval (FYI: no disrespect to people who work bagging groceries. That was my first job in high school). Then again, some employers likely encourage their staff to wear costumes today in order to max out the flavour of the day. I worked today. I dressed up as an ice maker. Nobody noticed, but then again, it wasn't a costume.

Liberty or equality?

It is pretty clear that the main social goal of many socialist activists, such as the Occupiers, is equality. The problem is that equality does not mean life is better. Equality is not something that intrinsically improves the well being of individuals or the prosperity of society. Equality should not be the goal, liberty should be.

I will allow Milton Friedman to explain why:

Jux. Fathers


Edmonton soldier held infant daughter days before he died

I won't quote from this article as you can read what you see fit.  Canada suffered a tragic loss in the death of Master Cpl. Byron Greff.  I will consider another blog, another day to comment on the mission, but for now, I am devastated that Master Cpl. Byron Greff's heroic patriotism comes at his daughter (and entire families) expense.  May God's peace be on his family and may they be comforted during this tragic time.

And on the entire other opposite end of the 'heroic father' spectrum:

Phoenix Girl, 3, Dies After Stepfather Brutally Beat Her for Not Eating Hot Dog

I cannot wrap my head around either story.  I do believe this, fathers, we hopefully have a wake-up call to realize the privilege and responsibility we carry.  Consider your time with your family a gift and the best investment you can possibly make.  Time and love is something we should have a deep well of capital to invest from.  I am humbled by our hero at home and repelled by the "______" down south.  Both stories paint a grim picture letting us know about the impact and power of a father: I deeply encourage you today Dad's, let's step up our game.  Let's make an extra effort to express love, devotion and commitment to our children: be tomorrow's hero today. 

"Be nice to us or we will hurt you!"

Message to Fox News from hacker group 'Anonymous':

Pot, kettle?


Sunday Psalm: 13 - "I Have Trusted In Your Loving-Kindness

Psalm 1, Verse 1 and 2 in Biblia Hebraica Stut...Image via Wikipedia

Psalm 13

New Life Version (NLV)

Psalm 13

Prayer for Help in Time of Trouble
 1 How long, O Lord? Will You forget me forever? How long will You hide Your face from me? 2 How long must I plan what to do in my soul, and have sorrow in my heart all the day? How long will those who hate me rise above me? 3 Look on me and answer, O Lord, my God. Give light to my eyes, or I will sleep the sleep of death. 4 Or the one who hates me will say, “I have power over him.” And those who hate me will be happy when I am shaken.
 5 But I have trusted in Your loving-kindness. My heart will be full of joy because You will save me. 6 I will sing to the Lord, because He has been good to me.

New Life Version (NLV)Copyright © 1969 by Christian Literature International

credit: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm%2013&version=NLV 

The Lord responds to the deepest longings, and deepest needs, of our hearts. He is not found at the end of a logical argument; he is found at the point of your deepest need.  Have a good Day.

Nurturing Little Newfie Cheaters

GDR "village teacher" (a teacher tea...Image via Wikipedia"Earlier this month, Eastern School District along the east coast of Newfoundland unveiled a new evaluation policy that said teachers should not give a student caught cheating a zero, but an “alternate appropriate assessment.” The student’s mark should be “derived from the second assessment” with no academic penalty for having been dishonest in the first place."
So,  we're penalizing the teachers instead of the students (by making teachers do extra work). And what's with the author's funny use of the term "bluff" as a synonym for cheat (see below)? Nothing wrong with bluffing on an answer, is there?
Newfoundland’s largest school board is “enabling students to cheat” with a new policy that requires teachers to let students caught bluffing on their tests get a second try with no academic penalty, the province’s teachers’ association charged this week in a complaint that echoes frustrations in other school districts across the country that are rethinking the way they discipline student cheaters.
PS -- It's OK to say "Newfie", I hope? No disrespect intended!

Corporation, Unions, And Political Contributions

Today's poll question; should corporations and unions be allowed to make political donations and run advertising during election campaigns? You may have noticed in recent years that many major unions in Canada have been spending a lot of money on advertisements espousing NDP and other left wing positions. This allows the Dippers to flood the airwaves with friendly words promoting their policies and attacking the government without counting towards legal spending limits. In Ontario the "working families coalition" (aka CUPE) put more money and effort into re-electing Dalton McGuinty than Dalton did! They wanted to keep the gravy train rolling, and it was worth their while to spend  millions of dollars making it happen.

Unions are becoming very politically active, or perhaps they've always been and I'm just noticing it more as I grow older. Peggy Nash is the biggest union cheerleader in the NDP leadership race, and she was on TV yesterday saying that if you are not in a union, you're probably struggling to get by financially. I'm not sure that we need more electoral law when we already have several laws that are outdated and should be scrapped. They were discussing this "political contribution" issue on the radio yesterday as I was driving to work, so I figured it was at least worth a poll question. Corporations were included in the poll question because reasonably, you can't deny one and permit the other. It is all or none.

Underground Empire in China with Nuclear Weapons...

Foreign Affairs is one of my major interests, particularly what is happening in Asia, the Far East, specifically China. I have written and posted several comments with factual links on the weblog. One just has to type in one word in the search-box then scroll for some input. It seems many in Taiwan read the comments. I hope they understand and appreciate sarcasm, yet seriousness.

This latest input about China intrigues me. The Chinese have built 3000 miles of tunnels for arsenals and security. Mao started during his regime phase; the beginning of an underground empire. Tunnels are a history of China. At present, evidently, the 2nd Artillery Corps of the People's Liberation Army are building tunnels.

The democratic nations thought there were about 300 to 400 nuclear weapons. But why so many connected tunnels? A home in case there is an attack? Pundits think that they have many more arsenals, in the thousands.

They found this out when an earthquake collapse exposed concrete, the kind which indicated tunnels.

I heard this on one of my favourite American Talk Radio programs, John Batchelor of 770AM WABC.

What's Down There? China's Tunnels and Nuclear Capabilities

China expands nuke stockpile... :: TeaParty.org

China’s Underground “Great Wall”: A Success for Nuclear Primacy

Did ABC News Really Say This?

At a million-dollar San Francisco fundraiser today, President Obama warned his recession-battered supporters that if he loses the 2012 election it could herald a new, painful era of self-reliance in America.
Did ABC News really say this? Apparently so.

h/t Mark Steyn

Friday Night Funnies: Trick or Treat!

A repeat, but so good it needs to be seen again:


A bald man with a wooden leg gets invited to a Halloween Party. He doesn't know what costume to wear to hide his head and his leg, So he writes to a costume company to explain his problem.

A few days later he received a parcel with the following note:

Dear Sir,
Please find enclosed a pirate's outfit. The spotted handkerchief will cover your bald head and, with your wooden leg, you will be just right as a pirate.

Very truly yours,
Acme Costume Co.

The man thinks this is terrible because they have emphasized his wooden leg and so he writes a letter of complaint. A week goes by and he receives another parcel and a note, which says:

Dear Sir,
Please find enclosed a monk's costume. The long robe will cover your Wooden leg and, with your bald head, you should really look the part.

Very truly yours,
Acme Costume Co.

Now the man is really upset since they have gone from emphasizing his wooden leg to emphasizing his bald head, so again he writes the Company another nasty letter of complaint.

The next day he gets a small Parcel and a note, which reads:

Dear Sir,
We have TRIED our very BEST.
Please find enclosed a bottle of molasses and a bag of crushed nuts.

Pour the molasses over your bald head, pat on crushed nuts, stick your Wooden Leg up your ass and go as a caramel apple.

Very truly yours,
Acme Costume Co.

You know you are too old to Trick or Treat when:

10.. You get winded from knocking on the door.

9. You have to have another kid chew the candy for you.

8. You ask for high fiber candy only.

7.. When someone drops a candy bar in your bag,
you lose your balance and fall over.

6.. People say: 'Great Boris Karloff Mask,'
And you're not wearing a mask.

5. When the door opens you yell, 'Trick or...'
And can't remember the rest.

4.. By the end of the night,
you have a bag full of restraining orders.

3.. You have to carefully choose a costume that won't dislodge your hairpiece.

2.. You're the only Power Ranger in the
neighborhood with a walker.

And the number one reason Seniors should not go
Trick Or Treating...
1. You keep having to go home to tinkle!
Halloween Card.

Have a great weekend. I have noticed not many houses are decked out for Halloween, but we are doing our part to keep the tradition alive. 

Gutless, pc, law-ignoring politicians, useless cops and Indian thugs

Via Blazing Cat Fur:

33,908,000 Canadians Don't Support This Hour Has 22 Minutes...

A crap show with crap talentless comedians. To put it in perspective how absolutely pathetic and what a waste of money Walsh's salary really is to Canadian taxpayers, one needs only look at viewership numbers. In a country with a population estimated at 34,629,000 million people, 22 minutes manages to get 721,000 to stomach them. That's even more pathetic when one factors in CBC is on almost all cable and satellite carriers from cost to coast to coast.

To borrow a phrase commonly used by the usual suspects at the CBC whenever they think they need it to bash PM Stephen Harper, you know, the one that 60% of Canadians never voted for him, let's take that same lefty math formula and apply it to This Hour Has 22 Minutes.

22 Minutes isn't supported by roughly 97% of Canadians. It's amusing to see the comments at the CBC and Toronto Star, the ones asking how Rob Ford could not know who the Retarded Princess of Sag is. Well, judging by the numbers, there are roughly 33,908,000 Canadians in the same boat.

I for one would love to see what the salaries of Walsh and the other regulars on the show are. I'm guessing we aren't getting real bang for the buck. As for the incident with Mayor Rob Ford, if Rob is serious about getting rid of the wasted gravy dollars spent by governments, he might want to also push for the CBC to open his books. I'm guessing Toronto, as well as the other Canadian cities would welcome that $1.1 billion wasted on the CBC every year.

I mean really, you can be the biggest lefty socialist in Toronto, say Adam Vaughan. Could you really make an argument for spending on crap shows like 22 minutes over improving roads, parks, policing, etc?

Shut up!

NDP Leadership Race Getting Crowded

The number of people who have joined the NDP leadership race is now up to 8 with the addition of labour activist Peggy Nash. There are many heavy hitters within the party that are now vying for the top job, which also means that they are giving up their critics portfolios. That means no questions in Question Period, not joining panels on political shows while they campaign to replace Jack. Now that the A team is invested in a leadership race, the B and C team is being elevated to the top speaking positions. Having Nycole Turmel struggle to speak English is already a negative, throwing the rookies into the fire is not going to work out well for the NDP.

I will be VERY interested to watch the NDP leadership debates. I really really really want to listen to this cast of characters debate among themselves what should be the priorities of the party. Mulcair wants to move the party farther away from unions, and I can only imagine that Peggy Nash will have something to say about that. Those are the moments you want to record and save for future playback...

Atlas Shrugged, the movie - a plot rewrite

Peter Foster’s review of Atlas Shrugged (Part 1), the movie, criticizes its implausible plot lines and suggests a re-write:
... its slightly off-kilter, futuristic, film noir look does capture - at least to some degree - the wonderful weirdness of the book on which it is based.
... The movie is set in today's not-too-distant future, but has kept Dagny in railroads and Hank in metals by positing a massive oil crisis due to the implosion of the Middle East. The Dow at 4,000 we can believe, but oil at $37.50 a gallon? At that price, a Chevy Volt might actually not be such a bad deal. Domestic oil is once again king (despite being utterly unaffordable) but is being carried by train. Whatever happened to pipelines?
None of this makes much sense. ... it should have been thoroughly reformulated to reflect statism's new threats.
... How's this for a rewrite? Dagny now runs a pipeline company trying to build a huge new system for a form of oil previously uneconomic but now made available by wonderful advances in capitalist technology. Let's say this oil is located in Alberta and her line is to go to the U.S. refineries of the Gulf Coast, to replace imports from dictatorships.
... Hank is still in the steel industry but his new wonder metal is now to be used to build a cheaper, stronger and safer type of pipe. However, he is opposed not by other steel or pipe makers, but by [new villains:] ... a pack of meretricious, politically savvy environmental NGOs ... fronted by naive chanting muddle-heads, who have no idea where their rich lifestyles originate, and backed by capitalist foundations (the irony!) that have been hijacked by socialists, and by CEOs either too cowardly or stupid to say no (or by those who seek to take advantage of government handouts to produce throwback technologies). These NGOs claim that the oil is "dirty" and destroying the climate and that Hank Rearden's new and better steel in unsafe, and threatens aquifers and environmentally sensitive areas. Their hysterical claims are eagerly swallowed by gullible liberal media. Meanwhile politicians, despite high unemployment, are prepared to sacrifice tens of thousands of jobs because they, too, are cowed by the ENGOs, and in any case attracted by the unparalleled power prospects of aspiring to control the weather.
... I know this is all a bit farfetched, but we are talking a movie plot here. ... [:-)]
Works for me!

European Bank Crisis - decision tree

From Stratfor courtesy of John Mauldin.
Rest of the article here.

Polar Bear as Canadian Emblem rather than Beaver...

Duke Redbird, my Elder Ojibway friend, called me this morning and asked if heard about the Beaver news. Senator Nicole Eaton desires to remove the Beaver as the emblem and rightly so.

The First Nations do not care for the buck-tooth water-rodents that build dams and prevent free flowing waters. They create stagnant ponds and some creatures die.

From my point of view and experience: the hateful rats cut down old willow trees on my family's compound, and twenty or thirty Birch trees.

Yet foolish people called them dexterous and made them into an emblem. A shame.

A polar bear would be much better. It would show independence and strength.

The Americans have the Eagle, the British the Lion or, perhaps, Bulldog, because of Winston. Whereas, we have the buck-tooth water-rat. I stopped buying anything from Bell Canada when they had those two beavers in commercials.

Polar bear should replace beaver as Canadian national emblem: Senator Nicole Eaton

Duke Redbird Poem - YouTube

Generally, farmers despise beavers on their properties. As industrious as they are the rodents are also destructive.

Damning the beaver — Tamsin McMahon, National Post

The Canadian beaver, unwittingly dragged into a fight to retain its place as the symbol of national pride, has a new enemy.

Last week, Senator Nicole Eaton called on the government to retire the beaver as Canada's national emblem, arguing the polar bear was a more appropriate image than a "dentally defective rat."

Now a group of nearly 100 Ottawa-area farmers has declared war on the beaver, whose population has exploded with the decline of trapping, leaving the critters to build dozens of dams that have destroyed trees, flooded farmland and are threatening farmers' wells, septic systems and roads.

"The beaver was the national symbol because of its value and because of the fur trade and the fact that it is a very industrious and hardworking creature," said farmer John Woodfine. "If left unchecked, it's just like anything else. It will just go right off the map and the water will come onto the map and that's what's happened here."

Mr. Woodfine has lost more than half his 57-acre sheep farm south of Ottawa to flooding caused by dozens of beaver dams along a 13kilometre stretch of the Kemptville Creek.

For his neighbour, Horace Roxborough, the issue finally came to a head last fall when a delivery truck got stuck in the mud near his barn and had to be pulled out with a tow truck.

"The fact is, over the past 30 years this area has slowly become a swamp, and it's directly attributed to the pesky little beavers," he said.

The farmers, along with local municipalities and the conservation authority, have pooled $5,000 to hire a lone trapper to breach the dams and trap beavers. But Mr. Roxborough said it's a losing battle.

"The only way to do it is to really annihilate these dams because they'll have it patched up again the next day," he said. "It's a war. It's really a war."

As an indication of how far the beaver has fallen since the days when its silken fur lured European traders to North America, trappers now earn five times as much to kill the animals for pest control than they do selling their fur.

The global market for beavers "is soft right now," said Bill Davies, president of the Canadian National Trappers Alliance. Beavers command as much as $125 apiece if killed as a pest, but as little as $20 at a fur auction. Trappers can capture only about four or five beavers a day and each one takes 90 minutes to skin and dry. Coupled with rising fuel costs, along with government royalties and auction fees, and beavers are no longer worth the trouble.

Sharon Brown, a biologist with advocacy organization Beavers: Wetlands & Wildlife, said the rodent is misunderstood. Beaver dams create wetlands, one of the most efficient ecosystems in North America when it comes to filtering carbon emissions, silt and pesticides, and supporting diverse wildlife such as fish, deer and waterfowl.

Reasons Why We Lost: I Make The Rules/Who Cares?

Did you hear about how that power plant in Mississauga is still open??? Even after Dalton said he'd close it???? WTF? What is the matter with people? Don't they care?
No. No they don't.

That is the only possible explanation. Dalton said the power plant was going to close. The power plant is not closed, and not only is it not closed, work on it has not stopped. People are aware of this. They can see it for themselves.

Why don't people care?

Because Dalton didn't care. Neither did Chretien. Neither, it must be said, does Harper. 
He Makes The Rules, people. Deal with it.

And what's more, people knew before the election that Dalton wouldn't close the plant, and that he would, if given the chance, raise taxes again. We weren't telling them anything they didn't already know. They just didn't care. Because Dalton didn't care.

Well....that's not entirely true. I think Dalton does care. That's why he got rattled at the debate when Hudak attacked him about the power plant. But he knew, or someone on his campaign team knew, that under no circumstances could he admit that he cared. Because caring about what people say about you puts them in control.

Total control.

If I could identify one thing that all Canada's political leaders have in common- the successful ones- it is that they, at all times, exercised total authority over their caucus, their electorate, and their opponents. So if Hudak cracked down on Klees this week and forced him to reconsider his incredibly stupid and self serving decision to run for Speaker, then good on him. He is learning.

Think about men like King, Laurier, Mulroney, Diefenbaker, Chretien, Harper. Think about the Big Blue Machine Premiers. Think about Danny Williams, Ralph Klein, Gary Doer, Hazel McCallion. Jack Layton- who never, ever let anyone in his caucus really undermine him, no matter how bad his party did- is no exception.

Now think about the losers. Paul Martin. John Tory. Kim Campbell. Stephane Dion. Michael Ignatieff. Joe Clark. Ed Stelmach. All of them tried really, really hard to care about people. The people didn't reciprocate.

Now think about those who have survived highs and lows. What drove Gordon Campbell out of office? Ceding control to the public for an HST referendum. Jean Charest? Looking pretty weak right now with corruption getting out of control. Looked pretty weak during that provincial election where the ADQ became the official opposition. Reasserted himself the one time, not sure about this time. Christy Clark looks pretty weak now with the caucus rebellion. Brad Wall looks very much in control, Lingenfelter doesn't. Redford's the unchallenged mistress of Alberta, while Danielle Smith struggles to control her people, but that could change.

Dalton? Well, think about during the summer when his caucus was deserting him. That, more so than anything Hudak said or did, made him look totally, totally weak. Not in control at all. Then he reversed that trend, and.....

Have you noticed that now that Ford appears to care about what people are saying about him, suddenly he looks a lot weaker than he did? And what triggered this slide? Why, a consultation with the public, of course. But now that he isn't admitting guilt over this ridiculous incident with Mary Walsh, it looks like he might get away with it.

A lot of politicos assume that people will rise up in anger once they hear about all the awful things their government has done, but the truth is that Canadians really don't give a toss about what their politicians do. This ain't America, and this ain't the Middle East. You're not going to have a Tea Party, an Arab Spring, or an Occupy Whatever movement worth speaking about up here, and trying to import those concepts wholesale into Canada is going to get you a lot of funny stares from people who really don't give a damn. So long as it looks like the guy running the show is in control, nobody's going to do anything, and they might actually react with anger if someone tries to change it.

If Tim Hudak wants to win, he needs to crack the whip and show that he is the boss. He can't get wrapped up in whether people like him or not, because they've shown that they really don't care.

And until they do care, it's going to be politics as usual.

Conservatives Should Get Out Of Business

Michael Den Tandt: F-35 project is ‘slowly unravelling’

The Conservative government’s controversial F-35 jet fighter project, plagued by delays, cost overruns and now economic turmoil in Europe, is at growing risk of being sharply curtailed or shelved — the defence minister’s protestations notwithstanding.

Why are the conservatives over extending themselves?  They are not business professionals, and now the results seem to be exposing that.  Procurement is difficult.  Leave that for business.  Government (if necessary) should be buying finished products. Companies should be paid for results, not efforts...then there would be no cost overruns.

I wish conservatives would take limited government seriously.

The best "Economic Action Plan" is to get out of the way.

I'm Confused, Can Anyone Do a Flow Chart?

Two men who divorced their wives, came out as gay, became transgender lesbians, now MARRY after one has a sex change
Is this the part where moral relativism kicks in to tell us we have no right to comment? Anyway, your comments are welcome here:

It's A Catholic University. Why Did You Enroll In It?

Can a Catholic demand a room to pray in if it is somewhere in the middle east? I suspect not. So why do Muslims enroll in a Catholic University and then try to get the university to conform to their demands?

The Washington, D.C. Office of Human Rights confirmed that it is investigating allegations that Catholic University violated the human rights of Muslim students by not allowing them to form a Muslim student group and by not providing them rooms without Christian symbols for their daily prayers.
The investigation alleges that Muslim students “must perform their prayers surrounded by symbols of Catholicism – e.g., a wooden crucifix, paintings of Jesus, pictures of priests and theologians which many Muslim students find inappropriate.”
A spokesperson for the Office of Human Rights told Fox News they had received a 60-page complaint against the private university. The investigation, they said, could take as long a six months.
 Let me get this straight. Muslims voluntarily enrolled in a CATHOLIC university, and are now mad because they see the Crucifix everywhere? On top of that, they now want a room to pray in to their god, and are offended that Catholic symbols might be in the room?

They are using our tolerance against us.

Does Parliament Need 30 New Seats?

Today's poll question; should 30 new seats be added to Canadian Parliament? In an attempt to fix some inequities in the current regional distribution of Parliament the government has passed legislation to add 30 new seats spread across Ontario, BC, Alberta, and 3 to Quebec. While I agree that provincial distributions should be tied to population, I do not support adding 30 new politicians to Parliament. Unfortunately you can't redistribute seat counts without adding new ones, so that's how we've arrived where we are.

The last thing this country needs is more politicians, but the Tories are committed to repairing the inequity as much as possible. It is a noble cause, even if adding seats is less desirable than shuffling the existing seats. I'd prefer they take seats away from Atlantic Canada, but I suppose we'd need to update our constitution, and that's rarely fun. I support what the government is doing, just not how they are doing it; and yet their method is the only plausible option. I'm torn on this one.

Reasons Why We Lost: Scaredy-Cats

There are few people who I hold in lower esteem than Bob Hepburn, editor of the Toronto Star.

Expecting journalists and editors to be unbiased is and always has been a fool's game. People in this profession who openly cheerlead is also risible, but not unexpected. But Hepburn is so far in the tank for the Liberals that he openly deigns to give them suggestions on how to lead. And not only that, but if you click those links and read what he had to say, you will find that his suggestions are usually quite wrong.

I don't know how Liberals feel about Hepburn's pronouncements. But in this morning's column about the supposed state of the PC Party, Hepburn decided he's going to give Tim Hudak advice on how to stay leader.

So now, in addition to everyone and their brother who's ever held a membership in the PC Party of Ontario, we now have the Star's editor chiming in about the future of the party. Hepburn's column is full of overheated gossip- Tom Long is planning to kneecap Hudak! Flaherty is waiting in the wings! Unnamed leadership rivals are "circling!"- and factual errors -the PC Party supposedly "dumps" leaders who lose, but all the leaders he names resigned- and while that's bad, it doesn't touch the real issue here.

See, I understand people are mad about the loss. Some people want Hudak gone. But right now, there is no doubt in my mind that Hudak is going to survive. Because of one reason, one reason that Hepburn and all the other tough talkers seem to not have considered. Are you ready? Here it is:


Hepburn thinks that because he has control over a rapidly-declining broadsheet, he can use it as a platform to make his idiotic pronouncements. He won't go on TV or go head to head with anyone on the radio to defend what he says, because he knows in the back of his mind that he'll get clobbered.

But these noble Principled Conservatives who think they know better than the party have no such broadsheet to hide behind. They like to complain, but they won't back their talk up with action. More to the point, where were these Principled Conservatives when Hudak said he wouldn't scrap the HRC's? Or when the platform was announced? Or during the months after the platform was announced when we were coasting at 40%+? Nowhere, that's where. They shut their mouths and went along for the ride. Now, they think that because Hudak lost, he's done like dinner even though they have no organization, and the people they want to replace have at least some organization.

Do we have a party full of fighters, ready to pound Dalton into red Jell-O? Or do we have a bunch of scaredy-cats like Frank Klees who stab the leader in the back, then turn tail and run at the first sign of trouble? Who would rather complain about the other half of the party because it's easy to do that, and fighting the Liberals is difficult?

It goes back to what I said about not running tentative campaigns that are fraught with concern about What The Liberals Will Say. If you, Mr. or Mrs. Principled Conservative, want Spiro or Lietaer or Hudak or whoever gone, then you had damn well better stand behind your rhetoric. Then, you may not have the admiration of the party, but you will have their respect. Or you can do nothing, and have neither.

Kill the Canadian dairy cartel

The wheat monopoly is as good as gone. Now the dairy cartel needs to be put down.
William Watson responds to a column by Wally Smith, head of the Dairy Farmers of Canada:
... [US vs Cdn prices per 4 liters] Three and two-thirds bucks compared to more than six bucks. Anybody feeling milked? If not hosed?

... Why we pay more for dairy products couldn’t be simpler: Our dairy cartel artificially restricts supply.
... To make the legalized price gouging work, of course, it’s necessary to keep cheaper alternatives out of the market. Which is why, in addition to police protection against excessive production in Canada, we have enforcement at the border via outrageously high tariffs: 241% to 295.5%, including 277% for ice cream. Imagine! A country that puts punitive taxes on ice cream!
... Mr. Smith’s main justification for output restriction is that before it came along, dairy prices would fluctuate. ... (Note that one of OPEC’s official aims is “the stabilization of prices in international oil markets with a view to eliminating harmful and unnecessary fluctuations.” All cartels believe devoutly in “stabilization".)
The dairy cartel should go the way of the Wheat Board. But it'll be a tougher nut to crack given that it's a shared federal/provincial jurisdiction.

Ann Coulter on Obama's crony capitalism

At the 3 minute mark:

Will The Real Left Winger Please Stand Up?

Liberals tout moves to ‘create’ and ‘protect’ jobs

Ontario is moving to “create” and “protect” nearly 1,600 jobs — many engineering positions that could move offshore — by investing in private firms, said Economic Development Minister Brad Duguid.

Ontario's Liberals are definitely not slim, but clearly shady. As I predicted in Clouds Looming Over Ontario, the Liberals would soak money from one set of taxpayers and 'invest' it with another group, all in the name of 'togetherness'.  The Liberal economic interventionists are stimulating our economy with prescribed drugs, and in heavy doses.

 The problem with these well intended forced hits is that it creates an addiction.  We crave and demand the euphoria of getting our entitled thrill of other people's success.  We become dependant on Liberals (and sometimes Conservatives) to give us our 'fix'and thus don't look for the real fix.  We cry, "we can't maintain jobs on our own, help us Liberals! Take from those with, and give to those without, then we will cheer fairness and togetherness!"  Can any left leaning thinker explain this one to me?  How is it helping Ontario to undermine the free market by thinking it is the governments responsibility to create jobs?  That's like some dude snatching my daughter off our yard only to later say, "oh, I'm sorry, I thought it was my job to parent your child".  Absurd.  I am responsible to parent my child and I am responsible for my successes and failures.  Why do we undermine the principle of personal responsibility with these left policies?  Why does the left do such a poor job articulating why they are justified to encroach on our jurisdiction and operate with impunity and domineering authority? 

I will further predict that the Ontario middle class will continue to suffer unless the Liberals stop forcing the redistribution pills on us.  I sadly see a decrepit, addicted population demanding more from their government. 

Addicts.  The liberals are turning it's citizens into addicts.  Justify your position Liberals. Why do you intervene in the free market and think it's your job to help rescue jobs? It's not. Leave that to the free market, it will produce real and superior results.  Sure there may not be any 'quick fixes', but that's okay.   You are not our protectors, our providers or our providential helpers.  Stop abusing your authority and acting as though you are.  And my goodness, if you insist on these endless redistribution-interventions, at least justify the action beyond the 'immediate need' your claiming to meet. It's so anti-intellectual.  Will the real left winger please stand up and give some sensible account for these flagrant violations of jurisdiction?  What a rant, I think I need a chill pill...but just this once.

Is this democracy or merely idiocy?

Not a moment too soon: patience seems to be wearing thin with the Occupy movements across Canada, and city officials in several communities are moving to reclaim public property. In some cases, demonstrators have been given deadlines to leave.

Apparently, patience has already run out in U.S. cities like Oakland, where Occupiers have had tear gas and beanbag rounds fired at them, and in Atlanta, where police arrested about 50 people after protesters were warned to leave a downtown park.

“People have a right to pro­test, but this is no longer a pro­test. This is a camp­ground.”

– Charles Gauthier

In Calgary and Halifax, protesters have been asked to relocate, and the mayor of London, Ontario said that it’s time for the protesters to leave a city park. Not surprisingly too, the Occupy protests have become an issue in the Vancouver mayoral campaign.

In Toronto and Vancouver, city spokespersons have made it clear that, while they respect the right of citizens to hold public protests, they will not for much longer tolerate unlawful encampments in public spaces.

Edmonton businessman Ralph Young of Melcor Developments Ltd. gives an example of the public nuisance the Occupy movement typically causes when he noted that there’s a smell that lingers because the only sanitation facilities are a few portable toilets. And, apparently, Young has heard complaints from his corporate tenants about protesters “doing bodily functions outside in the open,” as well as the sudden appearance of syringes and needles nearby.

Who among us would like to have that on or near our property?

I believe we need a better balance between citizens’ right to peaceful protest in parks and other public spaces and the general public’s right to enjoy those spaces. And surely it’s the duty of police services to remove protesters from private property that has been occupied without explicit permission of the owners. I agree with Charles Gauthier, Executive Director, Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Assn., who said recently, “People have a right to pro­test, but this is no longer a pro­test. This is a camp­ground.”

In Montreal, about 200 demonstrators have set up camp in a park in front of the Montreal Stock Exchange tower. A spokesman for the city said there are no plans to remove these people.

In downtown Toronto, rag-tag group of people are illegally living in St. James park in tents and makeshift shelters. The protesters have been there for two weeks and are occupying the park without a permit, which makes them squatters.

On the west coast, heavy rains turned Occupy Vancouver’s shanty-town of tents on the lawn of the Vancouver Art Gallery into a muddy quagmire this week.

So what about those who live and work in those areas, Have they no rights? Why aren’t the policy enforcing laws by which the rest of us abide? Is this democracy or merely idiocy?



© Russell G. Campbell, 2011.
All rights reserved.
The views I express on this blog are my own and do not necessarily represent the views or posi­tions of political parties, institutions or organi­zations with which I am associated.

Mohawks join Toronto protesters

Heard on the radio news that Mohawks are bringing sacred fire to St. James park in Toronto to support the protest... and probably add theirs.

Joe Warmington of the Sun told John Oakley of 640AM talk radio that there already was a pile of wood. He stepped on one piece and somebody yelled: Get off the sacred wood.

Hello Caledonia!

Which reminds me how spineless Premier Dalton McGuinty was, so he purchased the property so the developers and home owners could get something back. McCastrated lost his balls when he sided with the native thugs. I think he, or the Mohawks, handed them over to his wife and she had them bronzed. Memories.

Caledonia Players: The Mohawk Warriors

OPP takes natives' side in Caledonia dispute

Grand River land dispute

Mohawks set up camp in Toronto’s High Park

Now what will Mayor Rob Ford do with the leftist Chief Bill Blair of the Toronto Confused or Handcuffed Police?

Frankly, the hell with Toronto and the liberals and socialists inside the metaphorical political moat which separates the Greater Toronto Area.

But I feel for Rob Ford trying to clean up the financial mess and now this.

Bonfire of occupying vanities for city - Joe Warmington, Toronto Sun

The Economy, An Eye Popping Bloody Mess

Let’s scrap the useless long-gun registry and move on

The long-gun registry is back in the news. The government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper has launched a plan to finally put the federal long-gun registry out of business, plugging the hole down which more than $2-billion of taxpayers’ money have already drained.

The Tories have long argued that registration of rifles and shotguns is a useless burden on firearms owners and are now, with their majority in both the House and the Senate, in a position to scrap the database.

So once again the debate on the merits of the Tory initiative heats up: politicians posture and rant during Question Period and cable news channels top-up their schedules with interviews with much the same characters as we heard during the debate on Manitoba MP Candice Hoeppner’s Bill C-391 in 2009, which would have repealed the long-gun registry back then, had it not been voted down by the opposition.

I hear two primary arguments for retaining this costly program: (a) it’s a valuable tool for police services; and (b) it reduces crimes committed with long-guns.

Firstly, just because police say they want to have a certain tool doesn’t mean they should be given it. Many police services would like to have the option of searching homes without a warrant in times when a neighbourhood child goes missing. We may sympathize with police reasoning, but that does not justify suspending our basic right to privacy and protection against un-lawful search. Our laws should not be crafted primarily to make police work easier, otherwise, there would be an across-the-board ban on all guns, and be damned with individual rights. As to statistics police chiefs use in support of their contention the registry is a valuable police tool, here’s a passage from a piece I wrote last September:
A frequently used statistic to support keeping long-guns in the registry is the 14,012 average daily queries the RCMP claim were made in 2010. This oft-quoted statistic is grossly misleading as only 530 of those are specific to firearms registration (i.e., licence number, serial number and certificate number). The remaining 96.3 per cent (13,482) are automatically generated every time an address is checked or a [motor vehicle] license plate is verified.
Secondly, crimes committed with long-guns have indeed been declining. Some rightly point to the fact that from the mid-1990s—when the firearms registry became law—to 2010, there was a reduction in long gun crimes. But, as pointed out by the National Post’s Lorne Gunter in Wednesday’s newspaper, “there was already less [gun crime] in 1998 than there had been in 1988, and less in 1988 than there had been in 1978.” In other words, violent crime per capita in Canada peaked in 1975 and the rate has been on the decline since then.

It’s been the law in Canada since 1934 to register handguns. Yet handgun crimes are rampant on the streets of Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. If registration had the power to prevent crime and improve our safety, this simply would not be the case.

The long-gun registry applies only to sporting rifles and shotguns; all firearms classified as “restricted” or “prohibited” would remain registered, even after the House passes, as expected, its new bill.

Moreover, it is instructive to note there are alternatives in the form of other databases that keep track of firearm threats. Tom Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association, gives the following examples:
  • The National Information Centre holds criminal records;
  • Police have access to data on firearms licences; and
  • Provincial databases such as PRIME (Police Records Information Management Environment) in British Columbia, collect information from previous incidents, including where police noted firearms at people’s homes.
The long-gun registry was inspired by the murder of 14 students at Montreal’s Ecole Polytechnique by Marc Lapine using a legally obtained Mini-14 rifle. The current law would not have prevented that tragic incident.

Since its inception, the long-gun register has been mired in controversy, distortions and scandal. The gun registry has been reasonable described as a boondoggle and one of the most embarrassing spending scandals in federal Liberal Party history.

Spin, half-truths and muddled reasoning have been hallmarks of this debate. Let’s scrap the useless long-gun registry and move on.
A version of this entry was also published at
Postmedia’s Canada.Com The Real Agenda blog.


© Russell G. Campbell, 2011.
All rights reserved.
The views I express on this blog are my own and do not necessarily represent the views or posi­tions of political parties, institutions or organi­zations with which I am associated.

Jailing Western Farmers Wasn't Enough...

Now the Canadian Wheat Board wants to sue the taxpayers of Canada to keep their monopoly control over farmers. I ask you, what is good about a monopoly? How is lack of competition a good thing? The CWB has had their way for way too long. It was a good idea decades ago, now, it is so entrenched in it's power that it has forgotten to like about what is best for our farmers.

Basic economics instructs that a monopoly will charge a higher price to consumers. The CWB can also give farmers less than the market price because our western farmers, by law, can not sell their wheat to anyone else but the CWB. So, the CWB gets to screw farmers and consumers at the same time. No wonder they are scared to lose their monopoly.

"Going to jail to free western farmers was definitely worth it. It frustrates me that almost one decade has passed since then. It's hard to believe such a law still exists in Canada."
 Let's be clear here. The Canadian Wheat Board will still exist after this bill is passed. They will just have to compete and show western farmers that they will get the best price for them, and that scares the crap out of the glorified CWB.

Does the CWB try to work with the government? No, they are suing the government (meaning us taxpayers....just so you lefties understand who actually pays the bills) because their little kingdom is a risk of having to move into this century. Here is a sample of how lefties think, or not.


12:24 PM on October 26, 2011

It's ironic the way "free trade" will lift many restrictions, while strengthening the "corporate powers" that bind us. Without the Wheat Board's powers, greedy corporations (the wal-mart type) will move in. All the little guys get bought out, corporations (maybe Chinese), buy-up the land and up the prices. Profits leave the country, farmers are now minimum wage earners, and Harpo has satisfied another group of his cronies. "Happy Capitalism"? Sure! If you're in the minority that rules!


1:38 PM on October 26, 2011

Please explain how the apocalypse you describe will be brought about by giving individual farmers a choice on where to sell their wheat?
Lefties scream and yell about a woman's right to choose, but they do not understand that farmers should have the right to choose too.  Individual rights can not be allowed according to the lefties, unless it is something they agree with like the elimination of prayer in schools (except Muslim prayers, those are okay with the lefties), no more "Christmas" anything (can't offend all those "other" religions), and no letting kids be kids without adding sex education into kindergarten classes.

Everything that has been going on lately has reminded me of Atlas Shrugged. Maybe the wheat farmer's should forget to plant crops next spring, see what happens to the price of grain products. Maybe corporations should stop hiring all those union workers.

The CWB is sucking the blood out of our western farmers, and they are obviously running scared. If they had any smarts about them, they would work with the government to realign the laws, instead of suing us tsxpayers.

Free our western farmers! Give them the same choice that eastern farmers get.

SFL.. On the Road in Oakland-ish

Woodstock - they did such a great job in the 60's.. Why wouldn't it work just as well today?


So I'm actually in San Francisco, across the Bay.

I'm having a lovely visit,and greatly enjoying the local reports of the 22% getting hauled away from their occupation.

Of course they vow to return.

The question is why? What are they accomplishing, besides sleeping and shitting in public parks?

Yes, we keep hearing about their intentions to give voice to the unheard.

They keep talking about how it's a reminder of the 60's movement.

Well, I've been thinking about that, as I wander about in the epicenter of the 60's movement - Haight-Ashbury and so on.. and it begs the question - what did the 60's really create?

I'll tell you what they created:
Edward Michael Liddy (born January 28, 1946) - CEO of AIG from 2008 to 2009 and before that, on the board of Goldman Sachs from 2003 to 2008.

Richard Severin "Dick" Fuld, Jr. (born April 26, 1946) is an American investment banker and business executive best known as the final Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Lehman Brothers from 1994 until they went under in 2008.


Two former "children of the 60's", both 23 years old when the "Woodstock Generation" was born on Max Yasgur's field.

That's right - both of these sworn enemies of the "occupiers of Wall Street" were children of the so-called "age of Aquarius".

So what the hell happened?

Well.. I'll tell you.

While Timothy Leary and his pals were tuning out on LSD, following up on the same sort of stupidity as Ken Kesey and the Merry Pranksters driving around in their magic bus - the ground work was laid for greasy weasels like Liddy and Fuld to take control.

And they sure as hell did, and, sadly they still do.

Other 60's children?

Dick Cheney was 28 in 1969.

Karl Rove was 19 in 1969.

And, last, but not least.. their uberfuhrer, George W. Bush, was born in 1946, and was 23 years old when Jimmy Hendrix was lighting his guitar on fire.

Think about THAT for a moment.

And then ask yourself this:

If all these asshole "occupiers" are going to do is sit in a park and make a nuisance of themselves.. If all their supporters like Michael Moore are going to do is bitch and moan, but do little or nothing to pick up a shovel and start doing some heavy lifting..

Who is going to be the Lehman Brothers of 2051?

Who is going to be the power elite in the mid 21st century when the 22% cede control of government today, like they did in 1969?

Time to put on the "big boy pants", and start doing some work to give Government back to everyday people, instead of just shitting in the park like a bunch of ignorant farm animals in Yasgur's field back in '69.

The Occupiers Speak (You Can't Make This Stuff Up)

You can't make this kind of stuff up.

During the final session reserved for comments, discussions became somewhat heated when a man stood and said through the “human mic,” “We are all God’s children. We should not label each other.”  Another man responded, “Issues of inequality should be at the center of discussions." A woman added, “Don’t mention God.  It makes me feel like I have to hide my agnostic beliefs.”
One's head spins.

Local Energy Efficiency and Affordable Housing Woes

Two big stories in town this week... first off was a rather scathing opinion piece detailing our local version of the Energy Efficient Appliances programs - similar to the federal one. The point of the article was that since the program started, our electricity has gone up from 7.7 cents to 12.5 cents - nearing 'doubled' status, and therefore hasnt really saved anyone anything. There is much more to the article, but I was interested in a comment I read this morning by a reader.

She went rabid, talking about how much more those people would be paying now if they had NOT bought energy efficient furnaces, washer/dryers, etc. Well let's think of some math first... hmmm... the furnaces I saw that were approved for the program were $4000 to $6000 a piece. The washer dryer sets are around $1500 on the cheaper end, $2200 for the approved brands... and windows are extortionately high. It's 2 grand for one big living room window if you are lucky. So let's say someone decided to go all out and purchase 10 grand in energy efficient appliances and additions - and now they are 'saving' 20 bucks a month on electricity because of it. Okay - so how long will it take until they break even for what they paid in the first place (including the few hundred dollars refund from the municipal and fed govt)....By my calculations it would take 500 months, or 41+ years, to break even at saving $20/month and adding up to 10 grand. So in 41 years they will start their real savings (if electricity stays at 12.5 cents but it's actually supposed to go up even more). Wooo that's quite a deal! OR if they had chosen NOT to join this program and did NOT spend 10 grand on appliances, they would only be paying $20 a month extra so it would take 41+ years for them to finally be able to say they were wasting money by not joining that program 'way back when'. But wait - a furnace lifetime is 20-30 years by recommendation so all the people that bought a new one in order to save 20 bucks a month on their bill will have to buy another new one before they truly reap the benefits...wow that's awesome!

Did the woman writing the comment stop to think of that for even one minute? Those people are not saving a dime - and what if they bought their items on credit card or finance plan? they are paying the bill for that every month still and I guarantee you it's more than $20. So what are people thinking?

If you want to buy energy efficient stuff - go right ahead. But if you dropped a few grand (or several) in order to do it, don't dupe yourself into thinking that you are saving any money at all. I know that my house sucks and I would love to fix the windows and put in new insulation in one wall that is realllly crappy - but after I added up $8000 for windows and $1200 for the wall re-do, I realized I would not be saving any real money for a very very long time and we are not going to live in this house long enough to reap the benefits at all. So what's the point? I am smart enough to figure that out in mere minutes, so why can't anyone else?

The other story surrounds the lower income houses that I have talked about in the past. To backtrack, a housing company came here around 2005 and started building 2 and 3 bedroom attached/terraced homes that were selling for only $95,000 to $100,000 each. It was all over the papers that year - Own Your Own Home for Less Than Rent! weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. However - with the housing market spiking around that same time, within a couple of years, those same homes were selling for over $200,000. Wow - is that affordable or what? Anyway so yeah a whole bunch of people still bought them though they had literally doubled+ in price.

And whoops - it is now coming out that the workmanship on them is so bad, real estate agents are starting to not even want to list them! One building even has it's entire foundation slab separating and 'floating', which is causing structural damage to the entire row of homes. And the people are stuck. They have only been paying the mortgage for a few years and cannot sell them for the 'new' value of $150,000 because they cannot afford to do that when they purchased for $220,000... and also because no one is going to want to buy a house that is going to fall down on top of the other ones or has mould problems, etc etc. Whoops.

But I might sound really harsh here in saying that I do not feel sorry for the people that are stuck. well okay, I do, because I am human and I care. However in the grand scheme of things, they bought homes that were supposed to be affordable housing units for almost a quarter of a million dollars and jumped on the bandwagon of owning these cutesy little homes just because all the hype said it was 'stupid to rent when you can own'. Own what? A piece of crap set on a wasteland that 20 years ago was deemed SWAMP and UNINHABITABLE???? Hello? homes that only 2 years before they bought were selling for less than a hundred grand brand spanking new? I don't get it. They did not do their homework on the most important and biggest priced item they would ever buy in their entire lives - and now they are upset and complaining about it.

My friend and I looked at those homes and my friend even went to a meeting to learn about them when they first went up, and she came back saying 'holy crap, I wouldnt buy one of those EVER'. She is just a normal person doing a normal job with no college education and she figured out that it was a bad idea all by herself. Why did so many others fall for this? We said right from the start that they are going to be pieces of crap that will fall apart in 10 years. They started to fall apart in only 6 so wow - but whatever. I dont want people to be homeless but I also do not want to bail out those who fell for the sales pitch and signed on the dotted lines willingly.