The 3 Stooges, and their surrogates, throw out the oft-used quotation by the learned Samuel Johnson, that "Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels."
They argue that due to 26% plus 18% plus 10% plus 6% of Canadians who scattered their vote among the 4 platforms, the law allows them the right to conveniently gloss over the internal distinctions, and rule as a unified front.
Indeed, it does, and not withstanding the prorogation, they may still legally get their chance at the end of January.
To this end, might I offer another quote - this from the character Mr. Bumble from Charles Dickens' "Oliver Twist" :
"If the law supposes that," said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, "the law is a ass- a idiot. If that's the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience- by experience."
We can only hope so much...
Showing posts with label Stephane Dion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stephane Dion. Show all posts
Friday, December 5, 2008
Thursday, December 4, 2008
And the winner is...
Robert Fife of CTV News!
"Huh?", you ask?
Well, like many Canadians, the boob tube in Cole Lake was turned on to see the sales pitches from the various leaders over the current crisis.
Even if I am biased, Harper looked professional and poised. He even indicated that he was open to input from the opposition parties. I see Jeffrey Simpson of the Globe and Mail characterized it as mean-spirited. I guess unless Harper is willing to lay down on the centre line of Rideau Street and let all manner of traffic run over him, he's not showing enough contrition for them.
Anyhoo, great move by Dion - air a grainy YouTube styled video that looks like it was produced by a Grade 9 student in their parents basement (my apologies, they would have had better production values) and have it sent to the networks at least 10-15 minutes late - lots of time for the various anchors and reporters to ad-lib until somebody finally mentions that this doesn't look very good on Dion.
They all said that, and it was painfully obvious to anyone exposed to it.
The award goes to Robert Fife because he was the first journalist to point out the thing that made my wife and I laugh...The spine of a book on the shelf to the upper left of Dion's head that read in bold letters "HOT AIR".
I wondered who would mention it, and indicate that it wasn't very smart to have that sitting within the gaze of the cameras.
Hat's off to you Bob. You said it loud, and you said it first!
"Huh?", you ask?
Well, like many Canadians, the boob tube in Cole Lake was turned on to see the sales pitches from the various leaders over the current crisis.
Even if I am biased, Harper looked professional and poised. He even indicated that he was open to input from the opposition parties. I see Jeffrey Simpson of the Globe and Mail characterized it as mean-spirited. I guess unless Harper is willing to lay down on the centre line of Rideau Street and let all manner of traffic run over him, he's not showing enough contrition for them.
Anyhoo, great move by Dion - air a grainy YouTube styled video that looks like it was produced by a Grade 9 student in their parents basement (my apologies, they would have had better production values) and have it sent to the networks at least 10-15 minutes late - lots of time for the various anchors and reporters to ad-lib until somebody finally mentions that this doesn't look very good on Dion.
They all said that, and it was painfully obvious to anyone exposed to it.
The award goes to Robert Fife because he was the first journalist to point out the thing that made my wife and I laugh...The spine of a book on the shelf to the upper left of Dion's head that read in bold letters "HOT AIR".
I wondered who would mention it, and indicate that it wasn't very smart to have that sitting within the gaze of the cameras.
Hat's off to you Bob. You said it loud, and you said it first!
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
A Moment of Truth for some...
I am not a particularly religious man, but I am often struck by the simple philosophy that many religions offer. In particular, the events in Ottawa over the last couple of days reminded me of an oft-cited verse that asks “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”
Democracy is a messy business, and the design of our institutions does allow for the kind of arrangement that the Liberal and New Democratic Parties, in conjunction, have conceived. That is not the question that Canadians must ask themselves, unless they wish to adopt another form of government that prohibits this possibility.Whether or not such an arrangement should take place is the real question that Canadians must grapple with.
The idea to alter the public funding arrangement for political parties may, admittedly, have been hamfisted and lacking in a cooperative spirit, but the sheer opportunitstic and cravenly self-aggrandizing response by Messrs. Dion, Layton, and Duceppe appear to be both conveniently rapid and massively over-reactive.
The coalition partners, to be sure, cannot sell a government led by Monsieur Dion, and backstopped by separatists solely on the grounds that their parties cannot survive on the voluntary political contributions of Canadians, and that they need government money to exist. Unfortunately, that appears to be the excuse, even if the ‘cri de coeur’ is economic salvation.
The fall of a Conservative government is a transitory event. Governments rise and fall numerous times in a democracy, and at some point in the future, those who sit in opposition eventually get their chance to demonstrate leadership. As disappointing as it may be for many, it will pass, and they will take stock. What may not be so temporary, or fleeting, is the damage done to those parties that have assented to this scheme.
Those who count themselves as Liberals, either as card-carrying members, or as voting supporters, must now ask themselves just what that means. What distinguishes a Liberal from a New Democrat when that party will possess Cabinet Ministers within a Dion government, and have the right, by signed agreement, to determine policies that you voted against just two months ago? What does national unity mean to you, as a Liberal, when your party has struck a faustian bargain with those who seek to vivisect the country? What is the definition of leadership in the Liberal Party when a man who has lost the confidence of the Canadian people a mere two months ago, and the confidence of his own colleagues even more recently, can still become Prime Minister?
People join parties for a myriad of reasons – for personal profit, or personal beliefs. Depending upon what rationale led some of you to become Liberals, you may not be bothered in the least. On the other hand, you may wonder whether or not the Liberal Party you see today is the one you have supported in good faith in the past.
Although I continue to be a Conservative partisan myself, it would be a lie for me to deny that I have considered what the limits to my loyalty are. Long ago, I decided the conditions under which I would willingly tear up my membership card, and declare to my colleagues that being a party member was no longer compatible with my core beliefs or my conscience.
Whether or not Liberal supporters agree, I would argue that such is the moment of truth for them. Each supporter of that party needs to ask themselves whether or not this is the kind of leadership that they can accept in good conscience. They need to ask themselves whether or not the accommodations to the NDP and to the Bloc Quebecois are a reasonable compromise under the circumstances, or do they reflect a base desire to hold power whatever the moral cost.
The bottom line is that if the Liberal Party of Canada represents nothing more than a cadre of political insiders keen on wresting power for its own sake, is that a party you can be proud of? Is that a party that you can vote for, campaign for, and – more importantly – defend over the course of the coming months?
If not, there is no disloyalty in walking away from a party that abandoned you first.
Democracy is a messy business, and the design of our institutions does allow for the kind of arrangement that the Liberal and New Democratic Parties, in conjunction, have conceived. That is not the question that Canadians must ask themselves, unless they wish to adopt another form of government that prohibits this possibility.Whether or not such an arrangement should take place is the real question that Canadians must grapple with.
The idea to alter the public funding arrangement for political parties may, admittedly, have been hamfisted and lacking in a cooperative spirit, but the sheer opportunitstic and cravenly self-aggrandizing response by Messrs. Dion, Layton, and Duceppe appear to be both conveniently rapid and massively over-reactive.
The coalition partners, to be sure, cannot sell a government led by Monsieur Dion, and backstopped by separatists solely on the grounds that their parties cannot survive on the voluntary political contributions of Canadians, and that they need government money to exist. Unfortunately, that appears to be the excuse, even if the ‘cri de coeur’ is economic salvation.
The fall of a Conservative government is a transitory event. Governments rise and fall numerous times in a democracy, and at some point in the future, those who sit in opposition eventually get their chance to demonstrate leadership. As disappointing as it may be for many, it will pass, and they will take stock. What may not be so temporary, or fleeting, is the damage done to those parties that have assented to this scheme.
Those who count themselves as Liberals, either as card-carrying members, or as voting supporters, must now ask themselves just what that means. What distinguishes a Liberal from a New Democrat when that party will possess Cabinet Ministers within a Dion government, and have the right, by signed agreement, to determine policies that you voted against just two months ago? What does national unity mean to you, as a Liberal, when your party has struck a faustian bargain with those who seek to vivisect the country? What is the definition of leadership in the Liberal Party when a man who has lost the confidence of the Canadian people a mere two months ago, and the confidence of his own colleagues even more recently, can still become Prime Minister?
People join parties for a myriad of reasons – for personal profit, or personal beliefs. Depending upon what rationale led some of you to become Liberals, you may not be bothered in the least. On the other hand, you may wonder whether or not the Liberal Party you see today is the one you have supported in good faith in the past.
Although I continue to be a Conservative partisan myself, it would be a lie for me to deny that I have considered what the limits to my loyalty are. Long ago, I decided the conditions under which I would willingly tear up my membership card, and declare to my colleagues that being a party member was no longer compatible with my core beliefs or my conscience.
Whether or not Liberal supporters agree, I would argue that such is the moment of truth for them. Each supporter of that party needs to ask themselves whether or not this is the kind of leadership that they can accept in good conscience. They need to ask themselves whether or not the accommodations to the NDP and to the Bloc Quebecois are a reasonable compromise under the circumstances, or do they reflect a base desire to hold power whatever the moral cost.
The bottom line is that if the Liberal Party of Canada represents nothing more than a cadre of political insiders keen on wresting power for its own sake, is that a party you can be proud of? Is that a party that you can vote for, campaign for, and – more importantly – defend over the course of the coming months?
If not, there is no disloyalty in walking away from a party that abandoned you first.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Thoughts on the "Green Shift"
So, Stephane Dion has released what he hopes will be, to borrow a computing term, the 'killer app' that delivers the Liberals back to power in Ottawa.
There are, of course, three approaches I could take:
1. To say "Hey, way to go with the copyright infringement!";
2. Say "What global warming? It's all sunspots, or farting cows"; or,
3. Argue some major concerns about the plan
Since there is a tendency to dumb down rhetoric as it is, I really think I should attempt to follow #3 as closely as my pea-sized brain allows.
The main thrust of the plan seems to be to tax people for the production of CO2, and then offset the tax with cuts to income tax. Sounds reasonable. You punish bad behaviour (pollution) and reward good behaviour (hard work) with one stroke of the pen. Heck, on that level, there's something attractive about it to an old Tory soul like me.
Unfortunately, as Newton discovered in Physics, in politics and economics, every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
The questions are these - Who pollutes? Who pays? What are the unintended consequences? Last, but certainly not least, will it make a difference?
First, who pollutes? Well, cities do. They have all of the factories, manufacturing plants, and over 80 percent of Canada's population. Sure, we rural people 'pollute' as we grow the food that other eat, but according to author Jared Diamond in his book "Collapse", the typical US farmer grows enough to feed 125 people (I am sure the Canadian number is similar). If people are going to divide the 'carbon footprint' of a charter flight that takes rich boomers to deep glaze their torsos in the Dominican Republic among the passengers, I am sure that we can divvy up the carbon that the 'dirty' farmer produces among all those who fill their faces without ever having to drive a tractor or pull a weed.
Unfortunately, while the urban dweller can hop on a bus or subway, the farmer cannot. While the urban dweller's employer - depending on the industry - may have the option of reducing their use of fossil fuel, the farmer does not (although if sweat and tears had some octane content, those who feed us would have enough fuel to be self-sufficient).
So, while the 80 percent of Canadians who live in the world of concrete and glass could do a little 'substitution strategy' to reduce their carbon tax hit, those who live in the rural areas, where incomes are generally lower, and where transportation costs are higher, will not be so lucky.
As with anything in economics, higher production costs will get passed on, and even the burghers of Toronto will end up paying more for their burgers. With oil at nearly $140, they are already.
But I'll get my income tax cut, and that will make up for it, you will say. Well, according to the Liberal "Green Shift" site, my rural family will save about $130 a month in income tax, and a comparable urban family would get about $110 per month extra.
Okay, so the good folks that ragged out Harper about the Child Care Benefit, saying "$100 a month won't cover the cost of a sitter or daycare" now argue that $10 more than that will cover higher fuel prices for your car, higher prices for everything that has to be shipped by a truck, or grown in a field, as well as the very stuff that warms your house prevents you and your family from suffering hypothermia during those wonderful Canadian winters of ours.
Of course, that's if you even file income tax, otherwise you are doubly screwed.
Well, at least we'll get our CO2 emissions under control...But wait, according to the experts, the impact will be negligible...If we fully implemented Kyoto, we would only delay, and not stop, the trend, and it would only be a 5 year stall.
The Green Shift is really nothing more than bad economics and bad policy wrapped up in good intentions, making it all the more worse as it assumes a "holier-than-thou" mantle.
Want an alternative? Well, Statistics Canada says that 55 percent of commuters in Toronto drive to work. Well, how about you leave the Land Rover in the driveway and ride the Red Rocket / GO Train / TTC bus to work every day, and quit expecting others to pick up the tab for your environmentally unsustainable lifestyle. Expand that to every Canadian city with a population over 200,000 and a good public transit infrastructure, and see how quickly the CO2 drops.
That is the only shift that we need. Anything else is a shaft.
There are, of course, three approaches I could take:
1. To say "Hey, way to go with the copyright infringement!";
2. Say "What global warming? It's all sunspots, or farting cows"; or,
3. Argue some major concerns about the plan
Since there is a tendency to dumb down rhetoric as it is, I really think I should attempt to follow #3 as closely as my pea-sized brain allows.
The main thrust of the plan seems to be to tax people for the production of CO2, and then offset the tax with cuts to income tax. Sounds reasonable. You punish bad behaviour (pollution) and reward good behaviour (hard work) with one stroke of the pen. Heck, on that level, there's something attractive about it to an old Tory soul like me.
Unfortunately, as Newton discovered in Physics, in politics and economics, every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
The questions are these - Who pollutes? Who pays? What are the unintended consequences? Last, but certainly not least, will it make a difference?
First, who pollutes? Well, cities do. They have all of the factories, manufacturing plants, and over 80 percent of Canada's population. Sure, we rural people 'pollute' as we grow the food that other eat, but according to author Jared Diamond in his book "Collapse", the typical US farmer grows enough to feed 125 people (I am sure the Canadian number is similar). If people are going to divide the 'carbon footprint' of a charter flight that takes rich boomers to deep glaze their torsos in the Dominican Republic among the passengers, I am sure that we can divvy up the carbon that the 'dirty' farmer produces among all those who fill their faces without ever having to drive a tractor or pull a weed.
Unfortunately, while the urban dweller can hop on a bus or subway, the farmer cannot. While the urban dweller's employer - depending on the industry - may have the option of reducing their use of fossil fuel, the farmer does not (although if sweat and tears had some octane content, those who feed us would have enough fuel to be self-sufficient).
So, while the 80 percent of Canadians who live in the world of concrete and glass could do a little 'substitution strategy' to reduce their carbon tax hit, those who live in the rural areas, where incomes are generally lower, and where transportation costs are higher, will not be so lucky.
As with anything in economics, higher production costs will get passed on, and even the burghers of Toronto will end up paying more for their burgers. With oil at nearly $140, they are already.
But I'll get my income tax cut, and that will make up for it, you will say. Well, according to the Liberal "Green Shift" site, my rural family will save about $130 a month in income tax, and a comparable urban family would get about $110 per month extra.
Okay, so the good folks that ragged out Harper about the Child Care Benefit, saying "$100 a month won't cover the cost of a sitter or daycare" now argue that $10 more than that will cover higher fuel prices for your car, higher prices for everything that has to be shipped by a truck, or grown in a field, as well as the very stuff that warms your house prevents you and your family from suffering hypothermia during those wonderful Canadian winters of ours.
Of course, that's if you even file income tax, otherwise you are doubly screwed.
Well, at least we'll get our CO2 emissions under control...But wait, according to the experts, the impact will be negligible...If we fully implemented Kyoto, we would only delay, and not stop, the trend, and it would only be a 5 year stall.
The Green Shift is really nothing more than bad economics and bad policy wrapped up in good intentions, making it all the more worse as it assumes a "holier-than-thou" mantle.
Want an alternative? Well, Statistics Canada says that 55 percent of commuters in Toronto drive to work. Well, how about you leave the Land Rover in the driveway and ride the Red Rocket / GO Train / TTC bus to work every day, and quit expecting others to pick up the tab for your environmentally unsustainable lifestyle. Expand that to every Canadian city with a population over 200,000 and a good public transit infrastructure, and see how quickly the CO2 drops.
That is the only shift that we need. Anything else is a shaft.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
