Thursday, December 20, 2007
And This is News Why?
We're all used to politicians speaking and not really saying anything but to write an article based on that premise, well that's just dumb. Welcome to the Toronto Star, home of Liberal propaganda.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Fed Shrugged
This article by the NY Times illustrates just how dependant people have become on the actions of government.
The whole sub-prime housing crunch in the US was created by people trying to get something for nothing, or practically nothing.
Consumers were encouraged to buy, buy, buy and told by society that it was completely unacceptable for a married couple to live in a home with less than 4 bedrooms and 3 ½ baths.
Greed, status, ego and hubris led individuals and business’ alike down the garden path of financial irresponsibility and willful ignorance.
The market has since corrected itself, as it should but now the howls of despair have begun, and the blame is being focused, not on the people who played the game but on government for not telling them that it could all turn out badly.
Yup. The same people and businesses that would have cried bloody blue murder and complained that the free market was in jeopardy if the government had stepped in to curb their excesses in 2006 are pointing the accusatory finger at government today and demanding to know why their financial security had not been protected (legislated{controlled}), demanding federal programs (bureaucracy{inefficiency}) to save them now that it is too late.
The proposals the fed has offered up are laughable, not because they are in and of themselves ridiculous in any way, but merely because they are the measures a rational, honest and prudent person or business would have taken in the first place. Imagine being a bank and NOT confirming your customers “income and ability to repay the loan” or worse yet being individually so myopic as to not be able to think about the future and your personal liability should the whole market go pear shaped.
Mr. Greenspan should not be wasting his time defending “the assertion that he could have prevented the mortgage bust.” But should instead call a spade a spade as he is want to do, and assert that it is not the business of the fed to ensure that consumers are fiscally responsible or to exercise due diligence for them in their dealings with business.
It disturbs me that the language being tossed about includes “fraud”. Is it fraudulent for a business to offer sub-prime mortgages? Is it the responsibility of banks and credit companies to ensure that if the bubble bursts that the individual who asks for their money will still be able to pay? Is business to be held accountable for the poor financial choices of the consumer?
Yes, it may very well be in the best long range interest of a bank or credit company to ensure that their customer is a good risk (from their point of view) and that they are aware of the risks, but to assign blame, to claim fraud because of free market corrections and the piss poor planning of the individuals is nonsensical.
The level of patronization contained in this article spills out in the paragraph that reads;
So now thediscrimination prejudice begins. People with lower incomes are not necessarily unable to understand contracts, nor are those in a higher income bracket necessarily capable of doing so.
Aside from the implication of the articles title, which is both a back handed and completely off the mark attempt to imply that a moral failing of objectivist theory (selfishness) created the problem, and an indictment of the Federal Government for not "doing something", this whole sub-prime “crisis” is a cautionary tale.
It is the same one that your mother warned you about as you first began dealing with money. It is encapsulated in platitudes and is recognizable to even the dimmest of wits.
A fool and his money…
If it seems to be too good to be true...
Consumer beware…
The whole sub-prime housing crunch in the US was created by people trying to get something for nothing, or practically nothing.
Consumers were encouraged to buy, buy, buy and told by society that it was completely unacceptable for a married couple to live in a home with less than 4 bedrooms and 3 ½ baths.
Greed, status, ego and hubris led individuals and business’ alike down the garden path of financial irresponsibility and willful ignorance.
The market has since corrected itself, as it should but now the howls of despair have begun, and the blame is being focused, not on the people who played the game but on government for not telling them that it could all turn out badly.
Yup. The same people and businesses that would have cried bloody blue murder and complained that the free market was in jeopardy if the government had stepped in to curb their excesses in 2006 are pointing the accusatory finger at government today and demanding to know why their financial security had not been protected (legislated{controlled}), demanding federal programs (bureaucracy{inefficiency}) to save them now that it is too late.
The proposals the fed has offered up are laughable, not because they are in and of themselves ridiculous in any way, but merely because they are the measures a rational, honest and prudent person or business would have taken in the first place. Imagine being a bank and NOT confirming your customers “income and ability to repay the loan” or worse yet being individually so myopic as to not be able to think about the future and your personal liability should the whole market go pear shaped.
Mr. Greenspan should not be wasting his time defending “the assertion that he could have prevented the mortgage bust.” But should instead call a spade a spade as he is want to do, and assert that it is not the business of the fed to ensure that consumers are fiscally responsible or to exercise due diligence for them in their dealings with business.
It disturbs me that the language being tossed about includes “fraud”. Is it fraudulent for a business to offer sub-prime mortgages? Is it the responsibility of banks and credit companies to ensure that if the bubble bursts that the individual who asks for their money will still be able to pay? Is business to be held accountable for the poor financial choices of the consumer?
Yes, it may very well be in the best long range interest of a bank or credit company to ensure that their customer is a good risk (from their point of view) and that they are aware of the risks, but to assign blame, to claim fraud because of free market corrections and the piss poor planning of the individuals is nonsensical.
The level of patronization contained in this article spills out in the paragraph that reads;
“Why are the most risky loan products sold to the least sophisticated
borrowers?” Mr. Gramlich asked in a speech he prepared last August for the Fed’s
symposium in Jackson Hole, Wyo. “The question answers itself — the least
sophisticated borrowers are probably duped into taking these products.”
So now the
Aside from the implication of the articles title, which is both a back handed and completely off the mark attempt to imply that a moral failing of objectivist theory (selfishness) created the problem, and an indictment of the Federal Government for not "doing something", this whole sub-prime “crisis” is a cautionary tale.
It is the same one that your mother warned you about as you first began dealing with money. It is encapsulated in platitudes and is recognizable to even the dimmest of wits.
A fool and his money…
If it seems to be too good to be true...
Consumer beware…
Monday, December 17, 2007
The Libertarian Masochists Challenge.
Try this for one month...
Every time you see or hear a reference to "government funding" replace the word government with the word taxpayer.
Every time someone says or writes the words "government program" replace the word government with taxpayer and program with the word handout.
Every time you see/hear the word legislation replace it with bureaucracy.
Ooh, and have a merry Christmas.
Every time someone says or writes the words "government program" replace the word government with taxpayer and program with the word handout.
Every time you see/hear the word legislation replace it with bureaucracy.
Ooh, and have a merry Christmas.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Global Warming My Ass
Don't even think of opening your cake-hole to tell me that this is just an anomaly, while claiming that the last 2 or 3 winters are the new norm...
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Channeling Lloyd Dobler in Bali
The CTV article on the Bali Climate Change Spectacle contained this gem…
“without sharp cutbacks in emissions of the industrial, transportation and agricultural gases blamed for warming.”
Yes, it’s official. Every productive action of mankind is harmful to the environment and we should cease and desist immediately so that things like the Dappled Asian Tree Slug and Amazonian Teak Fungi are not adversely affected by our continued existence.
I don’t think anyone is arguing against the rational application of environmentally responsible processes and activities but the nihilism of the enviro-wacko’s reminds me of the soliloquy of John Cusack’s character 'Lloyd Dobler' in the movie “Say Anything” as he tried to explain what he would do with his life…
Like a scene out of Atlas Shrugged, the “developing” nations, most of which are corrupt, backward, tribalist cesspools see fit to try to dictate the terms of the Industrialized nations capitulation, the surrender of our reason.
The third world is not alone in their Jihad on Reason, they are egged on by the elite of Europe who, with the reality of their own failed foray’s into socialist economics looming on the horizon, seek to strike not a favorable deal for themselves, but the most damaging deal they can for us. A deal that would ensure the crippling not only of their economies but of the world economy.
In this age of tree hugging idiocy Canada and the US should stand alone, alone and unafraid. We should continue on a course of rational environmentalism characterized by responsible and attainable targets. Our goal should not be to achieve some sort of pre-industrial, hemp strewn environmental utopia but rather a world that recognizes the importance of our environment and the importance of man over animals and plants.
So as the socialists and environmentalists plot our ruin while sipping low fat non-dairy latte’s and championing the existence of inanimate objects and ignorant animals I’d like you all to take the time today to appreciate our natural environment, recycle, turn off the lights when you’re not in the room, work hard and produce the things that are bought and sold, or buy or sell or repair the things that are produced because without the acts of consumption, creation and capitalism there would be no reason to save the earth in the first place.
“In a series of landmark reports this year, the UN's network of climate
scientists warned of severe consequences -- from rising seas, droughts,
severe weather, species extinction and other effects -- without sharp
cutbacks in emissions of the industrial, transportation and agricultural gases
blamed for warming.
“without sharp cutbacks in emissions of the industrial, transportation and agricultural gases blamed for warming.”
Yes, it’s official. Every productive action of mankind is harmful to the environment and we should cease and desist immediately so that things like the Dappled Asian Tree Slug and Amazonian Teak Fungi are not adversely affected by our continued existence.
I don’t think anyone is arguing against the rational application of environmentally responsible processes and activities but the nihilism of the enviro-wacko’s reminds me of the soliloquy of John Cusack’s character 'Lloyd Dobler' in the movie “Say Anything” as he tried to explain what he would do with his life…
And that is the point that has been reached in this debate. They, (the global frightened into fanaticism they) have abandoned all reason. They have forgotten that without industry, transportation and agriculture they would not be able get transportation to Bali in order to castigate the industrial and agricultural system that enabled that action.“I don't want to sell anything, buy anything, or process anything as a
career. I don't want to sell anything bought or processed, or buy anything sold
or processed, or process anything sold, bought, or processed, or repair anything
sold, bought, or processed. You know, as a career, I don't want to do
that.”
Like a scene out of Atlas Shrugged, the “developing” nations, most of which are corrupt, backward, tribalist cesspools see fit to try to dictate the terms of the Industrialized nations capitulation, the surrender of our reason.
The third world is not alone in their Jihad on Reason, they are egged on by the elite of Europe who, with the reality of their own failed foray’s into socialist economics looming on the horizon, seek to strike not a favorable deal for themselves, but the most damaging deal they can for us. A deal that would ensure the crippling not only of their economies but of the world economy.
In this age of tree hugging idiocy Canada and the US should stand alone, alone and unafraid. We should continue on a course of rational environmentalism characterized by responsible and attainable targets. Our goal should not be to achieve some sort of pre-industrial, hemp strewn environmental utopia but rather a world that recognizes the importance of our environment and the importance of man over animals and plants.
So as the socialists and environmentalists plot our ruin while sipping low fat non-dairy latte’s and championing the existence of inanimate objects and ignorant animals I’d like you all to take the time today to appreciate our natural environment, recycle, turn off the lights when you’re not in the room, work hard and produce the things that are bought and sold, or buy or sell or repair the things that are produced because without the acts of consumption, creation and capitalism there would be no reason to save the earth in the first place.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Liars and Roaches and Broadcasters, Oh My!
I've been against a public inquiry into the whole Mulroney/Schrieber sham since the beginning but I'm starting to change my mind.
No, not because I believe that there was anything there that could not, or should not have been sorted out in a court of law between former PM Mulroney's Lawyers and Schreibers, but because this incident has opened up an opportunity to expose the pettiness, the vindictiveness, the craven morality and political whoremanship alive and thriving in some circles of Canadian politics today.
As Members of Parliament, some named in this press release seem to scamper headlong into the gutter, hand in hand with a man accused of fraud, bribery, breach of trust and tax-evasion and aided by "Canada's national broadcaster", their only achievement will be to have dragged an innocent man and the country's highest political office along with them.
So when a Member of Parliament is asking questions, issued to him by the national broadcaster, with all the integrity and forethought of a high school dropout living in his mom's basement and unable to think for himself, is it any wonder that Canadians are getting sick and tired of both of them?
Mine may seem like a strange reason to want a public inquiry, but now that the rock has been lifted lets turn it all the way over and see just what sort of roaches scurry away from the light.
Sorry PM Mulroney, you've already endured so much, but Canadians have to be shown the faces of the moral cowards who are doing this, in the hopes that come the next election the public will recognize them and their ilk.
You're not in mommy's basement anymore Pablo.
No, not because I believe that there was anything there that could not, or should not have been sorted out in a court of law between former PM Mulroney's Lawyers and Schreibers, but because this incident has opened up an opportunity to expose the pettiness, the vindictiveness, the craven morality and political whoremanship alive and thriving in some circles of Canadian politics today.
As Members of Parliament, some named in this press release seem to scamper headlong into the gutter, hand in hand with a man accused of fraud, bribery, breach of trust and tax-evasion and aided by "Canada's national broadcaster", their only achievement will be to have dragged an innocent man and the country's highest political office along with them.
So when a Member of Parliament is asking questions, issued to him by the national broadcaster, with all the integrity and forethought of a high school dropout living in his mom's basement and unable to think for himself, is it any wonder that Canadians are getting sick and tired of both of them?
Mine may seem like a strange reason to want a public inquiry, but now that the rock has been lifted lets turn it all the way over and see just what sort of roaches scurry away from the light.
Sorry PM Mulroney, you've already endured so much, but Canadians have to be shown the faces of the moral cowards who are doing this, in the hopes that come the next election the public will recognize them and their ilk.
You're not in mommy's basement anymore Pablo.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Finaly, The Other Socialist Shoe Drops
Plenty of people have been saying for a long, long time that this whole Climate Change Spectacle is just wealth distribution dressed up in environmentalism, socialism and jet fuel.
Well here's the proof.
Don't worry, it's an environmentally sound practice. No breathing by the cattle = no CO2 production. It's a win-win really.
Thanks to the folks at Reason
Well here's the proof.
"Without going into the details, the Greenhouse Development Rights Framework (GDR) proposal foresees levying the equivalent of a climate "consumption luxury tax" on every person who earns over a "development threshold" of $9,000 per year."Personally I'd like to tell the Kyoto cattle to step away from my wallet or I'm breaking out the bolt gun.
Don't worry, it's an environmentally sound practice. No breathing by the cattle = no CO2 production. It's a win-win really.
Thanks to the folks at Reason
Take the oath...
If you haven't seen the "This is John Galt Speaking" series on YouTube I highly recommend you do so.
For those that have, and are so inclined, help out XCowboy2 by taking the Oath...
For those that have, and are so inclined, help out XCowboy2 by taking the Oath...
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Okay, I'm calling them all on it. Right here, Right now...
Bullshit.
That's to all those idiots and liars at the Bali Climate Change spectacle that claim forcing targets on China would be unfair.
Bullshit!
That's to all those idiots and liars at the Bali Climate Change spectacle that claim forcing targets on China would be unfair.
Bullshit!
A Voice in the Wilderness
Finally at least one nation that is willing to say the Emperor has no Clothes.
I'm always proud to be a Canadian but today, perhaps a little more so.
Great minds and all that...
I'm always proud to be a Canadian but today, perhaps a little more so.
Great minds and all that...
Mr. Baird also contends that the world's greenhouse gas levels would surge even if all rich countries eliminated their emissions while poorer ones continued business as usual.“That's an environmental Armageddon,” he said.
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Climate Heretic: More Hot Air, Less Logic
In Bali, Canada is asking that all nations bear the same burden in reducing greenhouse gasses. That means that all nations reach for the same target. If that target is 25% of current levels the entire worlds level of pollution would be reduced by 25%.
You would think that Canada, by advocating this inclusive position would be supported by the GHG radicals, but that is far too much reasoning for this bunch.
No, the same people that brought you killer GHG beer fridges, global warming holocaust speed-bumps and genocidal climate change divorce court think that is far too rude to ask those who contribute the most pollution, to lend a hand in cleaning up the mess.
Canada’s position in Bali is being called obstructionist by climate advocates (and our “loyal” opposition) but if the nay-sayers get their way and the developing world is given a free ride then Canada and the rest of the evil west could conceivably reduce their CO2 by 100% (by cripling our industrial output, energy production and basically reducing ALL economic activity to ZERO) and only reduce the worlds CO2 production by slightly more than one third.
As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.
Oh, another thing. Look at this picture. Now please try to tell me who is pumping the most crap into the air.
While I'm at it, I'm going to complete my Climate Denier Herecy by saying that per capita measurements are disingenuous and dangerous. All of us human beings breathe the same air, therefore if it is important for 35 million Canadians to curb our GHG output then it is statistically much more important for 1,000 million Chinese.
Thanks http://www.tamug.edu/Labb/Global_Warming_Info.htm for the pretty pictures
You would think that Canada, by advocating this inclusive position would be supported by the GHG radicals, but that is far too much reasoning for this bunch.
No, the same people that brought you killer GHG beer fridges, global warming holocaust speed-bumps and genocidal climate change divorce court think that is far too rude to ask those who contribute the most pollution, to lend a hand in cleaning up the mess.
Canada’s position in Bali is being called obstructionist by climate advocates (and our “loyal” opposition) but if the nay-sayers get their way and the developing world is given a free ride then Canada and the rest of the evil west could conceivably reduce their CO2 by 100% (by cripling our industrial output, energy production and basically reducing ALL economic activity to ZERO) and only reduce the worlds CO2 production by slightly more than one third.
As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.
Oh, another thing. Look at this picture. Now please try to tell me who is pumping the most crap into the air.
While I'm at it, I'm going to complete my Climate Denier Herecy by saying that per capita measurements are disingenuous and dangerous. All of us human beings breathe the same air, therefore if it is important for 35 million Canadians to curb our GHG output then it is statistically much more important for 1,000 million Chinese.
Thanks http://www.tamug.edu/Labb/Global_Warming_Info.htm for the pretty pictures
Friday, December 7, 2007
Hey Europe… Tag! You’re It!
Since most European nations have seen fit to abdicate their responsibilities to their NATO allies (Canadian, US, British and Dutch forces) in Afghanistan and opt instead to hide behind the cowards shield of “national caveats”, I say that we tell them in no uncertain terms that they can go pound sand, and I have just the place for them to do it.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
How Much for that Bundle of Twigs?
Sounds like the opening line for a Monty Python sketch, but it isn't.
You see dear reader my wife recently decided (as is her prerogative) that the empty corner in the dining room needed a little something. That something turned out to be a rather large and to me, expensive, urn.
Of course any woman would tell you that an urn has to have something in it, so leaving Pier One, off we go to Wal Mart. I dutifully follow Mrs. Zip through the maze of aisles and Christmas shoppers, both of which I wish there were fewer of, till we arrive at the craft section.
My lovely bride begins picking up small tidy bundles, she starts with the pretty coloured grasses, at this point I have no complaint, as I'd never seen bright red grass growing in the wild. After careful consideration, however, she changes her mind (this too is her prerogative, really more of a genetic imperative I think) and begins looking at the packages of sticks.
They were tall, thin, garden variety twigs really, barely enough to start a decent fire, I think, but she picks and chooses till she has the "right one". At this point I come back from my happy place (where I spend a good deal of the time when shopping) just long enough to look at the price...
$13.78.
$13.78 for a meager clutch of anorexic lumber!?
At this point I use one of my rare shopping veto's, promising that "I'll get you your twigs."
So today I spent 30 minutes (including the 5 minute walk each way) to gather together some sticks, twice the amount in the Wal Mart kindling package, and even some tall "ornamental" grass for my blushing bride.
Anywho... all this to say that I salute the businessman who has managed to convince the stupefied city dweller that we need to spent $13.78 on a bundle of twigs when 99.9% of us live within spitting distance of some form of shrubbery.
Conversely... I deride my fellow Urban Neanderthals, I mean how freaking lazy have people become that they are too corpulent and/or sloth to step away from the latest episode of CSI and DIY...
You see dear reader my wife recently decided (as is her prerogative) that the empty corner in the dining room needed a little something. That something turned out to be a rather large and to me, expensive, urn.
Of course any woman would tell you that an urn has to have something in it, so leaving Pier One, off we go to Wal Mart. I dutifully follow Mrs. Zip through the maze of aisles and Christmas shoppers, both of which I wish there were fewer of, till we arrive at the craft section.
My lovely bride begins picking up small tidy bundles, she starts with the pretty coloured grasses, at this point I have no complaint, as I'd never seen bright red grass growing in the wild. After careful consideration, however, she changes her mind (this too is her prerogative, really more of a genetic imperative I think) and begins looking at the packages of sticks.
They were tall, thin, garden variety twigs really, barely enough to start a decent fire, I think, but she picks and chooses till she has the "right one". At this point I come back from my happy place (where I spend a good deal of the time when shopping) just long enough to look at the price...
$13.78.
$13.78 for a meager clutch of anorexic lumber!?
At this point I use one of my rare shopping veto's, promising that "I'll get you your twigs."
So today I spent 30 minutes (including the 5 minute walk each way) to gather together some sticks, twice the amount in the Wal Mart kindling package, and even some tall "ornamental" grass for my blushing bride.
Anywho... all this to say that I salute the businessman who has managed to convince the stupefied city dweller that we need to spent $13.78 on a bundle of twigs when 99.9% of us live within spitting distance of some form of shrubbery.
Conversely... I deride my fellow Urban Neanderthals, I mean how freaking lazy have people become that they are too corpulent and/or sloth to step away from the latest episode of CSI and DIY...
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Because I don't particularly feel like being liked today...
I was watching TV last night and a commercial came on bemoaning the lack of clean water in African villages.
This dire situation perplexed me. Has
No.
“Of all the renewable water available in Africa each year, only 4% is used -- because most Africans lack the wells, canals, pumps, reservoirs and other irrigation systems (Africare)” http://www.africanwellfund.org/waterstats.html
Is the water beyond the reach of conventional low tech methods of extraction?
No
“In
· mud washbore method of construction
· average depth of tube well 10 metres” http://www.fao.org/docrep/W7314E/w7314e0v.htm
So it must be a lack of technological know-how that prevents Africans from reaching their own water.
No.
“The earliest wells are known from the Neolithic. In the submerged Pre-Pottery Neolithic B settlement of Atlit Yam in Israel, dated to 8100-7500 BC”
Oh, by the way… That well is 7-8 meters deep.
If primitive Neolithic man could dig a well 7-8 meters deep 8,000 years before Christ, then why the Christ (pardon the pun) can’t modern day Africans?
It isn’t the money. According to the African Well Fund, workers are only being paid about $1.20 Canadian for a days work. And the cost of an entire well is only about $1,796.00 Canadian. And…
Hold on… Is it possible that our altruism, and the altruism of organizations like African Well Fund have eliminated the need, will and desire of Africans to DIY???
The human race has been looking out for #1 since day 1 by drawing water so that life was possible so what gives? Is this socialist apathy, exemplified by refusing to pick up shovel and pick to save oneself the outcome of our charity? Is the systemic laziness that would rather beg for clean water than dig a well though the water lies right under your feet our gift to
Seems to me that the only thing holding keeping
Saturday, December 1, 2007
An Eye For A... Teddy? WTF?!?!?
Once again, we in the secular west are left shaking our heads in bewilderment, while those in the Islamofascist dominated Middle East are shaking their swords in rage.
So, as far as I’m concerned, the calls for this teachers execution by Islamist extremists in the Sudan should sound to the rest of the world like a command to cut off all money, aid, technology and most importantly, human assistance.
Hmmm, the mental image of a head being severed is appropriate, after all...
Without us,
Welcome to the Middle East.
So, as far as I’m concerned, the calls for this teachers execution by Islamist extremists in the Sudan should sound to the rest of the world like a command to cut off all money, aid, technology and most importantly, human assistance.
Hmmm, the mental image of a head being severed is appropriate, after all...
Without us,
Welcome to the Middle East.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Who The Hell Do You Think You Are!!!
I’ve been chewing on this a while, and this is the straw...
In a democratic country we elect our leaders. Those leaders form the government and have an honour bound duty to lead the country. Inherent in that leadership is the fact that the people who form the government are elected for their ideals, policies and platform. The idea that they must represent those people in the public that backed, and most likely continue to back, the opposition is nonsensical. The only portion of the public to which they owe any loyalty are those that gave them the mandate to govern. The rest quite frankly can go pound sand until such time as there is an election or the government in toppled by a vote of non-confidence.
On the other side of this coin is the fact that the Loyal opposition is supposed to oppose the government in Canada. IN CANADA! Their duty to oppose ends at the borders of this country. To insist that they be included in international forums, that they have a seat at the table for conferences and international bodies is preposterous, and done, if at all solely at the pleasure and with the permission of the elected government.
We the people of Canada, representing a plurality of the population elected the government to represent us both nationally and internationally. We most emphatically did not elect the Opposition to speak for us as a nation or on the international stage. The oppositions job is to oppose at home and stay at home! Not to go chasing our duly elected leaders around the world spewing partisan talking points in order to score points with Canadian voters.
These opposition media whores are making this country a complete laughingstock internationally. You do not see Condolezza Rice berated in Israel by Hillary Clinton who followed here there to state the Democratic platform. You don’t see Gary Kasperov waiting in the hallways of the UN building in the hopes that he can grasp the coat-tails of some NBC news crew so he can deride his governments position on the state of Georgia.If Dion, or any other member of the opposition, Liberal, NDP, Greens or Bloc want to spend their own personal money and travel as John Q Public to whatever, meeting wherever, then fine, there is no way to stop them but it should be crystal clear that these people do not speak for Canada and do not speak for Canadians.
In a democratic country we elect our leaders. Those leaders form the government and have an honour bound duty to lead the country. Inherent in that leadership is the fact that the people who form the government are elected for their ideals, policies and platform. The idea that they must represent those people in the public that backed, and most likely continue to back, the opposition is nonsensical. The only portion of the public to which they owe any loyalty are those that gave them the mandate to govern. The rest quite frankly can go pound sand until such time as there is an election or the government in toppled by a vote of non-confidence.
On the other side of this coin is the fact that the Loyal opposition is supposed to oppose the government in Canada. IN CANADA! Their duty to oppose ends at the borders of this country. To insist that they be included in international forums, that they have a seat at the table for conferences and international bodies is preposterous, and done, if at all solely at the pleasure and with the permission of the elected government.
We the people of Canada, representing a plurality of the population elected the government to represent us both nationally and internationally. We most emphatically did not elect the Opposition to speak for us as a nation or on the international stage. The oppositions job is to oppose at home and stay at home! Not to go chasing our duly elected leaders around the world spewing partisan talking points in order to score points with Canadian voters.
These opposition media whores are making this country a complete laughingstock internationally. You do not see Condolezza Rice berated in Israel by Hillary Clinton who followed here there to state the Democratic platform. You don’t see Gary Kasperov waiting in the hallways of the UN building in the hopes that he can grasp the coat-tails of some NBC news crew so he can deride his governments position on the state of Georgia.If Dion, or any other member of the opposition, Liberal, NDP, Greens or Bloc want to spend their own personal money and travel as John Q Public to whatever, meeting wherever, then fine, there is no way to stop them but it should be crystal clear that these people do not speak for Canada and do not speak for Canadians.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
The funniest thing I've read on the web this week
h/t to Angry in the Great White North
"Police are looking for three men dressed as women driving around downtown Memphis -- they look like Cher, Donna Summers, and Michael Jackson.
OK, technically dressing like Michael Jackson does not make you a transvestite. Not sure what it makes you, but there must be a name for it."
"Police are looking for three men dressed as women driving around downtown Memphis -- they look like Cher, Donna Summers, and Michael Jackson.
OK, technically dressing like Michael Jackson does not make you a transvestite. Not sure what it makes you, but there must be a name for it."
Sunday, November 25, 2007
SOCIALIST MYTHS: #1...The Rich get richer, and the poor get poorer???
This is possibly the most persistent lie of the socialist shell game. It is based on the incomprehensible idea that there is a finite amount of wealth, resources and most illogically of all, human industriousness in the world.
Their logic goes that if I earn a dollar, then that is one less dollar that can be earned by anyone else. Rubbish.
Money is made. It is manufactured by man and is used to trade goods and services for other goods and services. There is no limit to the amount of money that can be made. To think so is to believe that there is a limit to the ingenuity, spirit and industry of man as a rational animal.
The fact is that there is an infinite amount of money to be made, the socialist complaint stems from the fact that they aren’t, merely by virtue of their existence, entitled to profit from your use of resources and your personal industriousness.
But that is really what they want. They want you to work hard… for them, and they want to enslave you by deciding just how much of your own production you need.
They seek to rob you of the reward of your effort, to steal your hard won earnings and give them to those that can’t, won’t or don’t deserve it.
It’s the ultimate power that they want. The control of intellect, labour, initiative and production. They want to build the ultimate cleptocracy where anything that can be made, imagined or built by a man can be taken from him and given to those that do not have the capacity, intelligence, will or ambition to make it, imagine it or build it for themselves.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Full of Sound and Fury...
No real or substantial comment on the news today, after all why bother when most of it is just useless water cooler fodder for us ignorant masses.
Now I’m not given to conspiracy theorizing but there are days, today being one of them that lead me to believe that the media and government are in collusion and are actively trying to distract the population, from, and with everything…
Its bread and circuses for the 24/7 newsverment™ team.
Tazers… I won’t even get into the logic of that argument again.
There are Taliban “in” over half of
News flash... There are racists in all of Canada's provinces, but that hardly means they can or will overthrow the government.
Dear god, don’t get me started on the dollar. Fricken Canadians, we’ve spent the last 30 years complaining about the value of our weak dollar and now you fricken people are whining because its worth too much?
Taliban prisoners are being tortured, by their own government… in their own prisons and (should you choose to believe the captured Taliban… the same people who hack heads off with rusty bread knives) the Afghani Government is lying to us about it. What’s that? A score of 0.00000001 on my giveahairyratsass meter? Go figure.
So there you have it, no real or substantial comment on what is news of no real or substantial worth. Ironic eh?
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
The Other Socialist Shoe Drops
If there was ever anything that proved to me, beyond a shadow of doubt, that the NDP don’t give a rats ass about the people and are only interested in pushing a communist agenda down the throat of every single man, woman and child in Canada it is this.
Forgetting for a moment that I despise socialist ideology and any governmental interference in the provision of services from the free market, aren’t the NDP the same brain-dead morons that have been harping on about the lack of daycare spaces in Canada since, the last election, or last several elections? Aren’t these mental midgets purposely sabotaging (or trying to) the provision of this vital service?
The answer to both questions is yes.
The reason is simple. The NDP and their communist fellow travelers believe that it is immoral for any business to make a profit. Examine this policy closely and you will find within it the ideal that reduces every man to a carbon copy of another. It extols the “virtue” of the lowest common denominator, a nameless faceless communist drone, malleable and meek. To them the individual is worthless, the collective is God, and the tallest nail is the one the hammer drives home.
In their socialist utopia the incapable feed off of the capable, the slothful off of the industrious, and the dim-witted deride the gifted for their innovation.
Moochers, scavengers and parasites, the lot of them.
Forgetting for a moment that I despise socialist ideology and any governmental interference in the provision of services from the free market, aren’t the NDP the same brain-dead morons that have been harping on about the lack of daycare spaces in Canada since, the last election, or last several elections? Aren’t these mental midgets purposely sabotaging (or trying to) the provision of this vital service?
The answer to both questions is yes.
The reason is simple. The NDP and their communist fellow travelers believe that it is immoral for any business to make a profit. Examine this policy closely and you will find within it the ideal that reduces every man to a carbon copy of another. It extols the “virtue” of the lowest common denominator, a nameless faceless communist drone, malleable and meek. To them the individual is worthless, the collective is God, and the tallest nail is the one the hammer drives home.
In their socialist utopia the incapable feed off of the capable, the slothful off of the industrious, and the dim-witted deride the gifted for their innovation.
Moochers, scavengers and parasites, the lot of them.
Monday, November 19, 2007
An Argument in Favour of a Triple E Senate
The request for a Triple E Senate, meaning one that is equal, elected and effective, is a logical and practical request in a democratic country such as Canada
Presently, the one hundred and five seats of the Senate are divided as follows: Ontario and Quebec have twenty four each, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick each have ten, Manitoba, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Newfoundland all each have six, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and the Yukon Territories are represented by one each and Prince Edward Island has four.[1]
Although there have been many proposals put forward to reform the Senate, the scheme most often cited, and the one I will deal primarily with in the course of this discussion is the Alberta Senate Resolution.[2]
With regard to the allocation of Senatorial seats, the Alberta Resolution calls for each province to be represented by six Senators and each Territory to be represented by two for a total of sixty-six Senators. This proposed equalization of seats among the provinces is seen, especially by those inWestern Canada , as a way to balance the power base of the Senate throughout the nation, rather than focusing it in Ontario Quebec Canada central provinces Ontario Quebec
As equal as theAlberta province of Prince Edward Island Ontario Alberta Prince Edward Island PEI Alberta Canada
The Senate was also designed to address regional and minority interests as a part of its mandate. With a system of provincial equality, such as that proposed by the Alberta Senate Resolution, the Senate would be more able to represent both the minorities within the provinces as well as larger provincial concerns. While it is true that this could lead to a situation where a number of provinces comprising only a minority of the population could effectively dominate the Senate, the possibility of that would be unlikely, especially if the Senate were elected and not appointed.
Some may argue that the Senate’s greater responsibility is to the nation as a whole and the effective functioning of our bicameral parliamentary system and that this would somehow be in danger should the Senate become equal. This is doubtful. For its entire history, the Senate has enjoyed powers almost equal to the House of Commons and yet it has never acted in an obstructionist manner. Even though under theAlberta
With the current regional representation in the Senate, a majority is reached at 53 votes.Western Canada , Ontario , Quebec Maritime Provinces Newfoundland Labrador ) each hold 24 seats and therefore it is possible under the current system for Ontario Quebec Ontario Quebec Ontario Quebec Canada
The allocation of Senators in our current system is not equal, either in the sense of population or provincial representation. In 1867, there had been an attempt made to represent the regional divisions in the country, but this falls short of the realities ofCanada Ontario
The next, and possibly the most important prong of the Triple E Senate is the question of election. What would or could the Canadian people expect to gain from having an elected Senate? What would the cost be? What could be done to make it reflective of both provincial concerns as well as those of minorities?
First and foremost, election would eliminate some of the perception of nepotism within the Senate. Making Senators responsible to the voters would reduce the inordinate amount of influence exercised over the upper house by the Prime Minister and the ruling party. A Senator’s continued service would be dependant on popular vote and not Prime Ministerial selection to a permanent appointment. With the election of Senators, the Prime Minister would no longer have power over who would sit in the upper house. Because of this, he or she could not be said to control it. This perception would hold, in spite of the fact that any party able to win a majority in the House of Commons would likely enjoy a similar majority in the Senate through the election process.
Another reason in support of an elected Senate would be the democratic principal behind it. As it stands now, a Senator is appointed and can serve till the age of 75 with virtually no way to be removed. Senators, such as Andrew Thompson, who was absent from the Senate for 488 days without excuse, would, if elected for a fixed term be responsible and accountable to the electorate for their actions.[9] While this particular example has more to do with the lack of one Senator’s work ethic than it does the effectiveness of the Senate itself, the election of Senators would impart a measure of liability which is currently lacking in that chamber.
It can be argued that this elected Senate would only duplicate the House of Commons within the Senate, and therefore, not effectively address the minority opinions that have had a voice in the Senate through the appointment process since 1867.[10] This does not have to be the case. Every election, a percentage of votes are cast for independent candidates. If Senatorial elections were based on proportional representation, then it is possible that there would be more independents in the upper chamber than there currently are.
Another argument against Senatorial elections is the cost to the taxpayer. The only province to have run Senatorial elections so far isAlberta Alberta
While these concerns are valid they are not insurmountable. The logical solution is to implement a system of proportional representation in the Senate that is tied to our federal elections.
For example, inBritish Columbia British Columbia
This system of proportional representation is much more reflective of the democratic wishes of the Canadian people and in addition, is representative of minority parties. However, to implement this change without a corresponding change in the actual appointment of those Senators is to leave the job half done. The Senate is not only supposed to guard the interests of minorities but also to guard areas of provincial jurisdiction from infringement by the federal government. In order to address this requirement of the Senate, I propose that the responsibility for the selection of Provincial Senators be delegated to the Provincial Legislatures, who in turn, would select appropriate candidates from a list of qualified personnel.
I believe the above proposal would eliminate the monopoly that the federal parties are currently able to establish in the Senate after long periods of successful election. It would represent minority and provincial interests, eliminate federal patronage within the upper house and do it without any significant increase in cost to the taxpayer.
Additionally, the claims of those calling for Senate Reform stemming from the belief that “the current process of appointing Senators offends Canadians' democratic values, has deprived that House of political legitimacy and efficacy, and has prevented the Senate from being effective in protecting the interests of the provinces of Canada” [13], would be addressed. Indeed, the question of Senate effectiveness would no longer be an issue at all. Addressing the inequality and the autocracy of the system under which Senators were selected, would eliminate the perception of an ineffective Upper House.
In conclusion, it is time that we heeded the words of Sir John A MacDonald, when he spoke on the creation of the Senate in 1865 he said, “There would be no use of an Upper House, if it did not exercise, when it thought proper, the right of opposing or amending or postponing the legislation of the Lower House. It would be of no value whatever were it a mere chamber for registering the decrees of the Lower House. It must be an independent House, having a free action of its own, for it is only valuable as being a regulating body, calmly considering the legislation initiated by the popular branch, but it will never set itself in opposition against the deliberate and understood wishes of the people.”[14] Our current system has become far too subservient to the ruling party without true provincial clout, equitable representation of minorities or responsibility to Canadians.
Under this system, with equality existing between the provinces and a democratic selection process of some kindCanada Canada Canada Canada Toronto
Presently, the one hundred and five seats of the Senate are divided as follows: Ontario and Quebec have twenty four each, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick each have ten, Manitoba, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Newfoundland all each have six, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and the Yukon Territories are represented by one each and Prince Edward Island has four.[1]
Although there have been many proposals put forward to reform the Senate, the scheme most often cited, and the one I will deal primarily with in the course of this discussion is the Alberta Senate Resolution.[2]
With regard to the allocation of Senatorial seats, the Alberta Resolution calls for each province to be represented by six Senators and each Territory to be represented by two for a total of sixty-six Senators. This proposed equalization of seats among the provinces is seen, especially by those in
As equal as the
The Senate was also designed to address regional and minority interests as a part of its mandate. With a system of provincial equality, such as that proposed by the Alberta Senate Resolution, the Senate would be more able to represent both the minorities within the provinces as well as larger provincial concerns. While it is true that this could lead to a situation where a number of provinces comprising only a minority of the population could effectively dominate the Senate, the possibility of that would be unlikely, especially if the Senate were elected and not appointed.
Some may argue that the Senate’s greater responsibility is to the nation as a whole and the effective functioning of our bicameral parliamentary system and that this would somehow be in danger should the Senate become equal. This is doubtful. For its entire history, the Senate has enjoyed powers almost equal to the House of Commons and yet it has never acted in an obstructionist manner. Even though under the
With the current regional representation in the Senate, a majority is reached at 53 votes.
The allocation of Senators in our current system is not equal, either in the sense of population or provincial representation. In 1867, there had been an attempt made to represent the regional divisions in the country, but this falls short of the realities of
The next, and possibly the most important prong of the Triple E Senate is the question of election. What would or could the Canadian people expect to gain from having an elected Senate? What would the cost be? What could be done to make it reflective of both provincial concerns as well as those of minorities?
First and foremost, election would eliminate some of the perception of nepotism within the Senate. Making Senators responsible to the voters would reduce the inordinate amount of influence exercised over the upper house by the Prime Minister and the ruling party. A Senator’s continued service would be dependant on popular vote and not Prime Ministerial selection to a permanent appointment. With the election of Senators, the Prime Minister would no longer have power over who would sit in the upper house. Because of this, he or she could not be said to control it. This perception would hold, in spite of the fact that any party able to win a majority in the House of Commons would likely enjoy a similar majority in the Senate through the election process.
Another reason in support of an elected Senate would be the democratic principal behind it. As it stands now, a Senator is appointed and can serve till the age of 75 with virtually no way to be removed. Senators, such as Andrew Thompson, who was absent from the Senate for 488 days without excuse, would, if elected for a fixed term be responsible and accountable to the electorate for their actions.[9] While this particular example has more to do with the lack of one Senator’s work ethic than it does the effectiveness of the Senate itself, the election of Senators would impart a measure of liability which is currently lacking in that chamber.
It can be argued that this elected Senate would only duplicate the House of Commons within the Senate, and therefore, not effectively address the minority opinions that have had a voice in the Senate through the appointment process since 1867.[10] This does not have to be the case. Every election, a percentage of votes are cast for independent candidates. If Senatorial elections were based on proportional representation, then it is possible that there would be more independents in the upper chamber than there currently are.
Another argument against Senatorial elections is the cost to the taxpayer. The only province to have run Senatorial elections so far is
While these concerns are valid they are not insurmountable. The logical solution is to implement a system of proportional representation in the Senate that is tied to our federal elections.
For example, in
This system of proportional representation is much more reflective of the democratic wishes of the Canadian people and in addition, is representative of minority parties. However, to implement this change without a corresponding change in the actual appointment of those Senators is to leave the job half done. The Senate is not only supposed to guard the interests of minorities but also to guard areas of provincial jurisdiction from infringement by the federal government. In order to address this requirement of the Senate, I propose that the responsibility for the selection of Provincial Senators be delegated to the Provincial Legislatures, who in turn, would select appropriate candidates from a list of qualified personnel.
I believe the above proposal would eliminate the monopoly that the federal parties are currently able to establish in the Senate after long periods of successful election. It would represent minority and provincial interests, eliminate federal patronage within the upper house and do it without any significant increase in cost to the taxpayer.
Additionally, the claims of those calling for Senate Reform stemming from the belief that “the current process of appointing Senators offends Canadians' democratic values, has deprived that House of political legitimacy and efficacy, and has prevented the Senate from being effective in protecting the interests of the provinces of Canada” [13], would be addressed. Indeed, the question of Senate effectiveness would no longer be an issue at all. Addressing the inequality and the autocracy of the system under which Senators were selected, would eliminate the perception of an ineffective Upper House.
In conclusion, it is time that we heeded the words of Sir John A MacDonald, when he spoke on the creation of the Senate in 1865 he said, “There would be no use of an Upper House, if it did not exercise, when it thought proper, the right of opposing or amending or postponing the legislation of the Lower House. It would be of no value whatever were it a mere chamber for registering the decrees of the Lower House. It must be an independent House, having a free action of its own, for it is only valuable as being a regulating body, calmly considering the legislation initiated by the popular branch, but it will never set itself in opposition against the deliberate and understood wishes of the people.”[14] Our current system has become far too subservient to the ruling party without true provincial clout, equitable representation of minorities or responsibility to Canadians.
Under this system, with equality existing between the provinces and a democratic selection process of some kind
Bibliography
Campus program.com (2004) Reference Library: Encyclopedia “Canadian Senate” http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/c/ca/canadian_senate.html, World Wide Web, (accessed on, November 24)
Government of Alberta News Release(2003)
George Brown, “Quoted in Robert A. MacKay, The Unreformed Senate of Canada, revised and reprinted (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1963), p. 38.”as quoted in The Senate of Canada (2001) “A Legislative and Historical Overview of the Senate of
John A MacDonald, “Parliamentary Debates on the Subject of the Confederation of the British North American Provinces, (Quebec: Hunter, Rose, 1865), p. 35-36.”as quoted in The Senate of Canada (2001) “A Legislative and Historical Overview of the Senate of
[1] Campus program.com (2004) Reference Library: Encyclopedia “Canadian Senate” http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/c/ca/canadian_senate.html, World Wide Web, (accessed on , November 24)
[2] Government of Alberta News Release (2003) “Alberta Senate Resolution” http://www.gov.ab.ca/acn/200305/14388.html#resolution, World Wide Web, (
[3] CBC News in Review April 98 (1998), “
[4] Statistics
[5] George Brown, “Quoted in Robert A. MacKay, The Unreformed Senate of Canada, revised and reprinted (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1963), p. 38.”as quoted in The Senate of Canada (2001) “A Legislative and Historical Overview of the Senate of
[6] Wikipedia free encyclopedia (2004), “Canadian House of Commons”, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_House_of_Commons#Composition , World Wide Web, (November 18)
[7] The Senate of
(2a “Text of the Quebec Resolutions as they Pertained to the Senate”) http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/process/senate/legisfocus/legislative-e.htm, World Wide Web, (
[8] Canadian Press/Leger Marketing (2002) “Canadians and
[9] Parliament of Canada Edited Hansard Number 57 (1998) “Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.), Senate of Canada” http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/057_1998-02-11/han057_1405-e.htm World Wide Web, (
[10] Parliament of
[11]
[12]
[13] Government of Alberta News Release(2003)
[14] John A MacDonald, “Parliamentary Debates on the Subject of the Confederation of the British North American Provinces, (Quebec: Hunter, Rose, 1865), p. 35-36.”as quoted in The Senate of Canada (2001) “A Legislative and Historical Overview of the Senate of
[15] John A MacDonald, “Parliamentary Debates on the Subject of the Confederation of the British North American Provinces, (Quebec: Hunter, Rose, 1865), p. 35-36.”as quoted in The Senate of Canada (2001) “A Legislative and Historical Overview of the Senate of
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Socialist Equality, Some animals really are...
The underlying and defining concept of democracy and the democratic system is equality.
Equality means not only are all persons equal before and within the democratic system but all are permitted to compete equally for all elected positions. To limit any persons right to fight for and be selected to represent his/her party’s ideology is fundamentally damaging to a democracy.
This on the other hand is a blatant example of the socialist tendency to subjugate or confuse concepts like merit, equality and opportunity to all sorts of imagined rights, quota's and caveats.
Equality means not only are all persons equal before and within the democratic system but all are permitted to compete equally for all elected positions. To limit any persons right to fight for and be selected to represent his/her party’s ideology is fundamentally damaging to a democracy.
This on the other hand is a blatant example of the socialist tendency to subjugate or confuse concepts like merit, equality and opportunity to all sorts of imagined rights, quota's and caveats.
Friday, November 16, 2007
God! Think of the Children!!! (Never post while channelling a socialist)
Proof of the horrible and inhuman capitalist system.
How dare they do this without billing the taxpayer for the good deed!!! This philanthropy will not go unpunished!!
People Don't Kill People; Tazers Do!
Now some of you know that I am genetically predisposed to believe that Police are more apt to behave in accordance with the law than the average Joe. But anyone who has watched the video of Robert Dziekanski being Tasered by the RCMP would be hard pressed to see the mans actions from the time the RCMP officers arrived till he was Tasered as threatening. Upset, yes, agitated, of course, but threatening? One man with a stapler facing 4 RCMP officers does not constitute such a threat to the welfare of the police that any aid to their own physical force should have been required.
It astonishes me though, that the hue and cry from the population is more about whether to eliminate a predominately non-lethal weapon from the police arsenal than it is about the obviouslyflawed illegal use of it in this one case.
Wake up people. Without the Taser there are many more instances where a police officer might have to draw a real gun and shot some poor sod dead. And once you start playing with lead and gunpowder there is going to be bodily harm 99% of the time, not 1% of the time.
It astonishes me though, that the hue and cry from the population is more about whether to eliminate a predominately non-lethal weapon from the police arsenal than it is about the obviously
Wake up people. Without the Taser there are many more instances where a police officer might have to draw a real gun and shot some poor sod dead. And once you start playing with lead and gunpowder there is going to be bodily harm 99% of the time, not 1% of the time.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Hank Reardon would recognize this...
The underlying impression one gets from this is that in order to make the hiring done by the federal government fair there should be allowances made for those who think that they deserve a full time permanent job, and are above applying for a temporary one to get a foot in the door.
Included in this deluded application of socialist logic is the oft repeated call for quotas for visible minorities. Skill level, training, qualifications and most importantly, number of applicants be damned.
Who's running this show? James Taggart?
Included in this deluded application of socialist logic is the oft repeated call for quotas for visible minorities. Skill level, training, qualifications and most importantly, number of applicants be damned.
Who's running this show? James Taggart?
Monday, November 12, 2007
Government initiatives, Choking off inovation since forever...
If global warming is unavoidable and linked to human activity then the fact is, that there is probably a fortune to be made innovating solutions to it.
So why have all business initiatives been so lacklustre, absent even?
Yes, some will say that it’s because the whole thing is a crock, but a stupid idea has really never prevented some enterprising businessman from at least attempting to make money off of it.
So why not now?
The answer is easy. The reform liberals and socialists are, once again, looking for government to do all the work, and weak kneed politicians the world over are obliging them.
With a crowd of government initiatives, forced regulation and social hand holding there is absolutely no wonder that business’s have been steering clear. After all, there is no better recipe for a blind-folded clusterf^*k than “government control” (oxymoron alert).
Friday, November 9, 2007
Now I'm paying to be taxed?
So I got a bill from the City of Ottawa today for $35.00. The letter that came with it explained that the charge was for a “Name change” and was linked to my property taxes.
Still a little confused I phoned the City to clarify. I thought that my lawyer should certainly have paid this charge, whatever it was when the house was transferred into my name.
Not so.
The charge, it was explained to me, was an administration charge levied against me so that I could be added to the city’s tax roll.
“So let me get this right,” I say. “you are charging me $35.00 for a city service so that I can be added to the cities tax roll so that I can benefit from city services?”
The nice lady on the other end of the line sounded very tired when she agreed that my summary was correct.
I hate it when my money is stolen, but I hate it even more when it is stolen for no other reason than to administratively support a self-perpetuating bureaucracy.
So, in Ottawa now they charge you for the priviledge of being taxed.
So wrong...
On so many levels.
Still a little confused I phoned the City to clarify. I thought that my lawyer should certainly have paid this charge, whatever it was when the house was transferred into my name.
Not so.
The charge, it was explained to me, was an administration charge levied against me so that I could be added to the city’s tax roll.
“So let me get this right,” I say. “you are charging me $35.00 for a city service so that I can be added to the cities tax roll so that I can benefit from city services?”
The nice lady on the other end of the line sounded very tired when she agreed that my summary was correct.
I hate it when my money is stolen, but I hate it even more when it is stolen for no other reason than to administratively support a self-perpetuating bureaucracy.
So, in Ottawa now they charge you for the priviledge of being taxed.
So wrong...
On so many levels.
The Darling of Celebrities
How come things touted to be "for the good of all" so often end with gunfire?
Will Sean Penn, Naomi Campbell, Kevin Spacey, Danny Glover and Harry Belafonte be helping to reload?
How come things touted to be "for the good of all" so often end with gunfire?
Will Sean Penn, Naomi Campbell, Kevin Spacey, Danny Glover and Harry Belafonte be helping to reload?
Thursday, November 8, 2007
No, I won't
The question was innocuous enough…
"Can you buy me a cup of coffee?"
My response.
"No, I won't"
Not “I can’t” but rather “I wont”
You would have thought I'd shot the poor wretch but apparently this piece of honesty hurt far more. It elicited a visceral reaction, a curse.
No great loss surely, the man wasn’t a friend, and certainly not anyone I cared about. But it got me to thinking. Somehow his reaction to my honesty was supposed to make me feel responsible in some small way for the self-induced misery of the beggar.
In a word… No.
Some might claim that I am my brother’s keeper; well if I am, I refuse to “keep” my brother a beggar by allowing him to survive as such.
So, the next time you are accosted by a vagrant, be blunt, be honest and be willing to make him/her responsible for his/her lot.
Then perhaps, just perhaps he/she will accept it.
"Can you buy me a cup of coffee?"
My response.
"No, I won't"
Not “I can’t” but rather “I wont”
You would have thought I'd shot the poor wretch but apparently this piece of honesty hurt far more. It elicited a visceral reaction, a curse.
No great loss surely, the man wasn’t a friend, and certainly not anyone I cared about. But it got me to thinking. Somehow his reaction to my honesty was supposed to make me feel responsible in some small way for the self-induced misery of the beggar.
In a word… No.
Some might claim that I am my brother’s keeper; well if I am, I refuse to “keep” my brother a beggar by allowing him to survive as such.
So, the next time you are accosted by a vagrant, be blunt, be honest and be willing to make him/her responsible for his/her lot.
Then perhaps, just perhaps he/she will accept it.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Reader Tips
Hi all, I'm sorry I haven't been able to write more but I will get back to it as soon as I'm settled in the new house (I promise).
Until I do I'd like to direct you to this, gem brought to us from the Ruxted Group and ask you to leave your own tips.
Until I do I'd like to direct you to this, gem brought to us from the Ruxted Group and ask you to leave your own tips.
Friday, June 15, 2007
The Irony of Canadian Democracy
Article
In contrast to the articles author I say that there is one more thing that the Canadian Government must do...
This evolving trainwreck that is Canada's aboriginal experiment should be stopped forthwith and modern liberal democratic ideals must not only be established on reserves but must be enforced and respected uniformly.
No more useless quasi-tribal regressive historical governance but open, free and fair elections with transparent decision making processes, accountable officials, modern financial accounting practices and legitimacy at all levels of aboriginal government.
How ironic that we currently have people in Afghanistan teaching the principals of democracy but we don't even adhere to those same principals on native reserves here in Canada.
Stop the planet!
This week, a Cree living on the Pooundmaker Reserve in Saskatchewan, Floyd Favel, wrote an article published in a Toronto-based newspaper calling for "a Buckskin Revolution."Canada as a nation and Canadians as a people fret about such injustices in the world (the highlighted portion) . We collectively believe in democratic principals and assisting emerging democracies but somehow we find it impossible to enforce a modicum of democracy right in our very own backyards?
"Within first nations communities, we need a re-evaluation of where we are going as a people and how we can further contribute to this great country."
Favel laments that the aboriginal leadership lives so indulgently, "driving their big trucks and collecting huge salaries." He complains of "unaccountable leadership that administers its people without any rules and leaves no avenues with which to protest unjust leadership."
In contrast to the articles author I say that there is one more thing that the Canadian Government must do...
This evolving trainwreck that is Canada's aboriginal experiment should be stopped forthwith and modern liberal democratic ideals must not only be established on reserves but must be enforced and respected uniformly.
No more useless quasi-tribal regressive historical governance but open, free and fair elections with transparent decision making processes, accountable officials, modern financial accounting practices and legitimacy at all levels of aboriginal government.
How ironic that we currently have people in Afghanistan teaching the principals of democracy but we don't even adhere to those same principals on native reserves here in Canada.
Stop the planet!
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
It's a quagmire!
879 Canadians killed by guns in Canada since 2001 = Shhhhhhhhhh, go back to sleep.
So how long till Jack Layton asks the RCMP to pack 'er in and turn over the country to the World Social Forum so they can organize a mass singing of Kumbaya at Jane and Finch?
Saturday, June 9, 2007
A voice in the wilderness
This says it all:
"Govern yourself. Improve yourself. Respect yourself. To trust politicians at all is unwise. To trust them to solve all your problems is utterly stupid."Read more
Monday, June 4, 2007
Our "unballanced" war effort in Afghanistan
"My message to the international community is to be patient, to take a realistic assessment of the ground realities of this country," he [Zia] said. "Here in Afghanistan, we shouldn't expect miracles because we are starting everything from scratch. We are literally putting bricks on top of bricks."But, realistic expectations are not what "Taliban Jack Bin Layton" and his warriors of appeasement rely on. They pin the hopes of the ignorant on best wishes, candy coated socialism and willful blindness to the vileness of those they seek to negotiate with.
Read more
Friday, June 1, 2007
The Senate.
Now some of these fine gentlemen, (predominantly the illiberal Liberals) are intentionally delaying a bill that was approved and passed in the elected House of Commons, which would limit the terms of these same Senators.
Can you say self-serving, opportunistic or dictatorial?
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Socialists
h/t to Janet for the inspiration
SOCIALIST
Socialist
Socialist
socialist
SOCIALIST
Socialist
Socialist
And some people wonder why these people scare me.
SOCIALIST
Socialist
Socialist
socialist
SOCIALIST
Socialist
Socialist
And some people wonder why these people scare me.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Same Trough, Different Pigs
How is it even possible for something like this to happen? How many people see a contract like this before it is approved? Five, Ten or More?
Isn’t even one of them exercising due diligence on behalf of the Canadian Taxpayer? Is there no one outside of the Auditor Generals office that routinely establishes whether proper procedures and protocols have been followed in government?
Yes, Yes there is.
The website says that they process about 500,000 transactions a year worth about 10 to 13 billion dollars. Hmmm, with that kind of money at stake you would think that we (the public) would have heard more about this obviously important player in the contracts process.
But then, would you admit to being the guy that let unscrupulous politicians rip us all off?
That’s what I thought…
RANT:
This issue has gotten me to thinking, a dangerous occupation to say the least, but here it goes anyway.
Since our society is advanced beyond the level of the dark ages it is not impossible, or even economically prohibitive (once the criminal cost of the status quo is factored in) to ensure that processes are followed and those in positions of power and influence do not have the opportunity or ability to easily cheat the system.
With this fact being patently obvious, the only plausible reason why things like this continue to happen is because they are permitted to. Now why is that?
Why, because at some level we all want it to continue! We as individuals are all rational actors, and if we think we can get away with cheating the system we will. It’s simply how the game is played.
Do you remember when Ontario was going to install photo radar? Remember the ruckus it caused? That little tempest in a teapot wasn’t brought on by some fear of “Big Brother” prying into the lives of law-abiding citizens as they cruised the 401. Not at all, the impetus for the outrage was that the government was eliminating the possibility of getting away with it. We (citizens) were outraged that the government was eliminating one of the prime components in our societies game, the ability for individuals to cheat “the system” by ensuring that anyone speeding at any time anywhere could be caught and would be ticketed.
Now nowhere near 1 in 103,896 of us have the ability to squeeze $25,000 out of the federal purse, but the principal is the same…
I guess
Isn’t even one of them exercising due diligence on behalf of the Canadian Taxpayer? Is there no one outside of the Auditor Generals office that routinely establishes whether proper procedures and protocols have been followed in government?
Yes, Yes there is.
“The Procurement and Project Management Policy Directorate (PPMPD) is part of the Government Operations Sector within the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. Its role is to provide strategic project and procurement management policy leadership to government departments, other central agencies, and other parts of the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.”
The website says that they process about 500,000 transactions a year worth about 10 to 13 billion dollars. Hmmm, with that kind of money at stake you would think that we (the public) would have heard more about this obviously important player in the contracts process.
But then, would you admit to being the guy that let unscrupulous politicians rip us all off?
That’s what I thought…
RANT:
This issue has gotten me to thinking, a dangerous occupation to say the least, but here it goes anyway.
Since our society is advanced beyond the level of the dark ages it is not impossible, or even economically prohibitive (once the criminal cost of the status quo is factored in) to ensure that processes are followed and those in positions of power and influence do not have the opportunity or ability to easily cheat the system.
With this fact being patently obvious, the only plausible reason why things like this continue to happen is because they are permitted to. Now why is that?
Why, because at some level we all want it to continue! We as individuals are all rational actors, and if we think we can get away with cheating the system we will. It’s simply how the game is played.
Do you remember when Ontario was going to install photo radar? Remember the ruckus it caused? That little tempest in a teapot wasn’t brought on by some fear of “Big Brother” prying into the lives of law-abiding citizens as they cruised the 401. Not at all, the impetus for the outrage was that the government was eliminating the possibility of getting away with it. We (citizens) were outraged that the government was eliminating one of the prime components in our societies game, the ability for individuals to cheat “the system” by ensuring that anyone speeding at any time anywhere could be caught and would be ticketed.
Now nowhere near 1 in 103,896 of us have the ability to squeeze $25,000 out of the federal purse, but the principal is the same…
I guess
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
