CHRC Shakedown

Jennifer Lynch pressures a company for thousands of dollars of freebies, like some mafia don. Ezra Levant outlines the sordid story here. Suffice to say that a quasi judicial agency with police powers demanding that an entity under its jurisdiction provides goods and services is the sort of thing we might expect in Russia, Venezuela or some third world kelptocracy rather than an liberal democratic nation like Canada.

The most telling part:

Lynch sent a letter to Newcap Radio – a station that comes under her jurisdiction. She asked them to fall into line with the CHRC’s way of thinking. And what came out the other end is hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of free ads featuring Lynch herself.

Question: Does that massive donation to Lynch constitute a political contribution? Is it a form of lobbying? What are the legal implications of Newcap simply gifting that to a bureaucrat for her vanity project? Where will the value of that gift be disclosed? What were the terms of the deal?

But much more important than the legal taxonomy for the gift: what was the quid pro quo?

What indeed?

The only way to ferret out the corruption in the "Human Rights" racket is to Fire. Them. All.

Writing your MP is a good first step, and following up by suggesting that you will refuse financial support to the political party in question until substantive action is taken might focus their minds on the problem. Blogbursting this story (particularly to our friends in the United States) and asking your local MSM outlets why they are not following this story are also worth doing to raise the profile and shine the spotlight on corruption.

Take action. Freedom is a self help project.

It can't be done!

When free market reformers suggest a market solution to any of the multitude of unwieldy, underfunded, unaccountable "public systems" The perennial answer from the unions, big government and their hapless drones in the public is "it can't be done!".

This statement is followed closely by its fellow travelers "what about the poor?", "what do you have against <insert 'protected' group/ideal here>?" and finally... "It could never work!" all of which are accompanied by the usual arguments from intimidation... "Certainly you don't mean..." "You couldn't possibly be saying..." "I know you don't intend to..."

Indeed... I do.

A fisherman with an understanding of economics that would put union officials to shame, who had moved his daughter from state to private school, told me that the private school proprietor needed to satisfy parents like him, otherwise he would go out of business. “That’s why the teachers turn up and teach,” he told me, “because they are closely supervised.”

One father, living in the Kenyan slum of Kibera, summarised it like this: “If you go to a market and are offered free fruit and vegetables, you know they’ll be rotten. If you want fresh produce, you have to pay for it.”

Downfall

Progressia comes home to roost. The most amazing thing to consider is the timeline; the "Great Society" programs which kicked off this destructive spiral were enacted starting in the mid 1960's, so the largest and most productive economy in history was bankrupted in just 40 years. You can read an excellent piece here: Who Will Bail Out Uncle Sam?

And some possible consequences: Four really, really bad scenarios

Of course, since our own economy is also badly indebted (perhaps a trillion dollars worth of debt once the unfunded liabilities like pensions are added in) we have little to brag about, and since our economy and society is attached to the United States like Captain Ahab's longboat to Moby Dick, when they go down they are pulling us straight down as well.

Jack Layton's Radio Check.

"This is Jack Layton to Canada... Radio Check... Over."

"Jack, this is Canada... You are weak, and spineless, but your transmission is loud and clear... Out."

*It's a rare thing when you can actually hear the backpedaling

The Shakedown

It's another quiet day in the store. Some parts of your inventory are still selling, though a little slower than normal. On the whole though, you're not nearly as bad off as Sam down the road or Pierre (who's neighbourhood has taken a turn for the worst in recent years).

That didn't matter last week though, when Big Ken and his boys came to you and in not so subtle terms indicated that your continued economic survival depended on their economic survival.

In spite of your better judgment you "agreed" to a sum, knowing that other companies much bigger than yours in terms of inventory, like Sam's had already cracked under the weight of people like Ken and his friends.

But you're nervous, you think that maybe the money you've promised Big Ken and his boys will keep them away until after this "economic downturn" but you are still facing the downturn yourself and the money Ken has demanded is more than you can and should be parting with especially now.

Well, you think... Just maybe if I tighten my belt another notch, if I am just a little more frugal I won't notice that money too much.

At that point the front door opens and in walks Ken.

In a speech brimming with imperatives he explains that, sadly, no, that wasn't all he was after... that "you'd better be sure to have some extra cash on hand and ready for him any time he should ask... That you had better be thinking about how you are going to keep his friends right where they are now or it will all come back to you... No, it wasn't his friends fault, their inability to make money on their own was your fault, and you have to make sure, no matter what, that they were happy and safe... Or.. all this would be destroyed.

Atlas shrugging at last

American Thinker provides an interesting article that indicates (as many thought possible) that the election of an interventionist Administration and Congress would result in a John Galt strike. You can read the article here.

Perhaps the most telling paragraph is this one:

We have very little appetite to have our lives run by elected or un-elected officials like Barney Frank and Jamie Gorelick. We have no appetite to be taxed even more by the likes of Charlie Rangel. These clowns destroyed Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and our entire economy as a result. Congress, by their own admission, cannot even run their own damned dining room with a captive customer base! Some of them refuse to pay their own tax burden. Why in the world would we subject ourselves to their ilk armed with the unchecked powers of the Oval Office and both houses of congress and a massive army of bureaucrats?

They will stop the motor of the world! Be prepared.

The Auto Industry bailout so everyone can understand:

While we may have avoided the bailout this time, rest assured the high priced lobbyists are hard at work looking for your tax dollars to prop up inefficient but politically connected unions and businessmen. This probably won't end until the rotting corpses of the "Big Three" have been dismembered and buried (and any sort of bailout will simply prolong the problem and the ultimate price to you and I).

If you want a bumper sticker or message to send to your elected representative, try this:

"You gave them a bailout, now I can't afford a car!"

Let Them Fail Part 2 - Fear and Opportunity

The abject fear that is being spread by the Auto sector and the UAW is palpable. "You don't realize what this is going to do to our economy!" they scream. "If one of the big three fails then it affects hundreds of thousands!!" they clamor. "You have to bail us out! We're VITAL!!!"

Well, the confluence of union greed, poor management and substandard products has brought us to this point. Right where we should be, and we didn't get here in a private jet or even in a hybrid.

Back to the fear though, lets take a logical look at the claims of the fear-mongers, industry, political and Union alike...

1. If one of the big three fails then the resulting job losses will cripple the economy.

Hmmm, Chrysler has 58,000 employees. Of those only 1,100 are Canadian. Sure that's a lot of lost jobs but cripple the economy? I don't think so. Regionally, sure it's going to hurt, but other regions such as Hamilton (steel), Sudbury (nickel), Sydney NS (steel), Ottawa (the tech sector), have seen similar failures, so what puts the auto sector at the head of the handout queue?

I'd say it's a combination of things, a highly political union being first and foremost in my mind, the tangible nature of their product being the next. It's a lot easier to identify with the loss of a brand name you see driving down the road than it is to attribute the same emotional connection to the loss of a natural resource producer like Inco.

By the way, those other sectors didn't get bailed out and their regions are rebuilding or have already rebuilt.

2. The failure of one of the Big 3 (isn't Toyota who is not asking for money one of the big three now?) will cause a corresponding crash in auto parts manufacturers.

Really? So these parts manufacturers only sell directly to the auto plants? No after market sales? No replacement parts? No revenue stream except for selling to the auto manufacturers? If that is the case then, like the Auto manufacturers themselves, they deserve to fail. Dumb should be painful, especially in business.

3. If one of the Big 3 fails then people who own that brand will be left out in the cold! The manufacturer won't even be able to sell it's current stock... Who is going to buy a car from a company under bankruptcy protection or worse!"

Garbage!!! Do you honestly believe that these people won't be able to get service for their vehicles if the company itself doesn't exist? If that is true I guess I missed the great Datsun breakdown of 1986...

Another thing, isn't it likely that some enterprising auto maker will recognize the opportunity a failure of that sort would represent for his company? I mean if I owned Ford, and Chrysler went belly up, I'd offer to provide servicing for their vehicles, using the new found glut of cheap aftermarket parts. Hell I'd even honour warranties for an additional though reasonable price. Crisis = opportunity, even this dumb-ass-never-taken-a-business-course-in-his-life knows that!

Hell if I was a {insert bankrupt car company name here} certified mechanic I'd offer a similar deal to continue to ensure my business and my profitability. Wouldn't you?

It is good to see that the US Senate has refused to bailout the Auto sector, though to contemplate it in the first place shows a criminal level of interference in the market, absolute ignorance in how the market works, and lastly, a blindness to what has brought us to this point in the first place (the mixed economy).

All the government needs to do is let the cards fall where they may. When one these companies is finally allowed to fail, there will be a flurry of rational reforms within the rest dictated by the need to produce quality products at reasonable prices. The deadwood of management will be figuratively hung, their dismembered heads stuck on pikes outside of the corporate headquarters as a warning to all of what happens when the market is ignored. The union gild masters and looters will be knocked off their soapbox, finding themselves, finally, in fear of not having an industry to work for, much less abuse, castrate and rape.

There are very few things that can immediately focus the mind. Some are negative lenses like fear and pain, and some are positive like opportunity, challenge and innovation. It's high time the North American auto sector felt a little of all of the above.

As my counterpart here has already said... LET THEM FAIL!

Winston Smith Lives!

It seems that Google's unofficial motto "do no evil" is situational. Perhaps it is time to migrate en mass to another search engine that does not attempt to censor the Internet:

http://thesecretsofvancouver.com/wordpress/now-cached-pages-are-going-away/oddities

Now Cached Pages Are Going Away

December 11th, 2008 Posted in Oddities

It seems like web articles critical of Obama are disappearing faster than you can say Change.

The current crop of disappearing web stories are keeping bloggers busy, but now even cached versions are disappearing.

It’s starting to look like Obama’s machine has really kicked in.

Can you say cover-up?

Here’s Googles policy:

The “Cached” link will be missing for sites that have not been indexed, as well as for sites whose owners have requested we not cache their content.

I think that Google may be kept busy with requests over the next few days.

Control of information is how dictatorships and authoritarians survive. The question we should be asking about Google is who is directing this activity, and what are the owners and managers of Google receiving in return?

The action we should take is to start changing our search pages away from Google and informing advertisers we will start boycotting anyone who appears on Google.

Freedom is a self help project

Deflation or Inflation? The choice is ours

An interesting symposium on NRO discusses the economy in the next two to four years. Deflation seems to be the watchword right now (and a general decline in prices is probably a good thing for a stressed economy and consumers who may be out of a job).

The big problem is that governments are trying to reinflate the economy by running the presses, "stimulating" the economy with politically motivated bailouts and perhaps the ultimate weapon; running deficits again. The danger here is this excess of cash and credit has the power to jump start inflation, particularly if the economy starts moving again while the flood on money is released. As one participant pointed out:

What’s the worst-case scenario? That suddenly, and mysteriously, the pipe may unclog, sending all of the money and credit the Fed has created into the economy, vastly amplifying it, too. Suddenly, the economy would have more money and credit that it knows what to do with. At the same time, the stuff to buy with that money and credit would have become more scarce, because of all of the missed farm-growing seasons, factory closures, and layoffs we’re hearing about today.

We have a certain amount of power to affect these scenarios in Canada. We need to keep reminding our elected representatives and each other that a "fiscal stimulus" package would wreak havoc on the Canadian economy, transferring wealth from the taxpayer and destroying it by using the wealth to pay for political support and favors rather than productive investment. If you don't believe me, remember the $1.6 billion that Chrysler Canada is demanding for retaining 8000 jobs is the resources to create 32,000 full time jobs; a net loss of 24,000 full time jobs in the Canadian economy for that one bailout alone.

The underlying cause of the financial crisis is the unbalance between wealth and debt. Any steps that increase our personal wealth (savings through purchasing lower priced goods and services, tax reductions) are steps that will ultimatly end the crisis, while supporting or sitting aside while our wealth is taken from us through tax increases or inflation due to "stimulus" packages will prolong the crisis.

The choice is ours.

Reject blackmail: Let Chrysler Canada fail

Chrysler Corporation has resorted to a fairly crude attempt to blackmail the Government of Canada today for $1.6 billion dollars in return for saving about 8000 jobs.

Outside of the moral dimension of a private corporation blackmailing the taxpayers and the government, there are three very compelling reasons to oppose such a bailout:

1. Chrysler's owner, Cerberus Capital Management LP, refuses to invest any more money in the firm.

2. Chrysler has already hired law firm Jones Day as Bankruptcy Counsel, indicating the bailout request is too little, too late, and;

3. $1.6 billion left in the productive economy is the resources needed to create 32,000 full time jobs. Transferring this amount of wealth from the taxpayer to Chrysler is a huge net loss for Canada and Canadians.

The conclusion is clear: Let them fail.

Blogburst this and write your MP to stop the blackmail.

Politics of Procrastination?

I really wish PM Harper had asked the GG to call an election instead of suspending parliament.

He said the other three were trying to put one over on Canadians, he said Canadians didn't vote for the TIC's (Three Idiots Coalition) but then he pulls the one stunt in the parliamentary bag of tricks that gives the opposition ammunition for their "it's only about his job" propaganda.

Prime Minister Harper should (In my opinion) have asked the Governor General for an election to clear the air, scheduled for about the same time frame (26Jan) as that granted by the prorogation. Then he should have kicked the living crap out of the TIC's on the basis of their dirty tricks and forcing another election through backroom deals and collusion before the fiscal update was even issued.

From what I've been reading it's my guess that here are enough people on all sides of the political spectrum that are angry enough about this coalition to swallow a bit of partisanship and hand the Torries a small majority.

Combine those ones with the ones that are just sick and tired of minority gong shows, and are looking rationally for the party that has it together enough to offer to form a majority and end the misery and I think the Cons would have won a majority by the end of January and we as a nation could get to the business of really seeing the forest through the trees.

As it is I believe that the Conservatives have only postponed the inevitable.

Neither Layton or Duceppe sounded like they would even consider PM Steven Harper again, and Dion's weak insistence on "monumental change" which the opposition (all three of the heads of this incarnation of Cerberus) have previously shown means the unequivocal abandonment of conservative ideals and policy in favor of socialist and progressive ones.

Welcome to groundhog day. See you all right back where we started on January 26th.

What if the Libertarian revolution already happened?

Readers of this blog will know that the two of us are followers of the philosophy of Objectivism, which translates in most jurisdictions to Libertarianism as a political philosophy or party. The Freedom Party is, to my knowledge, the only political party explicitly based on Objectivist philosophy.

While Objectivists and Libertarians may feel frustrated by the tiny amount of electoral support they receive at election time and the scant amount of coverage they get when trying to present their ideas to a larger audience, it may well be that the time and effort has paid off after all, only in ways we may not have been expecting.

Reason Online has an excellent article "The Libertarian Moment" by Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch. They argue that although "Progressiveism" may still be exerting its iron grip on the political culture, in the larger context, we the people have started to slip away in ever increasing numbers. Economic choice, the ability to voice ideas and find people of similar opinions, freedom to choose your lifestyle and the mobility of your labour and capital far exceed anything that was imagined even in the 1970's. The world is generally more peaceful and prosperous than at any other time in human history, and the State takes up a smaller proportion of the overall GDP than at almost any time in the past.

All this is in an almost equal part due to government action in the 1980's (particularly the Thatcher and Reagan Revolutions, but Canada's contribution was the Free Trade Agreement and later NAFTA), and the introduction of computers and high bandwidth personal communications (the Internet Revolution). Rolling back taxes and regulations unleashed the creative energies of the people, while high bandwidth communications allowed collaberation and interactions to a degree that was never seen before. It seems to me that each part was complimentary: free people without the ability to communicate widely would be limited to the human and economic resources that were close at hand, while unfettered communications would be useless without something to say. One could imagine the State using such a communications channel to spread propaganda and indoctrination, but experience has shown that people would rather talk about the things that interest them. In the West, the number of "Facebook" and "Myspace" users vastly outnumber the readers of ordinary blogs, while repressive regimes like the former USSR or modern China try to severely restrict access to the Internet (either directly by limiting access to personal computers as in the USSR, or through technology and intervention, like the co-opting of Google and the establishment of the "Great Firewall of China" in today's Middle Kingdom).

Although the State can still attempt to intervene, free people have far more tools and options today than ever to fight back. Canada's "Human Rights" Star Chambers were able to operate with impunity for decades until they were overwhelmed by swarms of bloggers, even attempts to crush bloggers activity through SLAPP lawsuits is being countered through the ease which bloggers can raise funds through the Internet using Paypal to hire lawyers, and physical protection can be achieved by moving the server to foreign jurisdictions beyond the reach of State censors (Free Dominion may have pioneered this by moving to a host site in Panama).

I will let the authors finish with two paragraphs from the article:

We are in fact living at the cusp of what should be called the Libertarian Moment, the dawning not of some fabled, clichéd, and loosey-goosey Age of Aquarius but a time of increasingly hyper-individualized, hyper-expanded choice over every aspect of our lives, from 401(k)s to hot and cold running coffee drinks, from life-saving pharmaceuticals to online dating services. This is now a world where it’s more possible than ever to live your life on your own terms; it’s an early rough draft version of the libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick’s glimmering “utopia of utopias.” Due to exponential advances in technology, broad-based increases in wealth, the ongoing networking of the world via trade and culture, and the decline of both state and private institutions of repression, never before has it been easier for more individuals to chart their own course and steer their lives by the stars as they see the sky. If you don’t believe it, ask your gay friends, or simply look who’s running for the White House in 2008.

and

The generation raised on the Internet has essentially been raised libertarian, even if they’ve never even heard of the word. Native netizens now entering college exhibit a kind of broad-based tolerance toward every manner of ethnic, religious, and sexual-orientation grouping in a way that would have seemed like science fiction just a generation ago. The products and activities they enjoy and co-opt most, from filesharing to flying discount airlines to facebooking, are excrescences of the free-market ideas of deregulation and decontrol. Generations X, Y, and those even younger swim in markets—that is, in choices among competing alternatives—the way those of us who grew up in the ’70s frolicked on Slip ’n Slides.

TIC: the Three Idiots Coalition

Tics, the small blood sucking vermin that drain the blood from their host are an appropriate species to compare to the Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition. And just like the lecherous ideologies they represent, when any host country becomes too infected with these political vermin it dies, just ask the USSR.

Many Canadians are rightly outraged that the TIC’s are banding together to dispose of Canada’s duly elected Conservative government. And had this as a plan since before the speech from the throne. In other words since before any of the “reasons” they gave for their outrage in the first place.

But there are others that have taken the opinion that the Government asked for it. That by cutting hard and deep, the government was being a bully and poking the opposition in the proverbial eye. I can’t understand the reasoning behind this line of thinking. The Prime Minister is supposed to be responsible to Canadians, not to the political pork barreling and pet projects of the opposition parties.

What is the first thing that politicians say when the economy starts tanking? What is the very first thing we hear from government? “Canadians (listen up dummy, that’s you and me) are going to have to tighten our belts.” Well ladies and gentlemen, for the first time in my memory we have a government that has begun the process by practicing what it preaches.

The Conservative government has had auditors going through the various departments for quite some time, rationally identifying places where cuts could be done and should be done. This is the kind of forward thinking I would expect from a government that sees trouble on the economic horizon.

The TIC’S believe that our government should follow the rest of the world lemming like into huge stimulus packages. My question is why should we when we have been told by organizations like the IMF that Canada is head and shoulders above the ROTW.

Is Canada in for a recession, I don’t know, probably, but if you talk to anyone who has studied economics the huge projects and billions in “stimulus” undertaken during the Great Depression prolonged that crisis. In addition the “New Deal” (of which we are being offered a watered down version by the TIC’s) didn’t end that crisis, WW2 did.

Furthermore, what is $30 Billion Canadian dollars to the world? What is it supposed to do? For those of you who don’t understand what is wrong about the idea that our government can spend its way out of an economic recession caused by runaway spending Fred Thompson has a video for you, and Publius over at Gods of the Copybook Headings does a fine job as well.

This is a global slow down. With trillions and hundreds of billions being thrown around by the heavy hitters (USA, China, EU) what if anything will our paltry $30b sum do? The phrase pissing in the wind comes to mind. It might feel good to get it out, but your just going to end up all wet and looking like an absolute idiot by the time you’re done.

Canada has a resource based economy, with billions of dollars in “stimulus” being force fed into the economies of the real players in this “crisis” won’t that stimulus spur manufacturing? Won’t they be looking for the raw materials they require to actually do the manufacturing?

So to me when I hear people blaming the current government for cutting pork during the most significant economic downturn in almost 100 years it makes me shake my head in bewilderment, and when I hear people screaming for a bailout/stimulus package without any demonstrable proof that Canada needs it or that it will do anything it makes me want to puke.

If the TIC’s get their way they will create more problems than they will solve, and beware friends, as always, only part of this has to do with the economy, like an iceberg liberal/progressive/socialist ideology has a small acceptable premise floating up where everyone can see it and a huge lumbering menace below.

Run up the Black Flag!

Although the Liberals, Bloc and NDP may have pulled one over on the Canadian electorate with their coalition stunt, there are some actions we can take as free Canadians. I outlined a few on Sunday, and now I am going to propose piracy against a putative coalition government.

By piracy, I am following the example of Ragnar Danneskjöld, and will grab for my share of the $30 billion inflationary stimulus package. Like Ragnar, I will calculate my income tax from 1993 to 2006, and also add the GST paid for the purchase of a number of cars and two homes during that period. That is the figure I propose to use when claiming any government "stimulus" grants, which will probably be handed out in indecent haste and with the sort of oversight that allowed the HRDC to perpetrate the "Billion Dollar Boondoggle".

As a free and responsible citizen, I want you to carefully consider doing the same; calculate the taxes you paid from 1993-2006, add any GST for major purchases like houses or cars, then put together a business proposal to hire a few people and apply for a grant of that amount. This is only a self refund of the monies that were taken from you to support the extortionate and ineffectual government schemes that crippled Canada's economy and political culture, and reduced us to a shadow on the global stage.

It seems only right that we use the perpetrators of the last round of extortion to provide the refund now.

Take action against the Canadian Coup

We need to think about how we the people should react to this attempted coup by the Liberal PArty of Canada, the NDP and Bloc Quebecois (who were apparently in collusion and planning this coup since the election results came in six weeks ago). Since this is a grab for taxes and power, we should be prepared to resist in any way possible, including a tax strike (a la John Galt) and various forms of active and passive resistance.

As well, overwhelming the MSM through letters, bogs, posting on their sites, call in radio neds to be done in order to push the message through that this is not about the economy but only about grabbing for entitlements from our pockets.

Finally, we can take action directly against the Liberal Party for their part in these events, do everything possible to cause them to spend money, call for the return of the stolen $20 million in ADSCAM money and find out which banks loaned the LPC money for their operating expenses; find out and tell these banks you will withdraw your savings and refuse to do business with them unless they call the loans right now.

Take action now.

Freedom is a self help project.

Who is watching the watchkeepers?

We saw the shameless antics of the MSM during the Canadian and American federal elections. Careful filtration of the news, creative use of headlines, pointed inattention to certain stories and creative selection of photographs were all used to support the "Progressive" slates in each election and discredit, ridicule or diminish the message of the "Classical Liberal" voices.

Now it is clear that private interests are extending the reach of Progressives and attempting to throttle the exchange of ideas and information in the Bolgosphere; specifically, the Google search engine is being censored and right wing blogs and videos are under attack.

This is particulary dispicable, since Google is the premier search engine and the source of information for much of the civilizd world. "To Google" is considered a verb and understood to mean to search for information. Since competators either have inferior search algorithems or are associated with restricted "walled garden" approaches to avalable information, this represents a huge threat to free speech, both more insidious than the Orwellian "Human Rights Comissions" of Canada, and more all encompassing.

Read what this blogger has to say:

http://thesecretsofvancouver.com/wordpress/google-censoring-right-wing-blogs/activists

Google Censoring Right Wing Blogs

November 28th, 2008 Posted in activists

The abuse of power by the friends of Obama…

Google’s CEO, Eric Schmidt, is a staunch Obama supporter and is in line for a cabinet post… and is now using Google as a tool against right wing thought.

A good example: In the past few weeks, Atlas Shrugs was usually in the top five of the search results for “Obama birth certificate“, “Obama odinga“, “honor killings”, “Obama campaign finance fraud“.

Now they’ve been wiped off Google search pages.

Google also shut down a number of anti-Obama sites on their Blogger network, during the election.

Here’s a small sampling:

Blue Lyon @ http://bluelyon.blogspot.com (back up after the election)

Come A Long Way @ http://comealongway.blogspot.com

Hillary or Bust @ http://hillaryorbust.blogspot.com

McCain Democrats @ http://mccaindemocrats.blogspot.com

NObama Blog @ http://nobamablog.blogspot.com

Politicallizard.blogspot.com @ http://thelizardannex.blogspot.com

Reflections in Tyme @ http://reflections-in-tyme.blogspot.com

More on the story here.

Nice Change from the Obamanauts…

Be careful what you say. The fairness doctrine has begun.

photo credit: ConnorTreacy

Like the MSM, we do have the ability to take action. Looking up other search engines and making them your default is probably the best means of making the point, since this has the potential to deprive Google of advertising revenue. Money talks, and we can say a lot by removing some of Google's income stream.

John Galt, the Internet awaits you.

UPDATE!!!Don't Even Think About it Mme Governor General.

I've heard it more than a couple of times with regard to this political party tax grab/vote subsidy but anyone want to try and tell me how this money grab is democratic?

I mean if the winning party of an election gets 14 million votes and wins a majority but then proceeds to lie, cheat and steal, elect unpopular people to lead their party, divorce the party from the very people parties are supposed to represent and still get $23,800,000 every year regardless of the poor job they do?

On the other hand, if you eliminate the subsidy the party has to remain loyal to its base, it has to generate it's own funds. It has to be able to come up with leaders, platforms and policies that their supporters will support and it has to hopefully do well enough to gather more support the next time. That is democracy.

Democracy is not being forced to treat a vote like a post dated cheque.

The other concept being hoisted upon us is that these parties (all of them) are somehow part and parcel of our democracy and they must survive or our democracy won't function. Absolute bullshit.

There is no party that has to exist. If the party can not survive on it's own then like a business it shouldn't. There is no legal, democratic or constitutional mandate for any of them. They are supposed to be private entities separate from and unconnected to government qua government in any way. Anything less than that is an aberration of democracy the likes of which we see in Banana Republics and communist "Peoples Republics".

I hope that the Conservatives stick to their guns on this one. It's sink or swim time and I'm sick and tired of the political parties using my money to keep themselves afloat.


The word you're looking for is breathless indignation.

But before these leeching slimeball waste of skin political backroom dolts try to rob me of the right to vote for who leads this country they should probably take a breather.

They should take a good hard look at the second chart here.

If you think that western Canada is going to roll over and suck the teat of a socialist Government that they overwhelmingly rejected, that is imposed on them by an unelected Royally appointed babysitter, you're smoking dope.

Look at the numbers from Manitoba west... 71 CPC Members of Parliament, 7 Liberal, and 14 NDP. 71 to 21, you do the math...

Try to pull a fast one Mme Jean and the separatists in Quebec may get their wish courtesy of Liberal NDP and Bloc greed and delivered by the long ignored western provinces.

Praise the Dollar, and Pass the Consumerism

Organizations like Adbusters, (which I will not lower myself to link to) would have you believe that the act of spending money is a crime. That it is some sort of new age sin, an evil that keeps us all from being truly happy. That this message originates in and is preached to its vacuous followers from the security, safety and opulence of the wealthy West seems lost to both the originator and receptors of the message.

We consume, but that is merely the end result. First there is an idea, a spark of creativity or brilliance that stimulates the man. Indeed, to think and create is as human as drawing breath, it differentiates us from animals, it makes our lives worthwhile.

Next the idea is dissected, reduced to component parts, assembled, disassembled tested destroyed rebuilt perfected. This part is often referred to by the creator in such celebrated terms as “a labour of love”. What was that line from the movie “Flash of Genius”? When told that his invention is “just a windshield wiper,” Robert Kearns replies, “To you maybe. To that bartender up there. But to me it's the Mona Lisa.”

Tell me, how do we go from such a life affirming ideal, such a passionate statement to the idea that consuming the products of our creation is a sin?

When the invention is ready the creator enlists the aid of others. Labour is divided to increase our output, to the benefit all the men involved. Those who are hired have their effort rewarded with pay. They in turn support families, they buy other products they need to make their lives better, they consume, they prosper, and they enjoy the fruit of their labour, and the wonders created by other men for their consumption.

What’s wrong with that?

Adbusters would have you believe it is all wrong. They would ask you to not consume, to not enjoy the fruits of your labour, to not celebrate the wonderful time we live in, to toss aside the innovations that have taken mankind from mere existence to a life worth living. They would have you ignore the reality of the economic cycle from create to consume.

Why?

Because we consume too much?

Look at the wealth that our consumer culture has created. Even the poorest person in the so called “West” lives like a king compared to the dark days before our consumerism.

In the end I say if the Adbuster folks wish to preach about austerity and curse our consumerism, they ought to have the decency to do it from the slums of Calcutta. Perhaps while wearing a hair shirt… and no shoes. Of course they’ll have to cut down on their exposure, flashy websites, computers and electricity are just so evil… and you can only reach so many people when you are writing your anti-consumer manifesto out by hand on scrap paper and taping it to lamp posts and mail boxes.

I celebrate Reasons Harvest.

Go thank yourself!!!

All the history that's fit to ignore

The MSM has been strangely silent on Iraq since the "Surge". The crushing of the insurgency in the "Tikrit triangle", the defeat of the Al-Sadr militia in Basra and the "Anabar Awakening" which drove out the Al Qaeda in Iraq's footholds in that promise were entirely at odds with the MSM narrative of defeat and dispair.

As well, the crushing of the insurgency is a humiliating blow to the US anti war movement and totally overturns the narrative of Senator (now President elect) Barack Obama, who has constantly and consistently been against the Iraq war, and has publicly stated that the "Surge" was not effective and the US would be defeated in Iraq.

How much better if they simply pretend it never happened.

For those of you who do not have a personal memory hole, real reporting of the situation in Iraq has been provided by such independent "blog" journalists as Micheal Yon, and professionals like Robert Kaplan, and can be found on the web.

November 22 should become a new day of celebration for Americans: VI day. Since this conflicts with the "official" narratives and the new Administration, VI day will have to be a private memorial celebrated on November 22 each year by patriotic Americans and their friends throughout the world. Let the Administration and MSM know what you are doing, they may publicly ignore your celebrations but should be hanging their heads in shame (and will if they have any decency left).

Congratulations to the Bush Administration for seeing the conflict through to victory.
Congratulations to the American and Allied servicemembers who made such great sacrifices to bring about victory
Congratulations to the Government and people of Iraq for perservering against all the odds.
Congratulations to the American people who supported their troops during the hard times.

The "Crowd" has spoken as well

I would like to draw your attention to an interesting post. While I posted on the "meta level" that Freidrich Hayek and Ludwig Von Mises had already passed judgement on the Obama Administration, the markets have done so as well. Indeed, the market predicted and reacted to the impending victory of Senator Obama in September, well before the election occured.

From Doug Ross @ Journal:

Barack Obama and The Wisdom of Crowds

In the early twentieth century Francis Galton witnessed a contest at a county fair. Asked to estimate the weight of a prize ox, spectators and cattle experts alike submitted their guesses on paper.After the contest was finished, Galton collected the hundreds of submissions. He painstakingly added them up to determine the average of the crowd's estimates.He was astounded to discover that the crowd's average was closer to the true weight of the ox than any single guess, including those of the "experts".

This anecdote is one of many related in James Surowiecki's bestselling book The Wisdom of Crowds.The book's central assertion is that a diverse collection of individuals, each operating independently, is likely to offer better predictions and decisions than individuals, even so-called "experts".

Intrade.com, the well-known prediction market, selected the winner of every single U.S. Senate race in 2006. No "talking head" pundit was able to match this record.The largest and best known prediction market is the stock market. A 2007 study by Arnerich & Messina illustrated the stock market's efficiency in stark terms. Since 1994 there have been only two years in which more than 50% of professional money managers were able to beat the S&P 500 index. In 1997 only 11% of managers beat the index.

Over the last year most investors in the equity markets have taken horriffic losses. In September -- just a couple of months ago -- the Dow Jones Industrial Average hovered near 12,000. Today it closed at 7,552, a loss of roughly 35%.

What happened in September? Let's look at the Intrade presidential futures market. The blue line represents the Obama futures while red represents McCain.If we zoom into the September-to-November timeframe, we'll see something very enlightening. By late September it was increasingly clear to Intrade.com bettors that Obama was going to win the election. From 9/28 to 9/29 Obama's Intrade price went from 57 to 61, which represented a huge jump.Note what happened to the stock market at nearly the exact same time. Around September 29th the market began its collapse.

Call it a crisis of confidence. Call it a Fannie-inspired meltdown. Call it what you will, but the markets appear to have reacted to Obama's promises of economic "fairness", "spreading the wealth" and raising taxes on the job creators of society.This thinly disguised form of class warfare, the policies of which many have termed socialism (fairly or unfairly), has had a definite impact on the markets.The markets represent the ultimate collective intelligence engine on the planet. The markets have spoken on the stated policies of Barack Obama. Sorry, folks, there are no do-overs.

Linked by: American Thinker, Gateway Pundit and Vanderleun. Thanks!

With that level of confidence, I predict the next four years are going to be very ugly for investors and producers. "Who is John Galt?" indeed....

Travelling At The Speed Of Light

Bob Rae touting his "experience" in running a government under deficit conditions has got to be the most audacious attempt at rebranding in the history of politics.

Mr Rae would have you believe that since his 4 year evisceration of Ontario and his taxpayer assisted political Seppuku in 1995, and after 13 years of being Grand Pooh-Bah in charge of exactly nothing, that his "experience" of running the province of Ontario into the ground will serve Canadians well.

Good thing it doesn't look like anyone is buying.

Looks like there is more of a difference between shit and sunshine than their relative speed of travel after all.

Two Prophetic Passages

Now referring to Ayn Rand as a prophet is sublimely ridiculous to anyone but the most ignorant provocateur, but doing a little light reading last night I came across these two passages in the essay titled "Egalitarianism and Inflation" in her book "Philosophy, Who Needs It?" and though not a prophet, Rand, in championing real, true and unhindered laissez-faire capitalism certainly seems to have glimpsed the troubles we find ourselves drowning in today...

"While the government struggles to save one crumbling enterprise at the expense of the crumbling of another, it accelerates the process of juggling debts, switching losses, piling loans on loans, mortgaging the future and the futures future. As things grow worse, the government protects itself not by contracting this process but by expanding it."

Sound familiar?

How about this?

"It is at a time like this, in the face of an approaching economic collapse, that the intellectuals are preaching egalitarian notions. When the curtailment of government spending is imperative, they demand more welfare projects. When the need for men of productive ability is desperate, they demand more equality for the incompetents. When the country needs the accumulation of capital, they demand that we soak the rich. When the country needs more savings, they demand a "redistribution of income." They demand more jobs and less profits-more jobs and fewer factories-more jobs and no fuel, no oil, no coal, no "pollution"-but above all, more goods for free to more consumers, no matter what happens to jobs, to factories, or to producers."

Those who don't/can't/won't listen to reason are doomed.

Freedom Bridge.

In October this old covered bridge joining the communities of Upper Stone Ridge and Morehouse Corner in New Brunswick was burned to the ground leaving only a treacherous hilly road joining the two. The residents were outraged as it appeared that this old covered bridge, like so many others, had been the victim of arson.

Now the residents of Upper Stone Ridge are outraged once again, the government of the province has decided that the dangerous road link will provide sufficient ingress and egress from the tiny community and the bridge will not be replaced.

Now as petty as the Government of New Brunswick appears to be in this case, $275,000 being a drop in the proverbial budget bucket, what annoys me most is that not a single resident has suggested that the residents or the business's of the town get together to build the bridge themselves.

I grant that in our heavily taxed society that we as citizens ought to be able to expect that government would provide such a necessary link (otherwise why are we paying them so much money), but obviously we can't. The reason is simple political economics, the government doesn't give a rats ass about some tiny backwater village, it won't cost them the election next time around and therefore the wishes and requests of that small minority are unimportant.

Sorry, those are the facts, that is the deal our social contract has become. Big = important, small = ignored.

So what are these people to do? Apparently the choices they have accepted as of now are.

1. Suck it up
2. Bitch and moan and in the end suck it up

So what happened to option 3? The one that says when the government won't provide then the private sector or private funding will? Like they used to do it in the old days.

Apparently that idea hasn't crossed anyone's mind. But what if it did...

Could the people of Upper Stone Ridge and Morehouse Corner pool their resources and build their own bridge? Sure, why not it always used to be done that way. In the old days it was the need for the thing that was the impetus to get it done, not the will of government.

So for arguments sake lets say that they did build the bridge, well then they would have to pay for it, and the most sensible method of payment would probably be by toll. Now seeing that the bridge would in fact be private property then no police car, ambulance, fire truck or any other vehicle would be entitled to cross without paying the toll...

Do you see where I'm going with this?

Right. All those agencies which according to the article claimed that "the bridge wouldn't affect the service given to the public" would have to spend more money to go the long and dangerous way around or pay to use the private bridge.

In the end it's up to the people of Upper Stone Ridge and Morehouse Corner to see if the idea is workable, if it is viable or even preferable. But given ownership of some suitable land, the construction of the bridge ought to be the choice of those people affected, and outside of the power of government to dictate.

My advice to the people of Upper Stone Ridge and Morehouse Corner is to build it. Take charge of your own lot in life, and when the government comes calling, when Constable Joe or Postal Worker Jim want to use your bridge tell them to pay up or piss off.

And if you build it... I'll definitely go out of my way the next time I'm in that part of New Brunswick to pay your toll and salute your claim of freedom

Picture courtesy of New Brunswick Covered Bridges Blog

Some common sense from a politician (for a change)

From the Wall Street Journal. If he represents the "new wave" of Republicans, along with Governor's Palin and Bobby Jindal (among others), then maybe the Republican Party has the nucleus of a new team. Give them until 2012 to clean house internally and build a new platform on "Classical Liberal" principles like freedom of expression, property rights and the Rule of Law (or in the American idiom; "Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happiness") and they will have a winning combination. The chaos and economic uncertainty of the next four years won't hurt their chances either:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122670755063129989.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

Don't Bail Out My State
South Carolina's governor says more debt isn't the answer.
By MARK SANFORD

I find myself in a lonely position. While many states and local governments are lining up for a bailout from Congress, I went to Washington recently to oppose such bailouts. I may be the only governor to do so.

But I suspect I'm not entirely alone, as there are a lot of taxpayers who aren't pleased with Christmas coming early for politicians. And I hope these taxpayers make their voices heard before Democrats load up the next bailout train for states with budget deficits.

Several questions led me to oppose bailing out the states. They are worth asking, even if you supported bailing out Wall Street.

Who bails out the "bail-outor"?

Washington is short on cash these days and will borrow every dime of the $150 billion to $300 billion for the "stimulus" bill now being worked on. Federal appetites may know no bounds. But the federal government's ability to borrow is not limitless. Already, our nation's unfunded liabilities total $52 trillion -- about $450,000 per household. There's something very strange about issuing debt to solve a problem caused by too much debt.

Do you now have to be a financial "bad boy" to win?

Community bankers tell me that they are now at a competitive disadvantage for being careful about who to lend to, because others that were less disciplined will get a federal bailout. This is also true for states. Those that have been fiscally responsible will pay for or lose out to the big spenders. California increased spending 95% over the past 10 years (federal spending went up 71% over the same period). To bail out California now seems unfair to fiscally prudent states.

Was the economist Herb Stein wrong when he said that if something cannot go on forever, it won't?

Medicaid grew 9.5% annually over the past 10 years. That's unsustainable. But if Congress opens the checkbook now, there will be no reform.

Isn't government intervention supposed to be the last resort and come only when it can make a difference?

In 2008 bailouts became the first resort. Over the past year the federal government has committed itself to $2.3 trillion (including the tax rebate "stimulus" checks of last February) to "improve" the economy. I don't see how another $150 billion now will make a difference in a global slowdown. We've already unloaded truckloads of sugar in a vain attempt to sweeten a lake. Tossing in a Twinkie will not make the difference.

However, there is something Congress can do: free states from federal mandates. South Carolina will spend about $425 million next year meeting federal unfunded mandates. The increase in the minimum wage alone will cost the state $2.6 million and meeting Homeland Security's REAL ID requirements will cost $8.9 million.

Based on what I saw in Washington, the bailout train is being loaded up. Taxpayers will have to speak up now to change its freight, tab or departure.

Mr. Sanford, a Republican, is the governor of South Carolina.

Friedrich A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises pronounce judgement on the Obama Administration

Should we really prolong the death struggle for those countries, whose ruling intellectual caste is dependent on the resources that the capitalist west provides for its socialist experiments?
Friedrich A. Hayek

That which generates war is the economic philosophy of nationalism: embargoes, trade -- and currency control, devaluing, etc. The philosophy of protectionism is the philosophy of war.
Ludwig von Mises

We will live in interesting times

Remembrance day

The ancient Greek statesman Pericles gave an oration for the Athenian war dead ("The Funeral Oration"), which is speaks to us today as much as it did to the Athenians in the winter of 441 BC. When he discusses the ideal of citizenship, he speaks across the centuries to the same impulses which drove our citizen soldiers throughout Canada's history:

What I would prefer is you should fix your eyes every day on the greatness of Athens as she really is, and fall in love with her. When you realize her greatness, then reflect what made her great were men with a spirit of adventure, men who knew their duty, men who were ashamed to fall below a certain standard. If they ever failed in an enterprise, they made up their minds that at any rate the city would not find their courage lacking to her, and they gave to her the best contribution that they could. They gave her their lives, to her and to all of us, and for their own selves they won praises that never grow old, the most splendid of sepulchers- not the sepulcher where their body is laid but where their glory remains eternal in men’s minds, always there on the right occasion to stir others to speech or to action.


Lest we forget

Still Not The Prime Minister

Yes, that means you Jack

"In the first case, it's going to be a speech from the throne that will be a confidence motion, and we've set out today the five fundamentals that we must see ... for us to even consider supporting it."

What part of fourth place don't you understand?

Un-equalization...

"This reliance on handouts makes governments and voters too dependent on other people's money and less willing to make innovative policy decisions to spark job creation."

Indeed...

Pope Signs Death sentence

Apparently the meaning of the word donation is more important than saving a persons life.

"buying and selling of organs ... would go against the meaning of donation"

In Canada according to this article 46% of patients waiting for a Kidney died in the average 2.4 years they were followed for the study. This is in spite of the fact that a person can live with just one kidney.

The article is chock full of tidbits like this...

"A relatively small proportion of patients received a transplant: 10.6 per cent for those receiving a kidney from a deceased donor and 5.8 per cent for live donors."

I wonder, how many people would voluntarily exchange a kidney for a suitable cash payment...

Meh, it doesn't really matter, because once again, the church proves it is all about suffering, it's more interested in some ethereal piety and altruistic nonsense than it is in you, your life, the ones you love and your/their continued existence.

My hat is off to the propagandists of the church though... That they continue to be able to convince people that it is better to die than to pay for a service is amazing. The two Joe's (Joseph Goebbels and Joseph Stalin) must be prostrating themselves in the grave at the thought of it.

An Army of Brownshirts?

Senator Obama has proposed a Civilian National Security Force with the same "power and funding" as the Armed Forces. As a student of history, this doesn't sound very comforting; since most totalitarian regimes developed parallel armed forces to the military (think of the Soviet MVD "Ministry of the Interior" troops for a simple example). While creating an army of Brownshirts or Stormtroopers may not be the reason for a Civilian National Security Force, we need to know what, exactly, it is. (I note that we potentially have lots of integration issues considering how our forces are intertwined through NORAD, Northern Command, NATO etc.)

http://www.captainsjournal.com/2008/11/01/civilian-national-security-force/

Civilian National Security Force
BY Herschel Smith

So Obama wants to quit relying on the U.S. military alone to implement U.S. national security objectives. Okay, in contemporary slang, The Captain’s Journal is “down with that.” So he’s going to get the State Department playing on the same side as the military? Er … maybe not.

“Just as powerful, just as strong, and just as well funded.” So the astute observer and deep thinker might reflect for a minute and be compelled to pose several questions (although the MSM won’t).

1. How will this Civilian National Security Force (hereafter CNSF) be just as powerful as men with guns, artillery, ordnance, war ships and aircraft?
2. What will make the CNSF “just as strong” as the U.S. Marine Corps?
3. How will this CNSF implement national security policy?
4. Since the 2009 budget includes just over half a trillion dollars for defense spending (The Captain’s Journal supports this, and calls for even more), and since it is judged that this CNSF be “just as well funded” as the military, where will this half a trillion dollars come from?
5. Finally, if he didn’t really mean that this CNSF would be the beneficiary of half a trillion dollars (to do with we don’t know what), then why did he say so?

At any rate, these questions seem to be compelled by the proposal. The best bet, however, is that the MSM won’t pose a single one of them (but we do get to add another snappy sounding category to our stable of articles - Civilian National Defense Force).

Truth in Advertising

Pulling a Ragnar Danneskjöld

Instapundit recently published a blog post asking if it is time for Americans to pull a "John Gault" and go on strike against a prospective Obama administration and Congressional Democratic supermajority. For the few readers who may not understand the allusion; John Galt withdraws from a socialist society and convinces other thinkers and doers to do the same. The United States is crippled not only because of the redistributive policies followed by the various State and Federal governments, but because the very people who's productivity and effort provides the funds and motive power to the State are no longer there.

Ragnar Danneskjold is one of the strikers, who takes more positive action, rather than passively withdrawing from society, he becomes a pirate and actively destroys "gift ships" that the United States sends to the various People's States around the world (although he makes a point of avoiding confrontations with the United States Navy and Coast Guard, since they are performing their proper roles). This is direct action against the philosophy of "spreading the wealth" by preventing it from being used to subsidize or otherwise support other "looter" regimes. In on of the great scenes of the novel, Ragnar Danneskjold seeks out one of the non strikers; Hank Rearden, and offers him some comfort as the looming forces of the State increase the pressure on him. As partial restitution for the hardship and suffering Rearden has suffered at the hands of the State, Danneskjold offers repayment in gold of Rearden's income taxes.

We can do the same. If governments or the State want to "spread the wealth", it is quite reasonable to ask; "why not to us?" Readers are urged to think of the example of Ragnar Danneskjold and use the various mechanisms the State has or will offer to request your income tax back. If the State offers funds to start a new business or hire employees, plug into that program for the amount of your income tax. Rebates for going green? How green can you go (up to the maximum amount of your taxes). American readers will have somewhat different calculations to make, income taxes might not rise initially under an Obama administration, but withholdings like FICA will go up, and probably by dramatic amounts.

Here is how another correspondent puts it:

A REVERSE-JOHN-GALT? Tom Spaulding writes: "So, if Obama actually wins this election and delivers on even half of his promises, I'm vacillating on whether to pull a reverse John Galt and plug IN to the system. . . . So I mean to look into every government assistance program Obama/Pelosi/Reid provides or funds. Even if I don't sign up, at least I'll have an idea where my money is going to. But if I do take an occasional sip from the public teat, consider it my own way of 'spreading the wealth' back around to me."

Piracy may be profitable and fun during the Obama administration. With luck, we can strike the "Black Flag" in 2012.

A radical approach to dealing with the financial crisis

WRT the economy, I think the various notions being floated or practiced now are dangerous nonsense. Nationalizing the banks or debt will further distort the economy and lead to inflation. Given the sordid history of State intervention in the housing market which caused this mess in the first place, I would be very reluctant to accept that further direct intervention in the economy can "help". Someone needs to take the lead with a more radical approach that restores liquidity and confidence without breaking the bank. For a Canadian solution I propose:

a. Eliminating business income tax entirely. Business does not pay tax anyway, but simply passes on the costs to consumers. Dropping the tax will free up massive amounts of resources to retool, pay off debt or whatever else the owners see fit, and give the overall economy a huge boost. The political criticism from the "Progressives" and regional interests can be deflected by pointing out that every business and every region will benefit without prejudice or special favor, and the amount of funds released into the productive economy will create many new jobs. The $50 billion in business tax cuts that Jack Layton wanted to take back is the resources to create 1,000,000 new, full time jobs. That's a lot of kitchen tables.

b. Institute a single tax (AKA Flat tax). Eliminating all loopholes, exemptions etc. will make revenue collection much easier, and also deflect criticism from the "Progressives". As a bonus, a single tax can free up about $3 billion after tax dollars a year in compliance costs to taxpayers and business; more funds that can flow to the productive economy pot.

c. Eliminate corporate subsidies as a partial payment for "a". Corporate subsidies cost an estimated $19 billion per year to the taxpayer, probably a lot more if regional funds, special initiatives to "selected" industries, agriculture, arts and culture etc. are included. Since the business world receives a huge boost from eliminating business tax, dropping subsidies is a fair trade off, and since the elimination of business income tax will assist all business, calls for corporate subsidies to "selected" industries and regions can be muted.

Can such a plan be implemented? Prime Minister Harper has demonstrated a great deal of skill in handling a fractious parliament in the past. The plan can appeal to both the business wing of the Liberal party (by helping business nation wide) and the "Progressives" of all stripes by providing resources to create new jobs across all sectors of the economy and all regions. Careful explanation and stickhandling through parliament will be needed to get this passed, and I am not sure that even a global financial crisis engulfing the Canadian economy like a tsunami will cause politicians to drop petty partisan differences for the greater good.

Still, forward this plan to every person and media outlet you can; discussion can only increase the number of options that can be considered.

"I am a free Canadian" -- election day blogburst

"I am a Canadian,
a free Canadian,
free to speak without fear,
free to worship God in my own way,
free to stand for what I think right,
free to oppose what I believe wrong,
free to choose those who shall govern my country.
This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold
for myself and for all mankind."

h/t: five feet of fury
Small Dead Animals

Men, not Law

I was visiting a Conservative Party candidate at her open house when it was crashed by several people "protesting" the deportation of American servicemen who have deserted and fled to Canada.

Now, while I support free speech, I most certainly don't support the position of these people. The servicemen volunteered to serve the United States, expecting to receive pay, benefits and training, but failed to maintain their end of the commitment. The short description of their action is desertion, and is a crime against the American government.

These servicemembers claimed refugee status in Canada, and have made various arguments such as being real refugees (in danger of persecution by their home government), contientious objectors (a legal process which American servicemembers can claim within the American military, but which these servicemembers either did not claim or failed to prove their case) and various other claims. They were provided with access to the Canadian legal system, and went through the legal process and lost.

The people who support the American servicemen and want to stop the deportations are explicitly attempting to overturn the Rule of Law in Canada. Their ideal state was inadvertently revealed in London Ontario on October 10, when several thuggish "War resistor supporters" pushed a women into traffic for disagreeing with them. (Luckily she was not injured). I wonder if these "War resistor supporters" have contemplated what sort of society they are advocating for, or how they will fare against larger and more organized groups that disagree with them in such an anarchistic state?

And What Exactly Is That?

Stephane Dion said...

By taxing non-productive, pollution-heavy activities while at the same time cutting personal and corporate income taxes, Canada will create jobs and stimulate growth, Dion argued.

What activities are those? What is a "non-productive, pollution heavy activity"? Anyone? Anyone? Behuler?

The only two I can think of are Question Period and the CBC...

Non-productive, pollution-heavy activities... that's almost as sketchy as Commie Jack Layton's one liner about "The real economy", which is nothing more than socialist double speak for the miraculous creation of jobs without any corporate involvement (because they've all been taxed into receivership or moved to Mexico, where they have some rights).

Babies, Bathwater and Bail-outs

The current market blowout is being heralded by government and the media as a failure, no, as a direct result of capitalism. Blame for it is being laid at the feet of corporations and banks and business’. This is a lie.

This lie is being told by government and is reinforced by a simpering media who neither understand, nor in any way wish to protect the one and only system of commerce that allows them to function independently and freely. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

Capitalism, and when I say capitalism I mean true lassiez faire capitalism could not have created this mess. I want this to be understood, this is not a claim that it wouldn’t happen but a flat statement of fact that it couldn’t happen.

Under laissez faire capitalism there is a complete separation of economics and government. So the initial causal factor that led to this market instability, namely the long line of corporate bail outs would never have happened and this would have fostered an ideal of fiscal prudence in all business sectors. Sure, perhaps the stock market would have risen slower than it did, but it would have risen on actual, hard economic indicators and financial data, not false and whimsical governmental vagaries.

The demand from the US government to that nations banks that a percentage of mortgages be given to people who would otherwise not qualify would never have happened either.

Why? Because any banker in a system of laissez fair capitalism would know two things for sure.

1. That his policies and his lending practices were his responsibility and his responsibility alone. A foolish gamble on persons who would most likely not qualify for a pay-day-loan much less a $200,000.00 mortgage would in all likelihood cost him his job. No ifs, ands or buts.
2. That it would be impossible for government to save him or his bank from the result of stupid lending policies.

Another thing that could not have happened were capitalism to truly reign is that Banks would never have loaned money out at a rate lower than the established interest rate. Sub-prime rates are a government construct, which allowed banks to lend money to unqualified persons at a rate lower than what it cost the bank to borrow that money in the first place. The Bankers initially ordered to make the loans possible and then led to believe they would be bailed out by government saw, a win-win proposition.

Was there greed involved? Certainly, but it was not the cause, it was an all too predictable by-product of a system that had been gamed, designed, manipulated and constructed to appear to be real, solid and safe when in actual fact it was built on the vagaries of governmental policies, divorced from any real economic principal, and the worst self-serving political promises.

Capitalism didn’t fail us, the government did. Laissez Fair economics didn’t fail, they were never a part of the equation in the first place.

NB. Mark the intentions of those who claim this is a failure of capitalism. They are not throwing out the baby/capitalism with the bathwater/the market system. No, they are throwing out the bathwater and attempting to strangle the baby in its crib for good measure.

With every bail-out and every subsequent market shock, and every bad news story hyped to fever pitch they get closer to their goal. That goal is nothing less than the state ownership of the worlds banks, and that is nothing less than a stranglehold on the wellspring of capitalistic production… our money.

Why fund the Arts?

Watching the BRAVO! "election special on the arts", I was struck by an even greater sense of unreality than usual (and after sitting through a "Woman's Issues" all candidates debate, that is saying a lot...)

Two points in particular struck me:

1. Artists claim that they have "freedom" with State funding but not with private funding. Why does producing art approved by bureaucrats provide more freedom than producing art approved by any other patron? Apparently these "Artists" have no knowledge of the history of "Socialist Realist" art.

2. The mantra of "investing in the arts because it is an $8 billion dollar a year industry is totally nonsensical. If an industry is as mature and as profitable as the Canadian "artistic" community claims, then they clearly have no need of further State funding, from ANY level of government.

If any Conservative party supporters are reading this, feel free to use these points. For that matter, if any Liberal, NDP or Green supporters are reading this, please enlighten me as to why artists who's works we never have heard of or who's names we don't know are entitled to our hard earned money?

The Progressive "Surge"

Progressives of all stripes are discovering that insurgencies can be waged with ideas as well as guns and IED's. Progressives have taken effective control of the MSM, educational institutions, government bureaucracies and even a large portion of the market, but those nasty Classical Liberals (who often go by names like the Conservatives or Republicans, depending on where you live) still seem to be ahead of the game.

In Canada, Classical Liberals have become the governing party (and may possibly win a majority government mandate on Oct 14, 2008). Classical Liberals are also in charge of Alberta and Saskatchewan, two of the wealthiest and fastest growing provinces in Canada, and seem to be making inroads elsewhere.

In the United States, Senator Barack Obama is either tied or only marginally ahead of his Republican rival, despite the adulation of the press and a finance machine that can raise and spend cash at an astronomical rate, far beyond any rivals. Indeed, Senator Obama only defeated Senator Clinton by a small margin, despite having much the same advantage over her.

The reaction of the Progressives is quite illuminating. Consider how open the bias of the MSM has become against any manifestation of Classical Liberalism, its proponents or works. War reporting is astonishingly one sided. Victories are never reported, either spectacular events like the retaking of Anabar province in Iraq, or the small, incrimental gains that the Canadians make every day in Afghanistan. Political reporting is similarly hypocritical; think of the cone of silence which surrounds scandals like John Edward's illicit affair (while his wife is dying of cancer, to boot), the relationships between Democratic party congressmen and senators and "Freddie and Fannie", the two GSE's implicate in the current financial crisis, Elizabeth May's participation in a pro Hezbollah, anti Isreal rally or the almost open collusion between the Canadian Green and Liberal parties; then look at how political figures on the Classical Liberal side of the political spectrum are treated. Govenor Sarah Palin is constantly smeared or belittled in the MSM; a reader is much more likely to find her characterized as a "porn star" rather than the only candidate among the Presidential contenders to have executive experience (and in a large, wealthy and demanding state at that). Prime Minister Stephan Harper is compared to political figures like Hitler or George W Bush (although perhaps the Bush comparison can be seen as a compliment by the Classical Liberal side) and all manner of "Gotcha" journalistic tricks are brought into play rather than examining issues (although to be fair, the Conservative Party of Canada does this as well against their opponents).

Progressives see the ground being cut out from under their feet, and are mounting a surge from their commanding heights to block or limit the Classical Liberals from gaining or retaining power. All manner of dirty tricks are in play: In Canada, "Human Rights Comissions" target Bloggers and journalists who support Classical Liberal principles. In the United States, members of the Obama campaign threaten to prosecute people or organizations who present any contrary view of fact about Senator Obama, possibly fearing a "Swiftboating" of the Senator through revelations about his unsavoury mentors, his connections with the financiers involved in the financial crisis or even just the totally ineffectual nature of his "community organizing". Selective and manipulative press coverage is a given. Discussions in institutions of higher learning or even elementary and high schools are blatent indoctrination (and in many Universities, Orwellian "Speech codes" are employed to silence students and facilty).

It will be difficult to fight against the surge; the Progressives have the power and resources of the State behind them. They still control many of the largest and most important channels of communication, and the mechanisms of the Law are available to be used selectively in favour of the Progressive cause. Still the fight is of critical importance to each and every one of us. Only by standing for our rights can we maintain them. Blogging is perhaps the most notable weapon we have, but even if we are reduced to passing messages by Samisdat we should still make the attempt.

Our ultimate advantage lies in the fact that Progressiveism is a parisitical concept; if they are denied access to State power, they begin to wither on the vine. As usual, Ayn Rand has provided the template; Ellsworth Toohey may have been a "power" with his newspaper column, but once the newspaper chain folded, Toohey's power was gone; he did not create, but was only a parisite upon the creators.