Looks like Jack "John" Layton was aptly named.

Apparently the news of the day is Jack (Whos actual first name is John), was found in a facility reknowned for it's "special" Shiatzu massages. In other words John Layton was found in a Whore house in Toronto Jan 9 1996.

Now aside from the humour I find in how his name turns out to actually be JOHN, and that JOHN was found in a house of ill repute, I really don't see much value in this story.

Sure Jacko was doing something you or I wouldn't, but is anyone in the East really going to care whether "Smilin' Jack" is spending his time with "Ladies of the Eveing" enough for him to lose votes based on principles?  Sadly it is increasingly becoming the case that these thing are no longer looked on as an afront to morality, or even worse they elevate the basest element in society closer to those in authority by stripping away the moral code which should be expected from those in public office, and making them more relatable to the general public.

However I am very interested in not having Johnny Layton anywhere close to the purse strings of Canadian taxpayers, because no matter his moral, his policies will devastate Canada.

Bob

Skimming the NDP platform.

You know I've never actually read an NDP platform before, because I understand their ideologies by watching what they fight for in the House, and the bills they put forward and support.  But with Jack Layton surging into a position that the party has never been in before (possibly the major opposition), I felt it was important to get to know what they want to say about themselves through the party planks.

I've made it to section 4, and that where I am starting to glaze over.  There are 2 reasons for this;
1. by this time it is clear why the NDP have been limited to the position of a "prop up" party, because their platform is like reading a grocery list full of treats a child has made, while the parent is struggling to balance the chequebook. It is filled with promises and goals that are simply and clearly unattainable without severe debt increases, as well as tax increases (because neither alone can sustain the planks.)
2. section 4 is their "environmental" section, and it irritates and aggrevates me that they are still considering bunk climate change sciences as a basis for their ideology.

I'm not saying the NDP don't have some admirable ideas, and some that I would like to see worked in.  But even they recognize the need for the caveat "if finances permit" in one of there items, which makes me wonder how many more will come off the table when they realize Canada can't afford everything they are promising?

Up till now we haven't had to take Jack seriously because his party was held in check by the adults at the table, but due to the devestating effect Count Iggy has had on the Liberal party, it's time to start taking the NDP seriously and evaluating their platforms and ideologies with the same criteria we would use on a party that has Governed.  In my estimation the NDP are offering promises of increase to everything and everybody, and at best this can be seen as disengenuous, at worst it could be financially catastrophic for Canada.

Bob

PM Jack Layton?

So here's a query for you. If you don't have enough seats to even attempt to form the initial Government after May 2nd, what should it matter if your party has the next number?

Consider this; Let's sat the next election sees the Conservatives fail to gain a majority of the seats in the House. Also let's say there is a plan for the other parties to form some sort of cooperative/coalition effort after they vote non confidence at the earliest opportunity. The question is who would lead it?

I mean even if the Liberals get the next largest amount of seats, what does that really matter if you plan to work with the other parties to form a Government?  And now with Jack Layton gaining in polls, and more popular in general than Michael Ignatieff (who suffers from what I call "IckyIggyitis", because he creeps me out), who is to say that Jack shouldn't run the Cooperative/Coalition Government?

Since the Westminster form of Parlaiment we use allows for this, what does it really matter how many seats you have as long as you can "cooperate" with enough others to "form Government"? And it may come down to something like this, because it's not about you and I right now, and that is obvious by the Opposition parties who knew the Conservatives would at least get a minority again, this is a classic political grab for power (which I think will only benefit the Bloc I might add.)

So I have to wonder; Will Jack stick his hat into the arena for PM if it comes to a coalition?  Or will we willingly go along with Iggy as their glorious leader?  Honestly I don't see why Jack wouldn't premise his parties conditional support on this, especially after all his big talk about running for that job alone in his ads and speeches. 

Could be very interesting.

Bob

I wonder how the MSM missed this for 2 and 1/2 years?

H/T ALBERTA ARDVARK for getting this out there.

"October 14th 2008: Canada holds a federal election resulting in a conservative minority government.

November 19th 2008: The Speech from the Throne.

November 27th 2008: The Government releases its economic update

November 29th 2008: The NDP hold a conference call telling their MPs about the secret coalition talks with the Liberals and Bloc."

NDP Coalition conference call 1;






NDP Coalition conference call 2;

  





Bob

You know what I don't get?

Michael Ignatieff has been going on for weeks about the PM's lack of respect for democracy.  Well is it not true that Ignatieff himself was appointed as leader of the Liberals, without having to go through a leadership race? Isn't the democratic process onme where you are voted into your position, even within the party system? Strike one.

After waffling on the possibility of a coalition right out of the gate on day one, and then on day two came out and firmly stated there would be no coalition? And now the word is; "If the Governor General wants to call on other parties, or myself, for example, to try and form a government, then we try to form a government," Ignatieff told CBC's Peter Mansbridge, in which the only way to achieve such is a coalition (which it should again be noted is still in effect until June 2011.)  Isn't democracy where you work with the party that gets more votes than you, rather than political manipulation of the Parlaimenary system to usurp power? (Which is evidenced by Ignatieff already clearly stating that they will not support a minority Conservative Government's budget, even before the election has concluded?)

If it's a matter of trust, like Ignatieff keeps saying, I think the obvious loser in that morality would be Ignatieff himself.

Bob

Need I say more?

Find the "Crux of the matter's" view HERE.
And you can see Ignatieff's interview with Peter Mansbridge HERE. So you can decide for yourself.

Bob

Update; New graphic.

Looks like the issue was kept alive long enough to bring out the truth, which means for all Ignatieff's blustering about trust comes back to bite him. THE NATIONAL POST.

Bob

Votemobs.

I don't get them.

First off everyone understands "Mob mentality" has never been associated as a "force for good", on the contrary it has been the cause of heinous, unlawful acts, as well as defining typically anti social and unacceptable behaviour.  Even within a "flashmob" you see that although non destructive, the mentality remains the same, where all individuals give over their free will and thoughts to comply with the group. And while flashmobs may be fun and entertaining, how could it be deemed an acceptable way to vote?

I also wonder why all the hype.  Most voters feel satisfied by doing their civic duty election day and casting their ballot, so is this some type of attention getter that says "look at me I'm special cause I vote?" Ok great you voted, now did you do your research into who you voted for and decide who best represented your views and ideologies, or did you just cast a ballot like the rest of the lemmings in the mob?

Let's call these what they are, rallies, hell even protests, but lets drop the pretense of some sort of new democratic institution.

Universities aren't teaching our children how to think anymore, but obviously they are being well taught how to follow.

Votemobs promo; For those who need peer validation to do their civic duty, and now they are 100% responsibility free because the thinking is done for you! Join today for $0!!
All you have to give up is your morals and freedom of thought.

Bob

Letter to the Chief Electoral Officer.

Please send your letter to the chief electoral officer at the link below;
Chief Electoral Officer

Here is what I wrote.

Dear sir/madame,
I take affront to the "special ballot" polling done in Guelph Ontario, and the way in which it was conducted.  When existing guidelines are set aside for the sake of garnering votes it must be taken as suspect, and the ballots invalidated. Any such eggregious infractions to the existing set of operating procedures must not only be looked at, but also be acted upon.

We are not talking about people unable to vote by physical limitation, or abroad serving our Country, these are young people fully capable of reaching a polling station on May 2nd just as I will. If this special ballot was not given the proper notification for all parties, and conducted in the STRICTEST of manners, the votes obtained are not only suspect, but invalid.

I recommend that you take action to invalidate this farce of a "special ballot", and that you urge the students to vote at their appropriate polling station at the advanced polls, or on May 2nd.

Sincerely,
Bob

My problem with the youth vote.

Is twofold.

1. Lack of experience/knowledge.
2. Emotion based rather than thought through.

Therein lies the rub; we want students and young adults to be engaged it politics, then we confuse them with capmpaigns and slogans that are inappropriate. (Except for this shining exception.)

I think we need to have young people get involved earlier, and teach them how to think past the rhetoric to make good decisions based on fact, not hype. After all they are supposed to be the ones that will run the Country in the future.

Bob

In the interest of.....

Ok I usually hold my posts on one subject to, well one. But after reading drivel like this "In light of the focus on youth and student electoral participation at the 41 st general election, and on efforts to increase voter interest and turnout among this group" from Elections Canada, it gets my hackles up. (Full article from David Aikin.)

Ok first off; WHY AREN'T STUDENTS BEING TAUGHT the importance of voting in a democracy, rather than getting them "interested"?  This is a HUGE #hastagfail on the part of our educational system. Students need to be taught democracy, and their important role in it, and unfortunately in University you are getting partisan politics, rather than a solid base in democracy.

Secondly there should be ABSOLUTELY NO REASON for any able bodied, non military (serving abroad), Canadian not to attend a public polling station in the riding they reside on election day!  There are special ballots for the needs of people for them, but this is simply pandering to the lowest common denominator called laziness. If that's the case let's have a special ballot for everyone right in their own home, especially when the weather is crappy!!  What does it show you think of democracy when you can even put in the effort to get to the polling station on Election day, after all you only had 37 days to plan for it!!!

We had parents and Grand parents that went to war to fight for our democracy, I think those who are able can get off their sorry asses and drag them to the polls May 2nd to vote rather than having to have voting "catered" to them.

Bob

Friday's musings.

Three stories that caught my attention today;

1. The Votemob "special ballot" in Guelph On.  Now this probably would have slipped by me un-noticed, were it not for Iggy's rant on how the PM is trying to "Disenfranchise Guelpg students". The Story is pretty simple, a "votemob" was set up, there was the pretense of a "Special Ballot", Elections Canada guidelines where neglected, and the Conservatives called Elections Canada (and the students) to task for it.  (Article here.) This enraged the Liberal leader. Why you ask? Maybe because he now can't count on duplicate votes by hyper partisan University students maybe? I don't know, but it seems pretty fishy when the rules aren't followed to the letter, and then you get mad when you lose any benefit you may have gained from it. Just sayin'.
The way the ball bounces take on "special ballots"
The letter from the CPC lawyer to Elections Canada
Small dead animals has some interesting info of previously squashe "improper special ballots"
Waking up on planet X gives us the Guelph exam dates

2. And attack at a Liberal activist rally on a girl wearing blue. This again would have probably passed my radar as just another example of "stupid human" behaviour, until some moron on twitter says it was "probably staged".  The problem here is twofold; 1. assault should be unacceptable, period. 2. spinning this sort of thing to try and deflect blame or make it less is simply wrong.  I accept that these things happens, but I neither condone, agree, or even try to explain away this type of behaviour.

3. Voting Liberal. The more I watch how things are playing out, the more I see that if at all possible the Liberals will try to usurp power, leaving the whole Country at the mercy of both the NDP and the Bloc, which to me is completely unacceptable.
National Post article
Toronto Sun - Charles Adler article

Bob

Debates? Democracy doesn't mean bickering.

I watched both the English and the French televised "debates", and the one thing sorely missing was any real debating.
There was a ton of campaign rhetoric soundbites, some complaining, some whining, a LOT of blustering and accusing, and granted even some witty jabs that imparted actual information. Then there was the Prime Minister; Calm, cool, collected, as well as being matter of fact, and statesmanlike. The only reason not to listen to him after the way he presented himself, is because you've already shut off your brain.

I read this on Joanne's blog "Blue like you"; "Even those who hate Stephen Harper are going to have a tough time selling Michael Ignatieff as a competent alternative to our present Prime Minister."  And that is essentially how the debate summed up for me too.

Bob

Leader Debate, April 12, 2011

One of the most popular moments in the 2011 Leaders debate.  I know this one is going to be posted everywhere, but it is one of those defining moments for a party or it's leader.

Enjoy!



Bob

Is it only me?

I have to wonder how it was that the villainous Prime Minister Harper managed to impose his will on Election Canada forcing them to only have Advance polling on easter weekend!! HOW DASTARDLY!!  Or wait, maybe the dates are set by a predetermined strategy set up to allow proper timing within an election time frame?

So when I saw the inane ramblings of my local NDP MP candidate Brian Sklar in this tweet;

I decided to look up advanced polling at the "Elections Canada" website (Which is pretty easy Brian, you should try it before you say something ridiculous like this.)  And the site said this;

And I guess this is the type of thing that bothers me most about the NDP in general, because they are basically an inconsequential party, they can make ridiculous statements and grandiose promises without ever having to worry about the ramifications. And what's worse is the lemmings that chime in and blindly follow along with them.

Time to lose the Block and the NDP (without mentioning the also inconsequential Greens), and get back to the business of running our Country!

Bob

An interview with the Prime Minister.

Wow! Thank you Jeff Allan for asking excellent questions! I love the lack of sensationalism that often overwhelms an interview, and distracts from actual issues!

I encourage everyone to watch this interview:  The Jeff Allan show, April 8, 2011.

Bob

Liberals in the media no different.

As I watch a lot of Liberals "jockey" for some sort of viable position to argue their political leaning, I've been noticing that there are 2 major groups that they tend to fall into (especially when confronted with adequate and intelligent conflicting information.)

1. The Liberal Liner.

These are the party supporters that support without thinking, and when confronted the simple quote back Liberal points handed down from through the "Red Door". They have a hard time dealing with actual debate about an issue, and shut down when their preconceptions are challenged by repeating Liberal "Matras".

2. The Liberal Elitist.

These are the individuals that think they are actually smarter than you because they are Liberal, and to question that makes you even more dumb.  These types often get outraged a the most insignificant of infractions, and blow it into something they really never were. 

(For example; Oda-gate, Bubble-gate, facebook-gate, contempt of Parliament-gate..)

The unifying characteristic of both of these groups, however different, is that often they both often end up name calling, throwing slurs, and trying to bully the opponent into believing that Liberals are somehow morally superior, and therefore should never be questioned.

My problem with that; I question even the party I vote for, so why on earth wouldn't I question one that makes no sense to me?  I guess if someone wanted to convert me to their party's leanings they will actually have to have sensible policy, because this way doesn't work and I thought we left these tactics back in grade school.

This was the "Journalists" article that inspired this post, which brought more substance and understanding of the attacks (that even I have been subject to). And here are the responses by those attacked are here, Ezra Levant, and Brian Lilley.

Bob

Warning signs that you are talking to a Liberal.

1. They believe that the Conservative Government was in contempt of Parliament, and bring it up as a reason not to "trust" them. (Noticeably leaving out the "kangaroo court" factor surrounding the ruling.)

2. They believe that Stephen Harper's letter to the Governor General in 2004, and the agreement signed by the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc are the same thing. (Which means they have obviously failed to look at the information themselves.)

3. They spout Liberal talking points rather than actually discuss a topic, and they get especially angry and start throwing out names at you like "Conservitard", "retard", "idiot" when it eventually clicks that they've lost the argument.

4. They think that a majority Government includes an anti Canadian group like the Bloc, to make up 60% of the house.

5. The word "Regime" is used in their vocabulary to describe a democratically elected Government.

6. They are happy with the idea/promise of more social programs during a recession. (Even if they are recycled, and have been promised in 7 previously elections without ever having been fulfilled ie; National Daycare.)

7. Scrapping the F-35 mid contract seems in some way a good idea. (Failing to look at history, therefore repeating it. ie; EH101 Helicopter cancellation.)

8. Higher Corporate taxes won't affect jobs. (John McCallum tends to disagree though.)

9. You're a closet Greeny! (As noted on page 42 - Chapter 3 of the 2011 Liberal "Red Book" where it refers to the debunked science of "Climate Change" to impose regulations based on "science".


More to come..

the Liberal PLAN in Airquotes.

One thing that stood out to me in looking over the Liberal press release about their "Plan" to cut Conservative "Waste", was the acceptance of waste that the plan itself entails.

First off is the "waste" of a job creating, economy boosting Corporate tax rate.  Now I am by absolutely no means an economist, and I don't even play one on TV, but it seems to me that the perfect way to encourage growth is to make it attractive to businesses to start up and stay running.  But I can kind of see how the Liberals see this as "waste", because it means they miss out on being able to spend more.

And then there is the "waste" of equipping our service people with appropriate and reliable aircraft. I even had someone tweet to me that "Ignatieff is in favour of supporting the military from the ground up; ie - the military families. It's about time.", unbelievably I couldn't understand how the necessity to equip our service people with reliable aircraft was seen as not family oriented.  Not to mention the actual waste Canadians would incur with YET ANOTHER Liberal contract cancellation. (I refer to the EH101 cancellation and the 500 Million plus in penalties because of them.) Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

Next let's move on to wasting money on "prisons". Really?  I want criminals BEHIND BARS, and I want HARSHER SENTENCES, but I'm only someone who lives in the real world rather than in the back of a limo so what do I know.

How about Election money wastes? Seeing as this election was brought on by the Opposition parties, it seems a little hypocritical to call others wasteful and yet cost the taxpayers 300 million plus on an election. And while we're at it let's trim the fat by eliminating vote subsidies, another waste of taxpayers money.

Then the Liberals have the gall to say "Restore Federal spending discipline", while at the same time offering a continuously recycled "National Daycare" program with no clear way to pat for it except to raise the Corporate tax. And that they will "Cut wasteful spending that has ballooned under the Harper government", while at the same time offering grandiose "family" spending initiatives (to what end one might even ask?)


I think it's time for new blood in the Liberal hierarchy, because the same old "tax and spend" mentality doesn't fly anymore.


Bob

Why doesn't the MSM cover the lies behind the scenes?

Count Iffy posted an open letter challenge to Prime Minister Harper, but when Liberal negotiators "behind the scenes" "Nix" any more one vs one time why is this tidbit not worthy of media attention?  Doesn't it go directly to the credibility of the candidate and his party?

Yet when the PM said "he was following the guidelines set out by the broadcasters" as a refusal for a one on one debating, it was spun in the media to make the PM look like he was backing out.  Could we maybe find some journalistic integrity in the Main Stream Media?  Watch where you get your info, because biases are impossible to avoid, but the MSM could at least TRY to be impartial.

Bob