Today's Red Star (Toronto Star), online edition has a story that caught my eye.. just as all the obscure issues usually do. I say it is always about the details, the details that others miss..
Here is the story and my comments:
Forget slogans, West already is `in'
It is time to speak less about regional discontent and get on with creating regional prosperity, says Roger Gibbins
'While the timing of the next federal election is still in doubt, one thing is clear: In the campaign to come, party leaders will be exploiting and even fanning regional conflict. To our shame, "divide to rule" will be the name of the game. It is, therefore, an opportune time, before the partisan battle is fully engaged, to reassess the long-standing mantra of western Canadian discontent, that is, "the West wants in." As a slogan, and a regional strategy, its time has passed, because the West has moved on, if not in.'
Uh don't you have to define what being in' means in the first place? I thought it had to do with more clout in Ottawa, but this writer is afraid to even say that lest somebody might even hear it!
'The West has had to change its strategic direction in part because the old strategy wasn't very successful. While western discontent attracted a flicker of interest in the early months of Paul Martin's government, the flicker was soon snuffed out by the realities of a 2004 election campaign that centred on southern Ontario. The rapidly approaching new election brings to mind the old real estate adage — location, location, location, or, to put it bluntly, "Ontario, Ontario, Ontario." There are, however, even more compelling reasons for the West to move on.'
Again the writer, like most that produce propaganda for the Torstar Corp., ignores several significant facts: one, this strategy has in fact been very successful - producing a political party, the new conservatives that at the moment forms the official opposition in Canadian Parliament. Two, the existing government of the LPC's Paul Martin is on it's last legs and is about to fall.
'Western Canadians have moved beyond being supplicants, echoing Oliver Twist as he pleaded "please, sir, I want some more." It is strikingly inappropriate for a region with 30 per cent of the national population, a bountiful resource base and the most prosperous economy in the country to be begging for what, in all but a political sense, is already true.'
Gee, was this not the argument for many decades that allowed Quebec to literally rape and control Canada, that it was a significant minority population in this country (no longer true btw), and thus we must cave into their every wish? Furthermore, Quebec was really never that wealthy nor well run and that is the crux of the unfairness issue in the first place - Quebec's wine and cheese economy vs the west's milk and porridge.
'The West, from a position of economic strength and demographic vitality, is in. "The West wants in," as a regional strategy, also reflected a lack of ambition. It implied that the status quo is acceptable, that if western Canadians could just get in the doors of the staid old gentlemen's club in Ottawa, their aspirations would be met. Instead, it is time to follow the advice of Marx (Groucho, not Karl), who said that the kind of club that would admit the likes of him would not be worth joining. As the Gomery inquiry continues to show, maybe westerners should be reaching for a new Canadian vision that is not mired in the status quo. But, if "the West wants in" is no longer appropriate, what is the alternative?'
Okay you have my attention here, what do you propose?
'It certainly isn't that "the West wants out." Systematic polling by the Canada West Foundation since 2001 shows frustration, to be sure, but no significant support for disengagement from the Canadian political community.'
Are you really sure about this?
'Neither do firewalls offer an acceptable alternative. Western Canadians want to play on a national and indeed global stage; there is little enthusiasm for retreating into a more claustrophobic community. What is needed is a new strategy that exerts national leadership through the power of ideas rather than within the national corridors of power. Ottawa is not the only chalice from which creativity and innovation flow.'
Uh, do you mean power but not real power?
'The engines of policy innovation and creativity are primed in the West.
They can be found in municipal governments, which have been leading the national debate on the urban agenda. They are in the region's great universities and within western Canadian provincial governments that are leading the nation on many fronts — health-care reform, financial management, sustainable energy, and electoral reform. The best strategy is leadership by example, and the currency of leadership is the currency of new ideas.'
They are already doing this, doing more of the same thing will not change anything I do believe. Besides where are you going with this story?
'The great advantage of national leadership through the power of ideas is that it does not depend on waiting impatiently for regional influence within the federal government, or on the outcome of federal elections. There is no need to wait, and wait, for Ottawa to act. There is no need for federal funding or federal orchestration. The West has the creativity and financial capacity to act. All that is needed from Ottawa is room to bring policy innovation into play.'
Gee you really mean it? How when liberals completely control Ottawa and are seen to mostly take orders from Quebec and from immigrants? I know what this guy is suggesting now, he still wants omni-potent central government in Ottawa and he and his liberal friends fear the provinces getting greater powers.
'The message is simple: Help where you can, but do not throttle innovation and creativity in the name of national standards, federal leadership or partisan advantage.'
In other words do what you are told, take what you are given, shut up and go away... wow you must be a liberal, are you Roger? In other words let the scum and sleaze continue in Otawa because it is none of your business, and besides cleaning up Ottawa may mean the loss of a lot of jobs and wealth for loyal liberals - globalists/socialists.
'None of this precludes a constructive role for the federal government, but neither does it mean waiting for Ottawa, waiting for an opportunity to speak or the chance to be heard. It means, in fact, speaking less about regional discontent and doing more, getting on with the business of creating regional prosperity.'
But they have already been doing that, haven't they? What they are tired of out West is sending trainloads full of money into Ottawa and watching it disappear into a big black hole. When they ask about it, they are told by people like you to just mind their own business. What they want is more say in how this government is run because they are paying more and more to have it function. A region that constitutes 30% of the population is likely paying 50% of the bills.
'Complaining is an appropriate strategy only in the absence of a capacity to act. Nor does abandoning "the West wants in" isolate westerners from other regional communities. On the contrary, it implies a co-operative strategy among regions to create a new Canada.'
Finally you have said something in this article that I can agree with. But the new Canada I envision is likely a lot different than the one that you like.
'As the political parties gear up to pit region against region, let's look beyond this sorry spectacle to a new regional strategy. Western Canadians should forget about getting in, and focus instead on moving on.'
Sorry but you lost me here on your conclusion. There must be a new Canada where the Western provinces have a lot more say in what happens in Ottawa, or Western Canada must seriously begin looking at other options: such as joining the US, going it alone, joining with Ontario to leave Canada, becoming part of Cascadia, or even as has been proposed in the past for Quebec- limited sovereignity association with Ottawa for Western Canada. If Western Canada leaves Ottawa's influence then I'm quite likely to start heading West.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Minority takeover in Canada: 2017
Visible majority by 2017
Demographic balance in Toronto, Vancouver will tip within 12 years, Statscan saysBy JILL MAHONEY
This story was originally covered in the Globe and Mail newspaper here in Canada and this link refers to it, here is the text from the link above:
"The number of visible minorities in Canada is expected to double by 2017 and form more than half the population in greater Toronto and Vancouver, according to new projections that highlight the country's growing diversity.If current trends hold, one in every five faces will be non-white in 12 years when Canadians mark the 150th anniversary of Confederation, Statistics Canada said yesterday. "Canada's ethno-cultural makeup, especially in large urban areas, is changing rapidly, bringing political decision makers . . . a number of challenges and opportunities, particularly in the areas of urban development, labour market integration, health and social services, and public institutions," the report says. The findings come as a "bit of a reality check," said Ratna Omidvar, executive director of the Maytree Foundation, a Toronto think tank. "It means that there are issues we need to resolve faster. We need to be a little bit more mindful about issues of social cohesion and social inclusion and ramp up the efforts that are currently under way to ensure that, in fact, the new Canada works."
Wow this is what the story does not mention:
Demographic balance in Toronto, Vancouver will tip within 12 years, Statscan saysBy JILL MAHONEY
This story was originally covered in the Globe and Mail newspaper here in Canada and this link refers to it, here is the text from the link above:
"The number of visible minorities in Canada is expected to double by 2017 and form more than half the population in greater Toronto and Vancouver, according to new projections that highlight the country's growing diversity.If current trends hold, one in every five faces will be non-white in 12 years when Canadians mark the 150th anniversary of Confederation, Statistics Canada said yesterday. "Canada's ethno-cultural makeup, especially in large urban areas, is changing rapidly, bringing political decision makers . . . a number of challenges and opportunities, particularly in the areas of urban development, labour market integration, health and social services, and public institutions," the report says. The findings come as a "bit of a reality check," said Ratna Omidvar, executive director of the Maytree Foundation, a Toronto think tank. "It means that there are issues we need to resolve faster. We need to be a little bit more mindful about issues of social cohesion and social inclusion and ramp up the efforts that are currently under way to ensure that, in fact, the new Canada works."
Wow this is what the story does not mention:
- what is the cost to bring these people here and what does it cost this country?
- what about social cohesion? what if I don't want to do this?
- what is this new Canada they hint at? when will the immigration of visible minorities end? what is the maximum percentage that they expect visible minorities to become in say 50 years?
- what happens when the visible minorities out number the white based Canadian population?
- the article admits that social cohesion could be better than it is, what is the cost of this lost social cohesion now?
There are many more questions to be asked and in subsequent days, weeks, months, I will be asking them here and hopefully in time a broad document of my overall comments and concerns will be produced on this subject.
Oh, and I know that the website I found this article at is not really conservative, well it is in some respects as this article indicates, but I have to troll around the dark deep recesses of the internet to bring the good reader enlightened opinions.
Toronto Star slams religious ties to conservatives
Unholy alliance on the right
SAEED RAHNEMA
I wonder what would happen if a white anglo-saxon wrote this story?
Anyways on to the propaganda:
While non-Christian religions form a very small minority — a combined 7 per cent of the Canadian population — their leaders are growing more active and vocal, lending support to conservative and anti-secular voices among the majority Catholics and Protestants. In turn, right-wing politicians, hungry for votes, support them without regard for long-term consequences.
Gee what long-term consequences are we talking about here? The hoped for destruction of liberalism?
on to more crap:
Though spearheaded by majority Christians and supported by conservative politicians, the present concerted effort on the part of all these religions to derail same-sex marriage legislation is another example of an (un-)holy alliance against secular democracy.
Gee is it possible that the writer is a gay visible minority shill for the LPC (Liberal Party of Canada)?
More crap:
Understandably, all religious leaders try to show they have a large following of devout and active believers. While statistically all religions are growing (except for mainline Protestant denominations, which are declining), the rising figures are due primarily to population growth and immigration.
So this writer is agruing that there is no way these religious leaders of various dispariate religions can entirely represent an ethnic population? I would say based on my experience in Toronto that not only can they do this but they are doing it.
Then there is that dirty word again: immigration, too much of it and I don't like it, but that is for other posts to come..
for more BS propaganda from torstar:
Moreover, one important fact is completely ignored, namely the relatively large and growing number of secularists and Canadians with no religion at all. The combined number of Canadian agnostics, atheists, humanists, pagans and those simply with "no religion" is more than twice the size of all non-Christian religions in Canada. According to the 2001 census, 16.2 per cent of Canadians fall into these categories, a 44 per cent increase in a decade. Vote-seeking politicians may want to also pay attention to this growing group of the population (though perhaps not a good fit for Mr. Harper!).
Now we got the writer arguing that all the non-religious freaks are more important than the clean and moral religious community.. yeah right!
I'm loving the lefty propaganda, now here for more:
Many religious institutions simply act as centres for community support and provision of useful social services. This is true particularly for members of minority religions who face serious problems of racism. Lingering and even growing anti-Semitism plagues the Jewish community, hostility toward Hindus and Sikhs continues, and Canadian Muslims are faced with expanding and deepening Islamophobia.
Here in the above article excerpt, our genius lefty argues that in fact these religions are not really religions at all but social clubs where immigrants hang-out and try to learn to beat the system.
It goes on:
But in developed countries that host Muslim diasporas, such as Canada, it is the conservative religious leaders who act as agents of change, working toward regressive transformations and eroding modern values and practices even while gaining support from democratic governments in the name of multiculturalism.
Here our commie little buddy argues that religion which defines these cultures for the most part in fact begins to enslave them in free countries like Canada. But he then goes on to praise multiculturalism which is the sole advantage that these same people can hope to bring to Canada. Is this person confused?
the grand finale and conclusion:
Multiculturalism — as opposed to assimilation — is no doubt the best approach to achieving social harmony and respect for group rights in an ethnically diverse society. In granting group rights, however, attention must be paid to the contradictions between the rights of a group and the universal rights of its individual members.
Canadian democracy and its social cohesion are in danger if religious assaults are not confronted by a concerted response by progressive secular forces that believe in the separation of church and state and respect for citizens' rights, as guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
First off I would like to challenge this author's belief that multiculturalism is superior to anything. I can point to the experience in the USA regarding the melting-pot system and see a number of superior outcomes - that is if one believes in destroying their country via immigration in the first place.
Now this idiot is arguing that religious freedom as offered to ethnic immigrants is in danger of destroying the very democracy of this country and they even drag the charter of rights into this... if you have a problem with people that believe in god, because you obviously do not, then go back to where you came from.
SAEED RAHNEMA
I wonder what would happen if a white anglo-saxon wrote this story?
Anyways on to the propaganda:
While non-Christian religions form a very small minority — a combined 7 per cent of the Canadian population — their leaders are growing more active and vocal, lending support to conservative and anti-secular voices among the majority Catholics and Protestants. In turn, right-wing politicians, hungry for votes, support them without regard for long-term consequences.
Gee what long-term consequences are we talking about here? The hoped for destruction of liberalism?
on to more crap:
Though spearheaded by majority Christians and supported by conservative politicians, the present concerted effort on the part of all these religions to derail same-sex marriage legislation is another example of an (un-)holy alliance against secular democracy.
Gee is it possible that the writer is a gay visible minority shill for the LPC (Liberal Party of Canada)?
More crap:
Understandably, all religious leaders try to show they have a large following of devout and active believers. While statistically all religions are growing (except for mainline Protestant denominations, which are declining), the rising figures are due primarily to population growth and immigration.
So this writer is agruing that there is no way these religious leaders of various dispariate religions can entirely represent an ethnic population? I would say based on my experience in Toronto that not only can they do this but they are doing it.
Then there is that dirty word again: immigration, too much of it and I don't like it, but that is for other posts to come..
for more BS propaganda from torstar:
Moreover, one important fact is completely ignored, namely the relatively large and growing number of secularists and Canadians with no religion at all. The combined number of Canadian agnostics, atheists, humanists, pagans and those simply with "no religion" is more than twice the size of all non-Christian religions in Canada. According to the 2001 census, 16.2 per cent of Canadians fall into these categories, a 44 per cent increase in a decade. Vote-seeking politicians may want to also pay attention to this growing group of the population (though perhaps not a good fit for Mr. Harper!).
Now we got the writer arguing that all the non-religious freaks are more important than the clean and moral religious community.. yeah right!
I'm loving the lefty propaganda, now here for more:
Many religious institutions simply act as centres for community support and provision of useful social services. This is true particularly for members of minority religions who face serious problems of racism. Lingering and even growing anti-Semitism plagues the Jewish community, hostility toward Hindus and Sikhs continues, and Canadian Muslims are faced with expanding and deepening Islamophobia.
Here in the above article excerpt, our genius lefty argues that in fact these religions are not really religions at all but social clubs where immigrants hang-out and try to learn to beat the system.
It goes on:
But in developed countries that host Muslim diasporas, such as Canada, it is the conservative religious leaders who act as agents of change, working toward regressive transformations and eroding modern values and practices even while gaining support from democratic governments in the name of multiculturalism.
Here our commie little buddy argues that religion which defines these cultures for the most part in fact begins to enslave them in free countries like Canada. But he then goes on to praise multiculturalism which is the sole advantage that these same people can hope to bring to Canada. Is this person confused?
the grand finale and conclusion:
Multiculturalism — as opposed to assimilation — is no doubt the best approach to achieving social harmony and respect for group rights in an ethnically diverse society. In granting group rights, however, attention must be paid to the contradictions between the rights of a group and the universal rights of its individual members.
Canadian democracy and its social cohesion are in danger if religious assaults are not confronted by a concerted response by progressive secular forces that believe in the separation of church and state and respect for citizens' rights, as guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
First off I would like to challenge this author's belief that multiculturalism is superior to anything. I can point to the experience in the USA regarding the melting-pot system and see a number of superior outcomes - that is if one believes in destroying their country via immigration in the first place.
Now this idiot is arguing that religious freedom as offered to ethnic immigrants is in danger of destroying the very democracy of this country and they even drag the charter of rights into this... if you have a problem with people that believe in god, because you obviously do not, then go back to where you came from.
Sgro: off the hook? did Grappler Gagliano make calls for her?
All the sheep in the Canadian un-free press crowed today that Judy Sgro is an innocent girl!
Herein is an excerpt from the Globe and Mail's article entitled: Sgro says she's off the hook.
Former Immigration Minister Judy Sgro said Tuesday a man who alleged she promised to swap asylum for free pizza and campaign support has retracted the charges and apologized.
“Reputations should not be tarnished by unsubstantiated allegations and innuendo solely for partisan politics,” Ms. Sgro said, after reading the man's letter in the House of Commons.
Mind you in all fairness the Globe (Gay and Married), hints that Sgro is dreaming that she is innocent. But unlike analysis of any conservative issue that they may engage in, they are not offering opinions on this one.
It looks like Sgro, backed by the corrupt LPC, has threatened several lengthy and costly legal battles for which these immigrants do not have the stomach nor the money to withstand. Also, it is possible that Sgro has something on these people as she has access to the complete infrastructure of this country in order to mount her 'witch hunt.'
But what is most shocking is that the man bringing forth these accusations against "JUDGE JUDY SGRO" may well be telling the truth but since evidence cannot be produced he is between a hard rock and a cliff. It is also possible that immigration has threatened his remaining family living here.
Why all the fuss over Judy you ask? Well she was minister over immigration a big generator of voters for the liberals, as well as volunteer labour for elections. Is that in jeapordy now?
Then there is Judy's riding in North Western Toronto, named York-West which is considered one of the safest ridings in all of Canada for the LPC (Liberal Party of Canada). I live near there and the riding is highly multi-ethnic and likely dominated by immigrants. It is rampant with crime and quite famous in Toronto because of it. Good country to a liberal indeed! I'm hoping that Judy runs again because while I expect that she would win, it would be a lot more challenging than the last few elections.
A lessson in all of this is the following: not only are liberals in Canada for the most part corrupt but they have absolutely no respect at all for the rule of law nor for the concept of justice.
Oh and the Gagliano connection to this story, well I don't know if there is one, but consider this, we had complaintants that withdraw complaints as though they had been threatened to do so, and all of this action happening in a riding in Toronto with a large ethnic Italian population. It is highly unlikely the two are related, but not impossible.
Herein is an excerpt from the Globe and Mail's article entitled: Sgro says she's off the hook.
Former Immigration Minister Judy Sgro said Tuesday a man who alleged she promised to swap asylum for free pizza and campaign support has retracted the charges and apologized.
“Reputations should not be tarnished by unsubstantiated allegations and innuendo solely for partisan politics,” Ms. Sgro said, after reading the man's letter in the House of Commons.
Mind you in all fairness the Globe (Gay and Married), hints that Sgro is dreaming that she is innocent. But unlike analysis of any conservative issue that they may engage in, they are not offering opinions on this one.
It looks like Sgro, backed by the corrupt LPC, has threatened several lengthy and costly legal battles for which these immigrants do not have the stomach nor the money to withstand. Also, it is possible that Sgro has something on these people as she has access to the complete infrastructure of this country in order to mount her 'witch hunt.'
But what is most shocking is that the man bringing forth these accusations against "JUDGE JUDY SGRO" may well be telling the truth but since evidence cannot be produced he is between a hard rock and a cliff. It is also possible that immigration has threatened his remaining family living here.
Why all the fuss over Judy you ask? Well she was minister over immigration a big generator of voters for the liberals, as well as volunteer labour for elections. Is that in jeapordy now?
Then there is Judy's riding in North Western Toronto, named York-West which is considered one of the safest ridings in all of Canada for the LPC (Liberal Party of Canada). I live near there and the riding is highly multi-ethnic and likely dominated by immigrants. It is rampant with crime and quite famous in Toronto because of it. Good country to a liberal indeed! I'm hoping that Judy runs again because while I expect that she would win, it would be a lot more challenging than the last few elections.
A lessson in all of this is the following: not only are liberals in Canada for the most part corrupt but they have absolutely no respect at all for the rule of law nor for the concept of justice.
Oh and the Gagliano connection to this story, well I don't know if there is one, but consider this, we had complaintants that withdraw complaints as though they had been threatened to do so, and all of this action happening in a riding in Toronto with a large ethnic Italian population. It is highly unlikely the two are related, but not impossible.
Monday, May 09, 2005
Canada and generic aid's drugs: would Malthus be happy?
Today's online Toronto Star (Red Star News), at thestar.com has an editorial piece by Carol Goar entitled "Canadian Triumph Turns Sour."
It is an interesting story and not one to draw a lot of attention from the public or even the mainstream press. I'm even surprised it got covered at all frankly. That is the weird thing about the Red Star, sometimes in a backhanded way I have to admit that they actually impress me.
I'm happy to see this obscure story about how Canada under Jean Chretien's Liberals had been an early signer for supplying generic aids drugs to African countries stricken with the fatal epidemic. The whole idea being that the generic meds would be cheap and thus within access to even the modest means of most African states - particularily Uganda and Botswana the article singles out these two countries. Not that Canadian manufacturers would not have benefitted from this policy at the taxpayer's expense mind you. But many taxpayers would support this kind of policy and many of the countries involved are too poor to even be a market for the name-brand products.
A few brief paragraphs quoted from the article sum it all up nicely:
"Canadians reasonably assumed that, by now, anti-retrovirals from laboratories in Toronto and Montreal would be winging their way to Uganda and Botswana. In fact, that won't happen for months. It may not happen at all.
This story has no single culprit. The Pledge to Africa Act fell victim to political inertia, bureaucratic bungling and corporate self-interest. It was oversold in the first place and whittled down behind the scenes."
A less cynical person than I would automatically think that big business shut down this idea of largesse at their own expense: re reduced drug profits on high priced name brand aids drugs being usurped by cheaper generic Canadian drugs. Frankly, I would have to agree with those cynical people holding the big drug behemoths in contempt except for one thing...
None of that would explain the internal problems within a government that went to bat for this idea in the first place and for which had to take orders from the PMO. So how do snafu's like this happen anyways even when there is the will to make things happen?
Well dear reader, do a Google on 'Club of Rome' and note that one of our esteemed ex-PM's by the name of Pierre Trudeau was a known member. All I will tell you know is that the Club' is tied to the international financial and political scene aka: internationalists, and is a big fan of a renown thinker of the name of Malthus.'
If anybody figures out what I am on about then make a posting and we can do the cat and mouse of who is on who's tail. Should be fun.
It is an interesting story and not one to draw a lot of attention from the public or even the mainstream press. I'm even surprised it got covered at all frankly. That is the weird thing about the Red Star, sometimes in a backhanded way I have to admit that they actually impress me.
I'm happy to see this obscure story about how Canada under Jean Chretien's Liberals had been an early signer for supplying generic aids drugs to African countries stricken with the fatal epidemic. The whole idea being that the generic meds would be cheap and thus within access to even the modest means of most African states - particularily Uganda and Botswana the article singles out these two countries. Not that Canadian manufacturers would not have benefitted from this policy at the taxpayer's expense mind you. But many taxpayers would support this kind of policy and many of the countries involved are too poor to even be a market for the name-brand products.
A few brief paragraphs quoted from the article sum it all up nicely:
"Canadians reasonably assumed that, by now, anti-retrovirals from laboratories in Toronto and Montreal would be winging their way to Uganda and Botswana. In fact, that won't happen for months. It may not happen at all.
This story has no single culprit. The Pledge to Africa Act fell victim to political inertia, bureaucratic bungling and corporate self-interest. It was oversold in the first place and whittled down behind the scenes."
A less cynical person than I would automatically think that big business shut down this idea of largesse at their own expense: re reduced drug profits on high priced name brand aids drugs being usurped by cheaper generic Canadian drugs. Frankly, I would have to agree with those cynical people holding the big drug behemoths in contempt except for one thing...
None of that would explain the internal problems within a government that went to bat for this idea in the first place and for which had to take orders from the PMO. So how do snafu's like this happen anyways even when there is the will to make things happen?
Well dear reader, do a Google on 'Club of Rome' and note that one of our esteemed ex-PM's by the name of Pierre Trudeau was a known member. All I will tell you know is that the Club' is tied to the international financial and political scene aka: internationalists, and is a big fan of a renown thinker of the name of Malthus.'
If anybody figures out what I am on about then make a posting and we can do the cat and mouse of who is on who's tail. Should be fun.
Sunday, May 08, 2005
Barbelinda: Queen of the conservatives!
Yes Belinda, it is tough being you. Young rich, attractive, and already having done more in your life that many of us mortals would do in half a dozen. Whether one loves or loathes you, we are all swept off our feet at the brazen daring of your every exploit and movement.
The Globe and Mail (Gay & Married), is a big fan of yours undoubtably! The May 7th, issue online had you taking over from Stephen Harper at any minute as leader of the conservative party of Canada. Not that they are not biased or anything, being obvious liberal party of Canada supporters that love the idea of gay marriage and at the same time decry the demise of the PC's, or what I like to call the 'Liberal Lite' brand of federal politics.
That Belinda is surrounding herself with ex-Harris and Mulroneites' is of no concern to the Globe, since the week before they were tarring the conservatives for having ties to the dreaded ex-PC regime of Brian Mulroney. But in Canadian politics, substance means nothing and idealogy especially internationalist's beliefs are everything.
Belinda's main objective has been the following: "Many believe she has taken these positions for two reasons -- to build the moderate side of the party and become its champion." Which is not a problem in and of itself, but what this does to make the conservative party conservative, is beyond me?
Read this convoluted logic in this passage:
"Asked if her remarks this week had anything to do with insulating herself from blame if the Conservatives force a spring election and it goes badly, Ms. Stronach says no. The point, she says, was simply to be accountable to the residents of her riding.
Newmarket-Aurora, an urban riding just outside Toronto, includes many commuters who would benefit from the plans in the Liberal budget to spend more money on roads, public transit and other transportation needs.
"I want to make sure that we properly address the issues that are important to the citizens of Newmarket-Aurora -- public transit, transportation, which are consistent with the cities infrastructure program."
Since being elected, Ms. Stronach has also been diligent about meeting people across the country. Last December, for example, she took up the invitation of an Alberta feedlot owner and farmer to visit his business and see for herself the devastation that the mad-cow crisis has visited upon the region."
See it is like this: When Belinda wants to embarras Harper, she can justify it by saying she is responding to her constituents. But when she wants to be a major player and travel the country and even go to Washington to hobnob with reputed ex, Billy Clinton, she can do that too according to the Globe without even a hint of irony.
So which is it Barbelinda?
Are you the dutiful MP of Newmarket-Aurora, or are you conservative party executive that is campaigning behind Stephen Harper's back for the leadership even before there is any reason to do it?
While we are at it, what is this we hear about your father stepping down soon? Many of us would have thought that you would be a shoe-in to take over for him in his absence. If you do that then I wish you well and I note that the press will be a lot harder on you as a business executive than it ever will be on a liberal politician in this country.
The Globe and Mail (Gay & Married), is a big fan of yours undoubtably! The May 7th, issue online had you taking over from Stephen Harper at any minute as leader of the conservative party of Canada. Not that they are not biased or anything, being obvious liberal party of Canada supporters that love the idea of gay marriage and at the same time decry the demise of the PC's, or what I like to call the 'Liberal Lite' brand of federal politics.
That Belinda is surrounding herself with ex-Harris and Mulroneites' is of no concern to the Globe, since the week before they were tarring the conservatives for having ties to the dreaded ex-PC regime of Brian Mulroney. But in Canadian politics, substance means nothing and idealogy especially internationalist's beliefs are everything.
Belinda's main objective has been the following: "Many believe she has taken these positions for two reasons -- to build the moderate side of the party and become its champion." Which is not a problem in and of itself, but what this does to make the conservative party conservative, is beyond me?
Read this convoluted logic in this passage:
"Asked if her remarks this week had anything to do with insulating herself from blame if the Conservatives force a spring election and it goes badly, Ms. Stronach says no. The point, she says, was simply to be accountable to the residents of her riding.
Newmarket-Aurora, an urban riding just outside Toronto, includes many commuters who would benefit from the plans in the Liberal budget to spend more money on roads, public transit and other transportation needs.
"I want to make sure that we properly address the issues that are important to the citizens of Newmarket-Aurora -- public transit, transportation, which are consistent with the cities infrastructure program."
Since being elected, Ms. Stronach has also been diligent about meeting people across the country. Last December, for example, she took up the invitation of an Alberta feedlot owner and farmer to visit his business and see for herself the devastation that the mad-cow crisis has visited upon the region."
See it is like this: When Belinda wants to embarras Harper, she can justify it by saying she is responding to her constituents. But when she wants to be a major player and travel the country and even go to Washington to hobnob with reputed ex, Billy Clinton, she can do that too according to the Globe without even a hint of irony.
So which is it Barbelinda?
Are you the dutiful MP of Newmarket-Aurora, or are you conservative party executive that is campaigning behind Stephen Harper's back for the leadership even before there is any reason to do it?
While we are at it, what is this we hear about your father stepping down soon? Many of us would have thought that you would be a shoe-in to take over for him in his absence. If you do that then I wish you well and I note that the press will be a lot harder on you as a business executive than it ever will be on a liberal politician in this country.
Labour MP's want to oust Blair already...
The May 8th, issue of The Times online carries a story with the title 'Labour MPs tell Blair to quit Downing Street,' are said to be speaking out for the first time on the leadership of Mr. Blair.
The article describes the shock that many of the re-elected MP's felt when they went to the door of constituents during the last election.
Funny but people always vote liberal even when they are mad with them. Guess it is like telling your boss to piss off but then realizing that the money will stop soon..
The article goes on to say that many expert Blair to move on within the next year and even goes on to say that the recent step-down of the conservatives Howard' has exerted more pressure on Blair to go.
Some political observers are surprised that the obvious historic nature of labour's third consecutive majority has been ignored while opponents jockey in the background for position.
These quotes seem to highlight the problems driving this change in sentiment regarding Mr. Blair:
"But yesterday Frank Dobson, the former health secretary, described Blair as an “electoral liability” who would have to go sooner rather than later.
He suggested that if Britain scrapped plans for a referendum on the European Union constitution after a French no vote at the end of this month, many MPs believed he could go even quicker. “Lots of people said on the doorstep during the campaign they couldn’t vote Labour because of Iraq but an even larger proportion said they wouldn’t vote Labour again until Tony Blair had gone. And that’s a major problem.”
So there we have it, the globalists want a smooth entry into the EU, with a person that can sell it to the public which they currently believe Mr. Blair is unable to do. The other reason mentioned above in describing the hostility of Mr. Blair's personage in the minds of many voters is simply not an issue for several years in the future.
Let us stand back and watch what happens. The press in the UK wanted Blair to win because the conservatives did not 100% back integration with the EU. Now we see the knives coming out for Mr. Blair even though the golden boy' carried the day for them but he still is an unknown entity.
Frankly, how can any labourite favour full integration with the EU is beyond me.
The article describes the shock that many of the re-elected MP's felt when they went to the door of constituents during the last election.
Funny but people always vote liberal even when they are mad with them. Guess it is like telling your boss to piss off but then realizing that the money will stop soon..
The article goes on to say that many expert Blair to move on within the next year and even goes on to say that the recent step-down of the conservatives Howard' has exerted more pressure on Blair to go.
Some political observers are surprised that the obvious historic nature of labour's third consecutive majority has been ignored while opponents jockey in the background for position.
These quotes seem to highlight the problems driving this change in sentiment regarding Mr. Blair:
"But yesterday Frank Dobson, the former health secretary, described Blair as an “electoral liability” who would have to go sooner rather than later.
He suggested that if Britain scrapped plans for a referendum on the European Union constitution after a French no vote at the end of this month, many MPs believed he could go even quicker. “Lots of people said on the doorstep during the campaign they couldn’t vote Labour because of Iraq but an even larger proportion said they wouldn’t vote Labour again until Tony Blair had gone. And that’s a major problem.”
So there we have it, the globalists want a smooth entry into the EU, with a person that can sell it to the public which they currently believe Mr. Blair is unable to do. The other reason mentioned above in describing the hostility of Mr. Blair's personage in the minds of many voters is simply not an issue for several years in the future.
Let us stand back and watch what happens. The press in the UK wanted Blair to win because the conservatives did not 100% back integration with the EU. Now we see the knives coming out for Mr. Blair even though the golden boy' carried the day for them but he still is an unknown entity.
Frankly, how can any labourite favour full integration with the EU is beyond me.
When conservatives are not really conservatives.
Lately, I've had the political bug like I had last year at this same time. Maybe this political infatuation is going to be a long-term thing, hope not really because this costs me more than I've been getting from it. Seems the liberals have it all figured out in terms of squeezing value out of everything they do.. that is why they are so successful.
Anyways, I have been making a lot of posts at various conservative type political blogs run by known conservative supporters in this country. At least that is the impression that they like to make on people that may frequent their websites.
I have been to a few liberal sites in the same time period and left some nasty barbs.. but liberals can take it because they are the masters at dishing it out. I usually get it back in spades or they even ignore me, it is all good fun. Like I said, you want to dish it out then you have to learn to take it too like an adult, otherwise don't play the game.
But, the problem I have encountered strangely enough is on some of the conservative themed blogging sites. Some of these people are not that conservative, at least in terms of social values (which is not something that they have to be btw, but something that you might expect from a member of the conservative party - if in fact those people were members?).
But, that is not the real problem, what causes concern is that certain commentators like me, are being perceived as too conservative and drawing the ire of these hosts. I have been sent one email that said that I was not wanted as a poster on the site because I was producing a poor impression there and that bloghost did not want to associate with such an impression.
What is really hilarious is that nobody that posted at the site ever made such comments to me either by email or by responding to my posts. But there is a clue to what is going on:
this well known journalist and well-known blogger, had in two emails to me mentioned sexuality as a conern that he had with my posts. I have figured out what is going on here, one of two issues: one, this person is in fact gay and in the closet and bristles whenever somebody makes any kind of reference to sexuality that may be perceived as even slightly negative or; two, this person is not that comfortable with open expression on their blog regarding certain topics - either due to pressure from others or associates. From where I stand this expression of viewpoints is within one's rights to make in this country.
So what have I done about this? Nada. I'm just ignoring it for now. Let's see what happens.
Well which is it?
Anyways, I have been making a lot of posts at various conservative type political blogs run by known conservative supporters in this country. At least that is the impression that they like to make on people that may frequent their websites.
I have been to a few liberal sites in the same time period and left some nasty barbs.. but liberals can take it because they are the masters at dishing it out. I usually get it back in spades or they even ignore me, it is all good fun. Like I said, you want to dish it out then you have to learn to take it too like an adult, otherwise don't play the game.
But, the problem I have encountered strangely enough is on some of the conservative themed blogging sites. Some of these people are not that conservative, at least in terms of social values (which is not something that they have to be btw, but something that you might expect from a member of the conservative party - if in fact those people were members?).
But, that is not the real problem, what causes concern is that certain commentators like me, are being perceived as too conservative and drawing the ire of these hosts. I have been sent one email that said that I was not wanted as a poster on the site because I was producing a poor impression there and that bloghost did not want to associate with such an impression.
What is really hilarious is that nobody that posted at the site ever made such comments to me either by email or by responding to my posts. But there is a clue to what is going on:
this well known journalist and well-known blogger, had in two emails to me mentioned sexuality as a conern that he had with my posts. I have figured out what is going on here, one of two issues: one, this person is in fact gay and in the closet and bristles whenever somebody makes any kind of reference to sexuality that may be perceived as even slightly negative or; two, this person is not that comfortable with open expression on their blog regarding certain topics - either due to pressure from others or associates. From where I stand this expression of viewpoints is within one's rights to make in this country.
So what have I done about this? Nada. I'm just ignoring it for now. Let's see what happens.
Well which is it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
