Monday, January 29, 2007
New Conservative Attack Ad Posted to YouTube
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Why the New Ads?
Remember Harper the scary bogeyman? Meet Dion, the useless, ineffectual leader. This is politics, and in politics you define your opponent before he has a chance to define himself. Those with reservations about this sort of thing should either check them at the door or go home.
We only viewed this sort of thing as a 'dirty Liberal tactic' when they did it to Harper because it smeared our guy. The Liberals are going to view this as a 'dirty Conservative tactic' because we're doing it to their guy. That's politics. It's cutthroat, and if you sit around debating whether or not tactics like this are 'nice' or not, you're going to get trampled by the other guy - who, incidentally, thanks you for your complete naivety.
If that argument doesn't sway you, then consider this: If you view this as a choice between being 'the good guy or being the bad guy', you'd best think again - this is a choice between 24 Sussex and Stornaway.
Take your pick.
Friday, January 26, 2007
H/T to Kate for showing me how unbelievably ignorant some people can actually be:
Or possibly, it was because you were too busy smoking pot and playing video games to do anything with your life. Dork.
"I've come to realize that probably one reason I struggled with algebra, geometry et.al., was that it seemed to me that these were basically reactionary academic disciplines, useful for designing weaponry or potentially repressive computer technology, but not with any obvious humanistic or social positive uses."
Sometimes it's hard for me to believe that these are actually the same people who criticize conservatives for being members of the "flat earth society." They wouldn't know a dichotomous key from their house keys.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Of her more interesting 'interpretations' of the day is her painting of the public as divided on the issue. Someone should go back to J-school.
They Don't Know How Right They Are
"To some scientists, this suggests the brain could be a blanker slate than Chomsky believes."
When it comes to Chomsky, it's about as blank as they come.
Labels: Noam Chomsky
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
"The Tories campaigned and won on five key goals: cleaning up government, cutting the GST, cracking down on crime, paying parents $100 for each child under six and establishing a health care patient wait times guarantee.
The only promise yet to be fulfilled is the medicare wait times, although Harper has announced four separate patient wait time pilot projects since taking office. "
And that's just in one year. You've gotta love this, though:
"But their accomplishments came as the Liberals remained preoccupied with choosing a leader, the NDP seemed eager to attack both the Liberals and the Tories and as the Bloc Quebecois spent much of the time evaluating the Conservative threat in Quebec."
Where was the media speculation over the ease of the Liberals in maintaining massive majorities over a divided opposition of the NDP, the Reform party, the Bloc and the Progressive Conservative Party? It sounds to me like the CTV should give the Tories credit for keeping their opposition off-balance, rather than diminishing their performance by chalking it up entirely to a divided opposition.
Monday, January 22, 2007
"In Montreal the Frenchmen say that they own Labrador,
Including Indian Harbour where me father fished before;
But if they want to fight for her I'll surely take a stand,
And they'll regret the day they tried to take our Newfoundland." - Bruce Moss
“What is Israel providing you? Nothing. What are you achieving from such policies? What have you gained? Nothing, except the hatred of innocent people. If you would like to be the tail of the American dog, it's up to you. Or you can be a leading country, a linkage,” he said.
“For the sake of the future — one, two or three decades from now — the only way to help everybody, everywhere is to co-operate with the Islamic movements and Arabic countries because they are not your enemy.”
I'd mention how this man's words are eerily similar to another famous Anti-Semite, but then I'd be fulfilling Godwin's Law. In any event, all the key propaganda points are there - the 'spectre' of American control of Canada, the backing of an ally who doesn't care, and your only option is to surrender to us because we are the future.
Zahar couldn't resist one last parting shot:
My answer to Mr. Zahar is simple:
Addressing the absent Mr. MacKay, he added: “The question is very simple: Why do you refuse to meet us? As a human being, as a man, what is preventing you from meeting us? We are not eating human flesh.”
Friday, January 19, 2007
New Hit Piece Out; Proves Conservatives Really Do Have A Hidden Agenda
"They discovered that as of the day following the election Steven Harper last January, the Canadian government agreed to multiply by five from here 2015 the extraction of the oil of bituminous sands."
See! See! We told you they had a hidden agenda! They didn't waste any time, either! Look at our proof! Look, look!
And the CP has also jumped on the bandwagon, ensuring the stability of the "report on a manufactured report reported by a reporter" industry:
"The report has raised the spectre that Canada is being pressured to dramatically increase production to meet the energy needs of the United States, regardless of the environmental consequences - a concern that's been dismissed by political and industry sources."
The reason it's a spectre is because it doesn't exist. Period. Informed readers should wonder just who's raising the 'spectre,' and why. I know that the media likes to sensationalize everything so as to make a story seem bigger than it actually is (or to make something look like a story, period) but this is just unbelievably transparent on the part of our national media. There isn't even a modicum of an attempt to hide the editorial bias here. They might as well just go all out and make Robert McClelland the news editor of the National.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Premier Danny Williams is taking a more conciliary tone as of late with Prime Minister Stephen Harper over the issue of equalization, which I'm sure came as a surprise to those of you following this debate. Williams has said he believes that Harper will keep his promise regarding equalization, and that Newfoundlanders should not worry about it. If you find yourself curious over Williams' softer approach to the federal government, don't be. This is Williams' way of telling the Prime Minister You know what I've threatened before, so the ball is in your court - I trust that you'll do what's beneficial for the both of us.
I hope he does.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
That's not a threat from Danny Williams, that's a political reality laid out by a Newfoundlander who supports the Conservative Party of Canada. There are many out there who think equalization should never have been put into effect. These people need to realize that without equalization, provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador would not be able to deliver basic services that are taken for granted in the rest of Canada.
Now I know there are those who will complain that, under our logic, Newfoundland just wants to 'have its cake and eat it too'. These people are mistaken. Equalization as it is set up now is a form of indentured slavery - what's the point of providing extra cash to help maintain a basic level of services if it all gets clawed back the next day? Realize that the oil and gas industry in Newfoundland is just now becoming profitable. These are resources that will not last forever. If all the money the province makes in this industry is clawed back under equalization, what will be left for us when the wells run dry? The answer: a continuing and never-ending cycle of more equalization payments, which neither Newfoundland nor Alberta or Ontario wants. The result is painfully obvious, and yet little see it.
It is therefore in the longterm economic interest of Canada to support Newfoundland and Saskatchewan in this matter. You can't expect a man to get back on his feet when you garnish his wages so as to leave him in debt all of the time. Believe me, no province wants equalization to end more than Newfoundland - but it has to be under the right circumstances, when the province is ready economically. Reneging on the Atlantic Accord will cost Alberta and Ontario far more in the long run than they will ever know.
Finally, if that argument doesn't sway you, then consider this: the Government of Canada made a signed-and-sealed promise to Newfoundland and Labrador that 100% of its oil and gas revenues would be exempt from clawbacks. They signed a Federal-Provincial deal to this effect. Regardless of which party was in power at the time, once the federal government signed that paper it has no choice but to honour the promise it made. In fact, during the 2004 election I seem to recall that Harper promising that it was his position that all non-renewable resources should be exempt from equalization clawbacks, in addition to any oil and gas revenues. Were he to change his position now, he would be making a liar out of himself. Stephen Harper is no liar. I sincerely hope he will not make a liar out of me for writing that.
My province is not a bargaining chip that can be traded away to appease Quebec for seats in the next election. I repeat, Harper will pay if he reneges on the Atlantic Accord. That's not a threat.
That's a cold, hard reality.
..."We will remove non-renewable natural resource revenue from the equalization formula to encourage the development of economic growth in the non-renewable resource sectors across Canada. The Conservative Party will ensure that no province is adversely affected from changes to the equalization formula."
-Section 22, CPC Policy Declaration, 2005
Over the weekend, the National Conference for Media Reform was held in Memphis, TN, with a number of notable speakers on hand for the event. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) made an surprise appearance at the convention to announce that he would be heading up a new House subcommittee which will focus on issues surrounding the Federal Communications Commission.The Presidential candidate said that the committee would be holding "hearings to push media reform right at the center of Washington. The Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the House Government Reform Committee was to be officially announced this week in Washington, D.C., but Kucinich opted to make the news public early....Kucinich said in his speech that "We know the media has become the servant of a very narrow corporate agenda" and added "we are now in a position to move a progressive agenda to where it is visible."
I've got a new show for them - CRTC: Washington.
(h/t to Drudge)
Monday, January 15, 2007
Vanessa Kensington: No.
Austin Powers: That's not the way to get 'ahead' in life.
Vanessa Kensington: No.
Austin Powers: It's a shame he wasn't more...headstrong.
Vanessa Kensington: Hmm.
Austin Powers: He'll never be the head of a major corporation!
Vanessa Kensington: Okay, that'll do.
Austin Powers: Okay.
All jokes aside, yikes. I don't care what crimes this man has committed, I wouldn't wish that sort of exit on anyone. Though, to be honest, the fall probably broke his neck before he even knew the trap door had opened. Still...quite gruesome.
We, the undersigned, demand that the government of Canada force Stéphane Dion to change his first name to Céline.
After all, it is fair turnabout! The idea has been kicking around for a quite some time now and I'm sure most of you have thought of it at one point or another. Despite this, I haven't come across it on the web or elsewhere. Let's try to get a good showing on this thing - who knows, we may even get some media coverage! And that, my friends, would be quite a treat. I'm sure Dion will take it as amiably a Day did back in 2000.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Aren't you getting tired of the new Conservative Government?
Seriously. What basis was there to ask this question, if not to cheaply mock the Government's attempts to create a brand or image for itself? Every government is 'guilty' of trying to do so, but it's hardly something you can blame them for. You either create your own image or the media and your opposition will do it for you (something Stockwell Day and Stephen Harper know quite well by now). Sure it might sound kitschy, but that's how slogans work.
For the Conservative Party, the theme of doing things in a new and different manner is an important reminder to Canadians that they are not the party that passes bundles of taxpayer cash to friends of the party in unmarked brown envelopes, nor are they the party which loses billions of dollars in ill-fated registries or HRDC boondoggles.
It's important for the Government to remind Canadians that they are trying a 'new' approach in Ottawa: by cutting pork barrel advocacy groups that accomplish little or nothing (other than to influence public opinion in favour of the 'statist' quo) or by pushing forth long awaited reforms of the Senate. One can disagree with the direction the current government is heading, but one cannot say that what the government is doing isn't different from what used to be the norm. Heck, otherwise we wouldn't be seeing so much controversy from groups that previously had unrestricted access to the public teat - with little or no accountability to the Canadian Public!
With all this in mind, one should consider that the Tory government isn't even a year old yet and that Canadians previously faced a stagnant Liberal Government that had been in power for thirteen years. I can only speak for myself, but with that perspective in mind it seems hard to criticize the current government for branding themselves as 'new'. To me, it seems like some of the CTV.ca staff have decided that it's time to forget all of that and get on with seeing this government as no different from what we've previously seen. I suppose it makes it easier to be cynical then: "Eh, they're just like the old guys!".
Maybe the CTV poll staff should been honest and asked what they were really thinking: Aren't you guys tired of the Conservative Government yet?
......Hurry up already!
--EDIT-- It's Monday morning and the poll is still up. Shouldn't CTV be asking a question about David Beckham and Posh Spice right about now?
Friday, January 12, 2007
“All these workers living too fast for the easy money in the north,” [Stephan Dion] blasted as Liberal-appointed senators Tommy Banks and Grant Mitchell looked on. “It’s not good for the economy.”
Perhaps Citoyen Dion should try searching in vain for a job in the Atlantic region so that he can feed his family before he opens his exceptionally large and privileged mouth about all those fools going for "easy money" out west. Put food on the table for their kids? How dare they - what about the environment?!
Dion is just another central Canadian politician who knows nothing and cares even less for Atlantic Canadians.
All these opposition leaders living too fast for the easy money in Ottawa - it's not good for the economy.
It's even worse for the country.
Labels: Stephane Dion
Germany's interior minister seems to agree, and is calling for Muslim integration.
(h/t to The Technical Bard!)
"Dante, your blatant misrepresentation of the article is despicable and I suggest you refrain from this kind of trolling. Your comment that no one cares signals to me that YOU don’t care that it is those with vaginas who endure abuse in greater numbers than those without."
Well, colour me surprised. I assumed that common sense would dictate to someone that vulgarity (see "Vagina Warriors") generally doesn't help get your point across (although it can sometimes be fun and profitable). But, as my wise mother always points out, assume nothing. If I started a group in support of father's rights and called it the "Penis Warriors," I'm willing to bet I'd have a hard time getting people to take me seriously - especially since the name sounds like the title of an adult film.
But I digress. Normally when I make a comment on someone's blog I don't check back for a response. Some people like to engage in "comment wars," which to me seems to be the equivalent of arguing back and forth over an internet forum, but its not something I find terribly appealing.
However, her reaction got to me a little bit, something I'm not used to. This lady's argument is more or less something I'm used to hearing from people on the left (especially at my university by the l
Misogynists generally don't worry themselves sick about their sisters who are living away in large cities because of the violence committed against women in these places. My blood boils whenever my sister recounts to me how she had to mace a guy who wouldn't leave her alone on the L in Chicago, or the story she told me about some stark-naked sicko who ran up to her classroom window one day and spread his 'bodily fluids' over it.
Misogynists generally don't sign petitions that call for the support of programs to protect battered women.
Misogynists generally don't volunteer at organizations like MaterCare International that provide surgery to mothers in Africa affected with Obstetric fistula, a condition that leaves them permanently incontinent. Misogynists generally don't mail out frigging surgical sutures to a poor doctor (who was also a nun) in Mozambique so that she could provide care to these women. I don't know. I guess I just must hate women.
Finally, and this is the clincher, misogynists generally don't protect their next door neighbours from violence in the middle of a domestic dispute. Two years ago, I heard a screaming outside my house the night before my genetics exam, and I ran to the window to find my next door neighbour running to the house and screaming in terror as she banged on the door for me to let her in. I pulled the door open and locked her and my other sister in the bedroom to protect them, while I yelled at them to call the police. My neighbours were immigrants from Ghana, and apparently this girl's boyfriend (also from Ghana) had slapped her around a bit, and had threatened to "stone her." My brother, in the meantime, kept the guy out of the house as he tried to force his way in. We called the police, and they took care of it. The girl still stops by and thanks me every now and then.
And so, "Politics and Poetry," I close with this: that's what I've done to protect women from violence. What the hell have you done, except talk about how your sisters are all "vagina warriors?"
But what else would you expect from me.
I'm just a misogynist, after all.
EDIT: She's the vengeful type who likes to use institutional intimidation, apparently:
Sometimes, instead of going running to the teacher, adults deal with these things themselves. Sometimes, it's best to just shrug it off when people display their childish side. Hell, that's what I've been doing with Canadian Cynic all these years.
"I don’t tolerate misogyny well. You may suffer deletion if I’m feeling very sensitive about it. But I don’t think I’ve deleted any of your comments. Not intentionally, anyway. I get about 100 spam a day and I’ve quit checking it to see if I should post it. I don’t have that kind of time right now. I have much on the go.
I’m getting private messages from some who have been with me from early on, wondering why I tolerate the likes of you and other serious trolls at P’n'P. One particularly nasty chap I felt obligated to report to his employer for his racist and misogynist remarks from a workplace computer. Others have simply been deleted and banned for abusing the privilege of posting comments. I mean, someone who posts tripe from the same IP address with two or three different names and two or three different email addresses is automatically out. It’s trolling, nothing more, nothing less and I won’t tolerate it.
I’m still pretty new to this blogging thing — less than a year — and haven’t had to deal with much shite until recently." **
Labels: Radical Feminism
Monday, January 08, 2007
If people are wondering why girls in this age group seem to be more at risk for obesity, the answer is simple: lack of excercise, combined with an unhealthy diet, and compounded by the fact that females generally have a higher body fat percentage than males means a higher risk of obesity. There's not much else to it.
A Short Thought
Sunday, January 07, 2007
Jon Bennett, Director of Climate Action Network, is not prone to praise when discussing the international process to address climate change, "It is very slow. It is very laborious. It has its own timetable and doesn't respect the reality and urgency of what it's trying to deal with. However," he adds, "it has moved forward. And it's the best we've got."
Watching Bennett explain climate change is an amusing pastime of mine. Distilled, his argument is "George W. Bush has close connections to the oil industry." For example:
Canada has frequently been accused of blocking progress at the United Nations Climate Change Negotiations. According to Bennett, this has often been due to the country's attempt to pander to the demands of the United States.
President Bush has close ties with the oil industry, explains Bennett. "He is the US's oil advocate to stop the rest of us from weaning off fossil fuels." In attempting to please the Americans and protect its own interests, "Canada has supported a lot of conditions that the environmental community has not appreciated."*
Then there was Bennett's take on the Clean Air Act:
"The proposed federal regulations presented today by the Harper government line up with the outdated and weak standards of the Bush Administration, not the stringent standards of the state of California,'' the group said in a news release.- Bennett, on the Clean Air Act.*
And again, the standard line:
“This announcement is nothing more than a recipe for delay. Adopting the (George W.) Bush administration’s standards will not lower emissions from vehicles.” - Bennett, on the Clean Air Act.*
It's hard to respect Bennett - the man simply sounds like one of those dolls that spew soundbites whenever you pull the string on the back.
Friday, January 05, 2007
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Well I suppose this article shows that he was a decent man. What fools we were to put him on trial!