Speak your mind, but not on my time

Sid? Speak your mind. Go ahead -- quite frankly, I'd be surprised if anybody really cares what Sid Ryan, private citizen has to say about anything, let alone Israel. And go ahead, criticize Israel . . . condemn, boycott, write a letter to the editor -- but quit using CUPE as a pulpit.

I said much the same in 2006.

CUPE is not a private institution. It isn't like CAW, where people can say -- hey, I think they're idiots, I'm not buying their cars -- I'm forced to use the services provided by CUPE -- I can't boycott you.

Your membership is also hostage to the agenda 'voted' on in 2006 condemning Israel. What are they gonna do, quit their jobs? Even if they support Israel, their dues support an agenda that condemns it. Lucky them.

Private citizens are entitled to their opinions, even unions are entitled to vote and determine 'policy' with regard to political issues -- but CUPE is a PUBLIC SECTOR UNION. You should be serving the public, not pushing a political agenda. The public is a diverse entity. Members of the public who disagree with your stance, CUPE's stance, should not be compelled to do business with a government affiliate, hostile to their personal beliefs.

canadianna

Disproportionate response

Politics these days is such a laugh riot, that I've decided to write about something of a more serious nature:

The NHL suspended that idiot Sean Avery -- indefinitely -- for the sin of slagging his ex-girlfriends, who are now dating other NHLers:

(t)he Dallas Stars forward made inappropriate comments toward Calgary defenceman Dion Phaneuf and his girlfriend, Canadian actress Elisha Cuthbert.

The remarks got Avery suspended indefinitely, and he must now travel to New York for a hearing with NHL commissioner Gary Bettman at 10:30 a.m. ET Thursday, where he could face further discipline.

Oh-oh. Inappropriate comments. That's really bad. Someone's gotta stop him!

Compare that with Montreal's Tom Kostopoulos, who back in mid-November, was suspended for a whopping three games for a vicious hit from behind on Mike Van Ryn. Van Ryn suffered a concussion, several broken teeth, a broken nose and a broken hand and is out until early January at the earliest.

So boys, remember -- sticks and blind hits can break the other guy's bones and might get you sat for a couple of games -- but name-calling some chick who's dating a guy on the other team? That's gonna cost you big time.

canadianna

30 days of post -election consultations and Dion found his way to power

Does anybody have their Dion to English dictionary handy?

I thought I heard him say:

"Mr. Speaker Every member of this house has received a mandate from the people to deliver a government that will face the economic crisis. The PM has failed, he does not have the support of this house anymore."

Does that mean if he -- as newly self-appointed Prime Minister -- can't produce a budget and positive fiscal results before January 27th, that he will have failed -- because if he can't do that before January 27th -- he will have had as much time as Prime Minister as Harper has had in this session of Parliament and decidedly less of a mandate.

Creating political instability and economic uncertainty in order to attain power is cynical at best. While the rules of our parliamentary democracy allow for such an undertaking, the flaccid reasoning behind this attempted coup are not nearly urgent enough to overturn the results of an election not yet seven weeks past, where Parliament has been in session for less than a month.

I guess this is what Dion meant when he said he would consult for 30 days after the election -- only -- most of us thought if would be IF he became Prime Minister, not IN ORDER TO BECOME Prime Minister.

Silly Stephane, tricks are for kids. You're screwing with our country. Grow up. You lost. Get over it.

canadianna

Who's the Boss?

I don't give a damn where they sit -- with a veto on government business until 2011 - who's calling the shots?

Comfort yourself by listening to the BS if you like -- the Bloc is not part of the coalition -- they will not sit in government -- they ARE the bloody government when they have the numbers to assert control -- and they do. Jack Layton has sold his soul on the pretense that a few Cabinet seats will give him 'power'. Nice guy Dion, gets the title and the Rt. Hon. attached to his name and of course, the Liberals will not risk political uncertainty come the Spring and they'll reaffirm the puppet as PM in order to maintain their dubious claim to 'government.'

The Bloc is the only winner in this. They serve the interests of Quebec only and thanks to the Liberals and the NDP - those are the interests your taxes will be serving for the next three years.

Welcome to Canada, Prime Minister Duceppe. Monsieur Dion? I think you'd better put on some clothes.

canadianna

All you can do is shake your head

The Bloc as part of a governing coalition.

The Bloc Quebecois, as part of government?

A separatist party, taking a significant and powerful role in forming policy for all of Canada?

And no Liberals or NDPers see a problem with this?

Even if you hate Stephen Harper -- even if you are still amongst the few ignorant people who 'fear' Stephen Harper -- you have to see how very wrong this is.

It is one thing for opposition parties, including the Bloc to work to bring down the government -- it is entirely another for the the opposition, including the Bloc to sit AS government. For those who don't see the difference -- I suggest you are letting your partisan slip show.

Please, don't remind me that most of the people who voted, didn't vote for Harper -- I am aware of that already -- but I remind you, most of the people who voted in previous elections didn't vote for most of the PMs we've had in recent history -- that never mattered until now.

This is your country and a group of mercenary, power hungry, myopic despots are hijacking it in the name of -- in the name of -- what?

canadianna

Too bad

It's almost sad that the Tories didn't have the guts to stick it out and allow the pig-three to form a coalition government. Would have been mighty interesting having Ignatieff and Rae and Layton explain how they could, in good conscience, allow the Bloc to actually be part of forming government.

Besides, there is so much in-fighting in the Liberal Party, they can barely function themselves, let alone hold it together with two other power hungry, divisive parties.

Too bad Harper blinked.

canadianna

Life, or nothing like it

She'll be dead forever but he's getting parole.

We need a prison system where life in prison means exactly that.
How dare the National Parole Board take a risk with our children?

There is no cure for what this guy is and yet apparently, remorse is enough. The guy wants to 'do everything in his power make sure he never hurts anyone again.'

Fine, Smeltzer. Stay in jail. That's in your power and that will make sure you never hurt anyone again. There. Don't you feel better now?

canadianna

Never again

Never again. When you hear those words, it evokes an image doesn't it?

For me, the image is of holocaust survivors or soldiers. I've heard survivors say it defiantly and I've heard veterans utter it wistfully. It's meant as a call for humanity after a period of genocide, violent social upheaval, war. It's a stark, simple phrase that manages to conjure images of the brutality that mankind perpetrates on itself -- it is a reminder of carnage, it is a plea for change, it is a call for hope and a solemn promise to those who hear, that if enough of us believe those words, peace and freedom from oppression are possible.

Look who's co-opted the phrase and to whom they're referring.























Talk about classless. I thought Garth Turner was petulant and self-righteous. Boy, Stephane Dion makes Garth look positively humble and rational.

Character assassination? What did the Conservatives say about Stephane Dion but that his ideas were bad and that he wasn't a leader? Neither of these statements is subjective opinion-- Dion managed to prove that both were facts. And neither assertion attacks the man's character -- nope, but charges of 'liar' 'incompetent' 'cold' 'heartless' 'evil' 'quitter' 'mean' -- those are comments about character -- those charges and worse were made about Stephen Harper and either uttered or approved by Stephane Dion during the course of the campaign.

Poor Stephane -- not only is he a whining crybaby loser, he's also a myopic navel-gazing, hostile little bit of a man.

Oops. That was unkind. Maybe you should reach into your wallets and pull out some cash for the Liberals so that never again, will any Liberal leader ever have to face that kind of brutal, violent, shattering, soul destroying name-calling on a blog or anywhere else in this cruel world.

canadianna

Nice Guy? Please!

In the print edition of the National Post, the headline of Don Martin's column states:

He didn't get it: Politics is nasty

The online edition says -- Nice guys don't last in politics

Both are referring to Stephane Dion.

Gimme a break!

Martin goes on to say:

Like it or not, and I still think it was beneath him, but Prime Minister Stephen Harper's instant attack on the do-overs of Mr. Dion's bumbled CTV interview was blood sport politics at its finest and is credited for an overnight downturn in Liberal fortunes. By the time Mr. Dion got around to going dirty by repeatedly shouting "liar" at the Prime Minister, it sounded pathetically desperate.

Go back Mr. Martin -- read your paper from the first day of the election race. From the get-go, Dion called Harper a liar. Let's not pretend his animus was in response to anything. Dion broke from the gate calling the PM a liar. Throughout the campaign, he and his party equated Harper to the most hated man in the world, George Bush. Liar, quitter, classless, malevolent -- the name-calling was all one sided and all from the direction of the Liberal campaign. The Conservatives stuck with one issue -- Stephane Dion -- Not a leader, not worth the risk. It was right. Boo hoo.

All the pejorative adjectives thrown out in this campaign were tossed by either Stephane Dion or his attack dog, Elizabeth May. Is Martin so clueless that he doesn't 'get' that Dion and the Liberals planned that she'd do most of the rude and hostile, English mouthing off? But still, it isn't like Dion held back--he showed hostility, arrogance and he spewed vitriol every time he mentioned Harper's name. And yet he gets labelled a 'decent guy' and a 'nice guy' by the press.
What were they watching during those six weeks?

Harper never once name-called. During the debate, he was the only leader to display manners and courtesy, despite the attacks being levelled on him. He sat and listened as Ms May called him incompetent, accused him of not being able to read, suggested that his only good quality is that she's fairly certain he loves his kids -- despite being a bad enough PM to possibly be intentionally destroying the future of their country, and berating him for not making chit-chat with her at some dinner.

Stephane Dion is whining. Throughout the campaign, he whined. He's a whining, crybaby loser who hasn't learned to take responsibility for himself.

Who's the nice guy?

canadianna

Election shocker: Harper not campaigning for the Liberals

In the latest of many shocking developments on the campaign trail, it has come to light that Stephen Harper is not championing the Liberal cause as things come down to the wire:

"Today, he (Harper) will tour the country and he will not say a word about the Liberal tax cuts for families," Mr. Dion told an early morning rally at the headquarters of Fredericton candidate David Innes.

Can you believe it? The audacity of the Conservative Party leader -- not mentioning a Liberal promise. You'd almost think Harper supports the Conservative platform rather than the Liberal one. Unthinkable.

Not only that. Stephane Dion has it on good authority that Stephen Harper is either a clever ventriloquist or has the ability to speak to reporters with his mind:

"He will be mute today and he will continue to lie about the Liberal climate-change plan," Mr. Dion said. For the past couple of days, Mr. Harper has stopped scrumming with the reporters travelling with him.

Neat party trick, that -- lying while mute.

It's astounding that the press treats Dion's every utterance as though it is both credible and news.

canadianna

One more reason not to vote Liberal

Ooops. They got him! Stephen Harper is offically human.

Um, Liberal war room? The differences between Mr. Harper's flub and Mr. Dion's meltdown are astronomical.

First, Harper didn't ask for a do-over. He misspoke and moved on.

Second, you were able to figure out what Harper meant to say. Even the Liberal war room has no clue what Dion was trying to say in that interview.

Third, even you concede that the average family has benefitted by $3,000 thanks to the Harper government. That's not chump change to the average household. Do you think we like the idea of that cash being clawed back through an onerous carbon tax imposed by the new Red-Green regime?

Thank you Liberal war room, for pointing out yet another reason not to vote for Stephane Dion and his band of merry taxers.

Liberals -- always there for you -- with their hands out.

canadianna

Pardon moi?

A man who was able to keep up and listen to four other debaters and a moderator during the debates is now using a disability as an excuse for not being able to answer questions intelligibly one on one?

Score points by getting the sympathy vote. The Liberal way. Win by any means. The disability excuse is just an example of deflection -- make the Conservatives look bad for pointing out how bad Dion looked.

You blew it Stephane. Face it and move on and stop trying to blame other people.

canadianna

"Not Conservative"

It amazes me how many people are willing to jump onto the ABC bandwagon or buy into the 'Stop Harper' campaigns. With little thought to what the 'Anybody' in ABC might be putting forward in their own campaign, it seems many people are ready to define themselves as 'not Conservative'.

Congratulations. That's so clever. Well, if being 'not Conservative' is your main reason for voting for 'Anybody' else, then there are a few things you might want to think about before marking that ballot.

Stephen Harper is the only leader not panicking over the economy.

Who do you want at the helm-- a harried, worried scaremonger who sees icebergs and storms in every direction and who will run us aground or scurry for the nearest port? Or a calm, rational leader whose nerves are steady enough that he can steer through the crisis, not into it?

Personally, I'd go for the level-headed guy. Fear is self-fulfilling and panic-begets-panic-begets-crisis. Harper has been navigating choppy waters without getting into a tizzy like Dion, Layton and May. If he doesn't seem empathetic enough, thank God. There's someone who's keeping his head while those around him are losing theirs. If it seems cold or unkind -- I'll take it. It means he's not being governed by fear or emotion and guess what -- that's a good thing.

If you're simply anti-Conservative because you're stuck in the 'don't scare me' frame of mind -- then you are scary because the Conservatives are the only ones looking forward on the economy instead of trying to reach back.

Call me crazy, but I'm not surprised that Canada is losing jobs in the manufacturing sector -- are you?

In global economy, first world manufacturers with their nifty benefit packages, pension plans and high hourly wages are not competitive. Thanks Buzz, Sid, Jack and your ilk for years of amazing labour negotiations that have brought us to this point. The truth hurts -- you had it great when the economy was good and now that things are going down -- you're being hit hard. It's sad and I feel for all the people who are victims of it -- but the Conservatives aren't lamenting manufacturing job losses as much as they're committed to creating jobs in other sectors. Doesn't that make sense -- to open ourselves up to fields where we can be leaders and competitive?

We're never going to go back to the days where GM and Ford and their feeder companies make up a huge portion of the labour force of Ontario -- we need innovation. We don't need leaders who are looking wistfully to yesterday -- we need people who can focus on the future. Yes, manufacturing jobs have been lost -- but more and different jobs are being created and there are new strategies for job retraining. Maybe you won't have all the union perqs but it's a far brighter future than trying to reach back for something that's long gone to another country that can do it much, much cheaper.

The Liberals and NDP have to start living in today's world. The corporate 'tax cuts' or the NDP derides? What about all the corporate welfare that's been happening in the auto sector and for Bombardier -- that's okay? Yes, yes it is. Just like it's okay to get abortions in private clinics but not MRIs -- because one is politically correct and the other not. One pleases a particular interest group, the other not -- but corporate tax cuts are not gifts to the devil as Jack would have you believe.

What Jack fails to grasp -- or grasps but hopes the ABCers don't, is that it's the corporations who create and maintain jobs. If they don't like the tax laws, they ain't staying. It's a buyers market. They can shop around for the best tax deals and if those deals happen to be in Mexico or China or Wisconsin -- those corporations aren't going to give a damn about your family, your mortgage, your car payments. Business is business -- a favourable tax climate for business is a good thing -- which is why Jim Flaherty said that Ontario is the last place companies would want to invest -- the tax burden on the business doesn't make it profitable -- WHY SHOULD THEY COME and WHY SHOULD THEY STAY?
If we want companies to invest here, we have to make it worth their while. Dalton, Dion and Layton don't get that.

If you're voting 'not Conservative' because you think that's going to help the arts -- then think again. Did any of you read the National Post editorial that detailed some of the benefactors of 'arts funding'? According to the Post, advertising companies receive the largest portion of 'arts funding'. So, you get to give money to the government, who hands it to the ad company, who creates and ad to get you to buy their product with what little money you have left after you've given so generously to the taxman. And this is what you believe in?

I never used to believe that very many people defined themselves as 'not American' rather than putting any real thought into what it meant to be a Canadian. Why would anyone define themselves as 'not something'. Most of us know that to be Canadian holds special significance -- it means respect for authority, listening politely to the other guy but thinking independently. It means being ready to stand up for what's right and having the muscle to back it. Being Canadian means quiet strength, it means honesty and integrity, it means seeing the whole picture -- not just the few pixels we ourselves inhabit. In my opinion, the Conservatives -- even with their decidedly unconservative tilt since forming government -- best represent Canadian values and they are prepared to define themselves, rather than rant that at least they're not the other guy.

Stephen Harper isn't perfect and the Conservative Party platform falls far short of what most conservatives would prefer. Far from being ultra-right wing, the Conservatives have pulled the party left because they are seeing the whole picture, and are calmly leading into future. Harper showed quiet strength at the debates and he's showing it each day throughout this campaign. I'm surprised at his patience in the face of some of the vile comments and insults that have been hurled at him.

What does Anybody else have to offer? Oh yeah. 'Vote for me because I'm not him and I'm also not American or George Bush.' They are defining themselves by what they are not -- 'not Conservative'. All that really means is they are not prepared to move forward -- they are still looking back to a global economy that no longer exists and to three elections ago when Canadians didn't know who Stephen Harper was. They think we'll be swayed by dark, shadowy images flashing across our television screens. The Liberal team is banking on us not figuring it out -- if the Liberals are the fall-back guy, then they really don't have anything to offer and they hope that if they scare us enough, we won't notice.

The Liberals think we're stupid. I hope we don't prove them right on election day.

canadianna

Local candidate has bangs and glasses!!!

Breaking news -- The woman on the right is running for the Liberals in the GTA -- and it isn't Sarah Palin. Would you have realized that if I hadn't told you? And guess what? She has bangs and glasses and a smile and apparently -- that's enough to get her free publicity from CityTV.

In the news item titled: Local Candidate Bears Uncanny Resemblance To Sarah Palin we're told of the remarkable similarities (and of course the stark hair colour and political differences) between the two women.

"It's absolutely uncanny," says a member of the CityTv news staff who has too much time and too little to think about. "She has ears, nose and a chin too. They could be twins. Even their first names start with the same letter. It's enough to just give you chills."

Apparently, someone got paid to think this up and write about it.

canadianna

A tale of two speeches

Advice to Stephen Harper: Stand behind your Iraq speech.

Everyone should know that speechwriters DO NOT shape foreign policy. They reflect the ideas and ideals of the person to be delivering the speech. For Bob Rae to suggest that Harper can't be trusted with Canada's foreign policy issues because he couldn't express his position on Iraq "in his own words" is insulting -- not to Harper, but to Canadians. He expects we are stupid enough not to understand the role of speechwriters. Plagiarism is wrong -- the message was correct.

Having read the speeches side-by-side , I see that the similarities are in the history leading to the amassing of troops on Iraq's border but in the areas where Harper outlines his vision for Canada, they diverge completely. There is no text in Howard's version where Harper stresses Canadian history and values and their role in determining our attitude towards the war.

There is nothing in Harper's speech that suggests we should send military support -- in fact he says:

The coalition assembled by the United States and the United Kingdom is now ready to act. It is now acting. It will bring this long run conflict to an end once and for all. It will bring to an end the regime of Saddam Hussein and the militarism, brutality and aggression that are the foundations of his rule. (...) We will not be neutral. We will be with our allies and our friends, not militarily, but in spirit we will be with them in America and in Britain for a short and successful conflict and for the liberation of the people of Iraq.

Throughout the text you find no suggestion that Canada send troops -- simply, that we support the rightness of the coalition position -- that Saddam Hussein had failed to comply with UN resolutions and that military intervention was therefore mandated by the UN.

Let's remember too, that those countries opposed to military intervention have been found to have been involved in the Oil-for-food scandal. France, Russia, China -- are we still proud to be on their side?

The war in Iraq has taken far longer than anticipated. It has taken a toll on Americans and Iraqis both financially and militarily -- but the fact remains -- Canada was never going to send troops -- we had no troops. All the Canadian Alliance Party was offering to the US was moral support. It was offering an acknowledgement that their position --- that Saddam had failed to comply with the conditions for ceasefire and still posed a threat to the world, was a valid one. It could be argued that he didn't pose a threat because he had no WMD -- but given his ties to China and Russia and what we now know about their roles in the 'peace' between the two Gulf Wars, it's a good thing those relationships were nipped when they were.

Harper should not back down. Go through the speech. He doesn't offer Canadian soldiers -- he offers Canadian moral support. It could be argued that if Canada had supported the coalition position that war might have been prevented. We see ourselves as the righteous brokers of peace -- had we said YES, the the US and its allies have the right and responsibility to move in and fulfill the obligations under the UN resolution -- then maybe Saddam might have seen it wasn't just the countries who were dirty-dealing with him who were on his side. If a 'moral' nation like Canada had said 'we insist you comply or be invaded.' maybe he would have listened. He knew that Russia, France and China had too much to lose to align themselves with the US. He knew he could count on their support because if they sided with the coalition, it would expose their corruption and duplicity.

We can still debate the Iraq war, whether it was a success etc. But there is still no question -- I'd still rather be aligned with those who fought against Saddam, than those who tried to hide their corruption by supporting Saddam.

canadianna