The Barley Election

I want it to be on the record that I would be more than happy to fight an election on the issue of the wheat board.

From the National Post:

CALGARY -In the past few days, federal Conservatives have stared down their Liberal opponents by threatening an election over such weighty national issues as the mission in Afghanistan, the federal budget and the crime bill. Emboldened by their apparently unchallenged power in the House, the Tories are preparing for their next potential parliamentary standoff, this time over -- would you believe? --barley.

As early as today, federal Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz will announce legislation to end the Canadian Wheat Board's hegemony over malt barley sales, something the Liberals oppose.

Granted, with Stephane Dion's blood billowing in the political waters, it is tempting to believe the Conservatives see a licence to feast freely on the Opposition leader on any issue, no matter how marginal. And ending the Wheat Board monopoly may indeed seem like small fish to most Canadians. Not to Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Off the national radar, the Tories have doggedly fought to free farmers for two years: In 2006, long before they came for the nuclear safety commissioner, the Tories canned Adrian Measner, CWB president, for being unco-operative; they replaced Liberal-appointed board directors with more market-friendly types, obtaining a gag order on remaining dissidents; they held a Prairie-wide plebiscite among barley growers on the question of opting out of board control and, finding a majority in favour, altered regulations to allow it.

When the CWB argued that changes must come from Parliament, not Cabinet, the Tories fought them in court. The government lost, on appeal, on Tuesday, leading Mr. Ritz to declare he'll pass whatever laws necessary to break the monopoly's back.

Letting farmers out of the Wheat Board (it controls grains produced in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta) was a Tory election promise.

The government explicitly vowed in October's Speech from the Throne to bring "marketing choice" to barley producers. Any pledges the opposition allowed to pass in the Throne Speech, Mr. Harper made clear last fall, he considers part of a "mandate to govern" -- in other words, a matter of confidence.

One senior government source suggests the new Wheat Board bill could well be made a confidence vote. "We're looking at all options." The government, he says, remains fully "committed to marketing choice for Western grain farmers."

Feelings run as strong on the Liberal side. Regina MP Ralph Goodale told reporters in January he "can't imagine a circumstance where the Liberal party would vote for a piece of legislation that attempted to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board."

In April, Mr. Dion assured Saskatchewan supporters he would not "let down" the CWB. Should it come to a vote, says one Dion advisor, "there is a very vibrant and aggressive farming faction among our rural caucus … between them and Ralph, I would expect that a lot of urban MPs will take their lead from them."

The Wheat Board may be as alien to Vancouverites, Torontonians or Montrealers

as the finer points of animal husbandry, but in this game of chicken, both parties have much at stake: The Conservatives, invested heavily in the cause, have a promise to keep to free-market Westerners, who consider this every bit as important as any crime bill.

Both Saskatchewan and Alberta governments favour deregulation. And as grain prices break records, and the gap grows between board prices and what U.S. farmers fetch, there may be more now than the 62% of producers who voted pro-choice last year, and they're likely more agitated.

"It's entirely possible they [the Conservatives] will want to poke the Liberals on this," says Rolf Penner, a Manitoba farmer and director of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association.

But the Liberals have staked a reputation on the status quo. "I have a hard time seeing how they could vote against the Wheat Board."

Meantime, the budget and Afghanistan is one thing: the Liberals folding on something as politically midget as this could officially make Mr. Dion the Tories' parliamentary doormat.

Neither side can relish the idea of heading to the polls over something immaterial to roughly 97% of Canadians. Yet, there are few options. The Tories, say insiders, know this is a showdown with Mr. Dion: the NDP likes the board's communalism; the Bloc worries that watering down CWB power undermines the related supply-management regime that keeps Quebec dairy farmers cosseted from competition.

There may be one face-saving measure for both sides, says Nelson Wiseman, a University of Toronto political science professor: Punting the bill to committee where it will, hopefully, languish long enough to let some other, more resonant matter, trigger an election.

At least then, the Conservatives can list their stymied reform attempts among the reasons they need a majority. And Liberals won't be left explaining to voters why they could manage parliamentary peace on the issue of troops in Afghanistan, but not on Western farmers selling barley in the private market.

How Mr. Walkom made me love the budget

The Toronto Star columnist, Thomas Walkom, wrote what I am sure he considers a scathing attack on yesterday’s budget. I was lukewarm about the budget. There was nothing in it that I would describe as a disaster but nothing that made me leap for joy. This tax free saving account thing is small tinkering that ultimately just makes the tax system more complex. I simply dismissed it as unimportant.

Then I read the Walkom column.

“What is so clever...about [Flahety’s] budget is that it satisfies both the short-term tactical needs of the governing Conservatives and their long-term ideological goals.”

This perked my ears. Was there some hidden bit of principled Conservatism in a rather dull budget? To my surprise he was referring to the tax-free saving accounts.

“It is a small but important step toward implementing one of the political right’s great dreams: neutralizing the progressive income tax system so that rich pay less while the poor and middle classes pay more.”

Huh?

How does not taxing investment revenue (or rather not taxing it twice) result in the poor and middle classes paying more? Isn’t it the middle class that makes up the core of the country’s investing population? Won’t they benefit from this the most?

Leaving aside the fact that the man is an idiot, I find it interesting that he sees this rather small move as a long term threat. Could this be part of an overall plan to create a fair tax system? If so this is a rather underhanded method but it is certainly fantastic that we are moving in that direction.

“So give the Harperites credit. In previous budgets, this minority government – through massive tax cuts that built on the work of the Liberal regime – has taken great strides toward gutting the fiscal capacity of the state. In this budget, it goes one stage further.”

Wow…Harper should really take this guy out campaigning for him. I have never been as excited by this government as I am when I read those words.

Mr. Walkom, thank you for opening my eyes.

“They are revolutionaries with a long view. This budget is merely another step in Stephen Harper’s long march.”

Two thirds of a party does not win elections

It has been a few days now and I have not written down my thoughts on last weekend’s convention. This has been partially because I have taken some time to gather those thoughts and partially because my intellectual energy has been occupied elsewhere (I have a test on Karl Marx tomorrow if you can believe that).

At this late date I won’t rehash the bizarreness that was this convention. I think that is sufficiently done elsewhere. Instead I think I will concentrate on the insanity of John Tory’s decision and the pending doom of the conservative coalition.

On the face of it 66.87% is a huge amount of support. Anyone who gets that in an election should feel really good about themselves. This, however, was not an election. The rules of what is and is not a victory is very different.

The leader of a Canadian Party is immensely powerful. They have an incredible amount of say over party operations. They decide who is in and who is out. The result is that there is always a certain amount of blind demagoguery around the leader. You must have heard the Orwellian phrase, “We must support the leader” repeated several times in the last few months.

The result of this is that the leader, any leader, will always receive more support than they really deserve. Thus the threshold of what is and what is not approval should be set higher than pass or fail.

Even if what I wrote above is not true; even if the leader does not use the power of their office to fight for their political life, 66.87% is simply not enough.

I would imagine that most of you are familiar with the term brokerage party and that most of you have a rough idea of what that means. Basically a brokerage party exists because not a single segment of society is powerful enough to form a government. ‘Segments of society’ can be described as ideology, region, class, religion, age, gender or if you like to wear funny hats. It does not matter. The point is that a Canadian political party is a coalition that only succeeds when all the elements of that coalition work towards an election.

What last weekend indicates is that the Progressive Conservative coalition is collapsing. If you take a look at the sort of people that voted Yes you see clearly who is dissatisfied. You have ‘small government conservatives’, land owner society conservatives, and social conservatives. All of those groups are needed to win an election and all of those groups generally voted Yes.

The attitude of the No supporters appears to be basically that these people have nowhere else to go. One of the No supporters said to a friend of mine, “at least the party is united now.” The basic assumption being that everyone in the coalition will reunite simply out of habit.

The reality is that it is true that these groups have nowhere to go. And that is exactly where they will go, nowhere; they will stay at home and watch tv. They don’t have to campaign during an election. They don’t have to even vote. The great defeat in October clearly demonstrates a willingness to sit on hands.

It is difficult for me to comprehend how someone who has spent more time in politics than I’ve been alive does not grasp these simple realities. Especially since the man learned this lesson in the 1993 election. Political parties do no own votes in the bank. Every single vote must be earned. Every single voter must be motivated.

In 2011 2/3rds of a conservative coalition will be facing a united and established liberal coalition. What chances do you really give of victory?

Mr. John Tory you will simply never be Premier.

A difference that could make a difference for Cuba

I found a difference between Obama and Clinton. I’m always happy whenever I discover some minute detail that is different in their policy plan. It makes me think that maybe someone out there is supporting one of these candidates not because of which ‘history’ they want to make but what kind of government they want.

The difference is in Cuba.

According to AlterNet (The mix is the message?) the difference is that Obama wants to loosen restrictions and has shown a greater willingness to deal with a post-Castro Cuba.

I don’t actually think that Cuba is going to be that different than it was before. His brother seems to have been running everything anyway. This can hardly be called a generational passing of the guard. An uprising doesn’t seem that likely either. I saw on CBC that the standard of living is improving. People don’t revolt when things are getting better.

US policy on Cuba has been stupid for about 17 years now. And if you want proof you can just look at the improving standard of living. Why is that happening? Because Cuba has a booming tourist industry.

I live with someone that makes regular trips to the Cuban beach. Those hotels are like capitalist enclaves in a communist world. Does that sound familiar to you? Does that sound like another communist country named China?

I’ve heard the argument from many different intelligent people from many different backgrounds. By trading with China we help ensure peace and it will ultimately help reform the Chinese state. Perhaps because trade drives up the standard of living it will give the Chinese people a chance to demand more rights. Perhaps it could lead to the down fall of communist China.

So what’s good for this red is not good for that red? I would think that it would work even better in Cuba. People buy American goods and get a taste of American life style. They get to talk to their cousins that live and vote in America. They start wanting other things that Americans have.

It may not work. It may be a pie in the sky idea, but really how good is the embargo thing working out?

So on this at least, Obama would make the better President.

Let's do the time warp again

Generally I don’t bother giving blame when these little moments of cross government spitting contests breaks out. Yet this time around, my provincial government pissed me off a lot more than my federal government.

Dalton says that Harper is caught in a time warp.

Mr. McGuinty said the Harper government's hands-off style - one that he said offers tax cuts for corporations but little in the way of strategic investments for ailing sectors - is a relic of a bygone era.

"I think their approach is caught up in a time warp that better suited a day when change moved at a much slower pace," Mr. McGuinty said in an interview with The Globe and Mail.

Are you kidding me? Are you seriously not kidding me? Strategic investment into ailing sectors? Are you talking about keynesianeconomics? And you say Harper is stuck in a time warp? Didn’t the 60s, 70s and 80s all prove you wrong? Wasn’t that basically what the 80s and 90s was about? Everyone realizing that government interference in the free market ultimately hurt the economy.

"There are actually not many people left who hold the view of Mr. Flaherty, which says just cut taxes, back away and let the economic forces play themselves out," Mr. McGuinty said. "I think the progressive modern view on growing your economy is one where you come to the table."

Who the hell is McGuinty talking to? Do you really need a list of people that still believe that the free market is a good thing? What the hell does “come to the table” mean anyway? All that corporate welfare does is attract the greedy and the lazy; people that are in it for a quick buck or to leach of the body politic. Low taxes attract people that want to build companies and create lasting jobs. I think that the Fraser Institute should invite Dalton to the next student seminar.

Dion throws in his two worthless cents.

"After only two years of Conservative government, the cupboard is bare, manufacturing sales have plummeted to a three-year low, and Canada's trade surplus has shrunk to its lowest levels in nearly a decade," Mr. Dion told a gathering of Quebec manufacturers and exporters in Montreal.

How exactly it is Harper’s fault that the American dollar is shrinking is not clear to me, but there you have it. Dion would fix the problem, presumably by printing off more money so that the dollar would go down.

Then you read that Flaherty says that Dalton lacks vision.

The McGuinty government suffers from a “lack of leadership, a lack of vision and a lack of economic stewardship,” he said in an early morning speech in Toronto to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. The provincial government “fails to understand the long-term benefits of tax relief,” he added.

The business tax burden is putting Ontario manufacturers at a disadvantage, Mr. Flaherty said. It is also driving away new business investment.

Bailing out individual industries “is just the kind of protectionism that hurts trade and kills jobs” he said.

While Ontario was once the economic engine of Canada, things have changed and “Ontario is failing to adapt to that change,” he said. While the province was “carefully managed” in the post-war period, with prudent fiscal management and spending, that is no longer the case, he said.

He praised the B.C. government, which said on Tuesday it will reduce business taxes.

My province’s response to this well articulated and clear economic arguments?

They called him a liar.

What lies he told I don’t know, they didn’t say. I look at what the Globe and Mail reported that Flaherty said and I can see no lies there. So what is the issue? Did the Ontario Minister hear truth in Flaherty, but because it did not mesh with her universe she had to call them lies?

There is a definite right position here and a wrong one. Mr. Flaherty is in the right.

This is why everyone thinks you are a wuss

Dion is backing down from yet another election threat. This story is getting old and very tiresome.

1. 1 .The Conservatives give the Liberals an opportunity to be brought to an election.

2. 2. Dion looks like he’s playing with the idea.

3. 3. Dion makes demands.

4. 4. Everyone gets excited about an election.

5. 5. Dion finds some excuse to withdraw his demands.

6. 6. In about two months repeat.

This time was especially pathetic. This is what he said according to the Globe and Mail.

“But we also have to respect the decision of the voters in 2006,” he said, referring to the Conservative victory in the last federal election. Therefore, if it's a budget that appears to us as being acceptable or at least not too harmful for the Canadian economy, we could let it pass and avoid $350-million in [taxpayer] expenses for an election,” the Liberal Leader said.

Respect the voters? They gave you a minority Parliament. It is your job to oppose and then let the voters decide who is right. No one had a problem with disrespecting voters when Joe Clark was Prime Miniter. So how is that anything but a lame excuse?

And don’t you dare talk about the cost of democracy. This is one of the excuses I’ve heard over and over again that pisses me off. Yes elections cost money. Do I regret the government to have to pay for it? No not for one second, democracy is cheap at a hundred times the price.

The best part is if the budget doesn’t appear to be too harmful. If the budget only does a little bit of harm to Canada but not too much it is alright. How do you think he is going to measure it? If there is a budget that makes things worse for 100 more people that’s fine but not for a thousand more people. I just really like that Dion would support something that he thought would do Canada any harm at all. It certainly explains his stance on Kyoto.

Dion also says, "It won’t be a Liberal Budget.”

Well, no it won’t be, Mr. Dion. And the more you take us through the six steps the less likely it will ever be a Liberal budget again.

I finally figured out how to upload pictures

Says just about everything you need to know about government regulation.

Happy Election Promise Day

Today is Ontario's first "Family Day". I did not see any member of my family today. I did talk to my parents twice, but that was in the normal course of my daily activities. I spent most of the day recovering from a hangover and being annoyed that none of the Rogers stores are open.

This is the most pointless day off in the history of days off. Granted I am a little bitter that today is also the first day of my reading week, but that is not the sole reason for my disapproval.

How much economic activity is lost today? Certainly the extra tourist dollars are not enough to make up for it. Why do we have to clog the highways and inconvenience people that want to return a cable box? What good is this day really doing?

I heard that Jack Layton wants to make "Family Day" a national holiday (I promptly sacrificed the integrity of this blog by not looking it up to verify). That is just one more reason to dislike the Dippers.

Laurier Quotes

I watched a play the other day about Wilfred Laurier. It was cleverly called Laurier. It was an interesting play, if you like that sort of thing. Part of the dialogue was taken from actual speeches made by Laurier. (I recognized the speeches because I’m a dork that way) It made me wonder how much people know the sort of things that Laurier said.

I denounce the policy of protection as bondage - yea, bondage; and I refer to bondage in the same manner in which American slavery was bondage.

I am a subject of the British Crown, but whenever I have to choose between the interests of England and Canada it is manifest to me that the interests of my country are identical with those of the United States of America.

Let them look to the past, but let them also look to the future; let them look to the land of their ancestors, but let them look also to the land of their children.

Two races share today the soil of Canada. These people had not always been friends. But I hasten to say it. There is no longer any family here but the human family. It matters not the language people speak, or the altars at which they kneel.

I appeal now to any friend of liberty in this House; I appeal not only to the Liberals who sit beside me, but to any man who has a British heart in his breast, and I ask, when Subjects of her Majesty have been petitioning for years for their rights, and these rights have not only been ignored, but have been denied, and when these men take their lives in their hands and rebel, will any one in this House say that these men, when they got their rights, should not have saved their heads as well, and that criminals, if there were criminals in this rebellion, are not those who fought and bled and died, but the men who sit on these Treasury benches? Sir, rebellion is always an evil, it is always an offence against the positive law of a nation; it is not always a moral crime.

We can call it a maligan

Yesterday I canvassed for Don Meredith, the Conservative candidate in the Toronto-Center bi-election. A few of the canvassed said something along the lines of, “I’m going to vote for Bob Rae because he is a big name and he can get things for the riding.”

There is a certain philosophy here that breaks the heart of anyone who dislikes big government. The citizens of Rodedale (at least some of them) are voting based on who can get the most pork. What hurts even more is that I think they are wrong. If Meredith wins then he will be the only MP from Toronto on the government bench. That puts him in a much better position to get pork than a leading member of the opposition.

What startled me the most about the canvassing is that I did not hear anything about Mr. Rae’s time as a premier. I would have thought that the residents of Rosedale would remember the economic disaster and hold it against him. Yet the income trust issue came up more often than almost destroying Canada’s biggest province.

When Rae ran for leader I commented, and have said since, that it would be the height of irony if the first Premier to become Prime Minister in Canadian history was also the worst Premier in Canadian history. There seems to be something mildly Canadian about that.

What is Freedom?

So much of philosophical discourse is about the achievement of freedom. Marx was a writer that spoke of freedom, but now many consider his ideas to be the antithesis of freedom. Similarly in politics, we find our leaders declaring that this policy or that policy will lead to greater freedom. Sometimes these policies seem to contradict the ideas of freedom. Can holding someone without appeal or chance of release be done in the cause of freedom? There are statesmen that claim that it can and it does.

How do we reconcile this? How do we understand what is meant when someone says freedom? If life is determined by nature or by society, can we actually be free? Do we make choices or do we simply accept the inevitable?

Both Hegel and Marx say that it is not enough to simply fulfill the minimums of survival. To be free, they say, we must be able to determine ourselves. In the case of Marx we must be able to determine our own productivity. Their idea of freedom is limited to deciding what we produce or what we are. They dismiss freedom in making choices based on desires. If we act on our desires alone we are not free.

Food, drink, sex, and sleep are all the baser desires that are determined by nature. Animals have these desires and they do not belong to the higher will of a human. To be free a human must examine themselves and determine from there. They must do this in a rational way that is not enslaved by desires.

That is crap.

There is nothing that a human being does anywhere at any time that is not done because of some desire. The concept that we have a will above our desires is simply contradictory to observable human nature. The desires of humanity are many and complex, but desire is always at the core of every action. It does not matter how obscure or destructive that desire is, it is there.

So are we then merely slaves to desire? If we do not act without desire then how can we choice our actions, since we cannot choice our desires.

The crucial reality is that we never at one time have one desire. I have a desire to be healthy and live a long time. I also have a desire to drink a 7-11 Slushie everyday (no matter how cold it is outside). These desires are contradictory. I examine both desires, the long term and short term gratification. I then choose which of my desires will determine my action.

This is really a concept that is understood by economists. Economics is the true study of human nature. In economics we see ideas such as opportunity cost, marginal utility, and delayed gratifications. These are the results and indications of our desires being in conflict.

Once I have chosen a desire I act on that desire, but what if I fail? If I decide that I want a slushie but I do not have $1.80 to buy one, am I still free? I could use violence to gain my desire (the state is there to stop me from doing so, but that is another story for another day). What happens if I am overpowered and still do not achieve my desire, am I still free?

Freedom does not guarantee gratification. If what you want is not accomplished it is not a failure of freedom it is a failure of ability. You can gather resources or train to gain ability, but even then freedom does not promise victory.

What freedom does is allow you to try. I am free to act on my desire to have a slushie, but the slushie is not free simply because I desire it.

You are not free when force is used against you to prevent you from achieving your desire. If after buying a slushie I am attacked and my slushie is stolen from me then my attacker has robbed me of my desire. I am unable to actualize my freedom due to no fault of my ability.

It is similar to when the state bans or forbids an activity or product. The state is using force to prevent people from gaining their desire and actualizing their freedom. If the state declares that slushies may be no longer sold, the choice of fulfilling my desire for slushies has been taken from me.

Considering all of this, I will define freedom in this way:

Freedom is the ability to pursue a desire without coercion or threat.

Victory

According to the Western Standard the charges against Ezra Levant are being dropped. There was a lot of talk about how it became clear that this was a free speech issue and how Canadians are mature enough to see a picture of a dead religious figure. I agree with what Levant said; I don’t believe for a second that these are the true feelings of Soharwardy. He is just realized that Levant is not an easy target; it does not mean that he won’t bring me or you to charges for doing something similar.

At any rate this is a victory. Levant proved that if you stand your ground and make your case rationally you can prevail. It wasn’t easy to be sure. I’m glad to see that he is bringing a civil suit to regain the costs for his defense (time and energy). If he wins it could make people in the future more hesitant to use the CHRC as a weapon.

I wish that my Conservative government would do more about the CHRC. I was sent a copy of the talking points memo that is disseminating. I find the answers that the Members are told to give insulting.

· The Government of Canada is committed to the protection and promotion of human rights.

· Canada’s record on human rights is second to none. It is a record for which all Canadians can be proud

Yes I know that Canada likes human rights. Our record is not nearly as good as we like to pretend but it is pretty decent. With our love and protection of rights should we not get rid of an institution that does not follow due process and curb free speech? Or should we blindly support anything that invokes the word ‘right’?

The memo also says that the government’s main goal is removing Section 67.

Removing Section 67 will expand the jurisdiction of the CHRC to the native population. So in a time that people everywhere are challenging the usefulness of the CHRC, the government is trying to expand it.

So good news everyone, we have won a battle. Now we have to win the war.

A stupid Liberal video

My girlfriend sent me this video a while ago. I didn’t notice it till now because there is so much junk in my Facebook messaging.

This has to be the dumbest video I have ever seen, and I’ve seen a lot of idiocy in my time.

What the video does it take a few quotes from a few people and try to paint the entire Conservative Party that way. Are they shocked that people have these opinions? Are they really surprised that some people are against abortion and for the death penalty? Certainly I’ve met Conservatives that fit that description, but I have also met the odd Liberal who would agree.

The reasoning of this video is just so bizarre I don’t know what to say. Just because someone is in a group doesn’t mean that person supports everything that is said in the group. If I supported everything said in the groups I’m in, I would be truly insane.

Also notice that none of the CPC interns, staffers, or Parliamentarians are the people whose opinion they highlighted. I don’t know who those people are. They may be members of the party they may not be. They may be political activists or they could be just individuals voicing an opinion. You don’t know and I don’t know. How could you reach the conclusion that these were representative of the entire party?

As for the related groups, of course they are heavily Conservative. It was a group supporting Conservative policy; you would think Conservatives would tend to support it. This does not make it a Conservative Party group or mean that it is completely made up with Conservatives. I have been part of groups that had Liberal related groups. It happens.

A fun side note, one of the related groups is a group I created. A special prize will go to the first person that can guess which one.

Mail your MP, tell them to do nothing

Andrew Coyne makes a cry for sanity in his Maclean’s article “The best stimulus is no stimulus at all.” He points out that Keynesian economics has been over and over again proven to be flawed. He even mentions the mighty Hayek when he says, “it turned what was previously a vice – government profligacy – into a virtue”

What Coyne alluded to briefly but did not address was the intense political pressure for the government to do something. The people expect the government to fix all the problems of the world. Why wouldn’t they think so? They are constantly being told, during elections, that if you vote this way or that the world will become a utopia. Politicians raise expectations. The electorate expects the elected to do something.

Hobbes actually mentioned this problem. He said that the legislature should not be in session all the time. If they are they would get into mischief and pass laws that are not needed, for lack of anything else to do.

A disciplined and good government will not allow a momentary political problem to harm the economy and ultimately cost people jobs. I hope that such a government is the Harper government.

The best thing that the government can do is create economic conditions that will generally lead to a strong economy. Downturns are inevitable, they are part of life. They are only made worse by increase spending programs.

As Coyne puts it, “The time for inaction is now.”

Chuck Norris style Ron Paul jokes

I got this a few days ago in an e-mail. Not sure where the origin is, but enough of them were funny enough to dissiminate.

1.

Ron Paul invented Chuck Norris.

I just saved a bunch of money by switching to Ron Paul.

Ron Paul's tears can shrink government. Too bad he never cries

Studies by the World Health Organization show that Ron Paul is the leading cause of freedom among men.

Ron Paul took a lie detector test. The lie detector tapped out.

Ron Paul doesn't cut taxes. He kills them with his bare hands.

Jesus wears a wrist band that says "What Would Ron Paul Do?"

While not a proctologist, Ron Paul will save this country's ass.

Ron Paul doesn't go the gym. He stays fit by exercising his civil rights.

Ron Paul delivers babies without his hands. He simply reads them the

Bill of Rights and they crawl out in anticipation of freedom

11.

Ron Paul wasn't born, he liberated himself from the womb.

12.

Ron Paul's idea of Gun Control is both hands on the weapon.

13.

Ron Paul doesn't pee. He liberates urine.

14.

The Chicken crossed the road to vote for Ron Paul.

15.
God calls Ron Paul for advice.

16.

Ron Paul knows dozens of words that rhyme with "orange".

17.

Ron Paul gets high on freedom.

18.

Ron Paul can turn water into the American Flag.

19.

When applied directly to the brain, Ron Paul instantly cures socialism.

20.

Ron Paul doesn't act like a patriot, a patriot acts like Ron Paul.

21.

Ron Paul turned down Superman's job.

22.

Ron Paul can believe its not butter.

23.

In Braveheart, Mel Gibson was originally supposed to scream "RON PAUL!" however, it was changed to just "Freedom!" for legal reasons.

24.

Ron Paul knows how LOST is going to end.

25.

Ron Paul named his fists "Freedom" and "Justice".

26.

When Chuck Norris gets scared, he goes to Ron Paul.

The Race for 6th VP of the PCPO

Regardless if John Tory passes the review or not, the PC Party of Ontario is going to have to take a hard long look at itself. We are going to need executives that know how to build a party and work with others. We will also need some fresh blood.

There are two people running for the position of 6^th VP; Andrew Brander and Robert Elliott. I have known them both for years and have worked with both of them. Of the two I would say that Robert is the better man. I don’t mean just simply in the sense of being a more decent human being, though that is certainly true. I mean in the sense of being better in politics and common sense.

A bit of an incident has recently accord thanks to a picture of Robert standing behind a podium. Brander claimed that he had taken the picture and that Rob was violating copy right laws by using it on his website. Brander has threatened to sue. Now this is a pretty old picture. I’ve seen Rob use it several times in his personal and political life. Brander never complained before

But whatever, the legitimacy of the claim is not what matters here. What concerns me as a party member is how petty this man is. He is simply trying to make a pain of an ass out of himself. He is trying to intimidate and threaten Rob away from challenging him for the 6^th VP.

This is hardly the only time Brander has done this. Most recently there are accusations that he has threatened the OPCYA executive into supporting John Tory. He told them that he would ensure that they fail in politics if they did not sign a letter proclaiming support. He is a bully threatening high school kids and young idealists.

Brander’s antics are usually harmless, but consider this; how would it look for the party if a candidate for the executive sues another candidate for dubious reasons? Brandor is quite simply an embarrassment to the party and the conservative cause.

As I said I have known him for years. I have always found him to be conniving, gossiping, back stabbing, and generally untrustworthy. Rob on the other hand has never been anything but straightforward and honest.

I implore all those that are going to the convention to consider the sort of party executive that we want.

What would you do if you were Dion?

This is an exciting time for those who are political and international relations junkies. The Afghanistan debate is going to be one for the books. There is a confidence motion that threatens to bring us to an election. Also we have a divided Liberal Party with a rather weak leader that is unable to bring the factions together. At the same time the other two opposition parties are digging in their heels and refusing to budge.

What will happen to Liberal Party if they go into the election on this issue? They refused to vote against budget after budget but this they vote against. Would the Liberal Party pull together in hope of winning the election or would they fall apart because they could not agree? Would prominent Liberal members speak out in favour of the mission in the middle of an election? Could Iggy keep his academic mouth shut?

And what happens if the Liberals don’t bring down the government? Dion dithered at the beginning, but now he has made so many definite statements against extension that I don’t see how he can back down. How can he reverse himself or say once again that the Canadian people don’t want an election? Could his leadership survive?

Throw into the mix the hope of France sending their troops into the south. If France comes through it will be a great boost to the hopes of the Afghan people and the efforts of our soldiers. But it will also be a vindication of Harper’s efforts. It would be proof that Canada’s voice and Canada’s demands are acknowledged by the international community. Could Dion honestly claim we could hold on to our position on the world stage if we back away now? Would the Canadian people care?

It is a true Catch-22. Unless Dion turns out to be a stronger campaigner than we are all assuming he is, I don’t know how he survives.

The one way I see him possibly getting out of it is allowing a free vote. He can spin it in a way that could work for him. He is not a dictator like Harper. He allows his people to have a voice. This is an incredibly risky move though. If the vote goes in favour of the motion it makes Dion look weak and disrespected by his own caucus. If the vote leads to an election, the Liberals would have to steal the ballot question to make it something that they can all be united on. How they could do that I don’t know.

CFS-BC Shoots itself in the foot

This goes with my theory that eventually CFS will implode in a grand display of their own incompetence.

Wisdom for all

I had my wisdom teeth pulled out earlier today. It is odd. I suddenly fine that Dalton and Dion are both making much more sense. I can only hope that the loss of my third molars will not lead to a permanent mental crippling.

Perhaps Dion can gain where I have suffered. Specifically I would like him to gain when it comes to dealing with the Afghan mission. He has promised a civilized debate, which is good; this is a serious manner and should be taken seriously.

This debate should be about the future of Afghanistan and the future of Canada’s place in the world. I hope that Dion will recognize how Canada’s interests would be served by an expansion of the mission. I agree with him that our troops should not be there for all eternity, but the progress that have been made by blood and sweat should not be thrown away.

At any rate there should be a lively debate. A debate that I truly hope would not degenerate into partisan mudslinging.

Canadian Federation of Students ban student groups that disagree with them

CFS-Ontario passes pro-life ban motion

Jay LaRochelle

Tuesday, February 5, 2008

The always-controversial abortion debate is heating up across the province after the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) of Ontario passed a contentious motion.

At a conference in January, CFS-Ontario approved a motion to support student unions that wish to ban pro-life groups from their campuses.

The motion was brought forth by the Lakehead University Student Union, that wished to deny official club status to the group Life Support.

Concerns CFS-Ontario would support student unions targeting religious groups that oppose abortion were raised by a representative of the Ryerson Student Union (RSU), who was in attendance at the conference.

Heather Kere, RSU VP-education, proposed an amendment to the motion on the basis the definition of an "anti-choice" group was not clear. The amendment was not passed.

"The amendment was to clarify the language around the past actions of the group that would be denied space," Kere said.

Kere noted pro-life groups should not be banned unless they are harassing students or using sensationalistic imagery. She added the group at Lakehead had behaved inappropriately in the past.

Sandy Hudson, the CFS-Ontario Women's Commissioner, said while the motion is not meant to target religious groups, groups that oppose abortion should not be funded by students.

When asked whether Ryerson students should be exposed to both sides of the abortion issue, Hudson said allowing an anti-choice group would be like allowing a white supremacist group on campus.

Hudson added the literature distributed by Life Support likened abortion to the 1994 genocide in Rwanda and the Holocaust.

The CFS-Ontario decision is welcome news for Joyce Arthur, coordinator of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada.

Arthur believes pro-life groups should not receive support from student unions because they seek to repress human rights. She said these groups are comparable to Neo-Nazi movements.

Jakki Jeffs, executive director of Alliance for Life Ontario, asked why pro-life groups are being targeted by student unions.

"What is so different about a pro-life group other than it is politically incorrect?" she asked.

Although Western's main campus does not have a pro-life group at present, there is one at King's University College.

According to Nathan Welch, a member of King's Live for Life, a pro-life group at King's, the University Students' Council will review an application by students at main campus to establish a pro-life group in the next two weeks.

He said such an application was turned down by a previous council.

I am pro-choice.

This is my money.

My money should either be used to pay for both views to be heard or for neither view to be heard.

I prefer the latter.

The Ron Paul Revolution and the Media

I got called by a pollster yesterday. It was a rather interesting experience. When they asked me to name my top two preferred political parties I had to spell Libertarian for them. (I also had to spell ‘reduce spending’)

The questions they asked me about Canadian politics were all fine. I’m glad to say that the pollsters now know that there is at least one 21 year old that earns less than 14 000 a year that is primarily concerned about taxes and wants the government to cut spending.

The questions asked about American politics made me a little pissed.

First they asked me who I which of the two front runners for the Democratic Party do I support; Obama or Clinton. I pointed out that they were not the front runners, they were the only candidates, but that’s not what pissed me off.

They then asked me which of the three front runners for the Republicans do I support; Romney, McCain, or Huckabee.

They asked me about 5 candidates and there are 6 candidates still in the race. How much more effort would it have cost them to ask me if I supported Ron Paul? Would they have had to pay the woman more or something?

I never expected Ron Paul to win. There was too much inertia for one man to overcome. The beauty of his campaign is that he was the first step to overcoming that inertia. He was finally, after all these years, someone who was saying those things on that stage. The problem is the whole point is defeated if the political establishment do not see that he has large and wide spread support. The point is defeated if pollsters do not ask if I support Ron Paul and his ideas.

I realize that a Canadian poll isn’t that big of a deal. It’s rather academic to consider how many Canadians support which candidate for a foreign election. But if they were going to ask me about any of them or some of them or even 5 sixths of the candidates, why wouldn’t they ask me about all of them?

I insisted on saying Ron Paul anyway. I have a hope that there was a space to write Ron Paul on the answer sheet. But somehow I doubt it.

Remember a few days ago, the Republican debate? The vast majority of the questions were directed to McCain, Romney, or all 4 of the candidates. Huckabee and Ron Paul were basically spectators. Ron Paul came in second in several states, so it’s not like he is completely irrelevant. He has proven that he does have a significant constituency in the Republican Party.

He lost that chance to stand up and speak.

The media have not been completely ignoring him. How could they really? But they refuse to treat him in a serious manner.

Dismount please and look at what the HRC is doing

There is a Canadian Press story about the Keith Martin’s private member’s bill. It’s already been commented on by Small Dead Animals, but I figured I’d send in my two cents.

The story starts out by saying that the legislation is being supported by Stormfront, a white power group. The article tries to suggest guilt by association, similar to what has often been laid on Ron Paul. It is also suggested that the legislation would be of benefit to this group, thus the legislation indirectly helps racism.

The reality is that Ezra Levant already gave us the best solution to deal with these people. Shun them. The greatest weapon against racists isn’t to shut them up but to allow them to speak so that people can denounce or ignore them.

The article goes on to allow Keith Martin to make his case. He points out that he is a brown guy and thus not really on friendly terms with Stormfront. He also says “To not be offended is not a right. Free speech is a right.” Which I think sums it up nicely.

Dion is of course weak on this issue. He even says that he may ask Martin to withdraw the legislation. The article did not give any of Dion’s reasons for wanting to do this, and I would think that an academic would have a sophisticated opinion on the matters of rights and justice. But really I think he supports the Human Rights Commission because it has the words human rights in it.

The NDP are also as easily duped. NDP Wayne Martson is “deeply troubled” that a Liberal would think for themselves. She figures that the Human Rights Commission can get rid of frivolous claims. What claims under the section Martin wants to get rid of are not frivolous? Anytime someone demands money from someone else because that person said something they don’t like is simply silly. If they feel like they are being harassed they should go to the police. Otherwise act like an adult and ignore them. Just as I ignore people when they say I’m racist for calling Afghanistan underdeveloped.

The bottom line is that I think Levant and Martin can turn public opinion away from the Human Rights Commission. The Liberals and the NDP have to get off their high horse and take another look at the HRC.

Wall Street Journal on Afghanistan

Here is a link to what the Wall Street Journal had to say about Afghanistan on Friday.

The Afghanistan Mission has long been heralded as demonstrating wither or not NATO will continue to be relevant in the new century. Sadly many of the members are failing to contribute. If France and Germany don't step up to the plate, it may be time to end the alliance.

Reality Check your logic at the door

The “reality checks” that are released by Together with Tory are increasing in its stupidity.

The op-ed claims to correct “myths” but does little more than to perpetuate them. Here is what’s wrong with the op-ed:

Claim: “Grassroots PC released a list of 50 people who would be excellent candidates to replace John Tory.”

Reality: Rueben Devlin has picked 50 names out of a hat, including all 26 members of Caucus and numerous people without any political ambition or experience within our Party. Many of the people Devlin picked have already declared their support for John Tory.

26 people without ambition or experience? MPPs don’t have ambition or experience? Most of them have been elected to the legislature for two terms or more. What experience do they want them to have? Hell what experience did John Tory have? What’s more is that they had the ambition to run, so we can presume they have at least some ambition.

Claim: “Myth No. 2: Tory is a nice guy. He may be a nice guy…”

Reality: We’re confused. Is he a nice guy or not?

Yes well done. Taking a quote out of its context to make it sound silly is extremely clever. Maybe if you finish reading the sentence your confusion could clear away.

Claim: “What Tory does not understand is that leadership means a great deal more than just focusing on fundraising… With a new leader, I know our Party can generate the funds we need to pay off our new debt and win the next election.”

Reality: Our Party is in a strong financial position now because John Tory worked tirelessly with the Party to bring us back from near bankruptcy. We were $10.5 million in debt after 2003, which hurt our ability to devote necessary resources to preparing for the election.

None of what you just said is an argument against the claim. They say that a leader has to do more than fundraise and you respond by saying he’s a really good fundraiser. Your ability to miss the point is astounding.

Claim: “The PC Party of Ontario lost the last election because Tory was our leader.”

Reality: John Tory has taken full responsibility for the election. More importantly, he has made changes to address problems, and he continues to do so. Mr. Devlin is correct that factors other than faith-based education contributed to our loss, but he fails to include the strong economy at election-time and the absence of a strong desire for change among Ontario voters.

He says that he takes responsibility but he denies that there should be consequences. The problem with the campaign wasn’t a lack of desire for change but a lack of an option for change. When offered a decision between two people of identical policy they very reasonably went for the one they already knew. So what’s the strategy for 2011? Hope for a recession?

Claim: “We’re actually going backwards.”

Reality: Going backwards would be spending the next year on a divisive and costly leadership race and then starting all over again with a leader who hasn’t had the experience of a provincial election campaign. Thanks to John Tory we are now in a much better financial position than we were in 2003. We had a strong and diverse group of candidates in the election, many of whom want to run again. We have a higher percentage of women in Caucus than ever before. The Party is already making changes to be better prepared for 2011 – a leadership would halt that and hinder the other progress we’ve been making together.

What’s your point here, that democracy costs money? We have four years. You understand that we have four years to rebuild the party and unite for the next election. When else should we have a debate about who we are and what the future of this party is? If the best argument you can come up with against having a leadership race is that it would be expensive and hard then that is just plain pathetic.

Please take a moment to examine your own reality and rediscover logic please.