Progressive Conservative

Hello, deficit!

2008-10-25T01:32:00.002-06:00

I have debts, like most Canadians. I am paying off credit cards and a mortgage. I know how hard it can be to make ends meet, but I keep working toward that goal continuously and with determination.

If there's one thing I don't like about the way Harper has run his government for the last two and a half years, it's his excessive spending. I read once that spending has gone up by 14 percent or more since he took office—considerably more than under Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien.

Why can't we finally cut back on this addiction of our federal government? There's so much waste in the system—right there, off the bat, we could fire a good chunk of all the civil servants in Ottawa. Let's bring in a flat tax for the whole country and reduce Rev Canada staff by at least 75%. Savings that all Canadians will appreciate, whether they're conservatives or liberals.

To be honest, I've been extremely worried about this spending, and the lack of deep tax cuts for individuals like me. I don't care about tax credits for using the bus. I don't care about tax credits for children's sporting equipment. These things don't make a difference at the end of the day.

Now you can imagine my frustration when I heard the news that Ottawa logged a deficit of $1.7 billion in August:

The federal government ran a $1.7-billion deficit in August but remains poised to deliver a "modest surplus" for the fiscal year, the finance minister said Friday. But Jim Flaherty refused to forecast whether the government would see deficits in the years to come.

I hope he's right, because once you're in a deficit, it's hard to shake the habit. I'll let BC premier Gordon Campbell explain:

Mr. Campbell will not contemplate even a temporary detour into deficit financing, arguing that once the fiscal taboo is broken, anything goes.
"It's like an addiction. You just want a little more deficit, please? Can I just have a little smidge more deficit?" he said, sounding every bit the fiscal hawk.

Please, let's cut spending and let's cut taxes. This is not the time to go crazy.

What the hell gives?

2008-10-23T20:54:00.003-06:00

With all due/undue respect, what the hell is going on in Alberta? Is this a conservative government or isn't it?

Look what Stelmach has been cooking up:

A Calgary Tory MLA's proposal to offer a fitness tax credit of up to $1,500 to Albertans is dividing the provincial Conservative caucus as the private member's bill makes its way through the legislature.
...
While debate heats up on Rodney's proposal, another private member's bill that would have prohibited hand-held cellphone and BlackBerry use while driving is all but dead.
A Tory-dominated legislature committee tabled a report Wednesday recommending Bill 204 be killed, and that government instead legislate or regulate a distracted driving offence that would make it easier for police to ticket unsafe drivers.
A separate standing committee, meanwhile, recommended that government-backed Bill 18, the Film and Video Classification Act, proceed through the legislature.
Under current rules, youngsters under 14 can watch 18A rated movies in theatres as long as an adult is with them. But the province feels children should no longer be allowed to see these movies, even if accompanied by an adult.
And in a move that's sure to raise a few eyebrows, Lethbridge-West Tory MLA Greg Weadick introduced a private member's bill Wednesday that would see the government guarantee a 10 per cent downpayment on mortgages for qualifying low-income Albertans struggling with high rents.

Welcome to Alberta, Canada's new Nanny State. A reader commented earlier that we should have voted for the Wildrose Alliance. I think next time I'll do just that. I am sick and tired of Stelmach, who poses as a conservative, but is really a liberal or even socialist.

Where's our tax cut in Alberta?

2008-10-23T16:37:00.002-06:00

Saskatchewan has just been blessed by the biggest income-tax cut ever, and British Columbia is handing out some tax treats, too.

Question: Where's Ed Stelmach and our Alberta Government? At this rate, Alberta will be the one jurisdiction in Western Canada with the least favorable tax treatment.

No, no tax cuts for Albertans yet. The only tax-related news so far is this:

Along with higher water and garbage levies next year, Calgarians could be saddled with a general tax increase inching up on the double digits.

Canadian election in U.S. media

2008-10-23T15:35:00.002-06:00

I found this article in The Atlantic—quite knowledgeable and well-researched, I think.

Here's my favorite part:

Right now, Liberals see their meager showing—just 26 percent of the vote, one of the worst outcomes in the history of the party—as a serious reversal. At the same time, the Liberals won't be held responsible for the wrenching economic conditions to come. Assuming there is a severe downturn, the Conservative government will be forced into a budget deficit, a serious taboo in Canadian federal politics. The Liberals will eventually find a leader more appealing and charismatic than Stéphane Dion, and when they do, the party will surely make a comeback, not least because the 7 percent won by the flavor-of-the-month Green Party will dwindle to zero.

I couldn't agree more: The Greens are only "flavor of the month", and that's it. I don't know who pissed me off more during the election campaign, Dion or May. Hopefully, May will never be heard of again, so that I can remove my earplugs.

McCain or Obama?

2008-10-23T15:29:00.002-06:00

Folks, who would you vote for on November 4? I read somewhere that 80% of Canadians support Obama, and I find myself in a difficult position. I'd normally support the Republicans, but McCain doesn't do it for me, and his choice of running mate doesn't make me go weak in the knees, either.

Palin is an attractive woman—but I'd never propose marriage to her—and she talks a good game at her rallies, but a brainiac she isn't.

There was also Colin Powell, a Republican, who's endorsed Obama, and no, I don't think he was motivated by "racial solidarity". He explained himself and his reasons, and he did so well.

In my view, McCain killed any chance he had when he appointed Palin.

What's the general view among Blogging Tories?

The natural governing party

2008-10-23T01:44:00.006-06:00

After what happened here tonight, I felt bad. I blamed myself for messing it up. But then I thought about it long and hard, and now I'm a bit bothered by the events.

We're supposed to be the "natural governing party", inclusive and open to anyone, right? So why do we keep attacking each other, or anyone like Werner, who's not a BT member, but certainly writes more cogent conservative posts on his blog than I normally see on some BT member blogs?

I asked him for permission to reproduce three of his recent posts, because I thought they were really awesome—like his take on the global warming myth. After removing the mothballs from my blog, I needed some content to fill up the space here, and fast. His articles were just what the doctor ordered.

But what was the price of this? I was accused of plagiarism, and it was my mistake for forgetting to put the obligatory credit in there, and then, it was Werner who was fired at.

From his blog, Werner responds to the events and asks phantomobserver:

And you wonder why Canadians are apprehensive about giving the Tories a majority?

I can't really disagree with him, because this mix-up and confusion was a bad example of the dark side of blogging. If we attack each other like this, as if we were from opposing parties, what example are we setting for voters who read our blogs?

A BT member sent me the background story to Werner's getting kicked off BT. I couldn't believe what I read in the e-mail. I had never seen a more ridiculous reason for anyone getting kicked out of any group, organization or club. Honestly, it doesn't take a genius to figure out why he's been toying with other parties since then.

I read Werner's blog every day. So what if he keeps an open mind about the positive aspects of the other parties? More power to him. That's fine by me, because most of his posts are very conservative, deeply conservative even, so if he wants to throw a little praise someone else's way once in a while, I'm cool with that, too.

Political parties and their members should keep an open mind—this is the only way to gain fresh ideas and keep the party lively and interesting.

I wish Harper shared some of Werner's ideas on taxes, for example. I like Harper, but if I were given just one "Conservative" sticker to award to either Harper or Werner, I'd have to go with Werner, who is a real small-c conservative. I know, Harper doesn't have a majority, so he has do that "incremental thing" we've been hearing so much about lately. But there's incremental, and then there's really slow. For starters, I wish our government didn't spend so much.

I find some BT members' attacks on Werner extremely poisonous and nasty. (Will I get kicked off, too, for saying that?) We have to start setting a better example, showing people that Conservatives are not petty little gnomes who bear grudges and go for the jugular.

I'll admit I'm a fan of Werner's blog, and as long as I have this blog, I'll promote his posts. If any of you have a problem with that, let me know now, because the end of my blogging career is only a delete-click away, and we can go our separate ways. I would really hate for this to happen.

What happened here tonight was not the good conservative, or Christian, way of doing things. It was petty and nasty. Please let's not do it again.

Phantomobserver was man enough to apologize to Werner, but I think BT should approach him and ask him to join the list and forget about whatever's happened in the past.

Dion and Celine

2008-10-22T22:02:00.006-06:00

Stéphane Dion doesn't get even the simplest jokes:

At one point during the election campaign, I had a few minutes with Stéphane Dion and told the Liberal Leader point blank he could win nearly every vote in the country if he'd only change his name. "Instead of Stéphane, call yourself Celine," I told him with an obvious smirk. "You'll win by a landslide."

I had hoped that he would stand up, arms akimbo, pretending to be on the bow of the Titanic, belting out My Heart Will Go On. Instead, all I got was a puzzled glance as he gingerly backed away to bestow his hollow presence in more welcoming surroundings, such as a rally urging Canadians to dump our carbons into Boston harbour.

My little joke had obviously gone over his head or under his elbow, and it was at that moment I realized he was politically a dead canard — an emotionally crippled academic dandy in aspic, to coin a phrase.

Just one of the many reasons why Canadians had to reject Dion.

Hello world

2008-10-22T18:52:00.002-06:00

It's a great time to be a conservative in Canada. Harper has won a stronger minority and is well on his way to a majority next time.

I have not posted anything to my blog for a very long time, sorry. I have decided to start from scratch. To get things rolling, I copied three excellent posts from another blogger -- with his permission of course.

I hope to get things going here again soon.

P.S. I'm so sorry but I think I'm responsible for a blog war. It was my mistake. I forgot to place the credit for posts I borrowed when I published them here. Maybe some people didn't notice. Don't know. But now I feel all bad, because one blogger attacks another one, and the other one shoots back, comments are piling up with more poison, .......... SORRY!

Another P.S. I feel really bad about this. Now I'm thinking of packing it in and deleting this blog ........ I thought blogging would be fun ...............

He can't be serious, can he?

2008-10-22T16:48:00.002-06:00

Friendships have been lost, marriages broken up and senseless wars started, because those involved did not simmer down and, instead, acted out of anger or hurt feelings. The spin doctor of former prime minister Jean Chrétien, Warren Kinsella, is about to make the same mistake.

Miffed by a comment that was supposedly made by some conservatives, that Chrétien was the "father of a criminal enterprise", Kinsella has announced that he is ready to fight for the federal Liberals yet again, promising that he would do to the Harper Conservatives what he did to the provincial Tories in Ontario.

Kinsella is certainly a gifted and talented strategist, but these are different times, and he may just underestimate what the political game is all about today in the 21st century. For starters, the Conservatives are extremely good at strategizing and campaigning, and if this last election was about anything at all, it was that the Tories and their organization are formidable opponents with a political machine that is far superior to the Liberals' Big Red Machine of yore.

Then, there is the blogosphere. The most popular and influential political blogs in Canada are all conservative. The Liberal bloggers do not have even half the reach of their counterparts in blue. Kinsella himself blogs, but his words resonate only with those who already are in the Liberal camp. In other words, he does not have any pulling power to attract voters to the Liberal Party. Besides, some of his blogging over the last year has been quite pro-Harper many times, which prompted top Liberal blogger, Jason Cherniak, to denounce his former friend and vow that Kinsella's name would never again be uttered on his blog.

The Liberal Party needs to move forward and make a clean break with its, often sordid, past. Liberals, therefore, should not be expected to welcome Kinsella back into the Liberal family with open arms. He was, and still is, too close to Chrétien, who, while still admired, is not exactly seen as the Liberals' answer to their prayers in the here and now.

By throwing himself into the fray over sour grapes or hurt feelings, Kinsella will run the risk of clouding his judgment with his emotions and loyalty to the former prime minister. This is already becoming evident on his blog, and it is not hard to imagine that he will give the appearance of defending all the scandals that went on under Chrétien's nose, such as the Human Resources boondoggle or Adscam, thus dredging up the party's old skeletons that everyone would rather forget about.

After everything the Liberals have been through since Chrétien's departure, the last thing they need is for the spectre of the party's scandalous past to be raised all over again – surely, the Tories would neg-ad this thing to death. Then again, the Tories may just welcome the challenge of facing off against Kinsella's war room in the next campaign. Since Kinsella would not allow himself to be held back by ethical concerns over political ads that may, perhaps, cross the line of good taste, the Tories would feel equally unrestrained and use Kinsella's wild attacks as justification for going as negative as never before. It could become the mother of all campaigns in Canadian history.

However, Kinsella himself could turn out to be a problem for the Liberals if he acted as their spin doctor. On his blog he has written too many posts in admiration and praise of Stephen Harper, and even if he were to delete his entire blog today, nothing is ever truly lost on the Internet. Apart from that, though, he would be fighting to restore Chrétien's "honour", rather than giving it his all for whoever ends up leading the Liberal Party – or the party itself, for that matter. Kinsella is not a Liberal party animal; he is Chrétien's personal pit bull, and whatever he does, he does for the benefit of his former boss, but not the party or its current leader. A strategist who is there in the flesh but not in spirit would hurt the party more than help it, nor would he have any real credibility in his position.

Let sleeping dogs lie, the saying goes, and Kinsella would do well not to invoke a past that Canadians of all stripes would sooner forget.

Reproduced with the permission of Werner Patels, the author

Dion, the dunce

2008-10-22T16:46:00.001-06:00

The Liberal Party of Canada is in dire straits. Having just come off an election that saw their popular support drop to the lowest level ever, most Liberals agree that it is time to rebuild their decrepit party. Equally important, they have to rid themselves of the worst leader any political party in Canada has ever seen: Stéphane Dion. But here the party has a big problem, because Mr. Dion, even though he has technically resigned as leader, will stay on at least until May.

Mr. Dion does not get it: he still thinks that he did nothing wrong and that his failure was all the Conservatives' fault, with their fancy American-style negative ad campaigns and bursting party coffers. In fact, he seems to hang on to some faint hope that he can bring down the Conservative government over its budget in February 2009. Canadians have gone through three federal elections in just four years. Anyone who forces yet another one between now and 2012 will face the voters' wrath at the polls.

Liberals must be truly disheartened after Mr. Dion's press conference yesterday. His "I-resign-but-I'll-stay-on" announcement is the last thing the party needed. Apart from his whining about how unfairly he has been treated by Conservatives, implying that Canadians must shoulder the real blame for his defeat, because they were stupid enough to believe Conservative "propaganda", Mr. Dion will now continue to be the party's face and voice until May or even beyond that, thus robbing the party of any chance to portray a more positive image of itself under a more capable interim leader.

Mr. Dion is "damaged goods" – his leadership and his policies have been roundly rejected by Canadians. Instead of showing at least a trace of integrity, like his predecessor Paul Martin did in 2006 when he offered his immediate resignation on election night, he refuses to accept responsibility for his failure and, essentially, calls Canadian voters stupid for not believing in him. It was hard to imagine Mr. Dion's image getting even worse, but he certainly accomplished that with his press conference on Monday. Nor did it help much that he showed himself unable to pronounce his own party's name in English correctly, without sounding like someone choking on a pair of frog legs.

With the Liberal Party sliding into oblivion fast, it is probably not too far-fetched to assume that some Liberal MPs will try to save what is left of their political future by crossing the floor to the Conservative government over the next few weeks and months. Also, the knives of leadership contenders will come out, and they will be sharper than anything Liberals have used as weapons before. Naturally, there will be an ostensible winner at the end of the battle for the Liberal crown, but at the end of the day, the whole party will lose. Since Mr. Dion will not move out of his office any time soon, and will continue to darken the party's light in public, it is almost impossible for the party to rebuild itself and figure out what it wants to stand for in future.

Another shortcoming that the party will fail to address is the way it elects its leader. Again, they will leave that decision to delegates, a tiny fraction of the total membership, instead of giving every member a voice by adopting a one-member-one-vote system – the only proper way of doing things in a democracy. Mr. Dion, therefore, had the support of just around eight per cent of all Liberals when he was elected leader in December 2006. But this is the kind of result that flows naturally from a system that puts executive decisions in the hands of a chosen few, rather than letting the grassroots choose.

With this botched "resignation" and all that is about to happen next, it is becoming increasingly unlikely that true leadership personalities like Frank McKenna will enter the fray and vie for the top job in a moribund party. The most likely outcome, therefore, will be an unreformed Liberal Party under a new leader that will be lucky enough to make it through one more federal election, perhaps, before it meets the same fate as its counterpart in the United Kingdom.

Reproduced with the permission of Werner Patels, the author

It's a myth, folks

2008-10-22T16:43:00.002-06:00

People with common sense cannot be faulted for despairing at the constant bombardment with articles, speeches and blogs about the dangers of "global warming". To any plain and straight thinker it is very clear what is happening here: a bunch of radical left-wingers – communists, anarchists, etc. – grabbed the issue of global warming, saw that they could use it to bring chaos and anarchy to Western civilization, and figured that it might be a neat idea to paint themselves green when, in fact, they are of a deep red, complete with hammer and sickle embroidery on their underwear.

Proof of this is easily found in the fact that the global warming movement only demands harsh, and self-destructive, climate change measures from the West, but not from anyone else – most notably, India and China. Nor are they calling on their ideological comrade Hugo Chavez to shut down his oil wells. Left-wing radicals, like recently Sean Penn, hobnob with Chavez and praise his oil production – because he supposedly uses it to help the poor and fight capitalism, as well as "evil" America. But woe anyone, like Alberta, for example, who extracts the precious resource for a profit. That is not environmentalism; it is anti-capitalism of the worst order.

For several years Westerners have had to endure the blather from those groups about the phenomenon, as well as repeated claims that the science underlying the causes of global warming was "established" and met all the requirements of a "scientific consensus". Hundreds, if not thousands, of scientists who have dared to disagree have been maligned, assaulted and ostracized by their "colleagues" in the "scientific community". The fact is that our planet is an organism, and since even human medicine is not an exact science ("People should eat more salt"; "Sorry, we were wrong: Reduce your salt intake"; "How silly of us: Add more salt to your diet"), it is only logical that any "science" that claims to have definitive answers about the organism called Earth is best sent to the waste bin for instant recycling.

More recently there have been reports that the ice in the Arctic and Antarctic is not melting as fast as predicted, or – surprise, surprise – not melting at all. Scientists (real scientists, that is) have also discovered that the sun's protective shield, the heliosphere, has been weakened by 25 per cent. With such an enormous reduction in the sun's shield, the Earth is bound to heat up, no matter what the mere mortals on this planet do to destroy their prosperous lifestyles. Besides, the Earth is always going through cycles of cold and hot of its own. Mankind cannot stop or reverse them, but has to learn to live with and through them.

The so-called heretics or "debunkers" of the global warming myth can produce a host of actual examples demonstrating that the phenomenon is a lot of things, except man-made. Bjorn Lomborg's book, Cool It, is probably one of the most outstanding rejections of the myth. In propagating their fable, the movement employs an almost biblical approach. When asked about climate change, they spew forth allegories and metaphors ("Thou shalt return to the Stone Age"), but nothing as specific as the debunkers have come up with on an almost daily basis, and then create fancy curves, charts and models that purport to represent "established science".

This approach of turning "biblical exegesis" into "scientific consensus" is something the climate changers may well have borrowed from Swiss ufologist Erich von Däniken. He once took a passage from the Bible and saw detailed descriptions of an alien spacecraft in it. Then, he had engineers draft plans based on his interpretation of the text and had a model of the ship built. It all looked truly "scientific" and convincing. One can only imagine what would have happened if some radical groups had bribed scientists to go before international organizations to proclaim to the world that this was "established science". Too bad for von Däniken that left-wing radicals were not interested in piggybacking on his theories; he would have finally gained the "scientific" recognition from his "peers" that he always craved.

Saying that global warming is a myth – nay, it is actually an outright lie cooked up by radical-left nutters hellbent on destroying the West – does not mean that we should go about polluting our planet and using our natural resources irresponsibly. But, and herein lies the nub, with all that talk about global warming, which really only serves to turn civilized countries into "Paleolithic" anarchist and/or communist countries, politicians have ignored pollution entirely. As a result, water and air have become more harmful in many places around the world, with some parts of the southern U.S., such as Georgia, running out of, and having to ration, drinking water.

Cutting back on emissions is not a bad thing, if it is done to reduce pollution, rather than in the name of "global warming". Using finite natural resources more responsibly and carefully also makes perfect sense. Just because global warming is the brainchild of left-wing radicals does not mean the world should not go looking for alternative sources of energy. As long as these measures are taken for all the right reasons, instead of following a diseased and failed ideology (the events in and after 1989 proved that communism cannot work), there is absolutely no rationale for rejecting them.

Reproduced with the permission of Werner Patels, the author