I bet I'm not the only one on the planet that loves voice mail.
Wanted to put my mom's wheelchair expense on the Mastercard I have for her (the wheelchair is $900+ with the Ontario government chipping in another $2500 or so -- ya gotta love socialism!).
I get a call back from Therapists' Choice. The amount didn't go through. They got a message "call for authorization". This apparently, was a bridge too far, something they were not prepared to do. They suggested I call Mastercard to find out what was going on.
So I called MBNA Mastercard. They are sneaky. First they ask for your account number. I interpret this to mean my card number, so I dutifully enter this. Then they give you a bunch of options that don't apply, but you must listen to each one. Your account balance. The last payment amount. Your credit limit. The last time you made a purchase for over $25 to a company that start with the letter "K"; that sort of think.
Then, they say, "to complete your call, press #.
Last time I did this, I interpreted complete as in "continue on to completion". What they really mean, is "to hear a dialtone, press #". (Which means you have to phone back and submit to the electronic grilling one more time.)
Anyway, I knew my way around this one, and, although they never announce it as far as I can recall, if you press "0", you step through the wardrobe into a magical land where you are are put on hold to speak to a "customer satisfaction specialist". Not just any ordinary customer satisfaction person. A specialist.
So, I do. I'm asked my birthdate and my mother's maiden name. I give out this information. I explain the problem. I get bounced to "authorizations". I am speaking with Maria. She asks for my birthdate and my mother's maiden name. As I speak this information, I hear a speakerphone saying everything I am saying. I assume that the call is being recorded for security purposes. Followed by a dial-tone.
If this has ever happened to you, you know the despair one feels at this, getting this far, getting cut off, and knowing you have to start over.
I'm sure that what I am experiencing is one of the modern stages of hell, cf. Dante's Inferno.
I phone back. I enter my account number, listen to the options, press zero, pass through the wardrobe, give my birthdate and mother's maiden name, explain my dilemma, and get passed to an MBNA senior security specialist named Jeff.
Jeff wants to know my mother's maiden name and my birthdate. I provide him with this information. As I pass him my birthdate, I realize I am actually aging, getting older, as I go through this dance with MBNA.
Jeff says the amount will be approved (my mom's balance was zero, and credit limit was 5K).
So why didn't it go through first time? Probably an MBNA computer flagged this as a suspicious transaction. The first wheelchair authorization occurring on the last Tuesday in a month starting with "J" -- something like that.
Maybe MBNA just felt like messin' with me.
Or, maybe it's just the way the ball bounces.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Why anti-Christian biases in US/Canadian society?
[this was my contribution to a Western Standard Shotgun blog]
If there is no God, then personal conscience is an absurdity, and morality and rights are ultimately artificial, fictitious constructs based on what, social consensus?
But what if the social consensus strays, into, for example believing that it is fine to kill dogs, cats, and children under the age of seven?
If there is no God, there is no ultimate right and wrong; just conventions.
And that deep sense of injustice you feel when someone wrongs or harms you? Just chemicals in the brain.
Concepts such as honour, dignity? Absurdities.
Our consciousness, our existence, our self-awareness, all absurdities.
Wouldn't it be great if God did exist! That would mean that there is ultimate meaning to life, and concepts such as honour, dignity, justice, right and wrong, objectively exist. And the deepest longings of the human heart, to matter, to be relevant, to be loved, and to be reunited with loved ones upon death, all exist not to rub in the absurdity of human consciousness, but to be fulfilled.
But, it would also mean that there are moral consequences to our actions, and constraints on what we see as our "freedoms". And many people simply do not want there to be eternal consequences or moral constraints on their lives.
Why many in our culture object specifically to Christianity:
a) it is, for better or worse, the religion of their childhood, the moral code that they are now straying from or rebelling against
b) Christianity tells us that what they we are doing is wrong better than other faiths--many which don't even bother to try.
c) Jesus Christ makes a lot of people uncomfortable in a way that other religious leaders do not; his self-claims, his death which he declared was sacrificial and atoning, and his purported resurrection.
If he really did rise from the dead, it's game over. Materialistic atheism, game over, agnosticism, game over, actions without eternal consequences, game over.
And many people simply prefer to keep playing the game.
Posted by: Richard Ball | 29-Jan-06 8:39:44 PM
If there is no God, then personal conscience is an absurdity, and morality and rights are ultimately artificial, fictitious constructs based on what, social consensus?
But what if the social consensus strays, into, for example believing that it is fine to kill dogs, cats, and children under the age of seven?
If there is no God, there is no ultimate right and wrong; just conventions.
And that deep sense of injustice you feel when someone wrongs or harms you? Just chemicals in the brain.
Concepts such as honour, dignity? Absurdities.
Our consciousness, our existence, our self-awareness, all absurdities.
Wouldn't it be great if God did exist! That would mean that there is ultimate meaning to life, and concepts such as honour, dignity, justice, right and wrong, objectively exist. And the deepest longings of the human heart, to matter, to be relevant, to be loved, and to be reunited with loved ones upon death, all exist not to rub in the absurdity of human consciousness, but to be fulfilled.
But, it would also mean that there are moral consequences to our actions, and constraints on what we see as our "freedoms". And many people simply do not want there to be eternal consequences or moral constraints on their lives.
Why many in our culture object specifically to Christianity:
a) it is, for better or worse, the religion of their childhood, the moral code that they are now straying from or rebelling against
b) Christianity tells us that what they we are doing is wrong better than other faiths--many which don't even bother to try.
c) Jesus Christ makes a lot of people uncomfortable in a way that other religious leaders do not; his self-claims, his death which he declared was sacrificial and atoning, and his purported resurrection.
If he really did rise from the dead, it's game over. Materialistic atheism, game over, agnosticism, game over, actions without eternal consequences, game over.
And many people simply prefer to keep playing the game.
Posted by: Richard Ball | 29-Jan-06 8:39:44 PM
Friday, January 27, 2006
It's not murder if you want to be killed
A Canadian judge has sentenced 60-year-old Marielle Houle to no-time-in-jail for her part in her son's "suicide", stressing this sentence is not to be seen as a precedent. Good luck with that.
The woman held a plastic bag over her son's head, so she did more than just assist him in taking his life, she took it. I guess the judge's thinking is, it's not murder if you want to be killed.
In today's Canada, the more likely offense would be her use of an eco-unfriendly petroleum-derivative (plastic bag) to commit the deed.
* * *
This an excerpt from Mr. Houle's departure letter to his mother:
"My dearest mommy," Stop right there. Read no further. Something weird is going on here, friends.
"I beg you not to wallow in blind grief, like a person of faith. We're atheists, you and I."
Ah, yes. Fight the good faith of atheism. None of that wallowing in blind grief like a person of faith. Does this last sentence even make sense? Wouldn't an atheist be more likely to wallow in blind grief than a person whose hope is fixed on the One who said, "I am the Resurrection and the Life". Or, is his grief, unlike a person of faith, a "seeing" grief, i.e., he sees that there is nothing beyond the grave. But if that's the case, isn't seeing that there is nothing beyond the grave as much a matter of faith as seeing that there is something?
Either I'm missing something, or this unfortunate man hadn't thought through his atheism.
In fact, I would say he put 'way too much faith in it.
The woman held a plastic bag over her son's head, so she did more than just assist him in taking his life, she took it. I guess the judge's thinking is, it's not murder if you want to be killed.
In today's Canada, the more likely offense would be her use of an eco-unfriendly petroleum-derivative (plastic bag) to commit the deed.
* * *
This an excerpt from Mr. Houle's departure letter to his mother:
"My dearest mommy," Stop right there. Read no further. Something weird is going on here, friends.
"I beg you not to wallow in blind grief, like a person of faith. We're atheists, you and I."
Ah, yes. Fight the good faith of atheism. None of that wallowing in blind grief like a person of faith. Does this last sentence even make sense? Wouldn't an atheist be more likely to wallow in blind grief than a person whose hope is fixed on the One who said, "I am the Resurrection and the Life". Or, is his grief, unlike a person of faith, a "seeing" grief, i.e., he sees that there is nothing beyond the grave. But if that's the case, isn't seeing that there is nothing beyond the grave as much a matter of faith as seeing that there is something?
Either I'm missing something, or this unfortunate man hadn't thought through his atheism.
In fact, I would say he put 'way too much faith in it.
The consequences of inclusion
During the election campaign Paul Martin attributed violent crime to "the consequences of exclusion".
It appears, however, since the door to her kiosk was apparently locked, Montreal teenage murder victim Brigitte Serre suffered the consequences of inclusion. It appears likely she opened the door to her attackers.
If exclusion causes crime, then my recommendation is that high-risk persons be assigned to work in Liberal MP constituency offices, and be invited to stay in Liberal homes with Liberal families. If Paul Martin is right about crime, this should have a beneficial effect.
For my money, I think citizens like Brigitte Serre would have been better served by a no-nonsense, no-excuses conservative approach to crime and punishment. It is too late to help this Brigitte, but maybe not the next one.
It appears, however, since the door to her kiosk was apparently locked, Montreal teenage murder victim Brigitte Serre suffered the consequences of inclusion. It appears likely she opened the door to her attackers.
If exclusion causes crime, then my recommendation is that high-risk persons be assigned to work in Liberal MP constituency offices, and be invited to stay in Liberal homes with Liberal families. If Paul Martin is right about crime, this should have a beneficial effect.
For my money, I think citizens like Brigitte Serre would have been better served by a no-nonsense, no-excuses conservative approach to crime and punishment. It is too late to help this Brigitte, but maybe not the next one.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
All I am saying, is give Steve a chance
re: Stephen Harper announces ice-breakers to patrol Canadian Arctic waters
When Paul Martin spoke against the US, one was left with the impression he was doing it to score cheap political points; when Stephen Harper does the same, he appears intent on simply governing. The contrast, as with their election night speeches, is remarkable.
If Stephen Harper keeps this up, we have the makings of Canada's next great PM.
Meanwhile, Liberal supporters continue to hunt for evidence of Stephen Harper the extremist. They needn't bother. He doesn't exist. That Stephen Harper was nothing more than a cynical, self-serving fiction dished up to get the Liberals re-elected.
To those who doubt, all I am saying is, give Steve a chance.
When Paul Martin spoke against the US, one was left with the impression he was doing it to score cheap political points; when Stephen Harper does the same, he appears intent on simply governing. The contrast, as with their election night speeches, is remarkable.
If Stephen Harper keeps this up, we have the makings of Canada's next great PM.
Meanwhile, Liberal supporters continue to hunt for evidence of Stephen Harper the extremist. They needn't bother. He doesn't exist. That Stephen Harper was nothing more than a cynical, self-serving fiction dished up to get the Liberals re-elected.
To those who doubt, all I am saying is, give Steve a chance.
Al Gore weighs extremely in...
Al Gore has warned us against the "ultra-conservative" Stephen Harper Conservatives. Ultra-conservative. Got that?
If favouring the status-quo on abortion (i.e., no restrictions whatsoever), and civil-unions for homosexuals, is "ultra-conservative", could someone please tell me what would constitute "ultra-liberal" on these same topics?
Requiring leadership candidates to perform an abortion on live TV perhaps? Divorcing one's wife and marrying one or more men to show you're really "with it"?
The extremist language of the left is in and of itself evidence of their own extremism.
If favouring the status-quo on abortion (i.e., no restrictions whatsoever), and civil-unions for homosexuals, is "ultra-conservative", could someone please tell me what would constitute "ultra-liberal" on these same topics?
Requiring leadership candidates to perform an abortion on live TV perhaps? Divorcing one's wife and marrying one or more men to show you're really "with it"?
The extremist language of the left is in and of itself evidence of their own extremism.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Vote early, drink coffee, vote again!
Should we be concerned about low voter turnout in Canada? In one sense yes.
Voting is a civic duty, so low turnout is an inverse measure of how civic-minded we are as a society.
But there are other factors.
1. Political parties get funding based on the number of votes cast for each party. Non-voters are saving us all money. Plus, by staying away, they help minimize lines at the polls, and reduce the incidence rates of polling-clerk burnout. Very civic-minded of them, really.
2. I'm not particularly worried about reports that young people aren't voting. I think age 25 is about right. OK, I said that to get a reaction, but 21 would not be a bad thing. Get a job. Work for a living. Stare at the tax deductions on your paystub. That sort of thing.
3. Let's not make voting mandatory, as some suggest. Instead, let's serve free Tim Hortons coffee and donuts at the polling stations; let's make each ballot scratch-and-win; and let's give out Tim Hortons coupons and draw-prizes for showing up.
4. There were credible reports of voting irregularities in this past election. I would like to think that for every person not voting, there's another out there voting twice. Maybe I'm just being optimistic. But I cannot help myself.
I am Canadian.
Voting is a civic duty, so low turnout is an inverse measure of how civic-minded we are as a society.
But there are other factors.
1. Political parties get funding based on the number of votes cast for each party. Non-voters are saving us all money. Plus, by staying away, they help minimize lines at the polls, and reduce the incidence rates of polling-clerk burnout. Very civic-minded of them, really.
2. I'm not particularly worried about reports that young people aren't voting. I think age 25 is about right. OK, I said that to get a reaction, but 21 would not be a bad thing. Get a job. Work for a living. Stare at the tax deductions on your paystub. That sort of thing.
3. Let's not make voting mandatory, as some suggest. Instead, let's serve free Tim Hortons coffee and donuts at the polling stations; let's make each ballot scratch-and-win; and let's give out Tim Hortons coupons and draw-prizes for showing up.
4. There were credible reports of voting irregularities in this past election. I would like to think that for every person not voting, there's another out there voting twice. Maybe I'm just being optimistic. But I cannot help myself.
I am Canadian.
Democracy -- our best bet for freedom
One of the things that struck me forcefully during election day was the beautiful, breathless breadth and depth of democracy. Here we were, casting our ballots, in one electoral district, to elect an MP to represent the local community, and to vote for the Party and Prime Minister we wanted in office. And this was being acted out, in innumerable ways, across this vast land of ours by millions of ordinary Canadians. Three hundred and eight representatives in the House of Commons, representing the common wisdom and collective aspirations of the nation.
How can this be a bad thing?
Well, apparently it can. Trudeau first poisoned the national well when he used the phrase, "the tyranny of the majority", and we were so overcome by his charisma and his breathless vision of a "just society" (whatever that is), that we bought it. We should have lynched him (at the polls). Trudeau preferred to commit our rights and freedoms to writing in a document, and then, put that document out of our reach. Which might be OK. But within whose reach did he put it? Nine lawyers-made-judges appointed by -- him!
Think about that for a minute. He set up a process which undermined the supremacy of Parliament, but did not undermine him -- he got to appoint the nine members of the august, infallible court. That made the PM very, very powerful. And played into his elitist views very well.
Every Liberal PM since Trudeau is really just following in his chartered steps. Paul Martin talked about the "oppression of the majority". Thanks Paul. That should help the national psyche. If the majority is oppressive, then the only voices we should pay any attention to are those of minorities.
Minorities, apparently are not oppressive. Even though a tiny minority of the population has inflicted its definition of marriage on the country, and will now insist that all Canadian school children (and not just those born of their sexual unions) be taught this minority group's sexual ideology. Any thing less would be "oppressive".
I believe there is a place for a Charter, and even for Charter-judges protecting rights. But these rights should be well-defined, and, where necessary, further defined and clarified by Parliament. Instead we have a document that has served as a judicial Rorschach test.
If you actually read the Charter document, you will be struck by how plain and straightforward it is. It is in the hands of leftist courts that abortion and homosexuality are "discovered", and in places were they are not even suggested. The judges are no longer interpreting law. They are defining (and re-defining) public morality. And what uniquely qualifies them to do this? Their success at getting through law school? Their proximity to the Liberal Party of Canada? Their successful lobbying efforts at getting themselves appointed to the courts? Their self-evident moral superiority? (Well, we are getting close with this last one.)
My point is this: a democratically elected Parliament consisting of 308 Canadians from across the country can do a better job at safeguarding rights (and is inarguably less a threat to the arbitrary violation of rights) than nine unelected, PM-appointed Supremos.
How can this be a bad thing?
Well, apparently it can. Trudeau first poisoned the national well when he used the phrase, "the tyranny of the majority", and we were so overcome by his charisma and his breathless vision of a "just society" (whatever that is), that we bought it. We should have lynched him (at the polls). Trudeau preferred to commit our rights and freedoms to writing in a document, and then, put that document out of our reach. Which might be OK. But within whose reach did he put it? Nine lawyers-made-judges appointed by -- him!
Think about that for a minute. He set up a process which undermined the supremacy of Parliament, but did not undermine him -- he got to appoint the nine members of the august, infallible court. That made the PM very, very powerful. And played into his elitist views very well.
Every Liberal PM since Trudeau is really just following in his chartered steps. Paul Martin talked about the "oppression of the majority". Thanks Paul. That should help the national psyche. If the majority is oppressive, then the only voices we should pay any attention to are those of minorities.
Minorities, apparently are not oppressive. Even though a tiny minority of the population has inflicted its definition of marriage on the country, and will now insist that all Canadian school children (and not just those born of their sexual unions) be taught this minority group's sexual ideology. Any thing less would be "oppressive".
I believe there is a place for a Charter, and even for Charter-judges protecting rights. But these rights should be well-defined, and, where necessary, further defined and clarified by Parliament. Instead we have a document that has served as a judicial Rorschach test.
If you actually read the Charter document, you will be struck by how plain and straightforward it is. It is in the hands of leftist courts that abortion and homosexuality are "discovered", and in places were they are not even suggested. The judges are no longer interpreting law. They are defining (and re-defining) public morality. And what uniquely qualifies them to do this? Their success at getting through law school? Their proximity to the Liberal Party of Canada? Their successful lobbying efforts at getting themselves appointed to the courts? Their self-evident moral superiority? (Well, we are getting close with this last one.)
My point is this: a democratically elected Parliament consisting of 308 Canadians from across the country can do a better job at safeguarding rights (and is inarguably less a threat to the arbitrary violation of rights) than nine unelected, PM-appointed Supremos.
Why no extreme-left?
When the Conservatives are even a teensy-weensy bit conservative, they are characterized by their opponents as being extreme-right. You never hear their opponents say, "well, that's a bit right-wing", or "that's moderately right wing", or even just, "that's right-wing" -- it's always far-right, extreme-right, and far-right extremists (and, if you really want to insult, it's "far-right extremists with ties to ultra-far-right Americans).
Yet, when the Liberals propose something proposterous like same-sex marriage, or same-sex adoption rights, no one uses the terms extreme-left or hard-left to describe their position.
Why is this?
Here's one reason: the Liberals wait for the leftist courts they appoint to first give them political cover, so that, no matter how far left or outlandish the current issue on the table is, it has some semblence of legitimacy simply because the courts are in the process of considering it, or the courts have come down and declared it as a right. (Swinging is a good recent example of this.)
The fact is (even I'm beginning to sound like Paul Martin), the Liberal Party is a hard-left Party of social extremists. What else can you call a Party that supports same-sex marriage, thinks state-funded institutional daycare is a wonderful thing, is against property rights, and is soft on prostitution, euthanasia, and drugs?
I think in fairness to the other side, perhaps the reason their positions are not characterized as extreme-left is this: there are no extreme left positions left to take -- we're already there. We are already so close to the far-left edge of leftdom, that there is no longer an exteme left position to stake out.
Short, of course, of outright government confiscation of citizens' wealth and property. But, after the Russian experience, I don't think that even Jack Layton-Lenin would want to go there.
They need the capitalist bull to feed the socialist pig.
Yet, when the Liberals propose something proposterous like same-sex marriage, or same-sex adoption rights, no one uses the terms extreme-left or hard-left to describe their position.
Why is this?
Here's one reason: the Liberals wait for the leftist courts they appoint to first give them political cover, so that, no matter how far left or outlandish the current issue on the table is, it has some semblence of legitimacy simply because the courts are in the process of considering it, or the courts have come down and declared it as a right. (Swinging is a good recent example of this.)
The fact is (even I'm beginning to sound like Paul Martin), the Liberal Party is a hard-left Party of social extremists. What else can you call a Party that supports same-sex marriage, thinks state-funded institutional daycare is a wonderful thing, is against property rights, and is soft on prostitution, euthanasia, and drugs?
I think in fairness to the other side, perhaps the reason their positions are not characterized as extreme-left is this: there are no extreme left positions left to take -- we're already there. We are already so close to the far-left edge of leftdom, that there is no longer an exteme left position to stake out.
Short, of course, of outright government confiscation of citizens' wealth and property. But, after the Russian experience, I don't think that even Jack Layton-Lenin would want to go there.
They need the capitalist bull to feed the socialist pig.
The unkindness of gay marriage
"gay marriage affects only gays; no one else". [G&M post]
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Recognizing gay marriage involves bearing false witness concerning what is wholesome, and natural, and good. (I'm not saying that all marriages are wholesome and good; I'm saying that the institution of marriage is a picture of something that can be wholesome and good, something instituted and blessed by God.) This false message will be taught to all Canadian children.
Moreover, gay activists will insist that, in the name of equality, every school child be taught the corrupting knowledge of sodomy -- and that it be taught as a perfectly natural and wholesome behaviour -- another falsehood -- and one that affects not only every school child, but every parent as well.
Thirdly, gay marriage supports the idea that a child can have two men or two women as parents -- a third falsehood.
Marriage is naturally rooted in human biology, not misdirected sexual orientations. The Church is to walk in love, and preach the truth in love, but love, if it is to be true, can never be divorced from what is true.
That is why society's recognition of gay marriage is ultimately an unkindness, a cruelty even, to all concerned.
And that is why thoughtful Christians walking in love will oppose "gay marriage".
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Recognizing gay marriage involves bearing false witness concerning what is wholesome, and natural, and good. (I'm not saying that all marriages are wholesome and good; I'm saying that the institution of marriage is a picture of something that can be wholesome and good, something instituted and blessed by God.) This false message will be taught to all Canadian children.
Moreover, gay activists will insist that, in the name of equality, every school child be taught the corrupting knowledge of sodomy -- and that it be taught as a perfectly natural and wholesome behaviour -- another falsehood -- and one that affects not only every school child, but every parent as well.
Thirdly, gay marriage supports the idea that a child can have two men or two women as parents -- a third falsehood.
Marriage is naturally rooted in human biology, not misdirected sexual orientations. The Church is to walk in love, and preach the truth in love, but love, if it is to be true, can never be divorced from what is true.
That is why society's recognition of gay marriage is ultimately an unkindness, a cruelty even, to all concerned.
And that is why thoughtful Christians walking in love will oppose "gay marriage".
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Monday was not PEI's finest hour
Monday evening, while the rest of the country was busy turfing a Party steeped in arrogance, corruption, and decay, PEI was busy giving this same Party a ringing endorsement, opting for "more of the same".
The Liberals accuse the Conservatives of having an extreme right, hidden agenda. Although Stephen Harper's Tories have no such agenda, what would it look like, if it did exist? It would restore the primacy of the two-parent, mom-and-dad family and restore a child's right to be born -- both undoubtedly good for children, and once the hallmark of Canadian values, including those of Prince Edward Island.
Had the Liberals won, the Party that claims no hidden agendas would have fought as hard for the full equality of prostitution as they had for the obliteration of a definition of marriage rooted in human biology and the natural right of a child to a mother and a dad.
Liberal values are socially corrosive. They should have a poison symbol on the label. And these are the values that Islanders voted for.
Monday was not PEI's finest hour.
[this was published in the Charlottetown Guardian Letters to the Editor section]
The Liberals accuse the Conservatives of having an extreme right, hidden agenda. Although Stephen Harper's Tories have no such agenda, what would it look like, if it did exist? It would restore the primacy of the two-parent, mom-and-dad family and restore a child's right to be born -- both undoubtedly good for children, and once the hallmark of Canadian values, including those of Prince Edward Island.
Had the Liberals won, the Party that claims no hidden agendas would have fought as hard for the full equality of prostitution as they had for the obliteration of a definition of marriage rooted in human biology and the natural right of a child to a mother and a dad.
Liberal values are socially corrosive. They should have a poison symbol on the label. And these are the values that Islanders voted for.
Monday was not PEI's finest hour.
[this was published in the Charlottetown Guardian Letters to the Editor section]
Who wrote Stephen Harper's victory speech?
Stephen Harper gave an amazing victory speech Monday night.
It transcended the political; it rose to the level of statesmanship.
And so did Stephen Harper. He appeared less like a politician and more like a statesman. He looked like a leader. Like a Prime Minister.
Contrast this with his opponent who engaged in shallow partisanship to the bitter end.
Stephen Harper gave his supporters, and all Canadians, a reason to be proud.
Now I'm wondering, "Who wrote the speech?".
There's only one person I can think of, and that would be David Frum. (But there is no evidence that he did.)
I would really like to know.
It was that good.
It transcended the political; it rose to the level of statesmanship.
And so did Stephen Harper. He appeared less like a politician and more like a statesman. He looked like a leader. Like a Prime Minister.
Contrast this with his opponent who engaged in shallow partisanship to the bitter end.
Stephen Harper gave his supporters, and all Canadians, a reason to be proud.
Now I'm wondering, "Who wrote the speech?".
There's only one person I can think of, and that would be David Frum. (But there is no evidence that he did.)
I would really like to know.
It was that good.
Sunday, January 22, 2006
What I don't understand...
What I can't understand is why all Canadians don't support Liberal values.
Why don't all Canadians support a woman's right to abort her unborn child right up to the moment of birth?
Why don't all Canadians support a child's right to be raised in a single-parent or two-father home and be taught, as the Supreme Court has insisted, that sodomy is an "equal" behaviour, and that it's never too soon for children to know this?
Why don't all Canadians support replacing an outdated definition of marriage rooted in the absurd notion of human biology?
Why don't all Canadians get behind swinging, euthanasia, and prostitution?
These are the values that make Canada great.
Why do mean-spirited conservative Canadians continue to insist that children have the right to be born into a two-parent family and raised in a moral social environment?
Don't they see that Liberal values are far better for Canada than values that favour the natural rights of children?
Why don't all Canadians support a woman's right to abort her unborn child right up to the moment of birth?
Why don't all Canadians support a child's right to be raised in a single-parent or two-father home and be taught, as the Supreme Court has insisted, that sodomy is an "equal" behaviour, and that it's never too soon for children to know this?
Why don't all Canadians support replacing an outdated definition of marriage rooted in the absurd notion of human biology?
Why don't all Canadians get behind swinging, euthanasia, and prostitution?
These are the values that make Canada great.
Why do mean-spirited conservative Canadians continue to insist that children have the right to be born into a two-parent family and raised in a moral social environment?
Don't they see that Liberal values are far better for Canada than values that favour the natural rights of children?
Paul Martin calls Liberal Values "Oppressive"; Urges Canadians to vote Conservative!
Paul Martin:
"Let me tell you, the fact is, the vast majority of Canadians believe in Liberal values, including the Charter, which is fundamentally designed to protect minorities from the oppression of the majority." [not a real quote, but stitched together from two separate statements Paul Martin has made]
Huh?
You might have to think about this one for a minute -- but Paul Martin clearly says,
a) the Charter is needed to safeguard minorities from "the oppression of the majority", and
b) "the vast majority of Canadians believe in Liberal values".
Does this mean that Liberal values are oppressive?
Or are we not to believe Paul Martin when he says that the vast majority of Canadians believe in Liberal values?
If the main proponent of Liberal values, the leader of the Liberal Party, is lying, when he says Conservatives hold values that are far different from his, does this mean that Conservatives are the truth-tellers?
Is Paul Martin trying to tell us that we should believe the Conservatives, and not him?
Is Paul Martin telling us we should vote Conservative?!
Paul Martin is telling us to vote Conservative!
It's all there, in da Martini Code.
"Let me tell you, the fact is, the vast majority of Canadians believe in Liberal values, including the Charter, which is fundamentally designed to protect minorities from the oppression of the majority." [not a real quote, but stitched together from two separate statements Paul Martin has made]
Huh?
You might have to think about this one for a minute -- but Paul Martin clearly says,
a) the Charter is needed to safeguard minorities from "the oppression of the majority", and
b) "the vast majority of Canadians believe in Liberal values".
Does this mean that Liberal values are oppressive?
Or are we not to believe Paul Martin when he says that the vast majority of Canadians believe in Liberal values?
If the main proponent of Liberal values, the leader of the Liberal Party, is lying, when he says Conservatives hold values that are far different from his, does this mean that Conservatives are the truth-tellers?
Is Paul Martin trying to tell us that we should believe the Conservatives, and not him?
Is Paul Martin telling us we should vote Conservative?!
Paul Martin is telling us to vote Conservative!
It's all there, in da Martini Code.
Saturday, January 21, 2006
If there was any doubt...
...about Stephen Harper's loyalties, this should put it to rest.
You are a couple of clicks away from the map of the world that adorns Stephen Harper's wall. No, not his campaign room wall, his bedroom wall!
I realize, as the saying goes, "the bedroom has no place in the state of our nation", but this is the exception.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you proof positive of Stephen Harper's scary secret agenda.
http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_apr2003/USGeography.gif
You are a couple of clicks away from the map of the world that adorns Stephen Harper's wall. No, not his campaign room wall, his bedroom wall!
I realize, as the saying goes, "the bedroom has no place in the state of our nation", but this is the exception.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you proof positive of Stephen Harper's scary secret agenda.
http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_apr2003/USGeography.gif
Fresh Sasquatch sightings - another reason to vote Liberal
According to unidentified sources, Stephen Harper has released a fresh batch of Sasquatch into the wild to divert attention from his radical, far-right Americanized agenda.
When confronted, he denied any knowledge of this. Paul Martin immediately denounced his denials, and demanded to know if Stephen Harper would recognize a Sasquatch's right to choose, salmon or trout, "yes or no"? When Stephen Harper refused to answer, Paul Martin went red in the face and started jumping up and down, shouting, "see, do you see, can you finally see what I am saying about this man?". He was last seen being led away by his handlers.
Meanwhile, it is reported that the Parties are rushing to develop policies, "just in case" Sasquatch sightings are confirmed.
It is reported the Conservatives will sell licenses for sight-seeing expeditions, the Liberals will grant Sasquatch citizenship and extend the definition of marriage accordingly, Jack Layton will beg them to "lend me your votes", and the Green Party will declare the entire province of British Columbia an off-limits nature habitat.
Finally, the Anglican Church of Canada, in a spirit of inclusiveness, suggested that it's next Primate could be a primate.
When confronted, he denied any knowledge of this. Paul Martin immediately denounced his denials, and demanded to know if Stephen Harper would recognize a Sasquatch's right to choose, salmon or trout, "yes or no"? When Stephen Harper refused to answer, Paul Martin went red in the face and started jumping up and down, shouting, "see, do you see, can you finally see what I am saying about this man?". He was last seen being led away by his handlers.
Meanwhile, it is reported that the Parties are rushing to develop policies, "just in case" Sasquatch sightings are confirmed.
It is reported the Conservatives will sell licenses for sight-seeing expeditions, the Liberals will grant Sasquatch citizenship and extend the definition of marriage accordingly, Jack Layton will beg them to "lend me your votes", and the Green Party will declare the entire province of British Columbia an off-limits nature habitat.
Finally, the Anglican Church of Canada, in a spirit of inclusiveness, suggested that it's next Primate could be a primate.
Friday, January 20, 2006
A scary visual
I saw a visual of an enthusiastic Paul Martin wading among a crowd of young kids yesterday. Couldn't help but wonder what he was saying to them. If it was anything like what he was telling their parents, it was probably something like, "let me tell you about how I support your mother's right to "choose" and how she could have blasted each and every one of you to tiny pre-Canadian bits. Isn't that terrific, kids? Can you say, "a woman's right to choose"?
Funny how the younger you get the more the "right to choose" seems less like a right, and more like a threat.
Funny how the younger you get the more the "right to choose" seems less like a right, and more like a threat.
What are community activists doing influencing the choice of Supreme Court appointees?
Paul Martin huffs and puffs about the non-political nature of judicial appointments.
But listen to this.
According to an article in today's National Post (Janice Tibbetts, January 20, 2006), when a Supreme Court vacancy exists, an advisory panel is commissioned.
Who gets to be on this panel?
MPs.
Legal experts.
Community activists.
Community activists? What are "community activists" doing influencing the choice of Supreme Court appointees? It sounds arbitrary. It sounds ideological. It sounds political. And it sounds undemocratic.
We don't need "activists" choosing Judges. Being an "activist" should automatically disqualify anyone from having a say in who becomes a Judge. Judges must pick-and-choose between competing ideologies; the ideologically-driven should not influence the decision of who becomes a judge.
Who appoints this panel? Who gets to choose the "community activists" that will be have a say in choosing our next Supreme Court appointment?
And who are these community activists? Evangelical Christians with a scary agenda to bring some moral sense back to the nation? Not likely. Gay-rights activists? Women's groups? Poverty activists? Euthanasia avocates? Prostitution advocates? I would like to know.
I'll tell you who probably does. Would-be Supreme Court appointees probably have a very good idea of who typically populates these activist panels. Having to pass muster with them, this further politicizes the appointments process and gives lie to the idea that appointments are august and impartial.
The idea of an impartial and neutral Court is one of the fictions that holds Canada together. It is a fiction which reinforces our contentment to be "ruled" rather than "ruling".
But listen to this.
According to an article in today's National Post (Janice Tibbetts, January 20, 2006), when a Supreme Court vacancy exists, an advisory panel is commissioned.
Who gets to be on this panel?
MPs.
Legal experts.
Community activists.
Community activists? What are "community activists" doing influencing the choice of Supreme Court appointees? It sounds arbitrary. It sounds ideological. It sounds political. And it sounds undemocratic.
We don't need "activists" choosing Judges. Being an "activist" should automatically disqualify anyone from having a say in who becomes a Judge. Judges must pick-and-choose between competing ideologies; the ideologically-driven should not influence the decision of who becomes a judge.
Who appoints this panel? Who gets to choose the "community activists" that will be have a say in choosing our next Supreme Court appointment?
And who are these community activists? Evangelical Christians with a scary agenda to bring some moral sense back to the nation? Not likely. Gay-rights activists? Women's groups? Poverty activists? Euthanasia avocates? Prostitution advocates? I would like to know.
I'll tell you who probably does. Would-be Supreme Court appointees probably have a very good idea of who typically populates these activist panels. Having to pass muster with them, this further politicizes the appointments process and gives lie to the idea that appointments are august and impartial.
The idea of an impartial and neutral Court is one of the fictions that holds Canada together. It is a fiction which reinforces our contentment to be "ruled" rather than "ruling".
Thursday, January 19, 2006
The Liberal legacy... their numbers are soaring
Chlamydia up 70%
Gonorrhea up 80%
Syphillis up 900%
Under the Liberals, sexually transmitted diseases among young people have reached epidemic proportions.
This is the Liberal record and legacy.
While I do not blame the Liberals directly for these statistics, I would say this. They have certainly contributed to the morally lax atmosphere that now characterizes Canadian culture. When have Liberals ever offered any support to parents trying to go against the tide, and raise their children with moral values that include abstinence?
Never.
Instead, they distribute condoms as part of their "care package" to Young Liberals.
Instead, they proclaim, "be free". "Be sexually active." "Don't let anyone tell you that disordered sexual urges are anything but normal and natural." "You have the right to have sex, and, if you get pregnant, you have a right to an abortion". "The beloved Charter guarantees it".
Instead, they insist, against Conservative urging, that the legal age for sexual consent remain at fourteen. With this comes the implied permission from their "elders" for young people to be sexually active.
Reminds me of the Scripture -- is it I Peter? -- "promising them freedom, they themselves are the slaves to corruption".
The Liberals are morally bankrupt; they couldn't do anything to morally uplift the country at this point if they tried. In fact, it wouldn't even occur to them that they should try.
Their greatest accomplishment has been to eliminate the country's ability to think in moral terms. It's no longer about morals; it's always about rights ("always winter; never Christmas"). Not once during the CTV article was it even suggested there might be a moral issue associated with young people having promiscuous sex.
Ah yes. A nation thinks it can cast off the constraints of Christianity and be free. Instead, it finds itself increasingly in chains. And what a terrible start in life for Canada's young people - Chlamydia up 70%, Gonorrhea up 80%, Syphillis up 900%. No wonder the Liberals want to legalize drugs and euthanasia. With a start in life like this, there's going to be a lot of demand down the road. And, if there's one thing that Liberals will deliver on, it's the tools of moral self-destruction.
Perhaps next week Paul Martin will begin to have some spare time to contemplate the damage the Liberal mind has done to Canada. And no mind has been more damaged than his own. With every public insistence about protecting same-sex marriage and "a woman's right to choose" (and castigating Stephen Harper for not joining in) he further damns his Catholic soul.
Gonorrhea up 80%
Syphillis up 900%
Under the Liberals, sexually transmitted diseases among young people have reached epidemic proportions.
This is the Liberal record and legacy.
While I do not blame the Liberals directly for these statistics, I would say this. They have certainly contributed to the morally lax atmosphere that now characterizes Canadian culture. When have Liberals ever offered any support to parents trying to go against the tide, and raise their children with moral values that include abstinence?
Never.
Instead, they distribute condoms as part of their "care package" to Young Liberals.
Instead, they proclaim, "be free". "Be sexually active." "Don't let anyone tell you that disordered sexual urges are anything but normal and natural." "You have the right to have sex, and, if you get pregnant, you have a right to an abortion". "The beloved Charter guarantees it".
Instead, they insist, against Conservative urging, that the legal age for sexual consent remain at fourteen. With this comes the implied permission from their "elders" for young people to be sexually active.
Reminds me of the Scripture -- is it I Peter? -- "promising them freedom, they themselves are the slaves to corruption".
The Liberals are morally bankrupt; they couldn't do anything to morally uplift the country at this point if they tried. In fact, it wouldn't even occur to them that they should try.
Their greatest accomplishment has been to eliminate the country's ability to think in moral terms. It's no longer about morals; it's always about rights ("always winter; never Christmas"). Not once during the CTV article was it even suggested there might be a moral issue associated with young people having promiscuous sex.
Ah yes. A nation thinks it can cast off the constraints of Christianity and be free. Instead, it finds itself increasingly in chains. And what a terrible start in life for Canada's young people - Chlamydia up 70%, Gonorrhea up 80%, Syphillis up 900%. No wonder the Liberals want to legalize drugs and euthanasia. With a start in life like this, there's going to be a lot of demand down the road. And, if there's one thing that Liberals will deliver on, it's the tools of moral self-destruction.
Perhaps next week Paul Martin will begin to have some spare time to contemplate the damage the Liberal mind has done to Canada. And no mind has been more damaged than his own. With every public insistence about protecting same-sex marriage and "a woman's right to choose" (and castigating Stephen Harper for not joining in) he further damns his Catholic soul.
I wanna be a nation too!
We know that Quebec is a "nation".
And we know that the First Nations are... nations. (I wonder how many of them there are?)
I was just reading a CBC article, and I just learned that the Metis are also a nation!
My relatives came to Canada about the same time that whites were inter-breeding with Indians and begetting the Metis nation. So, the Metis are half-white, half me. I'm half way to being a nation!
I wanna be a nation, too!
What if someone began speaking about the "white nation", or maybe the "white nations", meaning the original European settlers to Canada
Can you imagine the uproar?
Can you imagine the accusations of racism?
Funny how politics work, isn't it?
OK to call the Metis a nation, and they're half-white. But, and this is important, they get their nationhood not by being half-white, but by being half-Indian.
And the whites? We don't get to be a nation. (So I can, sniff, put my dream of being a nation someday away.) We just get to work hard and pay the bills.
And, if the Liberals, NDP and the United Church have their way, to feel guilty along the way.
And we know that the First Nations are... nations. (I wonder how many of them there are?)
I was just reading a CBC article, and I just learned that the Metis are also a nation!
My relatives came to Canada about the same time that whites were inter-breeding with Indians and begetting the Metis nation. So, the Metis are half-white, half me. I'm half way to being a nation!
I wanna be a nation, too!
What if someone began speaking about the "white nation", or maybe the "white nations", meaning the original European settlers to Canada
Can you imagine the uproar?
Can you imagine the accusations of racism?
Funny how politics work, isn't it?
OK to call the Metis a nation, and they're half-white. But, and this is important, they get their nationhood not by being half-white, but by being half-Indian.
And the whites? We don't get to be a nation. (So I can, sniff, put my dream of being a nation someday away.) We just get to work hard and pay the bills.
And, if the Liberals, NDP and the United Church have their way, to feel guilty along the way.
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Democracy Watch - Duff Conacher - CTV News tonite
According to CTV News, Duff Conacher of Democracy Watch has given the Conservatives an "A" ("B" according to Democracy Watch's website -- see below) for their platform.
The Liberals? They got an "F".
Bad Liberals!, Bad! Go to the
a) woodshed
b) corner
c) penalty box, or
d) opposition side of the House.
If democracy is good, then Liberals are bad.
Reinforces my two previous blogs.
http://www.dwatch.ca/camp/RelsJan1806.html
The Liberals? They got an "F".
Bad Liberals!, Bad! Go to the
a) woodshed
b) corner
c) penalty box, or
d) opposition side of the House.
If democracy is good, then Liberals are bad.
Reinforces my two previous blogs.
http://www.dwatch.ca/camp/RelsJan1806.html
The Democratic Conservative Party of Canada
The fundamental difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives is not liberalism vs. conservatism. It is the democratic instincts of the Conservatives vs. the destructive, undemocratic thrusts of the Liberals. (For a discussion of these, see the previous post.)
The Conservatives should exploit this.
They should rename themselves the Democratic Conservative Party of Canada (DCP) or (DCPC).
And then they should remind Canadians as often as possible how they differ from the statist Liberals who have diminished functioning democracy in Canada just about as far as they can -- nuking the Notwithstanding Clause would be a nail, if not the nail, in the coffin.
The Democratic Conservative Party of Canada.
You heard it here first, folks!
The Conservatives should exploit this.
They should rename themselves the Democratic Conservative Party of Canada (DCP) or (DCPC).
And then they should remind Canadians as often as possible how they differ from the statist Liberals who have diminished functioning democracy in Canada just about as far as they can -- nuking the Notwithstanding Clause would be a nail, if not the nail, in the coffin.
The Democratic Conservative Party of Canada.
You heard it here first, folks!
Conservatives' democratic leanings are showing
What do the following have in common?
Free vote vs. Constrained Cabinet vote
Childcare allowance vs. State-run Daycare
Retention of Notwithstanding Clause vs. Nuking it
They all deal with democracy. Conservatives favour it; the Liberals find it either inconvenient or dangerous. We're not sure which. They're not telling.
One of the running themes of my posts (and a letter published earlier in the National Post) is the contrast between the democratic instincts of the Conservative Party vs. the undemocratic tendencies of the Liberals.
Here's my Letter to the Editor (from December 2006):
"So far, the Conservative Party has shown more faith in democracy than the ruling Liberals. From childcare, in which the parents would decide how to spend the money (instead of state-regulated daycare), to a free vote on same-sex marriage (as opposed to Cabinet being forced to vote one way), the Conservatives are establishing themselves as the more democratic party. The Liberals, by way of contrast, have a) passed laws restricting democratic expression during this election, b) centralized power in the office of the PM, c) moved the deciding of important social issues out of the hands of the people and into the hands of decldedly undemocratic appeals Courts, while dismissing the instincts of the democratic majority as "oppressive".
In many respects, what Canadians are being asked to vote on in this election is themselves. Those who believe Canadians can trust their democratic instincts should vote Conservative, those who don't, Liberal. A restoration of democracy in Canada would be exciting, and good for the country."
Free vote vs. Constrained Cabinet vote
Childcare allowance vs. State-run Daycare
Retention of Notwithstanding Clause vs. Nuking it
They all deal with democracy. Conservatives favour it; the Liberals find it either inconvenient or dangerous. We're not sure which. They're not telling.
One of the running themes of my posts (and a letter published earlier in the National Post) is the contrast between the democratic instincts of the Conservative Party vs. the undemocratic tendencies of the Liberals.
Here's my Letter to the Editor (from December 2006):
"So far, the Conservative Party has shown more faith in democracy than the ruling Liberals. From childcare, in which the parents would decide how to spend the money (instead of state-regulated daycare), to a free vote on same-sex marriage (as opposed to Cabinet being forced to vote one way), the Conservatives are establishing themselves as the more democratic party. The Liberals, by way of contrast, have a) passed laws restricting democratic expression during this election, b) centralized power in the office of the PM, c) moved the deciding of important social issues out of the hands of the people and into the hands of decldedly undemocratic appeals Courts, while dismissing the instincts of the democratic majority as "oppressive".
In many respects, what Canadians are being asked to vote on in this election is themselves. Those who believe Canadians can trust their democratic instincts should vote Conservative, those who don't, Liberal. A restoration of democracy in Canada would be exciting, and good for the country."
Biased Judges? We can't have that!
According to recent Liberal reactions to Stephen Harper's statement of the obvious, apparently in Canada we are not even allowed to suggest that the PM's appointments to the Appeals Courts may have any kind of ideological bias, or POV, that may affect their decisions.
Can't even talk about it! To do so is to suggest the Courts may be biased! And we can't have that!
Why, if the courts aren't impartial robotic interpreters of the Charter, but flesh-and-blood human beings with feelings, and attitudes, and values, and biases, why, that makes them mortal, and we can't have that!
Why, if that's the case, it would be safer to entrust our moral decisions to the great unwashed of Parliament (300+), rather than the elect (9). And we can't have that!
That would give ordinary Canadians a real chance to influence the moral character of the country as reflected in its laws. And we can't have that!
Why, that might mean that Canadians think there ought to be at least some rudimentary protections for the unborn. And we can't have that!
And it might mean that Canadians, upon reflection, think it's best to leave the definition of marriage the way it was, you know, rooted in human biology. And we can't have that.
All of the above would restore a democratic character to Canada's public life. And we can't have that!
Once again, the anti-democratic instincts of the Liberal Party are on display.
* * *
The Courts, over the past twenty years, have supported a woman's sexual freedoms over an unborn child's right to life; they have recognized the equality of same-sex relationships, and, in so doing, have nullified a child's natural right to know the love of a mother and a father and gone against Canada's entire moral history; they have upheld the right to swinging based on a doctrine of a "minority mores and morals", while announcing they will no longer consider "community values" when making their judgments.
They have declared that there are rights that are not written in the Charter that they plan to recognize and apply.
While accomplishing all of the above, they have failed to protect explicity stated Charter rights including freedom of speech (Chris Kempling), conscience (Scott Brockie) and religion (e.g., PEI bed-and-breakfast couple; marriage commissioners).
The same people who today insist that we cannot even talk about possible bias among Liberal appointments to the Courts will be the first to howl when a Conservative PM appoints someone whose moral centre differs from theirs.
Can't even talk about it! To do so is to suggest the Courts may be biased! And we can't have that!
Why, if the courts aren't impartial robotic interpreters of the Charter, but flesh-and-blood human beings with feelings, and attitudes, and values, and biases, why, that makes them mortal, and we can't have that!
Why, if that's the case, it would be safer to entrust our moral decisions to the great unwashed of Parliament (300+), rather than the elect (9). And we can't have that!
That would give ordinary Canadians a real chance to influence the moral character of the country as reflected in its laws. And we can't have that!
Why, that might mean that Canadians think there ought to be at least some rudimentary protections for the unborn. And we can't have that!
And it might mean that Canadians, upon reflection, think it's best to leave the definition of marriage the way it was, you know, rooted in human biology. And we can't have that.
All of the above would restore a democratic character to Canada's public life. And we can't have that!
Once again, the anti-democratic instincts of the Liberal Party are on display.
* * *
The Courts, over the past twenty years, have supported a woman's sexual freedoms over an unborn child's right to life; they have recognized the equality of same-sex relationships, and, in so doing, have nullified a child's natural right to know the love of a mother and a father and gone against Canada's entire moral history; they have upheld the right to swinging based on a doctrine of a "minority mores and morals", while announcing they will no longer consider "community values" when making their judgments.
They have declared that there are rights that are not written in the Charter that they plan to recognize and apply.
While accomplishing all of the above, they have failed to protect explicity stated Charter rights including freedom of speech (Chris Kempling), conscience (Scott Brockie) and religion (e.g., PEI bed-and-breakfast couple; marriage commissioners).
The same people who today insist that we cannot even talk about possible bias among Liberal appointments to the Courts will be the first to howl when a Conservative PM appoints someone whose moral centre differs from theirs.
"We are going to stay the course"
We go live now to a Paul Martin speech...
"Thanks to the Liberals, we are now a nation of low unemployment, low interest rates, and even lower morals.
And, if we are re-elected, let me tell you, we will go lower still!
"Thanks to the Liberals, we are now a nation of low unemployment, low interest rates, and even lower morals.
And, if we are re-elected, let me tell you, we will go lower still!
Harper says Courts reflect Liberal rule
Well, duh!
Most judges are extreme-left in their political views. The idea that they are unbiased or simply ruling on matters of law is a polite fiction. Judges who wished to put the natural rights and welfare of children first would never have "found" the right to abortion or "found" the right to same-sex marriage in the Charter. And I say "found", because neither of them are there.
Under the present regime, the rights to freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, and freedom of speech have all been either abrogated or diminished. (Christians have been hauled before human rights tribunals, fined, fired from their jobs, and imprisoned for their Christian speech and actions.)
Other rights, such as the right to an abortion, and the right to a same-sex marriage have been championed, advanced, and upheld by the Courts.
So, the actual track record of the Courts is that they have failed to protect the rights that are actually in the Charter, while advancing rights that are not. If that's not the definition of bias, I don't know what is.
The Courts feign objectivity, but in fact the whole process is political. First, the PM appoints the judges. That's a political decision. Then, the government of the day gets to fund "pet causes" for Charter challenges. That's political. The funding of these groups sends a clear political "signal" to the Courts. And then the courts rule in favour of the latest leftist cause du jour, and the PM says "the Courts have decided". In fact, he doesn't even say this. He says, "it's a Charter right".
It's all politics, wrapped in a Charter document that is powerless in the hands of an all-powerful judiciary.
Most judges are extreme-left in their political views. The idea that they are unbiased or simply ruling on matters of law is a polite fiction. Judges who wished to put the natural rights and welfare of children first would never have "found" the right to abortion or "found" the right to same-sex marriage in the Charter. And I say "found", because neither of them are there.
Under the present regime, the rights to freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, and freedom of speech have all been either abrogated or diminished. (Christians have been hauled before human rights tribunals, fined, fired from their jobs, and imprisoned for their Christian speech and actions.)
Other rights, such as the right to an abortion, and the right to a same-sex marriage have been championed, advanced, and upheld by the Courts.
So, the actual track record of the Courts is that they have failed to protect the rights that are actually in the Charter, while advancing rights that are not. If that's not the definition of bias, I don't know what is.
The Courts feign objectivity, but in fact the whole process is political. First, the PM appoints the judges. That's a political decision. Then, the government of the day gets to fund "pet causes" for Charter challenges. That's political. The funding of these groups sends a clear political "signal" to the Courts. And then the courts rule in favour of the latest leftist cause du jour, and the PM says "the Courts have decided". In fact, he doesn't even say this. He says, "it's a Charter right".
It's all politics, wrapped in a Charter document that is powerless in the hands of an all-powerful judiciary.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Marriage: why two, when one will do?
The proper definition of marriage is rooted in human biology (male-female). It is available to all, regardless of one's sexual orientation.
However, if it is to be re-defined by sexual orientation, then it should be redefined to include all sexual orientations, and not just one. Otherwise, it becomes a discriminatory institution that promotes hate.
A bisexual man should be able to marry both a man and a woman. A bisexual woman should be able to marry a woman and a man. If a bisexual man marries another bisexual man, then they each should be allowed to also marry a woman, either the same woman or two different women. And, if either of these women is bisexual, she should also be able to marry a woman, either each other, or two other women. Anything less is a failure of the courts to recognize the equality of their sexual orientation and expand the definition of marriage to accommodate it.
If marriage rights now reside in sexual orientation, then pederasts should have the legal right to marry a child.
And an asexual person should have the legal right to marry himself (or herself), and be considered married for legal purposes. Otherwise the institution of marriage discriminates against them by not recognizing the legal equality of their sexual orientation.
Let's get away from this obsolete idea that a marriage has to have two persons.
However, if it is to be re-defined by sexual orientation, then it should be redefined to include all sexual orientations, and not just one. Otherwise, it becomes a discriminatory institution that promotes hate.
A bisexual man should be able to marry both a man and a woman. A bisexual woman should be able to marry a woman and a man. If a bisexual man marries another bisexual man, then they each should be allowed to also marry a woman, either the same woman or two different women. And, if either of these women is bisexual, she should also be able to marry a woman, either each other, or two other women. Anything less is a failure of the courts to recognize the equality of their sexual orientation and expand the definition of marriage to accommodate it.
If marriage rights now reside in sexual orientation, then pederasts should have the legal right to marry a child.
And an asexual person should have the legal right to marry himself (or herself), and be considered married for legal purposes. Otherwise the institution of marriage discriminates against them by not recognizing the legal equality of their sexual orientation.
Let's get away from this obsolete idea that a marriage has to have two persons.
No man is an assisted-suicide island [response to G&M blogger]
If assisted suicide is legalized in Canada, you can bet it will not mean that the government butts out of our lives.
We already have state-assisted death; it's called abortion -- and taxpayers pay for it and public hospitals perform it.
Moreover, real lives are affected beyond the woman whose motherhood is aborted and whose child is terminated; husbands, boyfriends, would-be grandparents, nurses, doctors -- the circle of affected lives is broad.
Defining assisted suicide as a "right" implies a positive duty on someone else's part to provide it. Doctors will be expected to kill off persons tired of living. What if a doctor or nurse, out of conscience, refuses? We already know, from our experience with abortion, that doctors, nurses, and hospitals that refuse to go along with the state's latest right will be punished. The Charter-right to freedom of conscience has been effectively quashed by courts more interested in promoting abortion and homosexuality. Careers will be aborted. Funds will be terminated.
Opening the door to assisted suicide among the consenting will inevitably lead to state-sanctioned "involuntary suicide" of the non-consenting, in particular, infants deemed unworthy of "keeping", and the tired, old, useless people like my mother, who, like a blocked drain, are clogging up our healthcare systems.
No man is an island. Individual choices, from abortion to euthanasia, affect us all.
God, in his Word, has given us a vision of life.
We are choosing death.
We already have state-assisted death; it's called abortion -- and taxpayers pay for it and public hospitals perform it.
Moreover, real lives are affected beyond the woman whose motherhood is aborted and whose child is terminated; husbands, boyfriends, would-be grandparents, nurses, doctors -- the circle of affected lives is broad.
Defining assisted suicide as a "right" implies a positive duty on someone else's part to provide it. Doctors will be expected to kill off persons tired of living. What if a doctor or nurse, out of conscience, refuses? We already know, from our experience with abortion, that doctors, nurses, and hospitals that refuse to go along with the state's latest right will be punished. The Charter-right to freedom of conscience has been effectively quashed by courts more interested in promoting abortion and homosexuality. Careers will be aborted. Funds will be terminated.
Opening the door to assisted suicide among the consenting will inevitably lead to state-sanctioned "involuntary suicide" of the non-consenting, in particular, infants deemed unworthy of "keeping", and the tired, old, useless people like my mother, who, like a blocked drain, are clogging up our healthcare systems.
No man is an island. Individual choices, from abortion to euthanasia, affect us all.
God, in his Word, has given us a vision of life.
We are choosing death.
Polygamy -- the time has come [response to NP letter]
Letter-writer Doris Wrench's intolerant argument against polygamy fails to convince.
Polygamy may, but need not, be based on religious rights (which she prejudicially views as an inferior claim). It can just as easily be justified on the basis of freedom of association, or sexual orientation (especially in the case of a bisexual person who wishes to achieve complete fulfillment by marrying a person of each sex), or any other criteria the courts may wish to use. And, if pressed, the courts could just invent a new category of rights to cover polygamy (as they did with homosexuality).
She argues that polygamy transgresses women's equality rights; but Canadian-style polygamy would most certainly include the right of a woman to multiple husbands. Besides, call me old fashioned, but whatever happened to a woman's "right to choose"? If a woman wants to embrace a polygamous arrangement who are we to stop her? Doesn't she have the right to control her body, and hasn't the state said it wants to keep out of the bedrooms of the nation?
And what about the children? Proponents of same-sex marriage argue we must acknowledge same-sex marriage so that the children involved are not made to feel their family is inferior. Surely, the same argument applies to polygamy.
Finally, if the purpose of the Charter is to protect minorities, even those whose morals clash with the majority, what group could be more deserving than polygamists? Does not the Prime Minister have the obligation to be PM for all Canadians, and not just those he personally approves of? And has the present Prime Minister "Mr. Rights" not said that we cannot have two classes of Canadians?
Extending the definition to include polygamy would be entirely in keeping with the new spirit of inclusion and generosity sweeping the Courts and Canada.
It would also help to finally quash the once-Christian character of Canada.
And that should have the Liberals and the NDP cheering.
Polygamy may, but need not, be based on religious rights (which she prejudicially views as an inferior claim). It can just as easily be justified on the basis of freedom of association, or sexual orientation (especially in the case of a bisexual person who wishes to achieve complete fulfillment by marrying a person of each sex), or any other criteria the courts may wish to use. And, if pressed, the courts could just invent a new category of rights to cover polygamy (as they did with homosexuality).
She argues that polygamy transgresses women's equality rights; but Canadian-style polygamy would most certainly include the right of a woman to multiple husbands. Besides, call me old fashioned, but whatever happened to a woman's "right to choose"? If a woman wants to embrace a polygamous arrangement who are we to stop her? Doesn't she have the right to control her body, and hasn't the state said it wants to keep out of the bedrooms of the nation?
And what about the children? Proponents of same-sex marriage argue we must acknowledge same-sex marriage so that the children involved are not made to feel their family is inferior. Surely, the same argument applies to polygamy.
Finally, if the purpose of the Charter is to protect minorities, even those whose morals clash with the majority, what group could be more deserving than polygamists? Does not the Prime Minister have the obligation to be PM for all Canadians, and not just those he personally approves of? And has the present Prime Minister "Mr. Rights" not said that we cannot have two classes of Canadians?
Extending the definition to include polygamy would be entirely in keeping with the new spirit of inclusion and generosity sweeping the Courts and Canada.
It would also help to finally quash the once-Christian character of Canada.
And that should have the Liberals and the NDP cheering.
Monday, January 16, 2006
An important message from the Prime Minister (2)
[camera pans in on Paul Martin, who is reading his notes. Paul Martin looks up at the camera]
My fellow Canadians,
Recent news articles have highlighted a growing problem. A weighty problem that is, frankly, becoming increasingly difficult to wrap our arms around. The problem is obesity. Now, let me be very, very clear. What this means is that too many of us are fat.
The fend-for-yourself Conservatives, following an American agenda, will just let Canadians go on eating what they like. This will not solve the problem. In fact, it will just [pause] "upsize" the problem [grin and look pleased with self].
Well, let me tell you, I am passionate about this country, and Mr. Harper may let it go to the hot-dogs, but I will not. And, flab may be good enough for the Conservatives, but, let me tell you, it is not good enough for the Liberals.
Liberal research experts have identified an important source of obesity. And that is gum. An over-abundance of gum. We are awash in gum, much of it, frankly imported from the United States where there are no laws concerning gum. Ladies, and gentlemen, to solve this problem, we simply have to get the gum off the streets.
That is why, as your Prime Minister, I promise you that I will, in the first 90 days of office, establish a gum registry.
We have been told by some that the right to gum is protected by a man or a woman's right to chews; well I disagree. And that is why, I am announcing today, a ban on all gum small enough to fit in the palm of your hands; gum that could easily be transported from place to place in a pocket; that is right, I am announcing a total ban on hand gums.
[satisfied look - fade]
My fellow Canadians,
Recent news articles have highlighted a growing problem. A weighty problem that is, frankly, becoming increasingly difficult to wrap our arms around. The problem is obesity. Now, let me be very, very clear. What this means is that too many of us are fat.
The fend-for-yourself Conservatives, following an American agenda, will just let Canadians go on eating what they like. This will not solve the problem. In fact, it will just [pause] "upsize" the problem [grin and look pleased with self].
Well, let me tell you, I am passionate about this country, and Mr. Harper may let it go to the hot-dogs, but I will not. And, flab may be good enough for the Conservatives, but, let me tell you, it is not good enough for the Liberals.
Liberal research experts have identified an important source of obesity. And that is gum. An over-abundance of gum. We are awash in gum, much of it, frankly imported from the United States where there are no laws concerning gum. Ladies, and gentlemen, to solve this problem, we simply have to get the gum off the streets.
That is why, as your Prime Minister, I promise you that I will, in the first 90 days of office, establish a gum registry.
We have been told by some that the right to gum is protected by a man or a woman's right to chews; well I disagree. And that is why, I am announcing today, a ban on all gum small enough to fit in the palm of your hands; gum that could easily be transported from place to place in a pocket; that is right, I am announcing a total ban on hand gums.
[satisfied look - fade]
Canada's Obesity Problem Widens
Catchy title to a G&M article. Here's my political take on this:
If we elect the NDP, Jack Layton will banish for profit supermarkets, and tax foods that taste good.
The Paul Martin Liberals have set aside funds to establish 125,000 national eating places with state-approved, professionally managed menus available in both of Canada's official languages from coast to coast to coast. Part of the program will be a gum registry, and, down the road, the possibility of an outright ban on finger foods, including all hand gums.
The Green Party will insist that all foods, from popcorn to beer, be organic.
The fend-for-yourself Conservatives will just let us go on eating what we like.
If we elect the NDP, Jack Layton will banish for profit supermarkets, and tax foods that taste good.
The Paul Martin Liberals have set aside funds to establish 125,000 national eating places with state-approved, professionally managed menus available in both of Canada's official languages from coast to coast to coast. Part of the program will be a gum registry, and, down the road, the possibility of an outright ban on finger foods, including all hand gums.
The Green Party will insist that all foods, from popcorn to beer, be organic.
The fend-for-yourself Conservatives will just let us go on eating what we like.
Glum and Glummer
Take a look at the main page over at www.liberal.ca (as of Jan. 16, 2006). This is not from a mildly hostile newspaper.
This is from the Liberals' own website. This is not helping the Liberal cause.
Ladies, and gentlemen, I give you Glum and Glummer.
And, from deep within the Liberal mind comes this quote (concerning the Tory capital gains plan):
QUOTE
“Any competent financial planner can find half a dozen ways to ensure you never pay. This promise comes close to a de facto elimination of the capital gains tax for individuals,” he said.
UNQUOTE
Oh, sure, if you're a Liberal financial planner. This kind of sleight-of-hand done on a daily basis, no doubt. For the rest of us, it's tax deferred only until the money is not-reinvested.
This will enable Canadians to increase their wealth -- and we simply cannot have that. The Liberals love to get their hands on as much as they can, as soon as they can, as often as they can, for as long as they can, forcing as many as they can into dependence on the public trough.
A country consisting of financially strong and free Canadians is inconsistent with liberal values. And a country that catches an entrepreneurial spirit, and glimpses that it can do financially well without the government doing it all for them, a liberal's worst nightmare.
The politics of class envy and greed (for others' money) are on display for all to see.
This is from the Liberals' own website. This is not helping the Liberal cause.
Ladies, and gentlemen, I give you Glum and Glummer.
And, from deep within the Liberal mind comes this quote (concerning the Tory capital gains plan):
QUOTE
“Any competent financial planner can find half a dozen ways to ensure you never pay. This promise comes close to a de facto elimination of the capital gains tax for individuals,” he said.
UNQUOTE
Oh, sure, if you're a Liberal financial planner. This kind of sleight-of-hand done on a daily basis, no doubt. For the rest of us, it's tax deferred only until the money is not-reinvested.
This will enable Canadians to increase their wealth -- and we simply cannot have that. The Liberals love to get their hands on as much as they can, as soon as they can, as often as they can, for as long as they can, forcing as many as they can into dependence on the public trough.
A country consisting of financially strong and free Canadians is inconsistent with liberal values. And a country that catches an entrepreneurial spirit, and glimpses that it can do financially well without the government doing it all for them, a liberal's worst nightmare.
The politics of class envy and greed (for others' money) are on display for all to see.
Sunday, January 15, 2006
I assumed this was satire. *RETRACTION/UPDATE*
“Let me be very, very clear. The fact is that same-sex marriage and a woman’s right to an abortion are the kind of Canadian values that built this country. They are the values of my father and great Canadians like Tommy Douglas and I will not be the Prime Minister who goes down in history as having taken them away. The fact is that they are fundamentally more important than the preservation of Canada’s single-tier public health care system.”
The above quote has popped up on various sites, which initially lead me to assume it was real. I traced it today to small dead animals.
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/003324.html
While it was based on an actual comment by Paul Martin, Kate McMillan has confirmed that this was a satirical take on the referenced newspaper article she references on her post. It is unfortunate that this satirical paraphrase has become detached from the newspaper article that inspired it. You can go to her site to view the article.
The key to recognizing it is not a real quote is Mr. Martin talking about "a woman's right to an abortion". We all know he would never do that, unless he was under an awful lot of stress, which is what I assumed. We all know the deflective, deceptive language used by liberals to promote their causes; it's "a woman's right to choose", with the unhappy bits about dismemberment and loss of human life cheerily ignored.
The quote is almost "too good", because one can imagine Martin saying it, in the same way he said the soldiers' ad "did not appear", and "was not about soldiers". Once you pass into the realm of the delusionary, all bets are off.
Nevertheless, I apologize for initially posting this as genuine. Truth is important. I'll be more careful in future.
The above quote has popped up on various sites, which initially lead me to assume it was real. I traced it today to small dead animals.
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/003324.html
While it was based on an actual comment by Paul Martin, Kate McMillan has confirmed that this was a satirical take on the referenced newspaper article she references on her post. It is unfortunate that this satirical paraphrase has become detached from the newspaper article that inspired it. You can go to her site to view the article.
The key to recognizing it is not a real quote is Mr. Martin talking about "a woman's right to an abortion". We all know he would never do that, unless he was under an awful lot of stress, which is what I assumed. We all know the deflective, deceptive language used by liberals to promote their causes; it's "a woman's right to choose", with the unhappy bits about dismemberment and loss of human life cheerily ignored.
The quote is almost "too good", because one can imagine Martin saying it, in the same way he said the soldiers' ad "did not appear", and "was not about soldiers". Once you pass into the realm of the delusionary, all bets are off.
Nevertheless, I apologize for initially posting this as genuine. Truth is important. I'll be more careful in future.
An uncivil matter
Unbelievable CTV news article tonight.
A tenant in the Maritimes who couldn't pay his rent.
Landlord, currently in Florida, asked him to leave.
The tenant cleared the house of everything - furnace, guts of the dishwasher, I think he cut all the wires -- it was unbelievable. The place was gutted.
The landlord's representative called the RCMP - who said there was nothing they could do, because it was "a civil matter".
As is often the case in the Maritimes, there was no formal rental agreement, and the house was uninsured.
Now for the commentary:
No wonder many people don't want to invest in rental properties or be landlords.
Any future rental housing shortage will be largely tenant-made.
A tenant in the Maritimes who couldn't pay his rent.
Landlord, currently in Florida, asked him to leave.
The tenant cleared the house of everything - furnace, guts of the dishwasher, I think he cut all the wires -- it was unbelievable. The place was gutted.
The landlord's representative called the RCMP - who said there was nothing they could do, because it was "a civil matter".
As is often the case in the Maritimes, there was no formal rental agreement, and the house was uninsured.
Now for the commentary:
No wonder many people don't want to invest in rental properties or be landlords.
Any future rental housing shortage will be largely tenant-made.
Saturday, January 14, 2006
An important announcement from the Prime Minister
[TV camera pans in on Paul Martin, who looks up from his notes.]
My fellow Canadians,
I have asked for this air time to address a matter of great importance to us all.
Prior to the election, the Liberal Party of Canada criticized the Conservatives, for forcing an election during the winter months. As you know, we wanted to wait until Spring. [Grin.] Since then, the weather has been mild. Unseasonably mild. Some would say, suspiciously mild.
We know, that Stephen Harper has secret ties to George Bush. We know they are secret, because he won't tell us about them.
Now, it appears, Stephen Harper has secret ties to God. Who has brought this unseasonably mild weather upon the country. To discredit the Liberal Party of Canada.
My fellow Canadians, unlike the Conservatives, the Liberal Party simply cannot, and will not, tolerate outside interference in our elections.
Does Stephen Harper have secret ties to God?
We don't know.
He's not telling.
That is why, as your Prime Minister, I am announcing today, that my first act, as Prime Minister, will be to launch an investigation into Stephen Harper's secret ties to God.
[Cue self-satisfied look. TV camera slowly pans away.]
Thunder booms.
My fellow Canadians,
I have asked for this air time to address a matter of great importance to us all.
Prior to the election, the Liberal Party of Canada criticized the Conservatives, for forcing an election during the winter months. As you know, we wanted to wait until Spring. [Grin.] Since then, the weather has been mild. Unseasonably mild. Some would say, suspiciously mild.
We know, that Stephen Harper has secret ties to George Bush. We know they are secret, because he won't tell us about them.
Now, it appears, Stephen Harper has secret ties to God. Who has brought this unseasonably mild weather upon the country. To discredit the Liberal Party of Canada.
My fellow Canadians, unlike the Conservatives, the Liberal Party simply cannot, and will not, tolerate outside interference in our elections.
Does Stephen Harper have secret ties to God?
We don't know.
He's not telling.
That is why, as your Prime Minister, I am announcing today, that my first act, as Prime Minister, will be to launch an investigation into Stephen Harper's secret ties to God.
[Cue self-satisfied look. TV camera slowly pans away.]
Thunder booms.
Liberals would "rip up" the Charter [Scary Headline]
Just heard Pettigrew defending the PM's plan to delete-key the Notwithstanding Clause.
Turns out, the Clause was "imposed" on Trudeau, and that Liberals have never believed in it.
Ah yes.
Democracy.
Imposing itself.
On a Liberal PM.
And the current Liberal PM says he would take the Charter out of the hands of "politicians", by which he means "the democratically elected Parliament of our nation".
If there is a constant theme in all of this, it is the Liberals' distain for democracy.
Turns out, the Clause was "imposed" on Trudeau, and that Liberals have never believed in it.
Ah yes.
Democracy.
Imposing itself.
On a Liberal PM.
And the current Liberal PM says he would take the Charter out of the hands of "politicians", by which he means "the democratically elected Parliament of our nation".
If there is a constant theme in all of this, it is the Liberals' distain for democracy.
Friday, January 13, 2006
Liberals' Heroes Fund *UPDATED*
Once again, I find myself in the position of taking-back something nice I tried to say about the Liberals. In the post below, I gave the Liberals credit for their idea of honouring fallen heroes.
Turns out, it wasn't their idea. Listen to this from the Conservatives' website:
"Today, Paul Martin again ran from his record, announcing the Liberals would support a fund to support emergency first responders (Liberal Party Press Release, January 13, 2006). Liberal cabinet ministers voted AGAINST this idea less than three months ago. The facts: 57 Liberal MPs – including 32 cabinet ministers voted AGAINST this policy less than 3 months ago."
In fairness, here's the Liberals' response:
"The Liberals countered that the [original] NDP motion was only limited to firefighters but that their policy includes all public safety officials."
So, the idea was first presented by the NDP, voted against by the Liberals, and then brought back in expanded format as a Liberal platform plank.
A great idea, soured by Liberal cynicism. I've had about all I can take.
* * *
Who can argue against a heroes fund?
But, it's kind of sad that the relatives of the four slain mounties most likely won't be getting the $250,000 that this plan retroactively offers. It seems almost unkind of the Liberals to dangle this in front of these particular families, given the Liberals' place in the polls, and the unlikelihood that they will be able to make good on the proposal.
The decent thing would have been for them to have put this on the back burner, and then just quietly implement it, should they form the government.
Perhaps the Liberal Party will see fit to donate $250,000 to each to these families, should they not be returned to power, as now appears likely.
Turns out, it wasn't their idea. Listen to this from the Conservatives' website:
"Today, Paul Martin again ran from his record, announcing the Liberals would support a fund to support emergency first responders (Liberal Party Press Release, January 13, 2006). Liberal cabinet ministers voted AGAINST this idea less than three months ago. The facts: 57 Liberal MPs – including 32 cabinet ministers voted AGAINST this policy less than 3 months ago."
In fairness, here's the Liberals' response:
"The Liberals countered that the [original] NDP motion was only limited to firefighters but that their policy includes all public safety officials."
So, the idea was first presented by the NDP, voted against by the Liberals, and then brought back in expanded format as a Liberal platform plank.
A great idea, soured by Liberal cynicism. I've had about all I can take.
* * *
Who can argue against a heroes fund?
But, it's kind of sad that the relatives of the four slain mounties most likely won't be getting the $250,000 that this plan retroactively offers. It seems almost unkind of the Liberals to dangle this in front of these particular families, given the Liberals' place in the polls, and the unlikelihood that they will be able to make good on the proposal.
The decent thing would have been for them to have put this on the back burner, and then just quietly implement it, should they form the government.
Perhaps the Liberal Party will see fit to donate $250,000 to each to these families, should they not be returned to power, as now appears likely.
If this is what I think it is, it's brilliant!
According to the Mother Ship (the CBC) Stephen Harper today promised to cut taxes on capital gains for individuals and companies that reinvest the money within six months.
If this is what I think it is, it's brilliant economics that will increase the net worth of Canada.
Here's why. Right now, people who hold long-term (appreciated) equities outside of an RRSP are dissuaded from selling them when market conditions warrant, because of the significant capital-gains hit, which would leave them with much less to re-invest. So they just hang on to them.
Any investment decision made because of "tax considerations" is a distorted decision. Far better to let the investor sell the asset, and use the money to buy another one.
The net result should be increased wealth for Canadians, and a market that more accurately reflects underlying economic realities.
I had thought of this very idea not a month ago, but never dreamed it would be considered.
Conservative Canada: where dreams come true.
I just hope I got it right.
If this is what I think it is, it's brilliant economics that will increase the net worth of Canada.
Here's why. Right now, people who hold long-term (appreciated) equities outside of an RRSP are dissuaded from selling them when market conditions warrant, because of the significant capital-gains hit, which would leave them with much less to re-invest. So they just hang on to them.
Any investment decision made because of "tax considerations" is a distorted decision. Far better to let the investor sell the asset, and use the money to buy another one.
The net result should be increased wealth for Canadians, and a market that more accurately reflects underlying economic realities.
I had thought of this very idea not a month ago, but never dreamed it would be considered.
Conservative Canada: where dreams come true.
I just hope I got it right.
Gun Crazy
As part of my ongoing commitment to original political research, I'm watching a DVD. The title: "Gun Crazy". It's film noir. 1949. Trying to get inside the mind of Paul Martin's Liberals. It's working.
So far, I've learned that it all starts with a sling-shot, and then progresses to a BB gun. From there, I guess it's a short step to gangs, drugs and the mean streets of the big T-O.
The young BB shooter looks unsettlingly like a young Lee Harvey Oswald.
I keep wanting to shout out "register the gun!, register the gun!".
This cannot end well.
Postscript: It doesn't. The message: Crime does not pay.
So far, I've learned that it all starts with a sling-shot, and then progresses to a BB gun. From there, I guess it's a short step to gangs, drugs and the mean streets of the big T-O.
The young BB shooter looks unsettlingly like a young Lee Harvey Oswald.
I keep wanting to shout out "register the gun!, register the gun!".
This cannot end well.
Postscript: It doesn't. The message: Crime does not pay.
"So help me God" [The Supreme Court oath of office]
Four words. A prayer, and a promise. These words culminate the swearing-in of a Supreme Court judge.
Here's the complete text:
I, ..........., do solemnly and sincerely promise and swear that I will duly and faithfully, and to the best of my skill and knowledge, execute the powers and trusts reposed in me as Chief Justice (or as one of the judges) of the Supreme Court of Canada. So help me God.
I recall seeing one of the judges sworn in. She uttered the last four words with obvious scorn, apparently eager to distance herself, in front of her peers, from the humility and dependency these words, if sincerely spoken, would convey. Apparently, she viewed herself as comfortably above the need for God's help.
Which is why Canada now needs God's help more than ever.
As for me, I'm going to try to continue to speak truthfully yet with kindness concerning the Canadian situation.
So help me God.
Here's the complete text:
I, ..........., do solemnly and sincerely promise and swear that I will duly and faithfully, and to the best of my skill and knowledge, execute the powers and trusts reposed in me as Chief Justice (or as one of the judges) of the Supreme Court of Canada. So help me God.
I recall seeing one of the judges sworn in. She uttered the last four words with obvious scorn, apparently eager to distance herself, in front of her peers, from the humility and dependency these words, if sincerely spoken, would convey. Apparently, she viewed herself as comfortably above the need for God's help.
Which is why Canada now needs God's help more than ever.
As for me, I'm going to try to continue to speak truthfully yet with kindness concerning the Canadian situation.
So help me God.
Charter protection of religious rights -- don't count on it!
Politicians and jouralists are naive to think that religious rights have been, let alone will be, protected under the Charter.
If you ask a religious person how they view their faith, they would tell you it extends deeply into their lives, and informs their day-to-day conduct. Their religion extends beyond the rites and ceremonies of their respective religious organizations, and in fact is primarily practiced outside the four walls of the house of worship they attend.
The courts' view is the opposite -- they see religion as something practiced inside the four walls of a religious institution. And that appears to be the scope of religious behaviour that they are prepared to protect. Based on the Liberals' mischievious reference question, the courts have effectively declared that religious rights are longer rooted in the rights of individual Canadians, as the Charter explicitly states, but in the rites of religious organizations. Truncated religious rights better fit the secular judges who seem to totally lack any comprehension of the pervasive nature of religion.
If the nature of religion is defined by Charter judges and not by the religion itself, then the Charter judges become, in effect, gods over religion and they become threats against the very religious freedoms they swore to protect. The question is not, "will religious rights be protected by the Charter?", it is, "who will protect the religious from over-reaching, Charter judges?".
But do we have any actual evidence that this will, or has happened? Plenty!
The Charter did not protect the PEI bed-and-breakfast operators who choose not to open their B&B to two homosexual men; it did not protect Scott Brockie, the Toronto printer who declined to print propaganda for a pro-lesbian organization, and it did not protect the BC teacher, Chris Kempling, who lost his job simply for stating in a letter to a newspaper that "homosexuality is not something society should celebrate".
Anyone of good sense and goodwill will acknowledge that religious rights have not been protected by the Charter; in the hands of hard-left, intolerant judges, they have been undermined by it.
If you ask a religious person how they view their faith, they would tell you it extends deeply into their lives, and informs their day-to-day conduct. Their religion extends beyond the rites and ceremonies of their respective religious organizations, and in fact is primarily practiced outside the four walls of the house of worship they attend.
The courts' view is the opposite -- they see religion as something practiced inside the four walls of a religious institution. And that appears to be the scope of religious behaviour that they are prepared to protect. Based on the Liberals' mischievious reference question, the courts have effectively declared that religious rights are longer rooted in the rights of individual Canadians, as the Charter explicitly states, but in the rites of religious organizations. Truncated religious rights better fit the secular judges who seem to totally lack any comprehension of the pervasive nature of religion.
If the nature of religion is defined by Charter judges and not by the religion itself, then the Charter judges become, in effect, gods over religion and they become threats against the very religious freedoms they swore to protect. The question is not, "will religious rights be protected by the Charter?", it is, "who will protect the religious from over-reaching, Charter judges?".
But do we have any actual evidence that this will, or has happened? Plenty!
The Charter did not protect the PEI bed-and-breakfast operators who choose not to open their B&B to two homosexual men; it did not protect Scott Brockie, the Toronto printer who declined to print propaganda for a pro-lesbian organization, and it did not protect the BC teacher, Chris Kempling, who lost his job simply for stating in a letter to a newspaper that "homosexuality is not something society should celebrate".
Anyone of good sense and goodwill will acknowledge that religious rights have not been protected by the Charter; in the hands of hard-left, intolerant judges, they have been undermined by it.
Cows have got it made in Norway [This just in... ]
Milking cows in Norway now have the right to mattresses.
And 8 weeks of a grazing "vacation" each year.
I am not making this up.
Cows receive more consideration from the state than do the unborn.
And 8 weeks of a grazing "vacation" each year.
I am not making this up.
Cows receive more consideration from the state than do the unborn.
It may just be me, but...
I don't think the visual of seeing Ralph Goodale on the TV helps the Liberal cause.
I just can't see past the Income Trust scandal when I see his image; I wonder how many others are having the same reaction?
I just can't see past the Income Trust scandal when I see his image; I wonder how many others are having the same reaction?
Liberals' Heroes Fund
Who can argue against a heroes fund?
But, it's kind of sad that the relatives of the four slain mounties most likely won't be getting the $250,000 that this plan retroactively offers. It seems almost unkind of the Liberals to dangle this in front of these particular families, given the Liberals' place in the polls, and the unlikelihood that they will be able to make good on the proposal.
The decent thing would have been for them to have put this on the back burner, and then just quietly implement it, should they form the government.
Perhaps the Liberal Party will see fit to donate $250,000 to each to these families, should they not be returned to power, as now appears likely.
But, it's kind of sad that the relatives of the four slain mounties most likely won't be getting the $250,000 that this plan retroactively offers. It seems almost unkind of the Liberals to dangle this in front of these particular families, given the Liberals' place in the polls, and the unlikelihood that they will be able to make good on the proposal.
The decent thing would have been for them to have put this on the back burner, and then just quietly implement it, should they form the government.
Perhaps the Liberal Party will see fit to donate $250,000 to each to these families, should they not be returned to power, as now appears likely.
I feel safer already...
Since the whole world seems to have turned against the US for its actions in Iraq, I have a suggestion regarding the present nuclear situation in Iran.
The US should just sit this one out.
Let the UN nations that opposed the US incursion into Iraq do the heavy lifting on this one.
I feel safer already.
The US should just sit this one out.
Let the UN nations that opposed the US incursion into Iraq do the heavy lifting on this one.
I feel safer already.
The Charter Right to polygamy
We already know what Paul Martin thinks, "we simply cannot have two classes of Canadians".
And we know what gay-rights advocates must think. They argued that society must sanction same-sex unions so that the children of same-sex couples do not feel discriminated against. The same argument applies to polygamy.
And we know what the swinging Courts must think, (what, "a one night stand is fine, but commitment is immoral?).
And we know what the Christians who laid the moral foundations of our country think -- but they don't count.
So, it sounds like the next great, unanticipated outcome of the Charter Code in the hands of its secular high-priest interpreters is polygamy.
The only thing left is some fresh celebrations of Canada's tolerance, diversity, and generosity.
It does give fresh meaning to the phrase "a woman's right to choose", though, doesn't it?
And we know what gay-rights advocates must think. They argued that society must sanction same-sex unions so that the children of same-sex couples do not feel discriminated against. The same argument applies to polygamy.
And we know what the swinging Courts must think, (what, "a one night stand is fine, but commitment is immoral?).
And we know what the Christians who laid the moral foundations of our country think -- but they don't count.
So, it sounds like the next great, unanticipated outcome of the Charter Code in the hands of its secular high-priest interpreters is polygamy.
The only thing left is some fresh celebrations of Canada's tolerance, diversity, and generosity.
It does give fresh meaning to the phrase "a woman's right to choose", though, doesn't it?
Paul Martin has a point...
Paul Martin has a point when he says that establishing property rights in the Charter "might" make it impossible to ban handguns.
Because Charter rights are so general, and the Courts' powers of interpretation so broad, nobody has a clue when they establish a Charter right what it's going to mean. It's like saying, "we have no idea what this means, or where it might lead to, but here it is".
The "right" to an abortion is not in the Charter. Who can recall from memory what right that is found in the Charter was used to form the "Charter right" of a woman to abort her unborn child? The right to privacy? Wrong.
The "right" to same-sex marriage is not in the Charter. What was it based on? The right to equality based on sexual orientation -- which also is not in the Charter. Then what is it based on?
All of these rights were created by judges' interpretations of the Charter; given a different set of nine judges, the results may have been different.
And that's why it is utterly foolish to do away with the Notwithstanding Clause.
Nine persons. Deciding the moral course of a nation. And why nine? Why not six? Or five? Or three? Why not just one individual? Let him or her decide the nation's moral values and future course. Why not? Do you really think that having nine, from the same general milieu, vetted by the same Prime Minister, gives sufficient breadth to safeguard against bias?
Nine godlike persons picked by one man. Or 300+ persons picked by 20 million. Which arrangement do you think provides the best safeguard of Canada's foundational moral values, rights, freedoms, and democracy?
Exactly. That's why Trudeau went with the Charter.
Because Charter rights are so general, and the Courts' powers of interpretation so broad, nobody has a clue when they establish a Charter right what it's going to mean. It's like saying, "we have no idea what this means, or where it might lead to, but here it is".
The "right" to an abortion is not in the Charter. Who can recall from memory what right that is found in the Charter was used to form the "Charter right" of a woman to abort her unborn child? The right to privacy? Wrong.
The "right" to same-sex marriage is not in the Charter. What was it based on? The right to equality based on sexual orientation -- which also is not in the Charter. Then what is it based on?
All of these rights were created by judges' interpretations of the Charter; given a different set of nine judges, the results may have been different.
And that's why it is utterly foolish to do away with the Notwithstanding Clause.
Nine persons. Deciding the moral course of a nation. And why nine? Why not six? Or five? Or three? Why not just one individual? Let him or her decide the nation's moral values and future course. Why not? Do you really think that having nine, from the same general milieu, vetted by the same Prime Minister, gives sufficient breadth to safeguard against bias?
Nine godlike persons picked by one man. Or 300+ persons picked by 20 million. Which arrangement do you think provides the best safeguard of Canada's foundational moral values, rights, freedoms, and democracy?
Exactly. That's why Trudeau went with the Charter.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
I'd rather be on the right than in the wrong
This just in from Liberal Justice Minister Irwin Cotler: “At this point, the practice of polygamy, bigamy and incest are criminal offences in Canada and will continue to be,” he said from Montreal.
Slow down the tape and run it again. At... this... point...
The fact that a federal Justice Minister would preface a statement on the criminality of polygamy, bigamy, and incest with the words "at this point" is a great example of relativism. It also shows us that the Party that chose to outsource its moral thinking, views and values to the Courts has now lost any moral centre of its own.
This is a Party that stands for everything and nothing.
By celebrating abortion, homosexuality, single-parenting, and swinging, this is a Party that has lost the ability to think in terms of moral right and wrong. The question in their minds is not "is it right?", it's "is it a right?". And then, whether it's right or wrong, it's right. Opposing it becomes the new wrong.
The best example of this is when a Liberal huffs with righteous indignation about a "woman's right to choose". Imagine characterizing the decision to terminate your unborn child as a positive good worth defending and fighting for! And imagine trying to score political points on the splattered blood and crushed bones of dismembered Canadians!
More and more I thank God that I am not a Liberal.
I'd rather be on the right than in the wrong.
Slow down the tape and run it again. At... this... point...
The fact that a federal Justice Minister would preface a statement on the criminality of polygamy, bigamy, and incest with the words "at this point" is a great example of relativism. It also shows us that the Party that chose to outsource its moral thinking, views and values to the Courts has now lost any moral centre of its own.
This is a Party that stands for everything and nothing.
By celebrating abortion, homosexuality, single-parenting, and swinging, this is a Party that has lost the ability to think in terms of moral right and wrong. The question in their minds is not "is it right?", it's "is it a right?". And then, whether it's right or wrong, it's right. Opposing it becomes the new wrong.
The best example of this is when a Liberal huffs with righteous indignation about a "woman's right to choose". Imagine characterizing the decision to terminate your unborn child as a positive good worth defending and fighting for! And imagine trying to score political points on the splattered blood and crushed bones of dismembered Canadians!
More and more I thank God that I am not a Liberal.
I'd rather be on the right than in the wrong.
Official List of anti-Christian Slogs (2)
I'm all in favour of being slandered and slurred (slurred, not shaken). But at least do it creatively! The Bible-thumper perjorative is getting stale, and I gotta tell you, I can't remember the last time I thumped my Bible.
But bloggers are a creative bunch, and we all know that creativity is part of being "in the image of God". So, when hostile bloggers show creative disgust with Christians, they are bearing witness to being made in God's image, plus, the hostile/hateful part bears witness to a fallen nature, so, hey, we get both the doctrine of creation and the doctrine of the fall from these bloggers! We must remember to bless them!
(If you run across one, please bounce it my way.)
1."churchy puppeteers". Source: Stalock Rujulus from Toronto January 2006 G&M. "Churchy" has been a useful perjorative for years. But "churchy puppeteers" is a nice combo. We get the mindless puppet theme married to the churchy perjorative.
2. "fruitcakes". Source: M D from Ottawa, Canada, January G&M. "I think Harper's biggest challenge is going to be keeping the more radical social conservatives in check - the anti-gays, the militarist flag-wavers, the Christian fundamentalists etc.... if he can bide his time and keep the fruitcakes under control he has the opportunity to build towards a majority...
Although the term "fruitcakes" could apply more generally to the "anti-gays, "militarist flag-wavers", as well as the "Christian fundamentalists, I'm accepting this as an anti-Christian slur.
3. "fundamentalists". From above "fruitcakes" entry. This one has been around for a long time, and isn't that imaginative. I'd rather be a Christian fundamentalist, rooted and grounded in love, than a secular fundamentalist, rooted in hate and a social death-wish.
But bloggers are a creative bunch, and we all know that creativity is part of being "in the image of God". So, when hostile bloggers show creative disgust with Christians, they are bearing witness to being made in God's image, plus, the hostile/hateful part bears witness to a fallen nature, so, hey, we get both the doctrine of creation and the doctrine of the fall from these bloggers! We must remember to bless them!
(If you run across one, please bounce it my way.)
1."churchy puppeteers". Source: Stalock Rujulus from Toronto January 2006 G&M. "Churchy" has been a useful perjorative for years. But "churchy puppeteers" is a nice combo. We get the mindless puppet theme married to the churchy perjorative.
2. "fruitcakes". Source: M D from Ottawa, Canada, January G&M. "I think Harper's biggest challenge is going to be keeping the more radical social conservatives in check - the anti-gays, the militarist flag-wavers, the Christian fundamentalists etc.... if he can bide his time and keep the fruitcakes under control he has the opportunity to build towards a majority...
Although the term "fruitcakes" could apply more generally to the "anti-gays, "militarist flag-wavers", as well as the "Christian fundamentalists, I'm accepting this as an anti-Christian slur.
3. "fundamentalists". From above "fruitcakes" entry. This one has been around for a long time, and isn't that imaginative. I'd rather be a Christian fundamentalist, rooted and grounded in love, than a secular fundamentalist, rooted in hate and a social death-wish.
"Legalize polygamy, federal study urges..."
Here's some reasons why progressive Canadians will support polygamy.
1) Once you disconnect marriage from human biology, there's no good reason to restrict it to two persons. If two men can be legal parents, then so can two men and a woman.
2) Same-sex rights advocates argue that society must sanction same-sex unions so that the children of same-sex couples do not feel discriminated against. The same argument applies to polygamy.
3) If swinging must be tolerated, so must polygamy (what, "a one-night stand is splendid, but commitment is immoral"?)
4) "The state has no place in the bedrooms of our nation" (remember that one).
5) Paul Martin supports polygamists' rights. (Well maybe not yet, but he will go to the wall for them once the Supreme Court tells him what to think.)
6) Only hateful polyphobes would deny polygamists their rights.
7) Legalizing polygamy would be yet another great way to show that we are a tolerant, generous, diverse, and vibrant post-Christian society.
1) Once you disconnect marriage from human biology, there's no good reason to restrict it to two persons. If two men can be legal parents, then so can two men and a woman.
2) Same-sex rights advocates argue that society must sanction same-sex unions so that the children of same-sex couples do not feel discriminated against. The same argument applies to polygamy.
3) If swinging must be tolerated, so must polygamy (what, "a one-night stand is splendid, but commitment is immoral"?)
4) "The state has no place in the bedrooms of our nation" (remember that one).
5) Paul Martin supports polygamists' rights. (Well maybe not yet, but he will go to the wall for them once the Supreme Court tells him what to think.)
6) Only hateful polyphobes would deny polygamists their rights.
7) Legalizing polygamy would be yet another great way to show that we are a tolerant, generous, diverse, and vibrant post-Christian society.
Does it pass the bauble test?
Conservative candidate Derek Zeisman is charged with smuggling a 1989 Mercedes-Benz with 112 containers of alcohol across the U.S.-Canada border.
Fair-minded Canadians will want to ask, "does it pass the bauble test?" -- currently sitting at around $50,000.
If it fits within the criteria of baubledom, it's probably not worth worrying about.
Fair-minded Canadians will want to ask, "does it pass the bauble test?" -- currently sitting at around $50,000.
If it fits within the criteria of baubledom, it's probably not worth worrying about.
Just say no to two-tear healthcare
Many people have shed a tear over the healthcare situation in Canada. I have seen loved-ones suffer at the hands of a slow-moving, plodding system -- how does "two years" strike you as a wait time to see a specialist? How does three months sound for the wait-time between when some X-rays were taken, and when they were viewed by the specialist?
So I can understand why our politicians think that shedding one tear is bad enough, and that we simply cannot have two-tear healthcare. Amen to that!
Now, for the matter at hand. I've just come across a quote: the Prime Minister said he always paid for healthcare visits using his medicare card or "other alternatives outside of medicare, such as [his] parliamentarian health-benefit plan."
Mr. Martin, I'd like one of those parliamentarian health-benefit plan cards. Could you send me one? After all, haven't you said we cannot have a two-tier system? Blog me, and I'll forward you my address. Otherwise, I gotta tell you, it's beginning to look like a two-tear system from here...
So I can understand why our politicians think that shedding one tear is bad enough, and that we simply cannot have two-tear healthcare. Amen to that!
Now, for the matter at hand. I've just come across a quote: the Prime Minister said he always paid for healthcare visits using his medicare card or "other alternatives outside of medicare, such as [his] parliamentarian health-benefit plan."
Mr. Martin, I'd like one of those parliamentarian health-benefit plan cards. Could you send me one? After all, haven't you said we cannot have a two-tier system? Blog me, and I'll forward you my address. Otherwise, I gotta tell you, it's beginning to look like a two-tear system from here...
The delusional electorate
I keep hearing Paul Martin on TV say the soldiers-with-guns ad "never appeared". I could have sworn I, along with a bunch of other people, saw it.
Apparently, the Liberal Party of Canada believes the people of Canada are delusional.
No wonder they don't trust the Parliaments we elect.
Apparently, the Liberal Party of Canada believes the people of Canada are delusional.
No wonder they don't trust the Parliaments we elect.
If I had a hammer...
The seeds of Liberal distaste for democracy were first planted by Pierre Trudeau who spoke of "the tyranny of the majority". Paul Martin has continued this theme by characterizing the majority as "oppressive". Today, this distrust for democracy is in full bloom. According to Paul Martin, "There is a hammer. It is a large and heavy hammer. It is hanging over Canada. It is Parliament. Stephen Harper believes in that hammer, well, let me tell you, I do not! [cue the cheering]."
Ultimately, the Liberals' contempt for democracy is a contempt for individual voters who collectively vote with goodwill and common sense to elect our representatives to Parliament. Given the Liberals' contempt for me, I will not be voting Liberal. And I am not making this up.
Ultimately, the Liberals' contempt for democracy is a contempt for individual voters who collectively vote with goodwill and common sense to elect our representatives to Parliament. Given the Liberals' contempt for me, I will not be voting Liberal. And I am not making this up.
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
"You can't cherry-pick rights"
The PM believes you can't cherry pick rights.
Unless, of course, you are members of the Supreme Court.
Which is exactly what they did. From the entire universe of potential rights (smokers' rights, vegans' rights, children's rights, bicyclists' rights, etc.) they cherry-picked exactly one, "sexual orientation" for addition to the Charter.
And then, having cherry-picked it, whenever this right conflicted with another established right, such as freedom of conscience, speech, or religion, guess which one the Courts favoured? Exactly. They should have recused themselves for ideological bias.
The PM says you cannot cherry-pick rights. He does, however, reserve the right to cherry-pick who will be appointed to the Courts. And, with his latest proposal for an emasculated Parliament, that's the next-best thing.
Unless, of course, you are members of the Supreme Court.
Which is exactly what they did. From the entire universe of potential rights (smokers' rights, vegans' rights, children's rights, bicyclists' rights, etc.) they cherry-picked exactly one, "sexual orientation" for addition to the Charter.
And then, having cherry-picked it, whenever this right conflicted with another established right, such as freedom of conscience, speech, or religion, guess which one the Courts favoured? Exactly. They should have recused themselves for ideological bias.
The PM says you cannot cherry-pick rights. He does, however, reserve the right to cherry-pick who will be appointed to the Courts. And, with his latest proposal for an emasculated Parliament, that's the next-best thing.
Andrew Coyne loves the Charter
The National Post's Andrew Coyne loves the Charter and thinks the judges' power to interpret it should be absolute. He seems to think that the Charter is cut-and-dried, and that the judges therefore must act within narrow constraints strictly involving matters of law in interpreting it. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The Charter is sufficiently broad, and its interpreters sufficiently powerful, that the Charter can mean just about anything the courts choose it to mean. Abortion? Not in the Charter. Rights based on "sexual orientation"? Not in the Charter. Same-sex marriage? Not in the Charter. And why same-sex marriage but not, for example, bisexual marriage rights? Not in the Charter. Confining religious rights to the rites of organizations rather, as the words of the Charter actually state, the rights of individual citizens in society, not in the Charter.
The Charter does not inform and govern the judges who interpret it; the judges govern the Charter and decide its meeting. You don't think so? The Charter acknowledges the Supremacy of God. However, at least one appeals court has ruled this section "a dead letter". If the power to "kill off" God is not evidence of the courts' supreme power, what is?
The judges themselves, and not the Charter, have become the de facto supreme law of the land. And people like Andrew Coyne think that's just great.
O Canada, who stands on guard for thee?
The Charter is sufficiently broad, and its interpreters sufficiently powerful, that the Charter can mean just about anything the courts choose it to mean. Abortion? Not in the Charter. Rights based on "sexual orientation"? Not in the Charter. Same-sex marriage? Not in the Charter. And why same-sex marriage but not, for example, bisexual marriage rights? Not in the Charter. Confining religious rights to the rites of organizations rather, as the words of the Charter actually state, the rights of individual citizens in society, not in the Charter.
The Charter does not inform and govern the judges who interpret it; the judges govern the Charter and decide its meeting. You don't think so? The Charter acknowledges the Supremacy of God. However, at least one appeals court has ruled this section "a dead letter". If the power to "kill off" God is not evidence of the courts' supreme power, what is?
The judges themselves, and not the Charter, have become the de facto supreme law of the land. And people like Andrew Coyne think that's just great.
O Canada, who stands on guard for thee?
The diminishing man
Paul Martin today falsely suggesting that the Conservatives would restrict a woman's "right to choose".
He didn't specify what the woman would be choosing; in this day and age it could be a) a lesbian lover, b) procreation without two-parent participation, c) swinging, d) a new career as a "sex-worker", e) a life-snuffing abortion, or f) a life-snuffing assisted-suicide. All of these choices the PM would now presumably view as "rights". (With more being created daily.)
With this false accusation Paul Martin crossed a line. He's gone from being merely a lapsed Catholic, in my view, to a force for moral evil on the national federal scene. It's one thing to "tolerate" the sin of abortion, as Stephen Harper is doing, and forced to do. It's quite another thing to come out and characterize those who oppose it in an evil light -- which is what Mr. Martin is doing.
In earlier posts, I gave Paul Martin the benefit of the doubt, suggesting he probably struggled with these moral issues. I take it back. He's crossed the line, burned his bridges, and gone over to the dark side -- all in a desperate bid to get re-elected.
I would not want to be in this man's shoes. I can hear the sizzle and smell the smoke.
Temporal gain, for long-term pain, Paul.
I cannot imagine how his bishop can, in good conscience, allow the man to remain in good-standing with the Church. To do so harms both the man and the Church.
He didn't specify what the woman would be choosing; in this day and age it could be a) a lesbian lover, b) procreation without two-parent participation, c) swinging, d) a new career as a "sex-worker", e) a life-snuffing abortion, or f) a life-snuffing assisted-suicide. All of these choices the PM would now presumably view as "rights". (With more being created daily.)
With this false accusation Paul Martin crossed a line. He's gone from being merely a lapsed Catholic, in my view, to a force for moral evil on the national federal scene. It's one thing to "tolerate" the sin of abortion, as Stephen Harper is doing, and forced to do. It's quite another thing to come out and characterize those who oppose it in an evil light -- which is what Mr. Martin is doing.
In earlier posts, I gave Paul Martin the benefit of the doubt, suggesting he probably struggled with these moral issues. I take it back. He's crossed the line, burned his bridges, and gone over to the dark side -- all in a desperate bid to get re-elected.
I would not want to be in this man's shoes. I can hear the sizzle and smell the smoke.
Temporal gain, for long-term pain, Paul.
I cannot imagine how his bishop can, in good conscience, allow the man to remain in good-standing with the Church. To do so harms both the man and the Church.
Notwithstanding vanishing... Astonishing!
Paul Martin's plan to remove the Notwithstanding Clause would weaken Parliament and increase the power of courts appointed by the Prime Minister. It would increase the democratic deficit he promised to address, and make our freedoms and rights less, and not more, secure.
I knew that Liberals were willing to cancel Pearson Airport expansion plans and military helicopter plans (at a cost to tax-payers of hundreds of millions of dollars); I knew that they were willing to falsely promise to get rid of the GST; but it never dawned on me that they were willing to tinker with the constitution of the country in a bid to get re-elected.
Astonishing.
I knew that Liberals were willing to cancel Pearson Airport expansion plans and military helicopter plans (at a cost to tax-payers of hundreds of millions of dollars); I knew that they were willing to falsely promise to get rid of the GST; but it never dawned on me that they were willing to tinker with the constitution of the country in a bid to get re-elected.
Astonishing.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
"I would have a hard time as Prime Minister supporting this".
The topic: Assisted suicide/Euthanasia.
The question: would he support assisted suicide? Mr. Martin's reply, "I would have a hard time as Prime Minister supporting this". Ah, the Prime Ministerial hedge.
Didn't say "no". Didn't say "yes". Left the door open. Could be persuaded. Polls must be taken. Must, as a good Catholic, appear to "be personally opposed, but...".
Conscience must also be consulted: "If my Catholic soul was scarred by abortion, seared by same-sex marriage, would it be positively damned by support of government approved, sponsored, and paid-for suicide? Banish that thought. Separation of Church and State. Render to Caesar, all that. Serve the devil on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. Give it a rest on Sunday."
But of course, with the newly diminished Prime Minister's role, he wouldn't have to support it. If necessary, the Courts can do the heavy-lifting for him. Without regard to "community values". And, if Mr. Martin has his way, without the possibility of a Parliamentary over-ride.
My opinion? I would have a hard time as a Christian supporting this.
The question: would he support assisted suicide? Mr. Martin's reply, "I would have a hard time as Prime Minister supporting this". Ah, the Prime Ministerial hedge.
Didn't say "no". Didn't say "yes". Left the door open. Could be persuaded. Polls must be taken. Must, as a good Catholic, appear to "be personally opposed, but...".
Conscience must also be consulted: "If my Catholic soul was scarred by abortion, seared by same-sex marriage, would it be positively damned by support of government approved, sponsored, and paid-for suicide? Banish that thought. Separation of Church and State. Render to Caesar, all that. Serve the devil on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. Give it a rest on Sunday."
But of course, with the newly diminished Prime Minister's role, he wouldn't have to support it. If necessary, the Courts can do the heavy-lifting for him. Without regard to "community values". And, if Mr. Martin has his way, without the possibility of a Parliamentary over-ride.
My opinion? I would have a hard time as a Christian supporting this.
Check it out: "An Insider's View of Evangelicals" by Michael Davenport
http://christianity.ca/news/commentary/2005/09.004.html
Check out Michael Davenport's excellent article defending Canadian Evangelicals from liberal-media misrepresentations.
Here's a sample:
"Cannot our liberal society just accept Evangelicals as an odd minority group that avoids sex except between husbands and wives? Wouldn't that be just like accepting vegans as an odd minority group that avoids foods derived from animals? Cannot vegans dislike meat and still love meat-eaters? Should our laws forbid vegans from suggesting that their diet is healthier or morally superior? If I go to a vegan home would it be right, when they politely refuse to prepare bacon and eggs for my breakfast, to accuse them of hating me?
And if they refuse to appoint me, a meat-eater, as an official vegan spokesman, can I accuse them of unfair discrimination?"
This is an example of the public defense of the faith (known as "apologetics") in action. I'll be teaching apologetics next month in Zambia at Trans-Africa Theological College. I may use this article as a case-study.
Check out Michael Davenport's excellent article defending Canadian Evangelicals from liberal-media misrepresentations.
Here's a sample:
"Cannot our liberal society just accept Evangelicals as an odd minority group that avoids sex except between husbands and wives? Wouldn't that be just like accepting vegans as an odd minority group that avoids foods derived from animals? Cannot vegans dislike meat and still love meat-eaters? Should our laws forbid vegans from suggesting that their diet is healthier or morally superior? If I go to a vegan home would it be right, when they politely refuse to prepare bacon and eggs for my breakfast, to accuse them of hating me?
And if they refuse to appoint me, a meat-eater, as an official vegan spokesman, can I accuse them of unfair discrimination?"
This is an example of the public defense of the faith (known as "apologetics") in action. I'll be teaching apologetics next month in Zambia at Trans-Africa Theological College. I may use this article as a case-study.
Monday, January 09, 2006
The Ancient Institution of Marriage (response to a G&M blogger)
The "ancient institution of marriage" goes much farther back than whatever time period you are referring to -- middle ages, perhaps?
It was instituted by God "in the time of man's innocency" well prior to the advent of property rights and nation states. The commandment "thou shalt honour thy father and thy mother" implies a child's natural right to a mother and a father, a right that is also supported by the basic facts of human biology. And this biological fact is reinforced in the deeply rooted desire of a child to know both their father and their mother.
A child who is told they have two mothers but no dad, or two dads, but no mother, is also being told that this ache in their heart to know their absent dad or absent mother has no value or legitimacy. And that is surely a diminishment of a child's natural right, if not an outright abuse.
And, if you think that celebrating a same-sex union somehow protects a child's rights to equality, then you must be prepared to support polygamous marriage, equally a fact of Canadian life as same-sex unions.
Finally, if two men can be a child's legal parents, then there is no good reason why two men and a woman could not be the legal parents of a child. Once we divorce legal child-rearing from the basic facts of human biology, there is no good reason to restrict legal parenting to two persons.
It was instituted by God "in the time of man's innocency" well prior to the advent of property rights and nation states. The commandment "thou shalt honour thy father and thy mother" implies a child's natural right to a mother and a father, a right that is also supported by the basic facts of human biology. And this biological fact is reinforced in the deeply rooted desire of a child to know both their father and their mother.
A child who is told they have two mothers but no dad, or two dads, but no mother, is also being told that this ache in their heart to know their absent dad or absent mother has no value or legitimacy. And that is surely a diminishment of a child's natural right, if not an outright abuse.
And, if you think that celebrating a same-sex union somehow protects a child's rights to equality, then you must be prepared to support polygamous marriage, equally a fact of Canadian life as same-sex unions.
Finally, if two men can be a child's legal parents, then there is no good reason why two men and a woman could not be the legal parents of a child. Once we divorce legal child-rearing from the basic facts of human biology, there is no good reason to restrict legal parenting to two persons.
Debate Fallout: Martin Weakens the Nation
1. By stating that he supports removing the Notwithstanding Clause. He dismissed our democratically elected representatives as "politicians". This act would leave the Courts with virtually unchecked, absolute power, and leave Parliament a damaged stump of its former supreme self.
2. By stating that he recognizes Quebec is a nation. May be good politics, but can't be good for Canadian unity.
2. By stating that he recognizes Quebec is a nation. May be good politics, but can't be good for Canadian unity.
A Destination down the Liberal Road
Paul Martin said tonight he believes in a vision, a destination down the road. And what would that destination look like?
On one corner, an abortuary. A swinger's club on the second. Prostitutes on the third. And a euthanasia clinic on the fourth.
Such is the Liberal vision.
Two down, two to go.
On one corner, an abortuary. A swinger's club on the second. Prostitutes on the third. And a euthanasia clinic on the fourth.
Such is the Liberal vision.
Two down, two to go.
Degrading Marriage
This is a response to a G&M blogger who asked how one persons's marriage could cheapen another's.
No person's marriage cheapens another person's marriage.
Marriage is an institution that exists apart from any persons that may or may not participate in it. It is the institution of marriage itself that is degraded by changing it from an institution based in human biology (and open to all regardless of their sexual orientation) to a politicized, rights-based institution rooted in winner-takes-all court-du-jour interpretations of sexual orientations.
Marriage rooted in human biology recognized and protected a child's right to know the love of a father and a mother. A society that instead chooses to recognize the union of two men or two women as marriage, and gives them the same social status and rights regarding children, nullifies this right. The institution of marriage, initially designed to secure children's rights, has now been re-defined in a way that destroys the very rights it was originally designed to protect.
That is how it has been cheapened and degraded.
No person's marriage cheapens another person's marriage.
Marriage is an institution that exists apart from any persons that may or may not participate in it. It is the institution of marriage itself that is degraded by changing it from an institution based in human biology (and open to all regardless of their sexual orientation) to a politicized, rights-based institution rooted in winner-takes-all court-du-jour interpretations of sexual orientations.
Marriage rooted in human biology recognized and protected a child's right to know the love of a father and a mother. A society that instead chooses to recognize the union of two men or two women as marriage, and gives them the same social status and rights regarding children, nullifies this right. The institution of marriage, initially designed to secure children's rights, has now been re-defined in a way that destroys the very rights it was originally designed to protect.
That is how it has been cheapened and degraded.
The debate rages - MARTIN CAVES: Quebec a Nation
1. 9:02 Martin looking shaky. Will he last the two hours, or be carried out?
2. 9:04 What's up with Duceppe? He's adopted some kind of cultured English accent. Can he be thinking of "going national"?
3. 9:05 Jack Layton let's the electorate know that the vote will be in 14 days. This is useful info. Thanks, Jack.
4. 9:05 Jack will put the "public back in healthcare". By this he does not mean that the patient will be at the centre, he means unions will be at the centre, and the public will pay for it.
5. 9:08 The PM favours"Honest, integrity, and telling the truth". (That last one surely said in jest.) The Prime Minister says that Mr. Goodale is the most honest person he knows. Is this to flatter Mr. Goodale, or is this a sorry confession of the calibre of Mr. Martin's circle of acquaintances?
6. 9:11 Mr. Martin looks very, very made up. (Everything with Mr. Martin is very, very.) Could, and this is getting X-files, could this be an animatronic replacement for the real Mr. Martin? Hmmm... Nah-- an animatronic would be more animated.
7. 9:14 Mr. Martin implies, without saying so, that the foreign taxes he's paying is not because of flags of convenience, but because his company has expanded out of Canada and become international. A nice spin. But very, very misleading.
8. 9:18 Mr. Martin goes for the jugular. "The Charter defines Canada and protects our religious freedoms". Then, the BOMBSHELL. Martin has such a low, cynical view of Parliament and the democratic instincts of this nation that he would remove from Parliament the "Notwithstanding clause". The Liberals are so DESPERATE to be re-elected they would jeapardize the future of the country.
9. 9:34 Layton: "tough on crime, but tougher on the causes of crime". Way to go, Jack. It's all our fault. Lock us up.
10. 9:35 Martin would BAN HANDGUNS and bad Mr. Harper would not. Mr. Martin is squirming; could his pants be very, very much on fire?
11. 9:39 Duceppe: "Healthcare is a provincial jurisdiction". Good one!
12. 9:41 Martin: But we've poured $41 billion into this. And, as proof that things are getting better, we've established benchmarks! In other words, we haven't actually reduced wait times, but, by gosh, we now have benchmarks, and very, very benchy marks, a that.
13. 9:45 Harper: Believes in the balance between the supremacy of Parliament and the Courts. He supports the continuance of the Notwithstanding Clause. Good for him.
14. 9:50 Martin: On the attack! Attacks Harper over past comments about Canadian socialism vs. the inspiration of Conservative Americanism. Pretty devastating, if people are paying attention.
15. 9:56 Martin: "The GST cut benefits the weathiest, not the poorest". Pants on fire, and nose growing!
16: 9:58 Jack is getting annoying.
17. 10:00 Martin: "Harper's GST tax cuts are going to a very select few." Right. Canadians who buy things.
18. 10:31 Duceppe: "We're different". Well, yes and no. Got their hand out to the federal government.
19. 10:34 Martin: "The Prime Minister has huge powers." Martin is being effective at portraying Stephen Harper as a risky choice. Sure it's scare tactics, and sure it's dishonest. But it may be effective.
20. 10:36: Duceppe: "Martin recognizes the Acadian nation and the first nation nations". Canada: new nations being formed nightly.
21: 10:37: Martin acknowleges the Metis nation. Update: Canada: new nations being formed by the minute. And has no problem referring to Quebec as a "peuple". Sounding a bit like Inspector Clouseau. But stops short of calling Quebec a nation.
22: 10:40 Martin caves and calls Quebec a nation, and insists that he has always done so. This should end the national unity debate forever.
23: 10:56 Layton contrasts himself with the Liberals and Conservatives who are bribing the electorate with "their money". Unlike the Liberals and Conservatives, Jack's NDP would simply keep the money and spend it as they see fit.
The Winner of the debate: Paul Martin
The Loser: Canada
And to all, a good night!
2. 9:04 What's up with Duceppe? He's adopted some kind of cultured English accent. Can he be thinking of "going national"?
3. 9:05 Jack Layton let's the electorate know that the vote will be in 14 days. This is useful info. Thanks, Jack.
4. 9:05 Jack will put the "public back in healthcare". By this he does not mean that the patient will be at the centre, he means unions will be at the centre, and the public will pay for it.
5. 9:08 The PM favours"Honest, integrity, and telling the truth". (That last one surely said in jest.) The Prime Minister says that Mr. Goodale is the most honest person he knows. Is this to flatter Mr. Goodale, or is this a sorry confession of the calibre of Mr. Martin's circle of acquaintances?
6. 9:11 Mr. Martin looks very, very made up. (Everything with Mr. Martin is very, very.) Could, and this is getting X-files, could this be an animatronic replacement for the real Mr. Martin? Hmmm... Nah-- an animatronic would be more animated.
7. 9:14 Mr. Martin implies, without saying so, that the foreign taxes he's paying is not because of flags of convenience, but because his company has expanded out of Canada and become international. A nice spin. But very, very misleading.
8. 9:18 Mr. Martin goes for the jugular. "The Charter defines Canada and protects our religious freedoms". Then, the BOMBSHELL. Martin has such a low, cynical view of Parliament and the democratic instincts of this nation that he would remove from Parliament the "Notwithstanding clause". The Liberals are so DESPERATE to be re-elected they would jeapardize the future of the country.
9. 9:34 Layton: "tough on crime, but tougher on the causes of crime". Way to go, Jack. It's all our fault. Lock us up.
10. 9:35 Martin would BAN HANDGUNS and bad Mr. Harper would not. Mr. Martin is squirming; could his pants be very, very much on fire?
11. 9:39 Duceppe: "Healthcare is a provincial jurisdiction". Good one!
12. 9:41 Martin: But we've poured $41 billion into this. And, as proof that things are getting better, we've established benchmarks! In other words, we haven't actually reduced wait times, but, by gosh, we now have benchmarks, and very, very benchy marks, a that.
13. 9:45 Harper: Believes in the balance between the supremacy of Parliament and the Courts. He supports the continuance of the Notwithstanding Clause. Good for him.
14. 9:50 Martin: On the attack! Attacks Harper over past comments about Canadian socialism vs. the inspiration of Conservative Americanism. Pretty devastating, if people are paying attention.
15. 9:56 Martin: "The GST cut benefits the weathiest, not the poorest". Pants on fire, and nose growing!
16: 9:58 Jack is getting annoying.
17. 10:00 Martin: "Harper's GST tax cuts are going to a very select few." Right. Canadians who buy things.
18. 10:31 Duceppe: "We're different". Well, yes and no. Got their hand out to the federal government.
19. 10:34 Martin: "The Prime Minister has huge powers." Martin is being effective at portraying Stephen Harper as a risky choice. Sure it's scare tactics, and sure it's dishonest. But it may be effective.
20. 10:36: Duceppe: "Martin recognizes the Acadian nation and the first nation nations". Canada: new nations being formed nightly.
21: 10:37: Martin acknowleges the Metis nation. Update: Canada: new nations being formed by the minute. And has no problem referring to Quebec as a "peuple". Sounding a bit like Inspector Clouseau. But stops short of calling Quebec a nation.
22: 10:40 Martin caves and calls Quebec a nation, and insists that he has always done so. This should end the national unity debate forever.
23: 10:56 Layton contrasts himself with the Liberals and Conservatives who are bribing the electorate with "their money". Unlike the Liberals and Conservatives, Jack's NDP would simply keep the money and spend it as they see fit.
The Winner of the debate: Paul Martin
The Loser: Canada
And to all, a good night!
Sunday, January 08, 2006
It's in the water...
The Liberal MP in my riding staunchly opposed changing the definition of marriage. He stated in writing that the institution of marriage was foundational to human society and predated the nation state -- a pretty strong, foundational argument. In effect, he was saying that "marriage trumps Canada". Then he returned to Ottawa.
He wavered, then, bended, then succumbed.
Being Liberal in Ottawa is like an Alien-pod-people movie involving moral lobotomization. Followed by mutterings about the Charter Code and the high-priests of secular paganism that interpret its mystical meanings. Leftist-Liberalism is "in the air", or in the water, and it's apparently impossible to remain in the Liberal Party and keep any semblence of your own opinion or thinking.
A good example of this is Paul Martin. Paul Martin, in another context, another era, would no doubt be fighting against the very ideas he finds himself defending -- socially destructive ideas like same-sex marriage and swinging -- behaviours which he attempts to muster some enthusiasm for, but he really can't pull it off. "We simply cannot have two classes of Canadians?" Tell that to pederasts and polygamists, Paul. It's all about where you draw the line.
I do grieve, however, at the thought of the loss the Catholic Prime Minister and his MPs face because of their perfidy over marriage, and other acts of wickedness, such as cloaking support for the evil of abortion in the deceptive wrappings of "a woman's right to choose".
And, although I offer up tough criticism towards Liberals, I pray for them, in particular my MP and the Prime Minister. Otherwise decent men, they are caught up in an infectious ideological evil that is bigger than they are. However, there is no excuse, and, unless they repent, the eternal consequences of their actions are not something I care to contemplate.
Perhaps they should enjoy whatever perks come with power and privilege, while they can.
Long-term, the Bible says the meek shall inherit the earth. Elsewhere it makes clear that the faithful in Christ shall rule upon the earth. It is ironic that Catholic politicians are willing to forfeit this grand inheritance for a very transient and temporal power.
He wavered, then, bended, then succumbed.
Being Liberal in Ottawa is like an Alien-pod-people movie involving moral lobotomization. Followed by mutterings about the Charter Code and the high-priests of secular paganism that interpret its mystical meanings. Leftist-Liberalism is "in the air", or in the water, and it's apparently impossible to remain in the Liberal Party and keep any semblence of your own opinion or thinking.
A good example of this is Paul Martin. Paul Martin, in another context, another era, would no doubt be fighting against the very ideas he finds himself defending -- socially destructive ideas like same-sex marriage and swinging -- behaviours which he attempts to muster some enthusiasm for, but he really can't pull it off. "We simply cannot have two classes of Canadians?" Tell that to pederasts and polygamists, Paul. It's all about where you draw the line.
I do grieve, however, at the thought of the loss the Catholic Prime Minister and his MPs face because of their perfidy over marriage, and other acts of wickedness, such as cloaking support for the evil of abortion in the deceptive wrappings of "a woman's right to choose".
And, although I offer up tough criticism towards Liberals, I pray for them, in particular my MP and the Prime Minister. Otherwise decent men, they are caught up in an infectious ideological evil that is bigger than they are. However, there is no excuse, and, unless they repent, the eternal consequences of their actions are not something I care to contemplate.
Perhaps they should enjoy whatever perks come with power and privilege, while they can.
Long-term, the Bible says the meek shall inherit the earth. Elsewhere it makes clear that the faithful in Christ shall rule upon the earth. It is ironic that Catholic politicians are willing to forfeit this grand inheritance for a very transient and temporal power.
Highway Carnage - it's a Canadian Right
The latest news story is about carnage on our highways.
Recently, a female commentator in favour of swinging stated that the essence, the very essence of liberalism, was to choose the life that you would live, and not have this choice made for you.
And that's exactly what "droves of drunk drivers and scores of passengers without seatbelts" were undoubtedly doing when they got behind the wheel and headed out on the highway.
In fact, as I contemplated her statement, it occurred to me that our prisons are filled with persons who shared exactly the same view of life -- they demanded the right to choose the life that they would live, and not have this choice made for them.
Modern liberalism encourages selfish, often anti-social choices -- irresponsible sex, abortion, single-parenting, legalization of drugs, equality-status for prostitution, euthanasia, (just another "death-style" choice?) etc.
Conservative values point the other way, in the direction of responsible behaviour towards society and oneself, based on common social values. We used to have these values. They were Canadian values. And they generally centred around the rights of children to be raised in a healthy social environment, rather that liberal rights that centred in adult sexual licentiousness. (I can remember when teachers were not allowed to smoke in public, because it was deemed to set a bad example to the kids!)
And yet it is the socially responsible Conservatives who are branded as "selfish" and not community-minded.
Liberalism, done in a good way, can be a good thing. Done the Canadian way, increasingly it's just a justification for socially destructive behaviour. Full-equality rights for prostitutes and prostitution? Coming soon to a liberal community near you. Get ready for it.
Recently, a female commentator in favour of swinging stated that the essence, the very essence of liberalism, was to choose the life that you would live, and not have this choice made for you.
And that's exactly what "droves of drunk drivers and scores of passengers without seatbelts" were undoubtedly doing when they got behind the wheel and headed out on the highway.
In fact, as I contemplated her statement, it occurred to me that our prisons are filled with persons who shared exactly the same view of life -- they demanded the right to choose the life that they would live, and not have this choice made for them.
Modern liberalism encourages selfish, often anti-social choices -- irresponsible sex, abortion, single-parenting, legalization of drugs, equality-status for prostitution, euthanasia, (just another "death-style" choice?) etc.
Conservative values point the other way, in the direction of responsible behaviour towards society and oneself, based on common social values. We used to have these values. They were Canadian values. And they generally centred around the rights of children to be raised in a healthy social environment, rather that liberal rights that centred in adult sexual licentiousness. (I can remember when teachers were not allowed to smoke in public, because it was deemed to set a bad example to the kids!)
And yet it is the socially responsible Conservatives who are branded as "selfish" and not community-minded.
Liberalism, done in a good way, can be a good thing. Done the Canadian way, increasingly it's just a justification for socially destructive behaviour. Full-equality rights for prostitutes and prostitution? Coming soon to a liberal community near you. Get ready for it.
Jack Layton has my vote...
of non-confidence.
Layton's NDP appears more interested in the health of Canada's healthcare system than the health of sick and hurting Canadians.
I like how he spits out the words "for profit"; how he manages to spin disgust into the words. Yet, it is "for-profit" companies that drive Canada's prosperity, increase Canada's wealth, and enable us to collect taxes for the public system.
And what about all the high-priced, unionized labour that goes into public healthcare? Aren't wages, especially unionized wages, a form of "profit", to the labourer? Why should people receive filthy lucre for providing necessary services to Canadians? Why shouldn't we have a purely volunteer-force healthcare system? Imagine offering healthcare services "for wages" (can you hear the disgust?)
And what about food? Isn't food a right? What about all those "for profit" (spit it out, Jack) grocery chains? Why not public food? Massive, drab, centralized, unionized food warehouses, with the government picking out what's good for us, and rationing where necessary. Wouldn't that be better?
And what about coffee? Hasn't a morning swing by Tim's become pretty much a "right"? All those clean, bright, "for profit" Tim Hortons sprinkled on every corner. Disgusting! Nationalize the coffee chains! The NDP could regulate the caffeine content because they know better than we do what's good for us. And, wouldn't it be a comfort knowing that overpaid unionized staff were making all the dough?
Layton's NDP appears more interested in the health of Canada's healthcare system than the health of sick and hurting Canadians.
I like how he spits out the words "for profit"; how he manages to spin disgust into the words. Yet, it is "for-profit" companies that drive Canada's prosperity, increase Canada's wealth, and enable us to collect taxes for the public system.
And what about all the high-priced, unionized labour that goes into public healthcare? Aren't wages, especially unionized wages, a form of "profit", to the labourer? Why should people receive filthy lucre for providing necessary services to Canadians? Why shouldn't we have a purely volunteer-force healthcare system? Imagine offering healthcare services "for wages" (can you hear the disgust?)
And what about food? Isn't food a right? What about all those "for profit" (spit it out, Jack) grocery chains? Why not public food? Massive, drab, centralized, unionized food warehouses, with the government picking out what's good for us, and rationing where necessary. Wouldn't that be better?
And what about coffee? Hasn't a morning swing by Tim's become pretty much a "right"? All those clean, bright, "for profit" Tim Hortons sprinkled on every corner. Disgusting! Nationalize the coffee chains! The NDP could regulate the caffeine content because they know better than we do what's good for us. And, wouldn't it be a comfort knowing that overpaid unionized staff were making all the dough?
Saturday, January 07, 2006
Liberal Scorecard: It's Getting Better All the Time (Can't get much worse!)
It's Getting Better All the Time. So said Paul McCartney on Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. John Lennon, on the other hand, reminded us, "It can't get much worse!". And I can't for the dickens remember who it was, but somebody said, "It was the best of times; it was the worst of times". So, how are things going in Canada?
The economy, thanks to Mulroney and the GST and Free Trade is "getting better all the time". Socially, thanks to the Liberal Charter and its politically-appointed judges and politically-fueled court cases, "it can't get much worse".
Here's my scorecard under the Liberals:
1. The environment has deteriorated. The main Liberal contribution has been self-righteous posturing on Kyoto while the actual environment has deteriorated.
2. Medicare has deteriorated. Twelve years of Liberal rule has resulted in a medicare system that brings pain and suffering and death to the masses. Yet, apparently only they can be trusted to fix it.
3. Public safety has deteriorated. The main Liberal efforts were to waste 2 billion on a gun registry, resist Conservative efforts to get tough on crime, while racheting up the liberal guilt we are supposed to feel when someone else pulls the trigger or bashes someone's head in.
4. Public morality has deteriorated. We have lost our most cherished institution -- marriage -- which was uniquely designed to protect the rights of children. Children had already, under the Liberals, lost the right to be born, so I guess we shouldn't feel too bad that they have now lost the right to parents of complementary sexes. Actually, this right was effectively quashed by the Liberals' glorification of single-parenting as an heroic behaviour, so perhaps we shouldn't feel too badly for the kids who are now told that they must accept the fact that they can have two moms, but no dad, or two dads, but no mom, and that the ache in their heart to know their mom or their dad has no value. Public morality been taken captive by a Court allergic to moral-thinking, addicted to god-like powers, and averse to anything resembling human decency.
5. Civil freedoms have deteriorated. Persons of conscience, of faith, or of an opinion that differs from the authorized thinking of the state, now face fines, loss of employment, and even imprisonment. Civil freedoms have been diminished by the very Courts responsible for their protection.
The Charter is not evil, but the human rights/court system set in place to enforce it unquestionably is.
6. Government integrity has deteriorated. We are at the tipping point of become a country with entrenched political and governmental corruption. As Canadian society tilts towards corruptness, this may actually appeal to Canadians who have been looking for justification for cheating on their taxes and participating in the underground economy. (The effects of government corruption extend far beyond the actual amounts stolen.) So, like the popular appeal of another social evil -- abortion, a little bit of scum on the surface of the Liberal pond may actually help the Liberals get re-elected.
7. The economy has done well. Let's give Liberals their due. They left the Conservative-implemented GST and NAFTA, the twin reasons for our economic prosperity, intact. That's about the only reason they can give us to vote for them.
It's getting better all the time / Can't get much worse.
The economy, thanks to Mulroney and the GST and Free Trade is "getting better all the time". Socially, thanks to the Liberal Charter and its politically-appointed judges and politically-fueled court cases, "it can't get much worse".
Here's my scorecard under the Liberals:
1. The environment has deteriorated. The main Liberal contribution has been self-righteous posturing on Kyoto while the actual environment has deteriorated.
2. Medicare has deteriorated. Twelve years of Liberal rule has resulted in a medicare system that brings pain and suffering and death to the masses. Yet, apparently only they can be trusted to fix it.
3. Public safety has deteriorated. The main Liberal efforts were to waste 2 billion on a gun registry, resist Conservative efforts to get tough on crime, while racheting up the liberal guilt we are supposed to feel when someone else pulls the trigger or bashes someone's head in.
4. Public morality has deteriorated. We have lost our most cherished institution -- marriage -- which was uniquely designed to protect the rights of children. Children had already, under the Liberals, lost the right to be born, so I guess we shouldn't feel too bad that they have now lost the right to parents of complementary sexes. Actually, this right was effectively quashed by the Liberals' glorification of single-parenting as an heroic behaviour, so perhaps we shouldn't feel too badly for the kids who are now told that they must accept the fact that they can have two moms, but no dad, or two dads, but no mom, and that the ache in their heart to know their mom or their dad has no value. Public morality been taken captive by a Court allergic to moral-thinking, addicted to god-like powers, and averse to anything resembling human decency.
5. Civil freedoms have deteriorated. Persons of conscience, of faith, or of an opinion that differs from the authorized thinking of the state, now face fines, loss of employment, and even imprisonment. Civil freedoms have been diminished by the very Courts responsible for their protection.
The Charter is not evil, but the human rights/court system set in place to enforce it unquestionably is.
6. Government integrity has deteriorated. We are at the tipping point of become a country with entrenched political and governmental corruption. As Canadian society tilts towards corruptness, this may actually appeal to Canadians who have been looking for justification for cheating on their taxes and participating in the underground economy. (The effects of government corruption extend far beyond the actual amounts stolen.) So, like the popular appeal of another social evil -- abortion, a little bit of scum on the surface of the Liberal pond may actually help the Liberals get re-elected.
7. The economy has done well. Let's give Liberals their due. They left the Conservative-implemented GST and NAFTA, the twin reasons for our economic prosperity, intact. That's about the only reason they can give us to vote for them.
It's getting better all the time / Can't get much worse.
Friday, January 06, 2006
Separation of Church and State
Here's my reply to a recent G&M blogger. Thank you for your anti-religious tirade. You seem to have a lot of emotions invested in hating persons of religious faith. You might want to look into that. As for your question, "(What happen to seperation between church and state)", you'll find the following carved in stone above our Parliament Buildings, "He shall have dominion from sea to sea". The influence of the Christian faith has been an integral part of Canada since its inception. Our school systems, hospitals and public healthcare all grew out of Canada's religious vision. I know of no formal law or statute that prescribes the separation you think desirable. And, while there ought not to be an organizational relationship between any religious body and the apparatus of government, surely you would not want to rule out the full democratic contribution of religious persons, because all persons have an equal right to participate in public life and to bring their views and values into it.
Religious values offer a lot to society. "Do no harm". Honesty. Compassion towards other human beings. Compassion towards animals. Children born and raised within stable families consisting of both a mom and a dad. Children's lives spared from the nullification of abortion. A high view of humanity. Love for one's neighbour, including those like you who cannot tolerate them.
If the Liberal Party was ruled by religious values instead of Liberal ones, it would not be corrupt. The prohibition against stealing, a distinctly religious precept, clearly has no place within the Party. Indeed, the de-shackled, liberated Liberals probably view honesty in government as a violation of the wall of separation of church and state. There can simply be no place for religious beliefs or values in government. If there were, there's no telling where it might lead. Why, the whole moral climate of the country might be raised, and we simply can't have that.
Persons who bring a Christian perspective to public life have nothing to apologize for.
Religious values offer a lot to society. "Do no harm". Honesty. Compassion towards other human beings. Compassion towards animals. Children born and raised within stable families consisting of both a mom and a dad. Children's lives spared from the nullification of abortion. A high view of humanity. Love for one's neighbour, including those like you who cannot tolerate them.
If the Liberal Party was ruled by religious values instead of Liberal ones, it would not be corrupt. The prohibition against stealing, a distinctly religious precept, clearly has no place within the Party. Indeed, the de-shackled, liberated Liberals probably view honesty in government as a violation of the wall of separation of church and state. There can simply be no place for religious beliefs or values in government. If there were, there's no telling where it might lead. Why, the whole moral climate of the country might be raised, and we simply can't have that.
Persons who bring a Christian perspective to public life have nothing to apologize for.
Ignorance, deception, or just plain lying?
Stephen Harper's publicly-stated plan includes a commitment to the funding of additional daycare spaces.
Yet, I heard Paul Martin denounce Harper today for plans to dismantle public daycare (or words to that effect).
So, a) is Paul Martin unaware of Stephen Harper's program?, b) does he believe that voters are feeble-minded and will not take the time to learn the Conservatives' actual program, c) did he use some qualifiers that I missed that make his statement technically correct but misleading?, or d) is he telling lies? Ignorance, deception, lying, viewing the public as imbeciles -- are these the cherished Liberal values we keep hearing about? If so, I think I'll pass.
Yet, I heard Paul Martin denounce Harper today for plans to dismantle public daycare (or words to that effect).
So, a) is Paul Martin unaware of Stephen Harper's program?, b) does he believe that voters are feeble-minded and will not take the time to learn the Conservatives' actual program, c) did he use some qualifiers that I missed that make his statement technically correct but misleading?, or d) is he telling lies? Ignorance, deception, lying, viewing the public as imbeciles -- are these the cherished Liberal values we keep hearing about? If so, I think I'll pass.
Thursday, January 05, 2006
Martin Apologizes
No, not for the Christians imprisoned for protesting against abortion. Not to Scott Brockie fined for refusing to print gay propaganda. Not to the Island bed-and-breakfast operators who lost their livelihood because they refused to submit to a mandatory human-rights indoctrination program. Not to teacher Chris Kempling who lost his job because he expressed the opinion in a local newspaper that homosexuality ought not to be celebrated. No, Paul Martin is apologizing for the Chinese Head Tax. The context? There's an election, and he needs to win it.
Gun control vs. crime control
Liberal US states with strict gun controls have more crime than conservative states with guns. What do we make of that? The easy conclusion is that an armed citizenry inhibits crime and we should all load up (so to speak).
I think the answer lies elsewhere. I believe that liberal attitudes breed crime. People are taught about entitlements, rather than responsibilities. In schools, discipline is lax and respect for authority is neither taught nor expected. Crime is excused when it occurs. And the last place a liberal looks to find who's responsible is the person who committed the crime. (For a conservative, the reverse is true.)
So, when a Liberal says it's not the criminal's fault, it's "society's" fault, to the extent that the society is liberal, permissive, and "tolerant", I would say they have a point.
If that's the case, then the social answer to crime is less, rather than more liberalism; the answer is conservatism.
I think the answer lies elsewhere. I believe that liberal attitudes breed crime. People are taught about entitlements, rather than responsibilities. In schools, discipline is lax and respect for authority is neither taught nor expected. Crime is excused when it occurs. And the last place a liberal looks to find who's responsible is the person who committed the crime. (For a conservative, the reverse is true.)
So, when a Liberal says it's not the criminal's fault, it's "society's" fault, to the extent that the society is liberal, permissive, and "tolerant", I would say they have a point.
If that's the case, then the social answer to crime is less, rather than more liberalism; the answer is conservatism.
this just in...
In the news today: 17-year old. Previous weapons charge... out on probation... Loaded AK-47 found in bedroom. Liberal values at work. (Turned in by mother. Conservative values at work.)
Probation and parole: Liberal values. Do the crime, do the time: Conservative values.
Liberal values: individual rights; collective responsibilities.
Conservative values: Rights wrapped in responsibilities.
also this...
Ottawa — The RCMP is looking into a controversial $4.8-million grant that was awarded to a pro-Canada group at the time of the 1995 referendum on Quebec sovereignty, officials have told The Globe and Mail.
Probation and parole: Liberal values. Do the crime, do the time: Conservative values.
Liberal values: individual rights; collective responsibilities.
Conservative values: Rights wrapped in responsibilities.
also this...
Ottawa — The RCMP is looking into a controversial $4.8-million grant that was awarded to a pro-Canada group at the time of the 1995 referendum on Quebec sovereignty, officials have told The Globe and Mail.
The Liberal Mind and Crime
If you were a rebellious teen, and you had the choice of living with a parent who stressed your "rights", or a parent who stressed your "responsibilities", which one would you pick?
One reason Liberals win elections is that they stress rights, freedoms, and entitlements over responsibilities. And rights, freedoms, and entitlements have popular appeal, especially among the morally challenged.
Entitlements stressed engenders selfish attitudes and selfish attitudes engender rebellious attitudes and rebellious attitudes lead to criminal behaviour. A sense of grieved entitlement is the soil in which the seeds of crime are planted, watered, and grow. And Liberals have been planting and watering for twelve uninterrupted years. Such is the Liberal Mind.
As evidence of the Liberal Mind, consider the current Prime Minister. Upon hearing about the brutal slaying of a teenager on Yonge St., he immediately jumped to "the consequences of exclusion" (the same thought that PM Cretien used to justify the 9-11 terrorism) -- it's a liberal twitch. He used a real tragedy involving real people as a self-serving opportunity to advance an ephemeral Liberal "it's not their fault; it's our fault" doctrine of social behaviour. Positively. harmful. thinking.
Imagine if, every time a teenager did something wrong, a parent said, in effect, "well, you shouldn't have done it, but, I can understand why you did. We've let you down. It's our fault. We have to do more for you. We have to spend more on you. You deserve better. You deserve more.
As long as the Liberal Mind dominates Canada, so will moral decay and what moral decay leads to -- crime.
On the plus side, if Canada's concern with crime continues, the Liberals are toast. And I think I hear the electorates' hand on the toaster...
One reason Liberals win elections is that they stress rights, freedoms, and entitlements over responsibilities. And rights, freedoms, and entitlements have popular appeal, especially among the morally challenged.
Entitlements stressed engenders selfish attitudes and selfish attitudes engender rebellious attitudes and rebellious attitudes lead to criminal behaviour. A sense of grieved entitlement is the soil in which the seeds of crime are planted, watered, and grow. And Liberals have been planting and watering for twelve uninterrupted years. Such is the Liberal Mind.
As evidence of the Liberal Mind, consider the current Prime Minister. Upon hearing about the brutal slaying of a teenager on Yonge St., he immediately jumped to "the consequences of exclusion" (the same thought that PM Cretien used to justify the 9-11 terrorism) -- it's a liberal twitch. He used a real tragedy involving real people as a self-serving opportunity to advance an ephemeral Liberal "it's not their fault; it's our fault" doctrine of social behaviour. Positively. harmful. thinking.
Imagine if, every time a teenager did something wrong, a parent said, in effect, "well, you shouldn't have done it, but, I can understand why you did. We've let you down. It's our fault. We have to do more for you. We have to spend more on you. You deserve better. You deserve more.
As long as the Liberal Mind dominates Canada, so will moral decay and what moral decay leads to -- crime.
On the plus side, if Canada's concern with crime continues, the Liberals are toast. And I think I hear the electorates' hand on the toaster...
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
"Our green berets will be red" [satire]
Canada to get its own version of Green Berets
David Pugliese, CanWest News Service; Ottawa Citizen
Published: Wednesday, January 04, 2006
[satirized by RKB]
OTTAWA -- The Canadian military will create a 10-strong special-forces unit to be located at Canadian Forces Base Petawawa. News of the announcement apparently leaked out earlier today, as the market saw an unexpected spike in beret sales and suspicious trading patterns in used military equipment. When asked about this, military spokesman H. G. Shultz, speaking on behalf of the present government, said, "I know nothing, nothing!".
The quick-response team, dubbed Soldiers Helping United Nations will consist of an elite, ten-person unit known as a 10-SHUN.
Military spokesman Maj. Doug Outt said "What you're looking at is high mobility, high training, with both conventional and non-conventional capabilities." Outt said. "Think of (U.S. army) Ranger battalions, Green Berets, those sort of skill sets, only without guns or nasty offensive weapons".
When asked about non-conventional capabilities, Outt offered, "Well, if confronted with a terrorist, they could probably throw a cup of hot Tim Hortons coffee in his or her face". It is not known if Tim Hortons will be an official sponsor of the new regiment, but it is rumoured that the forces have been making discreet inquiries concerning the availability of surplus Tim Hortons uniforms.
The new regiment is expected to be operational by the end of August with about half its headquarters and support personnel in place. The unit will continue to build in size, adding one person a year over the next five to six years until it gets to full strength.
Equipment will be initially borrowed from other army units but eventually new gear will be purchased for the regiment, Outt said. Bake-sales and army-navy white elephant sales are planned, and the troops may also go door-to-door.
An Ottawa-based civil-service staff of 5,000 persons will be developed to support the unit, which reportedly will include a 24/7 1-800 number available for troops to call-in if they have any questions. Services will be provided in both official languages. The government is said to be looking into establishing an additional civil service dept. to provide provisioning and logistical support to the support staff. The size of this latter unit will be decided later, a spokesman indicated.
As for the berets, an army spokesman revealed that an elite team of provisioners has been tasked with the responsibility to source the berets. The provisioners are expected to follow the strictly oral recommendations of an outside consultant with close connections to this government. The consultant reportedly advised the army to visit a Roots store. The spokesman confided that while the exact specifications for the beret are classified "for obvious reasons", they are looking for something in a natural, non-synthetic material similar to that worn by the famed US Green Berets. "Except of course," he said, "our green berets will be red."
David Pugliese, CanWest News Service; Ottawa Citizen
Published: Wednesday, January 04, 2006
[satirized by RKB]
OTTAWA -- The Canadian military will create a 10-strong special-forces unit to be located at Canadian Forces Base Petawawa. News of the announcement apparently leaked out earlier today, as the market saw an unexpected spike in beret sales and suspicious trading patterns in used military equipment. When asked about this, military spokesman H. G. Shultz, speaking on behalf of the present government, said, "I know nothing, nothing!".
The quick-response team, dubbed Soldiers Helping United Nations will consist of an elite, ten-person unit known as a 10-SHUN.
Military spokesman Maj. Doug Outt said "What you're looking at is high mobility, high training, with both conventional and non-conventional capabilities." Outt said. "Think of (U.S. army) Ranger battalions, Green Berets, those sort of skill sets, only without guns or nasty offensive weapons".
When asked about non-conventional capabilities, Outt offered, "Well, if confronted with a terrorist, they could probably throw a cup of hot Tim Hortons coffee in his or her face". It is not known if Tim Hortons will be an official sponsor of the new regiment, but it is rumoured that the forces have been making discreet inquiries concerning the availability of surplus Tim Hortons uniforms.
The new regiment is expected to be operational by the end of August with about half its headquarters and support personnel in place. The unit will continue to build in size, adding one person a year over the next five to six years until it gets to full strength.
Equipment will be initially borrowed from other army units but eventually new gear will be purchased for the regiment, Outt said. Bake-sales and army-navy white elephant sales are planned, and the troops may also go door-to-door.
An Ottawa-based civil-service staff of 5,000 persons will be developed to support the unit, which reportedly will include a 24/7 1-800 number available for troops to call-in if they have any questions. Services will be provided in both official languages. The government is said to be looking into establishing an additional civil service dept. to provide provisioning and logistical support to the support staff. The size of this latter unit will be decided later, a spokesman indicated.
As for the berets, an army spokesman revealed that an elite team of provisioners has been tasked with the responsibility to source the berets. The provisioners are expected to follow the strictly oral recommendations of an outside consultant with close connections to this government. The consultant reportedly advised the army to visit a Roots store. The spokesman confided that while the exact specifications for the beret are classified "for obvious reasons", they are looking for something in a natural, non-synthetic material similar to that worn by the famed US Green Berets. "Except of course," he said, "our green berets will be red."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)