How is it I find myself defending Liberal MP for his alleged 'sexist' remark to a Conservative MP when her phone rang during an in-camera meeting last month.
Dianne Watts quotes exactly what was said to her in this audio interview. Her phone, with a generic ringtone, prompted a fellow MP to say "Where's your pole to slide down?" He was asked to repeat the comment, and asked again "Where's your pole?"
Although this wasn't part of any commentary, one might supposed Ms Watts, recognizing the ring tone as specific to one person, might have smiled and said "my daughter" before any comment was made. A clip of the ringtone does not sound like any bump and grind stripper song, or anything that might be taken as such.
Could it be that we're just so conditioned to assuming that every remark has some nefarious meaning if it's directed to a woman? All the headlines make reference to a 'stripper pole' yet even in her retelling of the incident, Watts doesn't use the word 'stripper'. She, and the other MPs who heard the remark, either inferred it at the time, or afterward when they were discussing what had been said.
Could it be that MP Nicola di Iorio was thinking of a fire fighter? Or Batman even? Watts was answering a call from her daughter... how many times are we called upon to rescue our kids when we are otherwise occupied. Did her hear her say it was her daughter and make the remark thinking how many times we rush to accommodate our kids? There is nothing remotely sexual about the ringtone, or about the ringing of a phone -- but there is definitely something parental in it.
I would never have thought he meant stripper pole, unless he used those words exactly.... why was the immediate reaction to assume THAT kind of pole? Who is the sexist here? If a person makes a comment that is not overtly sexist, are they sexist because someone decides to take it that way? Or is it sexist to impute sexist meaning to it because it was made by a man to a woman?
di Iorio has not come to his own defense on this matter from anything I've read, although it is under investigation so perhaps that's why. Maybe though, it never occurred to him that it could be taken badly and the shock of having been called out on it has silenced him, the way being accused of something often does to innocent people.
canadianna
Showing posts with label Liberal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liberal. Show all posts
Saturday, March 25, 2017
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
Choosing each other
Immigration is like a marriage.
The potential immigrant chooses Canada and applies to become a citizen (the proposal). Canada accepts the proposal and after some time and paperwork, welcomes the new immigrant as a citizen (the wedding). There's even a ceremony where an oath is sworn. It is a covenant . . . a promise . . . a two sided promise. I, the immigrant promise to uphold the laws of the land and we, Canada promise to ensure your rights.
Divorces happen.
Covenants can be broken.
A Canadian is not a Canadian when he has broken the covenant.
That covenant is with US. All of us. It is a promise to the people, not to the government and when someone CHOOSES to renounce US, it seems entirely appropriate that we should have the right to renounce THEM.
While it might not seem fair that a homegrown terrorist can't be deported, I'm grateful that those who have opted to remain dual citizens must keep their promises or be booted.
It might seem simplistic. It is. You chose us. Then you turned on us. In whose rationale are we bound and obligated to your sorry ass?
canadianna
The potential immigrant chooses Canada and applies to become a citizen (the proposal). Canada accepts the proposal and after some time and paperwork, welcomes the new immigrant as a citizen (the wedding). There's even a ceremony where an oath is sworn. It is a covenant . . . a promise . . . a two sided promise. I, the immigrant promise to uphold the laws of the land and we, Canada promise to ensure your rights.
Divorces happen.
Covenants can be broken.
A Canadian is not a Canadian when he has broken the covenant.
That covenant is with US. All of us. It is a promise to the people, not to the government and when someone CHOOSES to renounce US, it seems entirely appropriate that we should have the right to renounce THEM.
While it might not seem fair that a homegrown terrorist can't be deported, I'm grateful that those who have opted to remain dual citizens must keep their promises or be booted.
It might seem simplistic. It is. You chose us. Then you turned on us. In whose rationale are we bound and obligated to your sorry ass?
canadianna
Tuesday, December 06, 2011
Warren Kinsella a closet conservative
It's true!
How else do you explain that the study he writes about that determined that whiny, insecure, narrow-minded, thin-skinned little kids grow up to be whiny, insecure, narrow-minded, thin-skinned, politically conservative adults. Kinsella MUST be a conservative -- he fits that description to a 'T'.
Warren manages to act all smug and self-righteous just like a true liberal . . . he even gets all giggly and tingly when he thinks he's done a *gotcha* just like liberals do. He's all bitter about his team's losses, picking at the scabs, looking for blame all over the place and all negative about any idea that doesn't emanate from his side in a way that would make any liberal proud. He mocks and ridicules those who are not in line with his world view, like any card carrying Liberal would.
Nope. It appears that study he cites must be skewed. Warren Kinsella is a liberal.
How else do you explain that the study he writes about that determined that whiny, insecure, narrow-minded, thin-skinned little kids grow up to be whiny, insecure, narrow-minded, thin-skinned, politically conservative adults. Kinsella MUST be a conservative -- he fits that description to a 'T'.
Warren manages to act all smug and self-righteous just like a true liberal . . . he even gets all giggly and tingly when he thinks he's done a *gotcha* just like liberals do. He's all bitter about his team's losses, picking at the scabs, looking for blame all over the place and all negative about any idea that doesn't emanate from his side in a way that would make any liberal proud. He mocks and ridicules those who are not in line with his world view, like any card carrying Liberal would.
Nope. It appears that study he cites must be skewed. Warren Kinsella is a liberal.
Sunday, October 02, 2011
Undecided
Four days to the vote, and I remain undecided . . . not about which party to vote for, but rather, whether to vote at all.
The PC Party of Ontario had an opportunity here to live up to their *Changebook* and blow the stale and bloated Liberal government out of the water. Instead, I haven't even heard the word *Changebook* since maybe May or June? You pick up a few bits and pieces in the news over the weeks, like the fact that the PCs are prepared to maintain the status quo on many of the Liberal promises and screw ups. I'd have loved to hear something of the change that book might have planned . . . but I'm busy . . . I'm not interested in having to search out their agenda . . . this is election time . . . they should have told me. They haven't.
The Howarth ads are positive and engaging . . . appealing even to those of us have no inclination to vote for the NDP. There still hasn't been one positive, affirming PC ad. They're sticking with the anti-McGuinty ads . . . which are so off-putting that the Liberals don't seem to be bothering with ads at all anymore. Just watch the PC Party do the nasty, and the Liberals can sit back and know that the PC party operatives have failed in every possible way. They might have convinced many voters not to vote for Dalton, but they've done absolutely nothing to convince us to vote for them.
There are a number of things that might have lured me to the voting booth . . . cancelling all-day kindergarten, or if that's too radical, repealing the Health Care Premium. They could've told us their plan for newcomers to Ontario, rather than screaming about the ill-conceived Liberal one. What are their plans for post-secondary students? How do they intend to create jobs? What will they do about the Samsung deal?
The PC Party is hoping that we'd hate Dalton McGuinty and the Liberals enough to vote for them by default. That isn't the way it works. People might not like the status quo, but many are content to accept the devil they know . . . and those who'd rather vote for change will look for it somewhere positive, especially in these low economic times.
I see a pretty big increase for the NDP this Thursday. If voters are going to choose change because they hate the party in power, many might see Horwath as the only option available in the absence of anything positive from Hudak.
Sad really. This was his to win.
canadianna
The PC Party of Ontario had an opportunity here to live up to their *Changebook* and blow the stale and bloated Liberal government out of the water. Instead, I haven't even heard the word *Changebook* since maybe May or June? You pick up a few bits and pieces in the news over the weeks, like the fact that the PCs are prepared to maintain the status quo on many of the Liberal promises and screw ups. I'd have loved to hear something of the change that book might have planned . . . but I'm busy . . . I'm not interested in having to search out their agenda . . . this is election time . . . they should have told me. They haven't.
The Howarth ads are positive and engaging . . . appealing even to those of us have no inclination to vote for the NDP. There still hasn't been one positive, affirming PC ad. They're sticking with the anti-McGuinty ads . . . which are so off-putting that the Liberals don't seem to be bothering with ads at all anymore. Just watch the PC Party do the nasty, and the Liberals can sit back and know that the PC party operatives have failed in every possible way. They might have convinced many voters not to vote for Dalton, but they've done absolutely nothing to convince us to vote for them.
There are a number of things that might have lured me to the voting booth . . . cancelling all-day kindergarten, or if that's too radical, repealing the Health Care Premium. They could've told us their plan for newcomers to Ontario, rather than screaming about the ill-conceived Liberal one. What are their plans for post-secondary students? How do they intend to create jobs? What will they do about the Samsung deal?
The PC Party is hoping that we'd hate Dalton McGuinty and the Liberals enough to vote for them by default. That isn't the way it works. People might not like the status quo, but many are content to accept the devil they know . . . and those who'd rather vote for change will look for it somewhere positive, especially in these low economic times.
I see a pretty big increase for the NDP this Thursday. If voters are going to choose change because they hate the party in power, many might see Horwath as the only option available in the absence of anything positive from Hudak.
Sad really. This was his to win.
canadianna
Thursday, September 22, 2011
The Ontario PC's failure
Truth is, the Ontario PC Party failed me out of the gate when they said they'd continue to implement the universal daycare plan disguised as *all day kindergarten* -- and pay teacher's wages for the daycare worker's job.
That said, I was still hoping to be persuaded to vote in the upcoming election. I won't be voting Liberal, but unless I find a reason to wander over to the polls on October 6, I won't be voting. And yes, I will still have the right to complain. I'm a citizen who finds the sitting government contemptible, but who is being offered no viable and reasonable alternative.
Just saw the taxman ad again. It was funny the first time --- *sneaky eco-tax* and all that . . . but seriously . . . does Tim Hudak know there's an election going on?
The PCs are still invisible.
Even when I'm looking, all I'm finding is them ragging about Dalton the taxman -- much as I hate what Dalton McGuinty has done -- people still elected him a second time after he'd done most of what he's done wrong. Obviously Ontarians don't mind being taxed. Move on. Tell me what you'd do different . . . what you'd do better . . . for goodness sake! Tell me anything about yourselves.
Why vote PC? I'm still asking... so are a lot people (who haven't fallen asleep with the tedium of this campaign). Those who don't find an answer will likely just stay home. If Dalton wins again, it won't be our fault . . . it will be the fault of the geniuses in the PC Party who've failed to even try to engage us.
I'm asking . . . I want a reason to vote for you, Tim . . . not a reason to vote AGAINST Dalton.
Come on Hudak war room -- you still have time.
canadianna
That said, I was still hoping to be persuaded to vote in the upcoming election. I won't be voting Liberal, but unless I find a reason to wander over to the polls on October 6, I won't be voting. And yes, I will still have the right to complain. I'm a citizen who finds the sitting government contemptible, but who is being offered no viable and reasonable alternative.
Just saw the taxman ad again. It was funny the first time --- *sneaky eco-tax* and all that . . . but seriously . . . does Tim Hudak know there's an election going on?
The PCs are still invisible.
Even when I'm looking, all I'm finding is them ragging about Dalton the taxman -- much as I hate what Dalton McGuinty has done -- people still elected him a second time after he'd done most of what he's done wrong. Obviously Ontarians don't mind being taxed. Move on. Tell me what you'd do different . . . what you'd do better . . . for goodness sake! Tell me anything about yourselves.
Why vote PC? I'm still asking... so are a lot people (who haven't fallen asleep with the tedium of this campaign). Those who don't find an answer will likely just stay home. If Dalton wins again, it won't be our fault . . . it will be the fault of the geniuses in the PC Party who've failed to even try to engage us.
I'm asking . . . I want a reason to vote for you, Tim . . . not a reason to vote AGAINST Dalton.
Come on Hudak war room -- you still have time.
canadianna
Sunday, September 18, 2011
I tried, but I can't help it . . .
Everyone says to ignore Warren Kinsella, but it's like trying to ignore a mosquito. I both appreciate and despise THE SUN for giving him a voice.
Doesn't Kinsella know that there's a difference between a newspaper owner issuing a vendetta against a sitting PM and promising to destroy him electorally, and columnists in a newspaper expressing opinion on the poor governance of the sitting premier?
Who knows what made people keep voting for Chretien ... maybe it was The Star which still seemed vaguely relevant back then, when they kept insisting there was no alternative to the Liberals and that the Liberals had a natural right to govern. Hmmm . . . The Star endorsed the Liberals, they won. They endorsed the NDP and look what happened. ... just kidding. Anyway, get weirdly gleeful all you want that some smart person says editorials don't matter, but one has to hope that in the end, the huge tax burden being faced by voters thanks to Dalton McGuinty-- will matter -- even to those who don't bother reading newspapers.
I think it's probable that while Conrad Black's anger at Chretien's pettiness didn't translate into election defeat, it's hardly because of voter backlash against the National Post . . .instead it likely had more to do with the mocking of the fundamentalist Christian leader of the Canadian Alliance by a cynical spin doctor. The ridicule created a sense that the leader of this new and unproven party might be stupid. Truth never mattered. It was all about spin and the clever way those spin masters demean their targets. Funny how Warren is forgetting his role in the Alliance defeat now that it's inconvenient to his column thesis.
Anyway, I really wrote this piece to say: The idea of Warren Kinsella getting all *tingly* over anything -- is really creepy and made me cringe.
Yuck Warren. Just yuck.
canadianna
Doesn't Kinsella know that there's a difference between a newspaper owner issuing a vendetta against a sitting PM and promising to destroy him electorally, and columnists in a newspaper expressing opinion on the poor governance of the sitting premier?
Who knows what made people keep voting for Chretien ... maybe it was The Star which still seemed vaguely relevant back then, when they kept insisting there was no alternative to the Liberals and that the Liberals had a natural right to govern. Hmmm . . . The Star endorsed the Liberals, they won. They endorsed the NDP and look what happened. ... just kidding. Anyway, get weirdly gleeful all you want that some smart person says editorials don't matter, but one has to hope that in the end, the huge tax burden being faced by voters thanks to Dalton McGuinty-- will matter -- even to those who don't bother reading newspapers.
I think it's probable that while Conrad Black's anger at Chretien's pettiness didn't translate into election defeat, it's hardly because of voter backlash against the National Post . . .instead it likely had more to do with the mocking of the fundamentalist Christian leader of the Canadian Alliance by a cynical spin doctor. The ridicule created a sense that the leader of this new and unproven party might be stupid. Truth never mattered. It was all about spin and the clever way those spin masters demean their targets. Funny how Warren is forgetting his role in the Alliance defeat now that it's inconvenient to his column thesis.
Anyway, I really wrote this piece to say: The idea of Warren Kinsella getting all *tingly* over anything -- is really creepy and made me cringe.
Yuck Warren. Just yuck.
canadianna
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
What do these three pictures have in common?
Three election ads ... three different MPPs ... not one mention of their party. If you didn't already know, you might not know these MPPs are Liberals (okay, the red is a clue, but I've never seen election advertising without a party logo etc.)
Hmmm . . . scared of their own brand maybe? If the provincial Liberals were at all certain of their own record, the national party's crash in May wouldn't affect their advertising (that is if the national disaster is their reasoning for the conspicuous absence of the Liberal name and logo).
Also of note, all of the supporting data for the *good news* they're touting, is from the Ministries involved in providing those services. No independent sources available?
Not to mention Andy's mom is selling him short --- if he's only one in a million to her, there's gotta be 11 just like him in Ontario alone. Just sayin'.
The ads are kinda cute, kinda clever, but absent the party name, they're telling us more than what they intended.
canadianna
btw -- Sorry for the poor quality of the first photo -- my passenger took it with my cell phone. I haven't the name of that MP, it isn't clear enough and I can't be bothered looking it up, but it was taken at McCowan and Sandhurst Circle in Scarborough.
Monday, May 02, 2011
Finally -- Stephen Harper's REAL agenda
Paranoid anyone?
Ignatieff thinks Stephen Harper's raison d'être is to *drive a stake through the heart of the Liberal Party*
He went on to say:
Silly Iggy. You wrecked it all by yourself..
Whatever the outcome, at least half the results will be the product of voter-fatigue. I'm sure tired of whiny Liberals.
canadianna
Ignatieff thinks Stephen Harper's raison d'être is to *drive a stake through the heart of the Liberal Party*
Ignatieff told supporters “Mr. Harper has no vision for Canada, but he has a very sharp vision for the Conservative party of Canada, which is to try to drive a stake through the heart of the Liberal Party.”Does that mean all those people who called him *Count Iggy* were right?
He went on to say:
"Their politics are a sustained attempt to destroy me and destroy the party,'' Ignatieff said at a final fiery news conference on Sunday.Whoa! And I thought Stephen Harper was merely a power hungry despot demanding more time in power and bent on the destruction of the country . . .Wow . . . He really lowered his sights by aiming at the Liberal Party.
Silly Iggy. You wrecked it all by yourself..
Whatever the outcome, at least half the results will be the product of voter-fatigue. I'm sure tired of whiny Liberals.
canadianna
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Is it over yet?
Here's what I think.
Some Liberal strategist who secretly likes Bob Rae and wants him to be the next Liberal leader/Prime Minister, is working hard on the campaign of Michael Ignatieff.
Everyone knows Bobby and Mike are long-time frenemies. Who do you suppose is gonna pick up the pieces after the Liberal's epic failure? I think I've heard Bob Rae's name once during this campaign. Hmmmmm . . .
Sadly, and though I hate to bring it up, during past campaigns, we've watched the Conservatives fumble in the last week and half before election day -- instead of recalling that, and savouring the possibilities, we've watched Liberals anticipating their own fall. And then, when you watch SUN-TV and hear Warren Kinsella talking as though he's doing a post-mortem on the Liberal campaign, you have to think there's a plan in the works -- a plan for the next election maybe?
The natural governing party of Canada as part of a humble and weak coalition in which a separatist party holds sway? I think not. Liberals are too arrogant. They're throwing the game. They must be.
canadianna
Some Liberal strategist who secretly likes Bob Rae and wants him to be the next Liberal leader/Prime Minister, is working hard on the campaign of Michael Ignatieff.
Everyone knows Bobby and Mike are long-time frenemies. Who do you suppose is gonna pick up the pieces after the Liberal's epic failure? I think I've heard Bob Rae's name once during this campaign. Hmmmmm . . .
Sadly, and though I hate to bring it up, during past campaigns, we've watched the Conservatives fumble in the last week and half before election day -- instead of recalling that, and savouring the possibilities, we've watched Liberals anticipating their own fall. And then, when you watch SUN-TV and hear Warren Kinsella talking as though he's doing a post-mortem on the Liberal campaign, you have to think there's a plan in the works -- a plan for the next election maybe?
The natural governing party of Canada as part of a humble and weak coalition in which a separatist party holds sway? I think not. Liberals are too arrogant. They're throwing the game. They must be.
canadianna
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Never again
Never again. When you hear those words, it evokes an image doesn't it?
For me, the image is of holocaust survivors or soldiers. I've heard survivors say it defiantly and I've heard veterans utter it wistfully. It's meant as a call for humanity after a period of genocide, violent social upheaval, war. It's a stark, simple phrase that manages to conjure images of the brutality that mankind perpetrates on itself -- it is a reminder of carnage, it is a plea for change, it is a call for hope and a solemn promise to those who hear, that if enough of us believe those words, peace and freedom from oppression are possible.
Look who's co-opted the phrase and to whom they're referring.
Talk about classless. I thought Garth Turner was petulant and self-righteous. Boy, Stephane Dion makes Garth look positively humble and rational.
Character assassination? What did the Conservatives say about Stephane Dion but that his ideas were bad and that he wasn't a leader? Neither of these statements is subjective opinion-- Dion managed to prove that both were facts. And neither assertion attacks the man's character -- nope, but charges of 'liar' 'incompetent' 'cold' 'heartless' 'evil' 'quitter' 'mean' -- those are comments about character -- those charges and worse were made about Stephen Harper and either uttered or approved by Stephane Dion during the course of the campaign.
Poor Stephane -- not only is he a whining crybaby loser, he's also a myopic navel-gazing, hostile little bit of a man.
Oops. That was unkind. Maybe you should reach into your wallets and pull out some cash for the Liberals so that never again, will any Liberal leader ever have to face that kind of brutal, violent, shattering, soul destroying name-calling on a blog or anywhere else in this cruel world.
canadianna
For me, the image is of holocaust survivors or soldiers. I've heard survivors say it defiantly and I've heard veterans utter it wistfully. It's meant as a call for humanity after a period of genocide, violent social upheaval, war. It's a stark, simple phrase that manages to conjure images of the brutality that mankind perpetrates on itself -- it is a reminder of carnage, it is a plea for change, it is a call for hope and a solemn promise to those who hear, that if enough of us believe those words, peace and freedom from oppression are possible.
Look who's co-opted the phrase and to whom they're referring.
Talk about classless. I thought Garth Turner was petulant and self-righteous. Boy, Stephane Dion makes Garth look positively humble and rational.
Character assassination? What did the Conservatives say about Stephane Dion but that his ideas were bad and that he wasn't a leader? Neither of these statements is subjective opinion-- Dion managed to prove that both were facts. And neither assertion attacks the man's character -- nope, but charges of 'liar' 'incompetent' 'cold' 'heartless' 'evil' 'quitter' 'mean' -- those are comments about character -- those charges and worse were made about Stephen Harper and either uttered or approved by Stephane Dion during the course of the campaign.
Poor Stephane -- not only is he a whining crybaby loser, he's also a myopic navel-gazing, hostile little bit of a man.
Oops. That was unkind. Maybe you should reach into your wallets and pull out some cash for the Liberals so that never again, will any Liberal leader ever have to face that kind of brutal, violent, shattering, soul destroying name-calling on a blog or anywhere else in this cruel world.
canadianna
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
"Not Conservative"
It amazes me how many people are willing to jump onto the ABC bandwagon or buy into the 'Stop Harper' campaigns. With little thought to what the 'Anybody' in ABC might be putting forward in their own campaign, it seems many people are ready to define themselves as 'not Conservative'.
Congratulations. That's so clever. Well, if being 'not Conservative' is your main reason for voting for 'Anybody' else, then there are a few things you might want to think about before marking that ballot.
Stephen Harper is the only leader not panicking over the economy.
Who do you want at the helm-- a harried, worried scaremonger who sees icebergs and storms in every direction and who will run us aground or scurry for the nearest port? Or a calm, rational leader whose nerves are steady enough that he can steer through the crisis, not into it?
Personally, I'd go for the level-headed guy. Fear is self-fulfilling and panic-begets-panic-begets-crisis. Harper has been navigating choppy waters without getting into a tizzy like Dion, Layton and May. If he doesn't seem empathetic enough, thank God. There's someone who's keeping his head while those around him are losing theirs. If it seems cold or unkind -- I'll take it. It means he's not being governed by fear or emotion and guess what -- that's a good thing.
If you're simply anti-Conservative because you're stuck in the 'don't scare me' frame of mind -- then you are scary because the Conservatives are the only ones looking forward on the economy instead of trying to reach back.
Call me crazy, but I'm not surprised that Canada is losing jobs in the manufacturing sector -- are you?
In global economy, first world manufacturers with their nifty benefit packages, pension plans and high hourly wages are not competitive. Thanks Buzz, Sid, Jack and your ilk for years of amazing labour negotiations that have brought us to this point. The truth hurts -- you had it great when the economy was good and now that things are going down -- you're being hit hard. It's sad and I feel for all the people who are victims of it -- but the Conservatives aren't lamenting manufacturing job losses as much as they're committed to creating jobs in other sectors. Doesn't that make sense -- to open ourselves up to fields where we can be leaders and competitive?
We're never going to go back to the days where GM and Ford and their feeder companies make up a huge portion of the labour force of Ontario -- we need innovation. We don't need leaders who are looking wistfully to yesterday -- we need people who can focus on the future. Yes, manufacturing jobs have been lost -- but more and different jobs are being created and there are new strategies for job retraining. Maybe you won't have all the union perqs but it's a far brighter future than trying to reach back for something that's long gone to another country that can do it much, much cheaper.
The Liberals and NDP have to start living in today's world. The corporate 'tax cuts' or the NDP derides? What about all the corporate welfare that's been happening in the auto sector and for Bombardier -- that's okay? Yes, yes it is. Just like it's okay to get abortions in private clinics but not MRIs -- because one is politically correct and the other not. One pleases a particular interest group, the other not -- but corporate tax cuts are not gifts to the devil as Jack would have you believe.
What Jack fails to grasp -- or grasps but hopes the ABCers don't, is that it's the corporations who create and maintain jobs. If they don't like the tax laws, they ain't staying. It's a buyers market. They can shop around for the best tax deals and if those deals happen to be in Mexico or China or Wisconsin -- those corporations aren't going to give a damn about your family, your mortgage, your car payments. Business is business -- a favourable tax climate for business is a good thing -- which is why Jim Flaherty said that Ontario is the last place companies would want to invest -- the tax burden on the business doesn't make it profitable -- WHY SHOULD THEY COME and WHY SHOULD THEY STAY?
If we want companies to invest here, we have to make it worth their while. Dalton, Dion and Layton don't get that.
If you're voting 'not Conservative' because you think that's going to help the arts -- then think again. Did any of you read the National Post editorial that detailed some of the benefactors of 'arts funding'? According to the Post, advertising companies receive the largest portion of 'arts funding'. So, you get to give money to the government, who hands it to the ad company, who creates and ad to get you to buy their product with what little money you have left after you've given so generously to the taxman. And this is what you believe in?
I never used to believe that very many people defined themselves as 'not American' rather than putting any real thought into what it meant to be a Canadian. Why would anyone define themselves as 'not something'. Most of us know that to be Canadian holds special significance -- it means respect for authority, listening politely to the other guy but thinking independently. It means being ready to stand up for what's right and having the muscle to back it. Being Canadian means quiet strength, it means honesty and integrity, it means seeing the whole picture -- not just the few pixels we ourselves inhabit. In my opinion, the Conservatives -- even with their decidedly unconservative tilt since forming government -- best represent Canadian values and they are prepared to define themselves, rather than rant that at least they're not the other guy.
Stephen Harper isn't perfect and the Conservative Party platform falls far short of what most conservatives would prefer. Far from being ultra-right wing, the Conservatives have pulled the party left because they are seeing the whole picture, and are calmly leading into future. Harper showed quiet strength at the debates and he's showing it each day throughout this campaign. I'm surprised at his patience in the face of some of the vile comments and insults that have been hurled at him.
What does Anybody else have to offer? Oh yeah. 'Vote for me because I'm not him and I'm also not American or George Bush.' They are defining themselves by what they are not -- 'not Conservative'. All that really means is they are not prepared to move forward -- they are still looking back to a global economy that no longer exists and to three elections ago when Canadians didn't know who Stephen Harper was. They think we'll be swayed by dark, shadowy images flashing across our television screens. The Liberal team is banking on us not figuring it out -- if the Liberals are the fall-back guy, then they really don't have anything to offer and they hope that if they scare us enough, we won't notice.
The Liberals think we're stupid. I hope we don't prove them right on election day.
canadianna
Congratulations. That's so clever. Well, if being 'not Conservative' is your main reason for voting for 'Anybody' else, then there are a few things you might want to think about before marking that ballot.
Stephen Harper is the only leader not panicking over the economy.
Who do you want at the helm-- a harried, worried scaremonger who sees icebergs and storms in every direction and who will run us aground or scurry for the nearest port? Or a calm, rational leader whose nerves are steady enough that he can steer through the crisis, not into it?
Personally, I'd go for the level-headed guy. Fear is self-fulfilling and panic-begets-panic-begets-crisis. Harper has been navigating choppy waters without getting into a tizzy like Dion, Layton and May. If he doesn't seem empathetic enough, thank God. There's someone who's keeping his head while those around him are losing theirs. If it seems cold or unkind -- I'll take it. It means he's not being governed by fear or emotion and guess what -- that's a good thing.
If you're simply anti-Conservative because you're stuck in the 'don't scare me' frame of mind -- then you are scary because the Conservatives are the only ones looking forward on the economy instead of trying to reach back.
Call me crazy, but I'm not surprised that Canada is losing jobs in the manufacturing sector -- are you?
In global economy, first world manufacturers with their nifty benefit packages, pension plans and high hourly wages are not competitive. Thanks Buzz, Sid, Jack and your ilk for years of amazing labour negotiations that have brought us to this point. The truth hurts -- you had it great when the economy was good and now that things are going down -- you're being hit hard. It's sad and I feel for all the people who are victims of it -- but the Conservatives aren't lamenting manufacturing job losses as much as they're committed to creating jobs in other sectors. Doesn't that make sense -- to open ourselves up to fields where we can be leaders and competitive?
We're never going to go back to the days where GM and Ford and their feeder companies make up a huge portion of the labour force of Ontario -- we need innovation. We don't need leaders who are looking wistfully to yesterday -- we need people who can focus on the future. Yes, manufacturing jobs have been lost -- but more and different jobs are being created and there are new strategies for job retraining. Maybe you won't have all the union perqs but it's a far brighter future than trying to reach back for something that's long gone to another country that can do it much, much cheaper.
The Liberals and NDP have to start living in today's world. The corporate 'tax cuts' or the NDP derides? What about all the corporate welfare that's been happening in the auto sector and for Bombardier -- that's okay? Yes, yes it is. Just like it's okay to get abortions in private clinics but not MRIs -- because one is politically correct and the other not. One pleases a particular interest group, the other not -- but corporate tax cuts are not gifts to the devil as Jack would have you believe.
What Jack fails to grasp -- or grasps but hopes the ABCers don't, is that it's the corporations who create and maintain jobs. If they don't like the tax laws, they ain't staying. It's a buyers market. They can shop around for the best tax deals and if those deals happen to be in Mexico or China or Wisconsin -- those corporations aren't going to give a damn about your family, your mortgage, your car payments. Business is business -- a favourable tax climate for business is a good thing -- which is why Jim Flaherty said that Ontario is the last place companies would want to invest -- the tax burden on the business doesn't make it profitable -- WHY SHOULD THEY COME and WHY SHOULD THEY STAY?
If we want companies to invest here, we have to make it worth their while. Dalton, Dion and Layton don't get that.
If you're voting 'not Conservative' because you think that's going to help the arts -- then think again. Did any of you read the National Post editorial that detailed some of the benefactors of 'arts funding'? According to the Post, advertising companies receive the largest portion of 'arts funding'. So, you get to give money to the government, who hands it to the ad company, who creates and ad to get you to buy their product with what little money you have left after you've given so generously to the taxman. And this is what you believe in?
I never used to believe that very many people defined themselves as 'not American' rather than putting any real thought into what it meant to be a Canadian. Why would anyone define themselves as 'not something'. Most of us know that to be Canadian holds special significance -- it means respect for authority, listening politely to the other guy but thinking independently. It means being ready to stand up for what's right and having the muscle to back it. Being Canadian means quiet strength, it means honesty and integrity, it means seeing the whole picture -- not just the few pixels we ourselves inhabit. In my opinion, the Conservatives -- even with their decidedly unconservative tilt since forming government -- best represent Canadian values and they are prepared to define themselves, rather than rant that at least they're not the other guy.
Stephen Harper isn't perfect and the Conservative Party platform falls far short of what most conservatives would prefer. Far from being ultra-right wing, the Conservatives have pulled the party left because they are seeing the whole picture, and are calmly leading into future. Harper showed quiet strength at the debates and he's showing it each day throughout this campaign. I'm surprised at his patience in the face of some of the vile comments and insults that have been hurled at him.
What does Anybody else have to offer? Oh yeah. 'Vote for me because I'm not him and I'm also not American or George Bush.' They are defining themselves by what they are not -- 'not Conservative'. All that really means is they are not prepared to move forward -- they are still looking back to a global economy that no longer exists and to three elections ago when Canadians didn't know who Stephen Harper was. They think we'll be swayed by dark, shadowy images flashing across our television screens. The Liberal team is banking on us not figuring it out -- if the Liberals are the fall-back guy, then they really don't have anything to offer and they hope that if they scare us enough, we won't notice.
The Liberals think we're stupid. I hope we don't prove them right on election day.
canadianna
Friday, September 19, 2008
Who would make a good citizen?
I have a friend who is a refugee from Iran. His family ran a book store and quietly spoke against the Ayatollah. This friend became an activist, working underground against the government. There came a point when his friends began to be rounded up and he and a couple of others managed to get out. Unfortunately, he arrived in Canada in the wake of 9/11. His claim has been rejected although he's made a last ditch appeal.
This man, my friend, is university educated in some sort of geology thing that lends itself to working in the oil & gas industry. He has learned English and speaks it fluently. He works at menial and low paying jobs -- all he's able to get considering his status, and he has worked consistently since coming to Canada. He has never received social assistance. He has no debt, has refused legal aid (although as a refugee, he was entitled). He refused to use being a Christian as a part of his refugee claim. In short, he's a good man.
Now, read Rosie DiManno about the American hiding out here to avoid facing a trial for desertion.
This toy soldier signed on for an education and a paycheque and bailed when he found out that he might actually have to live up to the job description. Bob Rae is reaching out to help him, speaking out for him? I wonder how our soldiers would feel about this?
canadianna
This man, my friend, is university educated in some sort of geology thing that lends itself to working in the oil & gas industry. He has learned English and speaks it fluently. He works at menial and low paying jobs -- all he's able to get considering his status, and he has worked consistently since coming to Canada. He has never received social assistance. He has no debt, has refused legal aid (although as a refugee, he was entitled). He refused to use being a Christian as a part of his refugee claim. In short, he's a good man.
Now, read Rosie DiManno about the American hiding out here to avoid facing a trial for desertion.
This toy soldier signed on for an education and a paycheque and bailed when he found out that he might actually have to live up to the job description. Bob Rae is reaching out to help him, speaking out for him? I wonder how our soldiers would feel about this?
canadianna
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
A picture's worth . . . ?
Regardless of political affiliation, most people say they support our troops. Personal feelings about war in general and the war in Afghanistan in particular, don't seem to factor in.
Why is it then, that Liberals are still bent on portraying our military as ominous in an effort to malign the Conservatives?
Why is it then, that Liberals are still bent on portraying our military as ominous in an effort to malign the Conservatives?
A photograph of tanks at the ready, combined with the word 'Conservative' seems to be a favourite stunt of the Liberal Party's communications staff. This image of Light Armoured Vehicles from the Liberal website, is reminiscent of the Liberal television ad yanked during the election last year. Apparently they thought they'd dust off the idea and give it new life in a different format. With so many other aspects of the Afghan mission to choose from, they have chosen one that could be seen as the most menacing. No faces, just an overpowering machine. Subtlety is obviously not their forte.
The NDP doesn't like the Conservatives any more than the Liberals do, and they like the war in Afghanistan even less. Yet the NDP website doesn't misuse the military to make a point about Harper. Their criticism of Harper's Afghan vision and visit is linked to by a photo of soldiers on the ground, with Afghan children in the background. It appears unstaged and seems unthreatening -- no attempt to draw deleterious connections or conclusions.
Maybe I'm being fussy here, but photographs are used to evoke emotion. You'd think that the Liberals would have learned their lesson and if they want to assail Harper, they'd stop using our military as their weapon of choice.
*** I've edited this post because commenters corrected me (thanks) --The photo is not of tanks, but LAVs (Light Armoured Vehicles). The visual holds the same connotation IMO.
canadianna
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Dion's brilliant -- May? Not so much
Most of the criticism of the Grit-Green deal in Central Nova is aimed at Stephane Dion, but that guy is one shrewd operator. In one fell swoop he eliminates the competition, while giving the appearance of having only altruistic motivations.
Clever.
The same can't be said of Elizabeth May.
The Green Party sees itself as centrist. It stands left on most environmental and social issues, and mostly right fiscally. It also sees itself as a fresh alternative to the 'big three' mainstream parties.
That's all gone now.
Elizabeth May has done a lot of damage to her party. Her message to Greens and prospective Greens is that the vision of the Party, the long-term aims that were just starting to be taken seriously -- those goals, those ideals -- are secondary to beating/humiliating Stephen Harper and the Conservatives. She's giving up on Green.
At a time when the Greens have seen their best showing in an election and have been the beneficiary of the election laws that augment their coffers for each vote, the Greens should have been prepared for the next election as being their break-through chance. The environment is their issue, and it's hot. They could be setting the agenda. Instead, it will likely be their demise.
Stephane Dion supported Elizabeth May in her bid to participate in the Leadership Debate. Although without a seat in Parliament it is unlikely she would have been allowed, she has just blown the opportunity of receiving scads of free publicity come election time. Her fight to join the leadership debate would have been the chance to get her message out during an election. It would have been a free vehicle to headlines. And she traded it in for a chance to lose, while being endorsed by a Liberal. What an idiot.
Dion is laughing. He's just neutralized his enemy. So what if there's no Liberal in Central Nova -- there's no Green in the Leadership Debate.
canadianna
Clever.
The same can't be said of Elizabeth May.
The Green Party sees itself as centrist. It stands left on most environmental and social issues, and mostly right fiscally. It also sees itself as a fresh alternative to the 'big three' mainstream parties.
That's all gone now.
Elizabeth May has done a lot of damage to her party. Her message to Greens and prospective Greens is that the vision of the Party, the long-term aims that were just starting to be taken seriously -- those goals, those ideals -- are secondary to beating/humiliating Stephen Harper and the Conservatives. She's giving up on Green.
At a time when the Greens have seen their best showing in an election and have been the beneficiary of the election laws that augment their coffers for each vote, the Greens should have been prepared for the next election as being their break-through chance. The environment is their issue, and it's hot. They could be setting the agenda. Instead, it will likely be their demise.
Stephane Dion supported Elizabeth May in her bid to participate in the Leadership Debate. Although without a seat in Parliament it is unlikely she would have been allowed, she has just blown the opportunity of receiving scads of free publicity come election time. Her fight to join the leadership debate would have been the chance to get her message out during an election. It would have been a free vehicle to headlines. And she traded it in for a chance to lose, while being endorsed by a Liberal. What an idiot.
Dion is laughing. He's just neutralized his enemy. So what if there's no Liberal in Central Nova -- there's no Green in the Leadership Debate.
canadianna
Friday, February 09, 2007
No Men Need Apply
Liberals plan to increase the number of women running for the party in the next election. To reach their self-imposed quota of 33% female candidates, it seems they believe the 'fairest' option is to simply bar men from running in certain ridings.
Apparently it doesn't matter that a man might be more qualified, better the right gender than the right candidate.
The most galling thing here is that Liberals appear to believe that women can't possibly be expected to win if they are competing against a man -- so their answer is to simply remove the competition.
Progressive thinkers might believe that this is necessary to increase the number of women running for and elected to parliament, but there are two bizarre principles being floated here. First, that there must be more women in parliament, and secondly, that the only way to get that done exclude men from the process.
For fifty years or more, dozens of women of all parties have proved their mettle by following the nomination process that's been in place and winning. Does the Liberal Party dismiss their successes as anomaly? Do they think this new generation of young women is frightened of politics? Or do they just think that women are too fragile to compete?
Women are not helpless and needy. We don't need to be led by the hand -- those who want to run, find their way. To suggest otherwise is to say that we need to be treated like children who don't know what's good for them or worse, like morons who haven't enough sense to see opportunities and seek them out.
Voters want competence from their candidates and parliamentarians. In the rush to push more women onto the political stage, Liberals seem willing to ignore quality in the name of number parity.
If they impose the selection of 80 more women candidates to meet their target, there's no question that some quality male candidates will be shoved aside simply because of their gender. And the Liberals think this is both fair and correct.
If they're going to force the numbers to fit the goal of 33% women candidates, why not go the extra step and in any remaining ridings, bar whites from running? If they truly want to reflect the diversity of the nation, impose quotas for all races.
Liberals pretend they believe in gender equality, but by not allowing the natural outcomes of the nominations process, they are telling women that they don't believe they are good enough to compete with men and win. Or maybe the ruling elites believe that the local Liberal riding associations are made up of misogynists who would choose a man over a women regardless of qualifications.
Call it parity, equality, or balance -- it smacks of paternalism and implies that without special assistance, most women couldn't cut it in politics. If that's the case, if females who are potential Liberal candidates require the manipulation of the selection process to ensure somethings as basic as their nomination, how suited are they for the job?
When equality is forced, quality is bound to suffer. The playing-field is already level. Women today are aware of their career options and should they choose the political arena, they should be playing the same game with the same rules as everyone else. And if Liberals think they can't -- it's the Liberals who are questioning the value of women.
We don't need more women in politics -- we just need fewer idiots.
canadianna
Apparently it doesn't matter that a man might be more qualified, better the right gender than the right candidate.
The most galling thing here is that Liberals appear to believe that women can't possibly be expected to win if they are competing against a man -- so their answer is to simply remove the competition.
Progressive thinkers might believe that this is necessary to increase the number of women running for and elected to parliament, but there are two bizarre principles being floated here. First, that there must be more women in parliament, and secondly, that the only way to get that done exclude men from the process.
For fifty years or more, dozens of women of all parties have proved their mettle by following the nomination process that's been in place and winning. Does the Liberal Party dismiss their successes as anomaly? Do they think this new generation of young women is frightened of politics? Or do they just think that women are too fragile to compete?
Women are not helpless and needy. We don't need to be led by the hand -- those who want to run, find their way. To suggest otherwise is to say that we need to be treated like children who don't know what's good for them or worse, like morons who haven't enough sense to see opportunities and seek them out.
Voters want competence from their candidates and parliamentarians. In the rush to push more women onto the political stage, Liberals seem willing to ignore quality in the name of number parity.
If they impose the selection of 80 more women candidates to meet their target, there's no question that some quality male candidates will be shoved aside simply because of their gender. And the Liberals think this is both fair and correct.
If they're going to force the numbers to fit the goal of 33% women candidates, why not go the extra step and in any remaining ridings, bar whites from running? If they truly want to reflect the diversity of the nation, impose quotas for all races.
Liberals pretend they believe in gender equality, but by not allowing the natural outcomes of the nominations process, they are telling women that they don't believe they are good enough to compete with men and win. Or maybe the ruling elites believe that the local Liberal riding associations are made up of misogynists who would choose a man over a women regardless of qualifications.
Call it parity, equality, or balance -- it smacks of paternalism and implies that without special assistance, most women couldn't cut it in politics. If that's the case, if females who are potential Liberal candidates require the manipulation of the selection process to ensure somethings as basic as their nomination, how suited are they for the job?
When equality is forced, quality is bound to suffer. The playing-field is already level. Women today are aware of their career options and should they choose the political arena, they should be playing the same game with the same rules as everyone else. And if Liberals think they can't -- it's the Liberals who are questioning the value of women.
We don't need more women in politics -- we just need fewer idiots.
canadianna
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Who's holding Halton hostage?
In the world according to Garth, when Emerson switched parties, it was wrong -- no, not just wrong -- but "unprincipled" and "unethical". Everyone involved was deemed unscrupulous and Emerson was being "disloyal" to his constituents. But that was then and it was someone else . . . how different things appear when the shoe is on the other foot.
Garth doesn't believe loyalty is an issue in his act of opportunism, because he's doing this for his constituents. He knows that a lot of them don't understand that right now, but he thought about it long and hard for them. He feels assured that although they elected Garth the Conservative, and put up with Garth the Independent, that surely they will embrace GARTH the LIBERAL.
An Independent's voice is often unheard. Now, as a Liberal, Garth will have status again -- and that should make his constituents happy. He can be a lone voice of reason within the Liberal Party, the same way he was a lone voice of reason in the Conservative Party. The team doesn't matter -- just as long Garth is there to show it the one true way.
His cynical offer to run in a by-election is typical bravado. With full confidence that Harper is not going to suddenly change his stand on party swapping, the hollow gesture cost Turner nothing and gives the odour of sincerity to this latest stink. Garth pretends he received no inducement for turning in his Independent tag, and yet in one fell-swoop he has gone from impotent and unelectable outsider, to a member of the 'party-in-waiting'.
My position on floor-crossing hasn't changed -- but his has. He can pretend that his grand challenge to Harper to hold a by-election means something, but it only means that Garth is a savvy enough politician to know a good sound-bite.
Garth says:
He calls Harper untrustworthy, and accuses him of potentially holding Halton voters 'hostage' had he resigned his seat altogether to force a by-election. He writes this without any hint of irony. The voters of Halton elected Garth Turner. As a Conservative or an Independent, Garth could live up to, and speak up for, the principles that got him elected, but whether it's income splitting, the military or child care -- Garth Turner has just signed over his principles to a Liberal Party that shares none of his ideals or political values. Who's holding Halton hostage?
That's okay, I guess. What difference does it make if the party doesn't reflect his beliefs --- Garth can make it over in his image and ruminate about it on his blog. So what if the Liberals are notoriously more rigid in their demand for caucus secrecy, and caucus solidarity than the Conservatives --- Garth has an unshakable record on those fronts. And if it doesn't work out, that's okay. Someone else will be to blame.
Poor Stephane Dion. Stephen Harper's gotta be smirking.
canadianna
Garth doesn't believe loyalty is an issue in his act of opportunism, because he's doing this for his constituents. He knows that a lot of them don't understand that right now, but he thought about it long and hard for them. He feels assured that although they elected Garth the Conservative, and put up with Garth the Independent, that surely they will embrace GARTH the LIBERAL.
An Independent's voice is often unheard. Now, as a Liberal, Garth will have status again -- and that should make his constituents happy. He can be a lone voice of reason within the Liberal Party, the same way he was a lone voice of reason in the Conservative Party. The team doesn't matter -- just as long Garth is there to show it the one true way.
His cynical offer to run in a by-election is typical bravado. With full confidence that Harper is not going to suddenly change his stand on party swapping, the hollow gesture cost Turner nothing and gives the odour of sincerity to this latest stink. Garth pretends he received no inducement for turning in his Independent tag, and yet in one fell-swoop he has gone from impotent and unelectable outsider, to a member of the 'party-in-waiting'.
My position on floor-crossing hasn't changed -- but his has. He can pretend that his grand challenge to Harper to hold a by-election means something, but it only means that Garth is a savvy enough politician to know a good sound-bite.
Garth says:
If I resign immediately, the prime minister can leave my voters held hostage for up to six months without a by-election and without an MP, which could well mean they’re not represented at all until after the next election. Excuse me if I do not trust Stephen Harper, but I don’t.Apparently Garth didn't trust his constituents enough to remain an Independent for the duration of this parliament, and join the Liberals when the next general election is called. Maybe he didn't trust the Liberals enough to believe that they'd keep that seat open for him to run when election time comes.
He calls Harper untrustworthy, and accuses him of potentially holding Halton voters 'hostage' had he resigned his seat altogether to force a by-election. He writes this without any hint of irony. The voters of Halton elected Garth Turner. As a Conservative or an Independent, Garth could live up to, and speak up for, the principles that got him elected, but whether it's income splitting, the military or child care -- Garth Turner has just signed over his principles to a Liberal Party that shares none of his ideals or political values. Who's holding Halton hostage?
That's okay, I guess. What difference does it make if the party doesn't reflect his beliefs --- Garth can make it over in his image and ruminate about it on his blog. So what if the Liberals are notoriously more rigid in their demand for caucus secrecy, and caucus solidarity than the Conservatives --- Garth has an unshakable record on those fronts. And if it doesn't work out, that's okay. Someone else will be to blame.
Poor Stephane Dion. Stephen Harper's gotta be smirking.
canadianna
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)