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

Can anyone tell me . . .

. . . did any of Justin Bieber, Jim Carrey, Anne Murray, Shania Twain, Lucy Maud Montgomery, Michael J. Fox, Robert Bateman, Paul Brandt, Sarah Chalke, Emily Carr, Lorne Michaels, Norman Jewison, Chantal Kreviazuk or Stompin' Tom Connors . . . receive any arts funding? Just wondering.

I believe that it's a good idea to encourage new artists, but hey . . . let's face it . . . Canada is a small market. No matter how good, how popular, how talented any artist is, the money is south of the border and only a few will stay ... and not because they aren't receiving financial support from the government.

And truly, no government gives grants to just anyone ... you have to be published, have credits, credentials. It isn't enough to make pretty pictures, you have to prove that you have a market . . . that someone has actually bought into your talent. Emerging artists should be encouraged, but realistically, there is no credible or fair way for the government to dole out money just because someone perceives themselves to be an artist . . . so it doesn't.

If talent is our #1 export as Charlie Angus says, it isn't because Justin Bieber didn't get an arts grant. Nothing the government can do is going to stop our best and brightest artists from seeking fame and fortune across the border or around the globe when that's where the real money is.

From the above link:

Short on specific numbers, the four MPs talked instead about the need for income averaging to help starving artists, whose average income is $13,000 a year – well below the poverty line.

Income averaging? I support my family by working a crappy job, for a crappy wage, but still pay my share of taxes . . . and the NDP thinks some of my tax dollars should go to *top up* the income of someone who fancies themselves an artist? Thanks NDP. I suppose a case can be made for a government bureaucrat to hand you cash to support you as you struggle with your craft, but realistically, the market decides if it will support you while you create. It's a drag, but if you can't draw the crowds, the fans, the readers, the buyers, then maybe you should get a day job.

canadianna

Give the girl a break

Ruth Ellen Brosseau admits she put her name forward so the NDP could field a candidate in a riding where they hadn't one. While I believe the NDP should be taken to task for allowing someone to *fill a slot* as it were, Brosseau herself should be cut some slack.

Voters don't always look at the literature. We don't read the pamphlets that are dropped in our mailboxes. We don't open our doors to people with clipboards. We don't bother to investigate our local candidate on the Internet. We trust the party has vetted people . . . gone through a nomination process and that a local riding association has nominated and/or voted for this person to fill the spot on the ballot -- obviously that was not the case here -- and apparently a lot of ridings in Quebec. But that's on the party. The candidates, even Brosseau, did what they thought was the right thing.

There's enough pressure on the new MPs without this kind of media scrutiny. I know it's slow news on the Hill, but the media is focusing on the wrong story -- not where was she, but why? Quebec voters trusted the NDP to field qualified, dedicated candidates and Brosseau may well prove to be both of those things --- but the NDP didn't know that either way. They just needed a name to fill the spot on the ballot. That's the news. Start questioning the process that allows someone to put their name forward because they aren't expected to win and no one else can be bothered.

The new MPs from all parties have a lot to digest. Putting so much heat on this one seems a tad unfair. Yes, I can read and I know her circumstances -- not much French, never been in the riding, away during the election. None of that means as much to me as will she do her job diligently and take it seriously -- and I don't plan on basing that opinion on how she handled an election in which she obviously didn't take her chances of winning seriously.

Press Jack for answers about all of his novice MPs, but leave Brosseau to adjust to her new life. Seriously.

canadianna

Why is Jack a HOAG?

Jack, he's the mack? So says Warren Kinsella, who has all the answers--- yet again. He knows why all you average guys and gals are in a Layton-lovefest. Turns out, Layton's a cool guy -- in Warren-speak a *HOAG* (helluvaguy) --the kind you'd swig beers with at a tailgate -- because of course, that's what we *average* Canadians are all about.

Funny, I don't see it. Jack is personable enough, but if you ask me, he's the kind of guy who'd have been a geek in high school, not someone you'd want to hang out with if you were cool. Not that geek is a bad thing in my mind. I wasn't cool and I did hang out with the geeks -- but let's not pretend he's a major hockey nut or that you'd find him right down there getting into the UFC stuff that's going on now. Jack Layton is anything but the average Joe. What he is, is an elite who passes. And the only reason he passes is because he is so well versed in the game.

Kinsella attacks Harper again as the angry man. Did any of you see that in this campaign? Seriously -- partisanship aside. Harper seemed innocuous to me. Bland, calm and as Kinsella said, uninspiring -- but hardly "an angry guy who doesn’t like the country, let alone the people who live in it." .... where'd that come from besides Kinsella's obvious bias?

I remember the Harper they called angry. Weren't you angry at the Sponsorship scandal and the Liberal sense of entitlement? Wouldn't you be more angry if the media then focused on your anger than the obvious waste, mismanagement and possible corruption within the sitting government. And then to be consistently accused of the *hidden agenda* fiction .... Defending against lies and innuendo makes most people come off as angry. As for *disliking the country (and) the people who live in it* --Harper has endured so many vicious character assaults from the media he must love his country and want to serve its people if he's able to suck it up and take it the way he has, because unlike Jack, Harper wasn't born to this.

The truth is, that Layton is a huckster-extraordinaire . . . the carnival barker . . . the lifelong politician who knows how to shill and Harper is that *regular guy* -- the guy who gets frustrated with the stupidity of people who will ask the same question three times in order to get the answer they prefer. Aren't you that kind of guy? Aren't you the kind of guy who shakes your head at the dramedy of politics? Wouldn't you find it hard to play that popularity contest game?

Anyway, what gets me is these puffed up Liberals who see us as a nation of donut eaters and beer swillers who'd use the same reasoning to chose our government, as we would to choose our drinking buddies. Way to under estimate your fellow citizens, Warren. Who was it that dislikes the people of this country?

Warren? He's gettin' borin'.

canadianna

Another Tory endorsement

This time, from the Toronto Star.

When The Star turns orange, there could be no better sign that the Conservatives are the best party to govern. The formerly scarlet paper has twisted crowbars into pretzels to sell the idea that smiling Jack deserves your vote.

This is not a shock, but the truth is, I'm kinda disappointed. I thought that despite the crash and burn of the Liberal party, its very own little rag would be able to find a way to stay red. I figured maybe they'd pull the Time Man of the Year cop out ... you remember the year when the winner was *you* ... I thought the Star'd set out a little blurb about the evils of each party, focussing tightly on Harper whilst treading ever so lightly on Ignatieff and then say something like . . . so hold your nose and vote . . . but only you can decide which party's policies/behaviour horrify you least.

But no. They took the high road. At least, I figure they must be high . . . how else can they justify this radical piece of advice that would lurch the nation so far to the left it would become a socialist wasteland.

Okay. That's hyperbole, but come on, if The Star can keep a straight face and endorse Layton, don't expect me to keep a straight face. What a joke The Star is. And what a HUGE waste of paper. Literally.

canadianna

While we're at it . . .

Jack Layton wants inspectors in every meat plant.

While we're at it, why don't we put a driving coach in every car -- just in case? How about a doctor in every schoolyard -- or better yet, tear down the playground equipment -- that way no one can fall off. What about making a helmet law -- everyone who has to cross a street must wear government approved CAS helmets. And maybe all new babies could be put in a nice plastic bubble so they wouldn't have to breathe in polluted air or ever get a cut or bruise -- maybe we could grandfather it and everyone could be protected!!!

Life is full of risks. Avoiding them by adding more bureaucracy is just paying an extra person who will be able to say "sorry" when something goes wrong, and it will because . . . humans make mistakes. What a shock, eh?

canadianna

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?

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