Category Archives: Politics

Say it like it is!

I haven't posted for a little while here but it hasn't been for any lack of opinions on what's going on. I just haven't really been able to formulate words for all the ridiculousness going on in the world around us.

First there was the fiasco in parliament, with the Liberal party forming a coalition to boot out the Conservatives who had only been in office for a few weeks. Their leader was someone that nobody liked and who had already announced his pending departure due to record unpopularity.

Now they've replaced him with someone they've appointed and who has stood up to no real scrutiny whatsoever. But that's beside the point. They're like a bunch of squabbling children up there in Ottawa and there's really nothing I need to add to the commentary in the news.

Then there's the city of Toronto. Our money-grubbing mayor just introduce a new plastic bag tax that we have to pay at the grocery store if we want to carry our stuff out in plastic bags. All the discount places already charge 5 cents a bag. This new tax just forces everyone else to charge the same. The premise behind this was to divert all those bags from going to landfills and have us use reusable bags instead.

This sounds all well and good except for the fact that just days after implementing this, they announced that we can now recycle those exact plastic bags! We can bundle them up and put them in the stupid giant recyle bins the mayor spent a fortune on, and they'll be kept out of the landfills. So then… more tax… no benefit. Seems about par for the course for this mayor.

Now today, while reading about the failure of the auto industry bailout, I found this quote too good not to repeat.

From this article: http://biz.yahoo.com/zacks/081212/16364.html?.v=1

"If a union can only deliver the same pay as a non-union shop, why pay the union dues?"

This pretty much sums up the value of the unions to me. All those workers for companies like Honda and Toyota who are being treated fairly and will probably still be employed once all the dust settles are probably asking the exact same question.

I believe the implication is that the union's purpose is to bend the company over backward and get the employees more than their fair share at every opportunity. Otherwise, how do they justify their dues? If all is well and everyone is treated fairly, can't they just say it's because of them and leave well enough alone? Why do they always need more?

An Historic Occasion

History was made yesterday with Americans electing their first African American president, though I think that fact in and of itself is rather low on the list of accomplishments made.

Looking at the overall results, the Democratic Party has been given sweeping powers to make major changes in America and I for one am excited about watching it happen.

I suppose that having Obama be black is just a bonus to a lot of people. To me, he was simply the best candidate for the job, and that's the most important thing.

It will be of great benefit to us in Canada for people to start believing in America again and for their economy to get out of the dumps and get back in working order, and it will be a nice change to not look down on them with disdain at what a failure of a person they had put the fate of their country in.

Congratulations, Barack Obama and Joe the Senator. I look forward to the world improving under your watch.

Tonight's Vice-Presidential Debate

I know I should be paying better attention to the Canadian leaders debate tonight, and I know that Elizabeth May might make some idiot comment or other that I'll find endlessly amusing, but really… I just can't get into it.

I know right now that It's just going to be a four-pronged attack on Mr. Harper and that's just not terribly interesting to me.

What IS interesting to me is finding out what the Sarah Palin train wreck will run into next!!

My prediction is that she answers at least one of the questions with this:

"I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, um, some people out there in our nation don't have maps and, uh, I believe that our, uh, education like such as, uh, South Africa and, uh, the Iraq and everywhere like such as, and I believe that they should, uh, our education over here in the U.S. should help the U.S., uh, should help South Africa and should help Iraq and the Asian countries, so we will be able to build up our future."

If it happens, she'll be immortal.

Now we all just have to pray that Gwen Ifill asks the candidates why American kids can't find America on a map.

Elizabeth May Might Be Insane

Green Party leader Elizabeth May has got her panties in a bunch over not being allowed to participate in the nationally televised leaders debates.

Apparently she thinks it's sexist.

She says "This is anti-democratic, closed-door, back-room decision making by four national party leaders who are all men, and five television executives who are all men, to keep out the one woman leader of a federal political party and I don't think many Canadians will think that was fair,"

I think maybe someone should tell her that it has nothing to do with her being a woman, and everything to do with the fact that she's from a second-rate tree-hugger party with no chance at having any sort of significant impact on parliament. If she clues in to this, she might save herself further embarassment. Insulting the intelligence of the average Canadian to gain a little press isn't going to help her cause.

Consider if every party with no shot at more than a seat or two was allowed to put their leader into these debates. We'd have the 4 leaders of the parties that get elected, along with a whole peanut gallery of fringe party leaders basically just looking for their 15 minutes of fame. Heck, every independant candidate across the country could claim they're a party of one and ask to be included.

It would be like Survivor, Canadian Debates.

I'm sure this would be hugely entertaining, but I'm not sure what value this would have to our electoral process.

Of course, it wouldn't happen because we're probably prejudiced against all those other "leaders" too, for whatever reason they might find convenient to each of their selves.

Elizabeth May should definitely have a chat with her allegedly pot-smoking hippie tree-hugger advisors and perhaps take a step into the 21st century.

Toronto City Council are Idiots!

For all the talk we hear about how society is getting fatter, and we're collectively not getting enough exercise, it would appear that Toronto has responded to the call by making it illegal to get some friends together and throw a ball around in a public park.

I play softball in a recreational league. We have permits to use the diamonds we play on, which start next week and ensure that we have exclusive use of them to play our games.

Obviously a system like this is needed or nobody would ever be able to run a league.

What happens though, when nobody has a permit for the diamonds at any given time? You'd think it would work on a first-come, first-served basis and the public would be free to go out there and throw some balls around just for fun. Apparently this isn't the case.

Though our schedule doesn't officially start until next week, a bunch of players got coordinated and decided to play a practice game just for kicks last night. An email then got sent out saying the following:

The teams from the 5pm games were met by permit checkers on the field just now. If a team plays without a permit, it is a $300 fine per team. We all knew that in past years we could sneak past the system and play a week early but today that has come to an end. For next week's game, copies of our permit will be handed to each captain to retain with their roster and other game paperwork.

So, as I understand it, unless you pay to use them, public ball diamonds are off limits. Forget about getting some friends together for a pick-up game. If the city isn't taking money from you, they'd rather the diamonds be empty and unused.

How very nice of them. Rat bastards.

Those TTC bastards are at it again!

I woke up this morning to find out that the Toronto Transit Commission decided to up and go on strike last night at midnight.

Not only do I think they should be declared an essential service such that they no longer have the right to strike, I think that this latest one should be met with harsh penalties giving all of them a 5% pay cut and denying any concessions that had won in the recent contract negotiations.

Why so harsh?

Back when they were negotiating, the union made it very public that they would give 48 hours notice if they intended to strike. As I understand it this morning from listening to the news, some of their members didn't like this idea, so in the end they decided to just forget it and strike by surprise last night at midnight, leaving all sorts of people stranded without notice.

They're overpaid as it is, and keep getting more and more by taking the city hostage. This has to be stopped.

I understand the value of a union, but they've long since overstepped their bounds in this arena. Unions should fight to get fair pay and benefits for their members. They should not be fighting to bend their employers over a barrel and ream them for all they can.

What exactly do we owe poor people?

This article in the Star talks about poor people living in half-million dollar houses funded by our tax dollars.

There is now some suggestion that these houses be sold and the families moved to regular low-income housing, and apparently there is opposition to this plan.

To this I ask… what do we owe these people? Why should they be living in better places than I am when I'm working for a living and earning my keep?

To quote Margaret Greaves:

"I'm uncomfortable with the idea of low-income people only living in areas where the housing costs less,'' she says.

How does that make any sense? Of COURSE low income people live where the housing costs less. They have low incomes! That's all they can afford!

I'm sure I'd be perfectly happy living in a house on the Bridal Path, but as it turns out, I can't afford it. So I don't live there.

Professor Ernie Lightman says this:

"If the goal is to let people live as normally as possible, then it's clear the more integrated a community the better,'' he says, noting that, like Allen, most people wouldn't have been aware the families on Ellerbeck St. were in social housing.

Is that our goal? Are we trying to put poor people on easy street, living off the backs of the rest of us? I would have thought the goal would be to give them the bare necessities required to live and the opportunity to better their situations through hard work and a little ambition.

Now I know that our social programs fail in that respect in many places, but that's not the topic of discussion here.

That being the case though, shouldn't these properties be sold and the money spent toward helping all the poor, rather than putting up a select few in tax-funded luxury homes?

Wouldn't the money be better spent improving the schools and community programmes in poor ares so poor tax-leaching kids have a better chance at growing up to be something other than poor tax-leaching adults?

I'd be curious to know how long the people who live in these places have been there.

At the very least, give them a 5 year term and then kick them back to the projects. That way, we can give them a taste of the good life with the opportunity to improve themselves and then, if they don't take advantage of it, we can give the same shot to someone else.

Otherwise, what motivation is there for these people to go off on their own? If they earn a living but can then only afford a low-rent apartment, why would they ever move?

David Miller is a Dick

Has anyone else had enough of our mayor trying to hurt us just to make a point?

It seems like every time he tries to cut out some service the people of the city find valuable, his efforts are failing miserably.

Doesn't he think he should at least make sure such things are going to save the city money before he goes pulling the plug on them?

It seems to me that his efforts in the long run are actually going to cost us more rather than providing any savings.

All this, just so he can get the people to warm up to the new taxes he wants to stick us with.

I'm sure I'm not the only one looking forward to the next municipal elections so we can vote this idiot out.

The least he could do is let some independant auditors in to point out to us exactly where he's wasting all our money!

So why doesn't he? I can only imagine what they might find. My guess is that he's got something going on to line his pockets so thoroughly that it is worth committing political suicide for, and that he really needs the extra tax dollars to complete the process.

Here's hoping he doesn't get it. Slimy used-car-salesman-looking bastard that he is.

Ontario Looking for More of the Same

The latest polls are showing that the "We don't support faith-based education… unless it's Catholic" Liberals are gearing to win a majority in tomorrow's election.

This can only mean that the people of this province are hoping for more of the same. More lies. More tax increases. More theft and misappropriation of our money.

I pray we don't get that… but it would appear that the people have made up their minds and rather than educating themselves, they're listening to the propaganda and fearing all their money will back radical terrorism-generating crazy-schools or something.

Whoever is running John Tory's campaign should be immediately fired and for God's sake, someone show the man how to tie a damned tie.

I'll cast my vote tomorrow with faint hope for something better. Maybe we'll see a miracle. One can hope, right?

Vote No to MMP!

There's an interesting referendum being slipped onto our provincial election ballots on October 10th and I'm sincerely begging the population to reject it.

The issue at hand affects the very roots of our political system here in Ontario. We're being asked whether we'd like to continue with the current system, which is admittedly far from perfect, or to choose a new alternative called the Mixed-Member Proportional system, or MMP.

I've seen some deceptive propaganda on TV lately trying to convince people to vote for it, and while I don't know who's behind the ads, you can be sure that they'll stand to benefit personally in some way from the new system and that you, as a voter, will not.

The compelling argument seems to be that this new system will allow you to vote for the person you deem "best for the job" regardless of what political party they belong to. This is absolutely not the case and I will explain why.

Firstly, if the person that you think would best represent you in government is representing a party that you believe should not hold power, then they are clearly not the best person for you. This should go without saying. If you don't want the lying, stealing Liberals in power, then don't vote Liberal.

With that in mind, this argument must imply that voting for someone other than one of the parties you don't like might hold some benefit for you. This is also not the case. The only time there could be a benefit to voting for someone other than the representative of the party you want in power under the new system would be if that person were running as an independant.

Lo and behold though, this is also exactly the case with our current system. If the best person for the job is an independant candidate, then everyone benefits from voting for them, and should do so. They will get elected and best represent the interests of your constituency. Nothing changes in this respect.

On the flip side, however, what the MMP system is going to do is effectively eliminate the protest vote. If you choose to exercise your rights as a citizen and vote, but do not want to vote for a major party and don't have an independant candidate worth voting for, you will no longer be able to vote for some fringe party as a way to get their numbers in the results and show disdain for the leading candidates.

Why not?

In the new system, if you do so then members of that party might actually get seats in parliament, and not even necessarily the member that you voted for!

For example, in the last Ontario election, I voted for the Green Party because both the Ontario Liberals and the Ontario Progressive Conservative party were proving to be idiots. Of course, I didn't actually want any of those crackpot tree-huggers to get a seat in parliament, but I wanted my vote counted for something other than the Liberals or PC's.

Under the new system, my vote would be counted as endorsing the Green Party and with enough of them, they'd get people in parliament even though not a single member got elected. They'd just get to pick whoever they'd like and put that person in a seat of power.

Is that what we want happening?

The propaganda on TV is hinting at the idea of directly electing someone you favour, regardless of party, implying that we might have something similar to the United States where they independantly elect their state governers. This couldn't be further from the truth. Anyone that gets into government as a result of this new system would have no real power as they'd be a minority among minority parties. They'd simply be taking up space and collecting taxpayer money for no benefit to the public. We'd have 22 more politicians to pay out of our pockets, along with their staff of political gold-diggers, with nothing to show for it except one less option when voting.

How is this good for the people of Ontario? It's not. But it's certainly good for the wannabe politicians who are going to land high-paying jobs and cushy benefits because of it.

Please don't let this happen. Join me on October 10th and vote no to MMP. Some electoral reform might be good for us, but not with this proposal.