Gargoyle's Rants

Alternate Budget

2010-03-03T19:09:00.003-05:00

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives is 'an independent, non-partisan research institute concerned with issues of social and economic justice', or so says its website. In practice, while its not affiliated with an established party its really a front the NDP; an attempt at 'fiscal legitimacy' if such a thing can truly be achieved by Canada's far left.

One of their favourite things to do is to trot out an 'alternative budget' ahead of the Government.

As you might guess, its full of guilt-money initiatives, social engineering, and mechanisms to make government even more bloated.

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/

Very few people have the intestinal fortitude to slog through a budget document, myself included. So I'm looking at the 'Budget in Brief' as many would.

I notice that Canada's debt from this budget's projections would go up about $88B from 2011-2015. To start, I expect better from my current government.

In the 'Aboriginals' section (first in the alphabetical list) I see a program called 'Urban Aboriginals'. This program is costed at $122M. I wonder what why it would cost $122M to have some Aboriginals live in urban centres. While they lived in urban centres might they be there to work in mainstream society (as opposed to reservation life) and hence cost at least no more?

In the Agriculture section I see something unexpected. This 'budget' cuts Biofuel subsidies by $200M a year. Biofuels, of course, are not a panacea, but that doesn't stop the granola-eating, tree-hugging, Kum-ba-ya singing environmentalists from thinking it is.

Carbon taxes start in 2011 and go from $9.6B to $14B the following year. Guilt money; a tax for a problem that doesn't exist. Moreover, its a tax that wouldn't do anything to fix the 'problem' its for.

There is $1B for 'Recession Relief for Non-Profits' for this year only. This is actually agreeable, in principle. Its not hard to imagine that many non-profits are struggling because the donation base has tightened its purse strings and/or been asked to give more to more charities. And as non-profit agencies often use funds more efficiently than governments through their programmes, it makes sense that we want to keep them viable and effective.

On the matter of Employment Insurance, the CCPA wants to make qualification criteria the same across the country. I think this is a step backwards. The criteria was adjusted to make things more fair as job markets are not the same nationwide.

On the topic of Post Secondary Education, there are a bunch of programmes (RESP) and tax credits cancelled and in its place is a $2B programme called 'Income Tested Grants'. So, instead of having the current ones administered through Revenue Canada with various lines on our tax returns, presumably we get a bloated, wasteful bureaucracy that decides who gets how much based on perceived need.

On taxation, I see some curiosities too.

Research on CRA (Canada Revenue Agency) tells me that the highest federal income tax bracket is 29%. The CCPA's budget would increase that to 31.5%. Given that in two years the added revenue is only $1.7B, perhaps it accounts for those who are in the highest tax bracket and might choose to leave, taking their skills, education and job-creating money abroad.

They also want to cap Tax-Free Savings accounts and RRSP contributions, and fully tax capital gains and stock options. These are fine ways to discourage saving and investment. Given that in this country its best for an individual to not save at all for their retirement than to save a little, discouraging RRSP contributions would seem to already be the wrong answer.

Due to time constraints, I can't polish this now or expand on these points any more than I already have.

'Discriminating' does not equal 'discrimination' every time

2009-10-03T20:45:00.005-04:00

I recently had a (leftist) friend on Facebook tell us that he'd just made his 72nd blood donation. He lamented the 'discrimination' at play. I don't think it had to do with the rules regarding recent tattoos or piercings or recent travel, or medications used, previous disease, hospital stays or any of the myriad reasons why a blood donation may be refused. It was in regards to the rules around gay men.

A few people piped in, supporting the friend's notion that the system discriminates. Of course, as a I am what I am and as the resident Conservative amoung his 'friends', I had to stick my oar in.

My post follows:

Perhaps we can consider that the rules are there not for political or personal reasons but for reasons of safety and after cost-benefit risk analysis AND considering the perception of the public for whom the blood system is for. Even if AIDS infection rates were the same with gay men as with the rest of the public, (I don't claim to be an authority on such things) the perception that it might not be might compel people to not accept donations or worse, not donate at all. Like many things, perception IS reality. Sorry, but the viability of the system is more important than some ruffled feathers. Why is my right to safety less important than someone else's 'right' to not be offended? 'Political Correctness' be damned. Not EVERYTHING is supposed to be a Charter Right.

Now, if there is no higher risk by allowing gay men to donate, then great! Educate the public, then change the rules. We CAN be an enlightened bunch. I suspect that in this era of falling all over ourselves appeasing special interest groups, we'd have done this already if the stats told us to or even if the stats could be distorted enough to tell us to.

'Discriminating' does not equal 'discrimination' every time.

CAW Greed and Short-sightedness

2009-04-10T10:20:00.000-04:00

Canadian Auto Workers President Ken Lewenza wants Ontario to guarantee the pensions of retired workers should GM and/or Chrysler fail.

The audacity of such a demand is blinding.

The North American automakers are in such trouble because of two main factors: one, the unbridled and short-sighted greed of the Unions and two, the colossal mismanagement of the automakers. Other factors like product quality were secondary as the automakers were forced to cut corners. This slippery slope has contributed to the fact that ‘Big Three’ no longer holds the same meaning.

In the 1990’s, when GM was considered ‘too big to fail’, the Union lobbied the Government to allow GM to not properly fund its worker’s pension fund. Why? Because the cookie jar was already empty and those now-loosened funds could buy more cookies for the Union’s members. And as the first deal made come negotiation time is used as a template, all of the ‘Big Three’ were set on the same hook.

These retirees made wages and enjoyed benefits well beyond that of other union and non-union workers (most of whom with superior skills and qualifications) and in their collective stupidity and arrogance believed everything their union told them about the party never ending; that they always had their employer dominated. Most, it seems, planned for their individual financial futures accordingly, depending on their gold pensions to be there.

Now the Union is telling the government that they should make you and I pay their way. I don’t have a pension. I have to save for my own retirement. And I might be made to fund the retirements of workers who had remuneration packages entirely incongruent with their skill-set and the market value for their work.

I think not. Let these retirees go back to work. I wouldn’t anticipate retiring without planning ahead. Why should they?

Health Care: Looking For Middle Ground

2009-04-06T12:13:00.004-04:00

As expected, there are groups in the United States using the tragic and untimely death of Natasha Richardson as fodder to diss ‘Canadian-style’ healthcare. I don't fault the Canadian system for her death. These things happen. Its not tragic because she was pretty, or because she was famous, or because it happened in Canada. She was young and the injury preventable and seemingly mundane. Its tragic because it would seem she sought out treatment too late.

Pragmatism should (usually) come before national pride, so I am not a proponent of the status quo with respect to the Canadian health care system. The notion that health care should still be delivered through a bloated government monopoly is asinine and idealistic.

Health care has come a long way and is a lot more complex and expensive than it was 40+ years ago. When Tommy Douglas’ idea went national, cancer patients simply died. Diagnoses and treatments that we have now for many diseases and disorders just didn’t exist. These are often very expensive. Things have changed drastically since the systems inception. Why shouldn’t the system?

Horror stories abound on both sides of the border and point to the faults of both. We hear of people dying in Emergency Rooms because they had diagnostic appointments weeks or months in the future. And we hear of people not having access at all because of finances. We also hear wonderful stories of the successes each system has. That’s all rhetoric. No system is perfect.

The truth often lies in between both extremes. If we are pragmatic, we might realize that changes can be made in both systems to improve access and timeliness.

Why can’t a ‘for profit’ clinic invest its privately-funded start-up capital in diagnostic machinery and then staff qualified, well-paid (though probably non-union) personnel and charge back the services it provides to the public system? If the public system can do it cheaper, then the private company would have to only live off the excess demand. Perhaps we could even ask the patient if they’d like to cover the difference and take the private option if it can be provided sooner. (I know I would) But if as I suspect, a private venture could do it cheaper, so much the better. The savings can be sent elsewhere. I don’t see the threat to our system that the NDP and Liberals talk about.

I don’t care what the United States ultimately decides to do. I am only concerned with the Canadian system. I think it’s a broken system. Moreover, I don’t think Tommy Douglas would disagree given how things have changed since the 1960’s. We can't let our misplaced pride in being different from the United States stop us from seeing the truth and changing according.

Unfortunately, while the system is considered a sacred cow, we won't be able to save it from itself. Because of that, I believe the system will eventually collapse.

Lets Set Aside the 'Science' of Global Warming

2009-03-13T00:13:00.004-04:00

Forgive me if this is a bit willy-nilly. Its 1AM and I'm cobbling this together from snippets of a thread. I'm debating Global Warming with someone on the National Post's website. I only copied and edited my own contributions, so I don't have to give credit to the other individual or explain any plagarism.

The 'Hockey Stick Graph' is the poster child for the 'Warmists' and it makes the most compelling visual (to the masses) in Al Gore's propaganda piece "An Inconvenient Truth". If you've seen the movie, you know what I am talking about.

In any case, I could talk about how the 'Hockey Stick Graph' has been debunked, and you can talk about how that debunking has since been debunked.

And I can talk about scientists that have sold their souls and can't go back on what they have been yelling at us with megaphones for fear of losing credibility, and you can talk about the ones who MUST be in the pay of Big Oil.

And we can bicker over 'consensus'. Is it really there? Was it ever there? Is it crumbling?

But what does all that MEAN?

Yes, there is 'science' supporting both sides with everything from computer models to core samples. So what? Where does that get us if each side suspects the other of having a political and/or monetary agenda? We can boast that 'my science and beat up your science'. The science is what it is. It all comes down to who happens to be right in the first place. In any case, only science that supports AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) gets published these days, and even then, it has to have more doom and gloom than the last story or else it won't fly. This week its 1 metre rise in sea levels; next week it'll be a 2 metre rise. Who cares that their isn't that much water in the world. Why let facts get in the way of scaring the crap out of those who won't or can't think for themselves?

So let’s make all the 'science' suspect and go back to anecdotal evidence. History records what people saw and things that happened. The people who recorded it all died off before they had a chance to care about how much money people make selling fossil fuels or preaching the 'Word according to Al'. Let's try to explain in an objective manner what they saw.

During the Medieval Warming Period temperatures were far warmer than we see today. Of course, Medieval Man had no means to empirically measure the temperatures so we need to use anecdotal evidence to support the notion that they experiences temperature far higher than we see today. We see evidence that grapes were cultivated in England and that parts of Europe had two growing seasons. They also had hurricanes. I can’t recall one hitting Europe in my lifetime. Can you?

A scientist makes a theory then looks at fact and checks for fit. A true scientist is satisfied with the answer: the truth, whatever it may be. Ideally, they should be equally happy to have the theory disproved as it is still one step closer to understanding Nature. A scientist holding his theory above truth is no longer a scientist. A theory is just that until disproved. It is never proven, really. All it ever is, is 'the best we have right now'. Newtonian physics works just fine when you look at cars colliding in an intersection. But when you look at really big things, really small things and things going really fast, Sir Isaac Newton didn't quite have all the answers. How could he? Nonetheless, he was able to explain a lot about the world he could see.

Newtonian physics applies to two cars colliding as well as it does two trucks or two satellites in orbit. So it stands to reason that any theory that presumes to explain warming should not fall flat when used to explain a previous warming, right?

'Warmists' can't explain the Medieval Warming Period because, quite simply, it doesn't fit their theory. So they are forced to change the Medieval Warming Period into a little blip on the Hockey Stick Graph. Its fraud. Its playing fast and loose with the facts. Its unscientific. For them its just an inconvenient truth to be dismissed with the wave of a hand.

Toronto's 'Africentric' school

2009-03-09T12:55:00.002-04:00

Can anyone tell me why this notion is not racist? Can non-black people go to this school?

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/toronto/archive/2009/03/09/toronto-s-africentric-signs-up-enough-students-will-open-in-fall.aspx

Ostensibly, this is an effort to engage black students in school so they don't drop out. Its interesting that school boards are even ALLOWED to consider skin colour when collating data on dropout rates. Blacks don't drop out of school because of inferior intellect, and they don't drop out because we force them to study 'white' math, 'white' geography and 'white' reading. There might be the complaint that Canadian history is 'white' history but largely, it is. But isn't it still part of the curriculum? Should it not be?

I don’t know, it seems like segregation to me, even though its voluntary.

Canada Should Not Fight For Clemency For Canadians Abroad

2009-03-05T16:55:00.002-05:00

I agree with the Conservative Government's action in regards to Ronald Smith. He is being punished in a democratic country and that's good enough for me.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1357626

I have never supported the notion of capital punishment as a mode of revenge or even deterrence. I have always supported the notion of capital punishment as a way of mitigating the (negative) impact of a particular human being’s existence on this Earth. So, obviously, I don’t even like the name ‘capital punishment’. Perhaps ‘capital mitigation’ is a better term.

Imagine the good that could be done with the money and resources used instead to keep people like Mr. Smith incarcerated until they die of natural causes.

Sid Ryan Gets the Smackdown He Deserves

2009-03-01T18:08:00.001-05:00

As individuals, if we don’t have enough to worry about anymore or if we are bored with our own existence, we might allow ourselves to become focused on things that really are none of our business. And the most arrogant of us might presume to develop opinions on issues about which we know nothing. And I suppose organizations can do the same. Clearly this is the case for CUPE’s leadership.

Perhaps it’s a sign that unions are no longer necessary that CUPE felt it was right to dabble in International Politics.

CUPE’s membership published an open letter to Mr. Ryan and the rest of their leadership.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/02/28/cupe-members-to-sid-ryan-time-to-say-goodbye.aspx

The text of the letter follows:

An open letter to Sid Ryan andthe CUPE Ontario leadership:We, the undersigned academic members of CUPE Ontario, wish to express our outrage at the recent actions taken by Sid Ryan and other CUPE Ontario officials. These actions, which approve a boycott of Israeli academic institutions, both violate the authority with which they have been entrusted and, worse, undermine academic freedoms.

CUPE national, as well as the University of Toronto Education Workers, CUPE local 3902, have disapproved of this motion and decision, and for good reason. The most urgent matter of concern to the union is the ratification of reasonable contracts across Ontario. The primary mission of the union is to ensure the fair employment and treatment of its members. The current leadership has overreached its mandate, recklessly and irresponsibly dabbling in complex international politics. This leadership has demonstrated its resolve to continue in this fashion even though it is not competent to do so, it has not been elected to do so, and it is not in its jurisdiction to do so.

These actions have harmed our union.

As is widely known, Sid Ryan and the current leadership have decided to boycott Israeli academic institutions, based on their readings of events in the Middle East. In doing so, Sid Ryan and other CUPE Ontario officials are using union dues to forward a one-sided political agenda. This constitutes a misappropriation of union dues for partisan purposes.

This misguided political agenda was never put to the vote of the total membership, and demonstrates the degree to which CUPE Ontario policy is the expression of an autocratic minority that has disregarded the tenets of the democratic socialist tradition; namely, the freedom of discussion, votes involving all members and transparency. The leadership, headed by Sid Ryan, grandiosely claims to represent “civil society.” But Sid Ryan represents only himself and like-minded colleagues — civil society has not been consulted.

Surely Mr. Ryan knows that had he consulted his constituents, he could not claim that union members would support a focus on boycotting academic institutions. But of course, none of us has had the opportunity to express any opinion on the use of our dues for his partisan political preferences.

Many have pointed out that singling out predominantly Jewish institutions for this boycott suggests a discriminatory policy. The experience at York University campus only last week demonstrates how quickly anti-Israel positions can translate into anti-Semitic slogans. Whatever the intent, the question arises: “Why is the leadership doing anything that could be remotely construed as anti-Semitic?” This accusation of anti-Semitism shames our union. Such policies are an inept and disgraceful abuse of the authority vested in this leadership.

It is ironic that this censorial activity is led by a man who is quick to claim for himself the mantle of human-rights activist. Freedom of thought is a most fundamental human right, yet it seems to be a right that Sid Ryan has no trouble trampling on. Sid Ryan seems to think that he and his closest colleagues have the right to determine which academics we ought to listen to and which ought to be censored. That tells us all we need to know about Mr. Ryan’s estimation of his own moral and intellectual capacities, and how little he values those of others.

To Mr. Ryan, we say this: We are academics. Without academic freedom, there is no civil society. The boycott he champions in our name undermines civil society by weakening the very freedom on which it depends. The freedom of thought is arguably the most important foundation and fruit of civil society. The boycott of academic institutions is an attack upon this freedom, which an enlightened union should be supporting, rather than limiting. For Mr. Ryan’s boycott limits the freedom not only of the academics he wishes to prevent from speaking (in this case, Israeli academics), but also of those who might wish to listen (Canadians).

For all of the above reasons, we, as Ontario academics, call on Sid Ryan to resign for undermining our union.We do not consent to have our wages used to support resolutions on which we have not been allowed to vote, which violate the spirit of the union’s constitution and which compromise our integrity at a most fundamental level.

Signed by members of CUPE 3902, University of Toronto:Paul Nahme, Jenn Cianca, Carolyn Reimer, Ian Richards, Callie Callon, Lindsay Ann Cox, Jonthan Newman, Sarah Kleeb, Shari Goldberg, Jade Weimer, Tim Langille, Emily Springay, Matt King, Amy Fisher, Zvi Halpern, Aldea Muldhern, Tema Smith, G. Anthony Bruno, Kathleen Gibbons, Nicholas Dion, Benjamin W. Carter, Jason McKinney.

Toronto mosque offers 'detox' for extremists

2009-02-11T10:44:00.002-05:00

The National Post - 11FEB2009

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=1275285

'12-step program targets al-Qaeda sympathizer'

Good on him. But we'll need a whole lot more of this if Islam is to mature like other faiths have.

Given the rather extreme instructions and absurd promises in the Koran (please, enlighten me if I am wrong as I am no theology expert) that can easily be used to justify violence, (salvation through murder of 'Infidels', virgins in the afterlife and all that) we won't see the end of violent Islamist Fundamentalism in our lifetime. Moreover, the fundamental differences between the Islamic notion of 'peace' and our notion of 'peace' are too great. 'Peace' to us is non-violent co-existence. 'Peace' to a Muslim is defined as the point in time when all walking this Earth worship Allah.

Biofuels and Global Warming

2008-04-25T12:43:00.001-04:00

There is a lot of rhetoric about ethanol, biofuel, and the intersection of the food and fuel economies. Like Global Warming, there are many, many facets to the matter. One needs to understand science and math (statistics) to some degree to truly have an informed opinion on Global Warming. To understand biofuels, I need to know more about farming and biofuel production techniques. And my meagre understanding of organic chemistry is not enough by far.

So, I don't know what to think.

The water argument has its holes. As does the linearity of the notion that crops go to food OR fuel. There are questions as to the true cost/feasibility of ethanol, from cost to make, efficacy, to the impact on the environment. And so on.

A good number to start with would be the number of people who could be fed by the land that would be needed to fill a 60L tank with fuel. Of course, we’d have to ignore the fact that you can’t expect the average car made these days to run if all you poured into tank was ethanol.

But this idea is fraught with complexity too. What biomass are you using? Corn, sugar, hemp? What process are you using to make the ethanol? What energy are you getting from the ethanol compared to gasoline? What environmental impact does the production (and transport) of the ethanol have compared to gasoline with respect to water usage, energy input, etc.? What about soil depletion and other land use concerns? What byproducts are you creating? Is there a market for them or a cost to dispose of them?

Both sides of this argument have a reason to exaggerate.

Wherever the 'truth' lands, its fairly clear that biofuels are not the panacea they are supposed to be.

Regarding the economic impact of all this, we can be sure that people living in the West will still be able, next year, next month and in the next decade, go to Burger King and partake of as many Whoppers as they want. The big losers will as always be the poorest. And on the global scale, that’s not us. Its people we don’t see. Its people we don’t have to see if we don’t want to, providing the TV remote is at hand.

Suppose that the food shortage is indeed due at least in part to the biofuel subsidy craze. (This seems like a logical notion.) And if we are going (or trying to go) to biofuels to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels because of Global Warming then we’d better be right. From previous posts, you might see that I am a non-believer in Global Warming. The irony here is that a lot of ‘Global Warmists’ say that we can’t afford to be wrong on Global Warming; that we SHOULD behave as if it is true because of the Armageddon that is awaiting us if we do nothing. They are right on the first point. But they choose to ignore the impact of the fight.

We can’t afford to be wrong. This is only the thin edge of the wedge. Fighting Global Warming may make millions starve to death and create unrest unlike anything we’ve seen. This crusade Al Gore and his ilk would have us fight may create destruction and death unlike anything Mankind has seen.

Our Governor General Lacks Moral Fibre: Part 3

2007-11-29T11:00:00.000-05:00

I received a response to my letter. In light of the most recent development (http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=130134) I felt the need to respond.

Below is the text of my most recent letter followed by the form letter I received.

Ms. Lappa,

Ok, now I am really angry. The buffoonery continues.

You told me (in your form letter attached) that I should be assured that this person and that committee, etc. were to hear my thoughts and further review this matter. I admit, I was dubious. I was disappointed that you could not indicate that the Governor General herself is hearing us. I found the communique to be rather dismissive.

My instinct served me well. Instead of doing what I was promised, the Governor General passed the buck to the Prime Minister's Office hoping that a 'Meritorious Service Decoration' might do the trick. Wrong again.

May I remind you that the Governor General is the Head of State of Canada. As my Queen's representative in Canada, her 'boss' is Queen Elizabeth II. There is no passing the buck here! By trying to pass the buck the Governor General has further tarnished her credibility and undermined her Office. I am sure that Queen Elizabeth II would have made the right choice in this matter THE FIRST TIME. That is what the Governor General is here for. This cowardly act raises the question as to whether or not the PMO should now bestow all honours that the Governor General does; thus making the Governor General's Office irrelevant. Surely, denying Constable Garrett's honour diminishes all honours that the Governor General may bestow.

Instead of doing the right thing the Governor General is trying the patented 'duck and cover'. Someone who focussed solely on saving face and is so devoid of core Canadian values does not deserve the privilege of public office, much less Head of State. It is clearly time for this Governor General to step aside and let someone else take her Office.

Let me be absolutely clear. Nothing less than the Cross of Valour bestowed appropriately by the Governor General is satisfactory. And of course, my preference would be that another Governor General bestow the honour.

Good Day,

This is the form letter I received.

"On behalf of Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, Governor General of Canada, I thank you for your correspondence concerning the awarding of a Canadian Bravery Decoration, posthumously, to Constable Christopher Garrett.

The Chancellery of Honours of the Office of the Secretary to the Governor General and members of the Canadian Decorations Advisory Committee (Bravery) are aware of the strong interest Canadians have shown in the case of the late Constable Christopher Garrett and understand their desire to honour this fallen police officer.

Please be assured that your comments will be brought to the attention of the Honours Policy Committee, responsible for the regulations on Canadian Honours, as well as to the attention of the Canadian Decorations Advisory Committee, responsible for reviewing all eligible nominations. The Office of the Secretary to the Governor General is also examining, in consultation with the government, options for recognition of Constable Garrett's distinguished service to his community.

Yours sincerely,

Gabrielle D. Lappa
Director of Honours"

Our Governor General Lacks Moral Fibre: Part 2

2007-11-28T11:48:00.000-05:00

Our Governor General did not see fit to make an exception in this case.

The text of my follow-up letter follows:

"Your Excellency,

It was with shock and extreme disappointment that I read of your decision to deny Constable Chris Garrett his due honour.

My first e-mail was polite, as it should have been.

By denying Constable Garrett, I believe that you have diminished the value of all honours your office would presume to bestow in the name of Queen Elizabeth II.

As you seemingly do not hold to the same values that I do, I feel that you do not represent me. I look forward to a time in the future when I may feel that way again about my Governor General. Unfortunately your successor will probably not have to opportunity to correct your error in judgement in this matter.

There is no excuse for this blind act of bureaucratic bafoonery. I believe you have brought shame on your office and, by extension, my Queen. I cannot adequately describe in words just how my faith in your office, and even how I value your office has been shaken. I have to wonder just how relevant the office of Governor General is when someone who holds it is so dismissive (or perhaps devoid) of core Canadian values of peace, justice, compassion and the rule of law.

http://northumberlandnews.com/northumberland/Breakingnews/article/89332 <http://northumberlandnews.com/northumberland/Breakingnews/article/89332>"

Our Governor General Lacks Moral Fibre: Part 1

2007-11-28T11:35:00.000-05:00

I sent a letter to our Governor General on 25OCT2007 in regards to Constable Christopher G Garrett of the Cobourg Police Department who made the supreme sacrifice in the line of duty. Mortally wounded, he emptied his service weapon at his fleeing killer who was bent on more violence against the Police and the public.

An appeal was put to the Governor General to make an exception and award Constable Garrett the Cross of Valour even though the period of application (2 years) had passed. The delay was necessary as the carriage of justice whereby Constable Garrett's killer was tried and convicted took longer than two years.

The text of my letter follows:

"Your Excellency,

It is my understanding from the news tonight that there is a chance that Constable Garrett of the Cobourg Police Department may not, posthumously of course, be honoured for his sacrifice due to a technicality regarding the time window of application.

No doubt you are aware of this matter and the magnitude of Constable Garrett's bravery and sacrifice.

I hope you can come to appreciate the extenuating circumstances in this case and provide Constable Garrett the honour he richly deserves. I never knew Constable Garrett, or anyone else in the Cobourg Police Department. But Constable Garrett and men and women like him in Emergency Services provide to the rest of us the finest examples of Canadian values.

I implore you to examine this matter and come to the same conclusion I have. Also, I respectfully ask that you consider that the 2-year limit for such applications is too short given how long it takes for some court cases to conclude.

Most Respectfully,"

Senate Reform in Canada

2007-11-14T12:30:00.000-05:00

I think Canada in all its diversity (industries, geographies, economies, etc.) NEEDS an upper house to balance the powers of the House of Commons, the PMO and the Supreme Court. Canada does NOT need the Senate it has. We cannot look to the tiny, more homogeneous nation (in those respects) of New Zealand as a model and simply abolish the Senate. While it would be an improvement, it would not be ideal.

Abolish the one we have in order to make a new one? That seems the only logical solution. I don't think we can reform it piecemeal and depend on future governments to keep that ball rolling.

You don't slowly peel off a band-aid...

The question is, can we put a formula together that fits Canada's needs? Even saying that Ontario should get x number is inadequate because they could all come from Toronto. In provinces with extreme diversity we'd have to take into account those areas and try to provide representation. All the while, we need to keep in mind that an upper house is SUPPOSED to be regional. It will be difficult to explain to the population why Saskatchewan and Manitoba get the same number of Senators as Ontario, for example.

I know, I'm getting ahead of myself...

Anyway, if it starts it will be tough, but it would definitely be worthwhile. Canada needs to leave the 19th Century behind and move into the Third Millennium.

I'm One of a Thousand Voices

2007-08-12T14:30:00.000-04:00

I'm not sure how well-viewed my particular blog is. I am one of many Conservatives blogging and this blog is linked to Blogging Tories. But I tend not to post very often because I don't know if anyone is reading my little ol' blog.

Do any of you feel the same?

If so, might we collaborate? I propose the (not new) idea of getting a few of us together to post to one site; your's or mine, or an altogether new one. Perhaps the sum of our efforts can be greater than our individual ones.

Read my previous entries and see if you like what you see.

Regards,

Gargoyle

CPP Pain

2007-01-11T11:16:00.000-05:00

The following is an excerpt from an e-mail from the payroll people here reminding us about the deductions that start up again in January. The numbers are of course nothing unique to my company.

The Canada Pension Plan numbers are always painful to look at given that those of us under 40 will likely never see it.

“Canada Pension Plan: Maximum employee deduction: $1,989.90 (annual salary of 43,700.00)
Employment Insurance: Maximum employee deduction: $ 720.00 (annual salary of 40,000.00) for all provinces except Quebec”

It occurred to me that the CPP deductions are, to many of us, a tax on those who were too young to vote against Pierre Trudeau…

And the EI plan is another complete cock-up. If the contributions didn't outstrip the payouts so drastically, I wouldn't have a problem. But the Liberals while they were in office coolly shifted excess contibutions in the order of $40B to general coffers. As a revenue stream going into general coffers I can't imagine what else you can all it but a tax on the employed.

Read My Lips Stephane Dion: Women Are NOT Inferior

2006-12-12T16:57:00.000-05:00

So, I understand that Stephane Dion wants to ensure that 1/3 of the Liberal candidates in the next election are women. Obviously he equates women MPs as some indicator of political equality in Canada.

This view is typically short-sighted of a Liberal. I would argue that because women have the right to vote, the right to participate in candidate selection, and the right to put their own name forward for nomination that they ARE indeed treated equal. Moreover, very little of what an MP does is gender-specific. Foreign policy, monetary policy, Inter-governmental affairs, Defense, etc. have no particular gender issues.

Jean Chretien tried this strategy in 1997. He decreed that a certain percentage of Liberal candidates were to be female (I think 25%) and he had to hand-pick candidates in some ridings to meet that goal. In doing so, he did an end-run around democracy by telling his party members in particular ridings who they needed to support. He parachuted Karen Redman in the Kitchener Centre riding and she won against a fractured Right and has won re-election ever since. But considering the incumbent advantage we CAN question if she ever deserved to be an MP in the first place. Ms. Redman may indeed deserve it but for her whole career I’ll wonder if she was the best person, well, Liberal for the job. And the fact that she was a Chretien lapdog didn’t help her credibility.

“Affirmative Action” is all around a bad idea. It IS a form of discrimination and not just against the able-bodied, heterosexual, white dude. It’s sexist in this case because it says ‘Women ARE inferior and need help to get elected’; it says ‘Women can’t compete in politics’.

I beg to differ. I don’t see that women are inferior or are at an inherent disadvantage. I don’t see that we need to prop them up. And I don’t think the electorate much cares about gender as a whole.

Case in point, I’m proud to say that in my riding Elizabeth Witmer represents me at Queen’s Park. And half of Waterloo City Council, including Mayor Brenda Halloran, is female.

Dion’s stand is insulting and cynical. He is pandering to the meek by using this non-issue to vote-grab. Anyone who votes Liberal because of this really has issues with priorities.

Why I Oppose Same-sex Marriage

2006-12-08T20:07:00.000-05:00

For me, its not about rights or denying rights. Its about the Charter. Its about a slippery slope created by redefining a word. And its about parliamentarians abdicating their responsibility to permit the Electorate to drive social policy through them.

For decades (yes, under the Liberals) we’ve developed a culture whereby we expect the courts to essentially MAKE law by setting precedent. Then the legislative bodies, be they federal or provincial, have to make law to satisfy the new precedent.

The system is not supposed to work this way. Its supposed to go something like this. We (the Electorate) cast our ballots to elect members and parties who represent our values. Those representatives then go to Ottawa or Queen’s Park, or wherever and MAKE laws that express those values. And then the courts are supposed to simply interpret and apply those laws.

But when the courts, who are supposed to be independent of government and independent of the people, essentially create laws, they take the Electorate out of the equation. The courts now drive socially policy. That is a fact I am exceedingly uncomfortable with. Why do we still call our society a democracy? We are fooling ourselves if we do.

Now, about the Charter. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a tragically flawed document. It has noble intentions but is flawed. It is flawed because it can be used to support an argument in court for someone who has the audacity to say “My right to (whatever) supersedes your right to (whatever else).” Even if both rights can be interpreted as protected under the Charter; the one who whines wins.

Now, considering the tendency of Parliament to sit and wait for the courts to decide what it should do, can we really expect that they will have the strength or the inclination to intervene when a member of the Clergy is brought up on charges for infringing on the ‘rights’ of a same-sex couple when they demand to be married in a church and by that particular Clergy? This matter is all the more intractable given the perceived supremacy of the Charter. This will happen. Its only a matter of time. Indeed, people entrusted to perform secular marriages are already losing their jobs for refusing, on moral/religious grounds, to perform same-sex marriages.

I have a problem with the strategy of redefining the word ‘marriage’. Even France didn’t go so far. If it had been called a ‘civil union’, with all the same rights, privileges and duties as marriage, I would have been on-side. It would have been a whole lot cleaner to allow (not compel) clergy and secular bodies to perform either Marriages (between one man and one woman) or Civil Unions (between two people).

Another issue relates to the Charter and having taken the unnecessary step of redefining the word ‘marriage’. By doing so, we open the possibility of challenges, again argued under the Charter, for things like bigamy, polygamy, incest and such. Its only slightly less likely than the previous scenario. Its an unintended possibility not seen by those who did not have the foresight. Having to fight these challenges in court will be at the very least embarrassing. Imaging the headline; ‘Man challenges Canadian court to redefine marriage so he can marry his daughter’. And given how flawed the Charter is, these challenges could go either way. We’ve opened a Pandora’s box.

Democracy at work?

We don’t have Same-sex marriage in Canada because of any kind of groundswell of support by the people for the idea. I figure that the majority of voters in Canada either don’t care or oppose the idea. We have Same-sex marriage because of a few judges and three men in Ottawa. Jean Chretien and Gilles Duceppe, and Jack Layton whipped their members into voting as they were told. The Bloc and the NDP did it again yesterday, and the Liberals no doubt would have too if they thought it was needed. It was shamefully anti-democratic of the Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP. The only party to uphold democracy was mine. Conservative members were free to vote as they felt compelled to. Only Conservative members were free to listen to their constituents. We have Same-sex marriage at the cost of democracy, not because of it.

Yes, it was a victory for supporters of Same-sex marriage. But it was a defeat for democracy.

And, may I remind the reader that the Liberal Party as of six years ago opposed Same-sex marriage. Why? And why the turn-about if not as a cynical ploy to get more votes? The Liberal Party is certainly not the champion of civil rights in Canada. They are masters of social engineering though, I give them that. To do a total 180 on this matter, create the ‘need’ and give us Same-sex marriage in three short years is pretty amazing.

Dion: A question of loyalty

2006-12-06T14:51:00.000-05:00

I was shocked to learn yesterday that newly-elected leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, Stephane Dion, is a dual-citizen.

What was not shocking at all was his inability to understand why he MUST renounce his French citizenship.

It boggles the mind how someone who hopes to be Prime Minister someday can think that it is appropriate for him to hold the citizenship of another country. The logic is so simple, so instinctive, that I don’t even know where to start to explain it.

I don’t care that he doesn’t vote in French elections and I don’t care that he doesn’t have French passport. The fact of the matter is that he can vote and he can get a passport; its there for the asking.

Dion’s intransigence on the matter smacks of the same tired Liberal arrogance that we’ve spent the past decades putting up with in Canada. But it should not surprise us. It is, after all, coming from the man who was the Environment Minister while the Liberals signed the Kyoto Accord and then did nothing to reduce so-called greenhouse gases. (That ‘Global Warming’ is a fallacy is a whole other matter) Dion was also the Intergovernmental Affairs Minister while ‘Adscam’ was in full swing.

Its clear to me that integrity, or even the appearance of it, is not high on Dion’s mind.

For the Fallen

2006-11-11T18:12:00.000-05:00

Every year when I go to the Cenotaph in Kitchener the MC or someone else reads the fourth stanza of Laurence Binyon's 'For the Fallen'.

And every year those words have the effect on me that I am sure Binyon wanted to convey.

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years contemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.

http://www.firstworldwar.com/poetsandprose/binyon.htm

Words cannot describe the gratitude I have for those who provided the peace and prosperity and freedoms I NEVER take for granted. What they provided allows me to worry about such relatively trivial things like the quality of education my children receive, how much tax I pay, and the state of the roads I drive on.

I will remember them.

Rebuttal to Andrew Telegdi, my MP.

2006-11-08T12:35:00.000-05:00

Mr. Telegdi,

I received your ‘Fall 2006 Parliamentary Connections’ and feel I must respond.

You and I have been over the merits of the Long Gun Registry. To recap, I think it was a colossal waste of money meant to give an uninformed urban electorate the ‘warm-and-fuzzies’ with respect to safety. The vast amount of money spent on this ineffective programme could have been spent on other things to make us safer. More Police could have made the difference and kept Kimveer Gill from getting licensed, legal weapons in the first place.

The next thing you mention is the Kyoto Accord. This is something you and I have not discussed, and what I have to say on the matter may come as a shock. I have a degree in science, and open mind. In fact, I insist on having informed opinions. That puts me in a very small minority of people who have a chance of understanding the science on both sides of the Global Warming issue.

I can say, without a doubt that the concept of Global Warming is a fallacy. The Kyoto Accord would do nothing to fight what is most likely a natural phenomenon. There is no such thing as a normal climate. Climate has been changing since before man walked the Earth. And it will continue to change no matter what we do. I find the science supporting the notion wanting and I attribute its widespread acceptance to relentless propaganda and a public too lazy to educate themselves and too arrogant to admit they can’t understand the matter.

Please visit my blog to get more information on this issue. http://www.gargoylerants.blogspot.com/. I’ll be posting this rebuttal to my Blog too.

Also, if you have not already closed your mind on the matter of Global Warming, I’d invite you to check out http://www.friendsofscience.org/.

Daycare is also mentioned in your report. This is really the one that burns me Mr. Telegdi.

You mention that the Conservative Government scrapped ‘our provincial agreements for a national daycare program’ (I believe ‘program’ is the American spelling, by the way.)

Well, let me tell you how I see it.

In 1993 when the Liberals first promised a national daycare programme, my wife and I had no kids. In 1997, when our first child turned two we were promised it again. In 2000, our second child was two, and we were promised it yet again. And in 2004, when my third child turned three we were promised it for the fourth time. Of course you know as well as I that it was an empty promise each and every time.

Ironically, the programme that the Conservatives quickly brought in has provided some help. We have been receiving $100 a month to help subsidize Thomas’ half-day care at (his school's) Child Care Centre while he attends senior kindergarten. (Scott Reid’s comment implying that I am too dumb to spend the money on anything but beer and popcorn is a shining example of Liberal arrogance on this matter)

And, another important fact is that the ‘provincial agreements’ had no strings attached and no national standards were put in place. Under the agreements, the federal government would simply send money to the provinces and hope for the best. That was clearly insufficient, and abundantly irresponsible.

Next, you talk about our Government’s foreign policy.

Well, there are worse things than agreeing with Americans on some issues. In my book, lying and stealing and sloth are greater sins.

You decry Harper’s ‘unbalanced approach to the war in Lebanon’. I would call it a ‘principled approach’. One of the antagonists is a world-recognized terrorist organization ready to murder innocent civilians and hide amongst others. The other is a sovereign nation surrounded by intractable enemies while continually showing great restraint. It seems pretty clear to me what side a just and civilized nation must back.

Our mission in Afghanistan seems pretty clear to me. We must fight terrorism at its root. We have a choice. We can fight them there, or we can let them fester and fight them here. We are at the same time helping the Afghans to build their infrastructure. It is a Canadian tradition to fight against tyranny for justice and peace. Moreover, it is a Canadian tradition to do more than our share. I remind you, that your last Liberal Government sent them and that a large number of Liberal MPs supported the Government on the matter of extending the mission.

Sometimes peace needs to be made, before it can be kept.

I’ll tell you first that Remembrance Day is the most important (secular) day of the year. It has been for as long as I can remember. I respectfully disagree with you on the matter of the Flag on the Peace Tower. The tradition of not putting it at half-mast was put into place during the First World War, I believe. It was a wise policy because it removed any debate over what would constitute lowering it. If it should be lowered for one soldier, what should happen if four die? If it should be lowered for a soldier who falls in battle what about a soldier who does not? What about a soldier who was not in theatre? What about an on-duty Police officer? And then what if that Police officer was not on-duty? Then, what about Firefighters and Paramedics? On-duty or off? Where do you then draw the line? We don’t want to dishonour these other men and woman who put themselves in danger for us, do we? So then we will get to the point where the Flag is lowered more often than its not and the significance of the honour is diluted.

It was Mr. Chretien who lacked the wisdom to see this policy and, by setting a new precedent, ostensibly made the Conservatives look disrespectful.

No, lower the Flag on Remembrance Day and leave it at that. There is nothing at all preventing a citizen who has a flag from showing respect.

Moments of silence in the House of Commons, as you have pushed for is honourable and appropriate. I commend you on your push to have this practice adopted.

You mention the UN. Again, we clearly disagree. The UN does more harm than good. It holds the space of an International body for the purpose of fostering dialogue and peace, but lacks the will to use anything but strong language. It sat and wrung its hands and said ‘somebody should do something’ while campaigns of genocide went unchecked in Africa. And it told Saddam Hussain (four years ago today, as a matter of fact) that Iraq had better disarm or face ‘serious consequences’. Saddam knew the UN’s threat was empty.

The UN dithers, and people die.

The AIDS Conference

Mr. Harper, as a Conservative would not have been shown the respect due a head of state by the delegates of the AIDS conference. The Gay Rights faction of the AIDS conference was primed and ready to give Mr. Harper a welcome befitting their dissatisfaction with his policy on Gay Marriage, rather than on anything he had done or had not done with respect to AIDS.

Mr. Harper, in his wisdom sent the MP most qualified to be there. Namely Mr. Clement, the Health Minister. He was disrespected all the same just for being a Conservative. The AIDS Conference delegates should be ashamed. Their lack of class marginalized their endeavours.

You mention undocumented workers and imply that the Conservatives are bankrupt of ideas. We’ve discussed this before, you and I. I’ll ask you. What did the Liberals do in 13 years? I’d argue that nothing got done because it probably never even appeared on the radar.

You insult me by telling me that because I have a principled stand that in some cases may happen to parallel the US that I am somehow not independent in my thinking. That is rich coming from a Liberal. Six years ago a Liberal in good standing was against Gay Marriage. Now the party policy changed and you must be for it to be a Liberal in good standing. In short, Liberals are not allowed to disagree; to think for themselves or use their own principles to decide for themselves how they feel on an issue. And the NDP are even worse with party doctrine. Your party and the NDP are the parties for those who’d rather be sheep than put the effort into thinking for themselves.

Global Warming is a Fallacy

2006-10-31T12:37:00.000-05:00

The pervasive concept of Global Warming is a fallacy. There is no such thing as a 'normal climate'. The only reason we are collectively panicked about it is because we are continuously fed doom and gloom stories (propaganda) from one side of the argument. There is just as much evidence (empirical AND anecdotal) refuting the concept. But what sells papers and ad time on newcasts? All one needs to do is look at previous 'Armageddon' scenarios (remember Global Cooling?) to see that.

Most people who 'believe' do so simply because they feel strongly about the environment, but can’t be bothered or lack scientific and statistical understanding to qualify their opinion with analysis. And the so-called scientists who still promote the idea have staked their reputations on disproved theories and have blinded themselves to the truth.

Consensus and relentless propaganda does not equal truth.

The Earth is not flat and the universe does not orbit the Earth but there was a time when stating that put one on the outside…

Shootings in Montreal Lead to More Debate on Gun Control

2006-09-14T16:55:00.000-04:00

With the shootings at Dawson College in Montreal this week, the debate is cropping up yet again about gun control in general and the merit of the Long Gun Registry specifically.

The Conservatives are set to table legislation that will essentially gut the Long Gun Registry. That legislation may now be in jeopardy or put on hold due to the reactionary nature of MPs, not to mention their willingness to pander to public opinion no matter how misplaced. This is unfortunate.

Why ‘misplaced’? Well, those who support the Long Gun Registry seem to think that events of this nature prove that the Long Gun Registry is needed. But when you ask the question ‘What did the Long Gun Registry do in this case?’ no one can say it prevented the incident. I’m no expert on firearms and I don’t know which ones Kimveer Gill had and how the Long Gun Registry treated them. I have read somewhere that Gill used an AK-47. I am sure that the AK-47 was restricted before the Long Gun Registry was put in place.

Either way, it is clear that he should not have had registered firearms (long or otherwise) and, given his disposition he would not have been qualified to own registered firearms of any kind. So, it stands to reason that the firearm Gill had were illegal.

For too many short-sighted urbanites, the Long Gun Registry is gun registry in Canada. Most fail to understand that there has been a handgun registry in place since the 1930’s.

The Long Gun Registry does not make us any safer. The Long Gun Registry does not prevent crime. The Long Gun Registry does not stop the smuggling of handguns or long guns.

The Long Gun Registry is a useless $2B make-work project. The money could have saved lives if spent in almost any other Government department.

Liberal Opposition to Lumber Deal No More Than Partisan Politics

2006-09-08T13:16:00.000-04:00

So, the Liberals are going to vote against a softwood lumber deal that has the support of lumber producers and the non-Conservative governments of the three biggest lumber-producing provinces. Surprise, surprise.

Is it mere partisan politics or is it unrepentant contempt for the electorate? Well, lets look at the sloppy thinking at play.

First, Dominic LeBlanc, the Liberal International Trade Critic suggests that a special aid package be put together to help the lumber industry adjust to the fallout from the deal. Wait a minute, the government is to put a programme in place that essentially would indicate some short-coming in the deal. Nice try.

LeBlanc then goes on to say that getting anything less than all of the tariffs paid would be a failure. This thinking goes a long way to explaining why the Liberals couldn’t negotiate a resolution to anything with the Americans. Is it ideal? No. But in any negotiation there is give and take.

The impasse was costing Canada’s economy each and every day yet LeBlanc and Liberal House Leader Ralph Goodale both said that Canada should have waited for legal procedures to conclude. But that assumes that Canada had a iron-clad case and the means to recoup all damages. That’s a dubious assumption.

The most contemptuous implication comes from Goodale when he tells us that “it is obvious the Harper government has played hardball with Canadian softwood producers to get their support for the deal”. This implies that no one in their right mind would agree with a Conservative or a Conservative government. It’s a cheap shot and sadly typical. Its also a classic example of a more insidious facet of Liberalism in Canada. Here we see ‘truth’ to a Liberal audience delivered with vacuous statements.

Its clear to me that the Liberal position is nothing more than partisan politics aimed at covering its inability to resolve this issue while they formed the government. They gave the Americans no respect while they were in government and reaped what they sewed. I’ll go further to say that perhaps if they had had a civil relationship with the United States, this whole mess may have been avoided.

Our Mission in Afghanistan

2006-09-06T15:55:00.000-04:00

Bill Carroll, a talk radio host from Toronto, (www.cfrb.com) appears on Global News most nights and comments briefly on one or two matters of interest. I find his comments insightful and direct. Every day, its a breath of fresh air to hear someone from Toronto talk who has such a grasp of logic.

His comment last night was in regards to the idea that Canada should cut and run from Afghanistan. He said that proponents of this idea are either political opportunists or cowards.

Bill Carroll is right.

Canada has traditions that have been forgotten by many. We fight for justice. We fight for peace. We do more than our share. We are not just peace keepers.

We do not cut and run. We do not negotiate with those who would threaten us. We do not coddle those who would gladly bring their tyranny and hatred and intolerance to our country.

Jack Layton suggests we do all that. Moreover, he suggests we act as peace keepers in this conflict as if we are somehow apart from all the conflict. I would argue that there is no peace to keep. And I would further argue that the only peace we can achieve with an enemy as intransigent as this is through annihilation. They will not stop with the expulsion of the West from Afghanistan. They will not stop with the destruction of the State of Israel either. They will stop when the West is annihilated. Its quite clearly us or them.

Jack Layton is wrong.

There is no appeasing an enemy who will always hate us for what we are, open, democratic, tolerant and generous. I cannot fathom how anyone can believe that fundamentalist Muslims want anything close to what we would consider peace. In there distorted view of Islam, peace is achieved when all who are not Muslim or will not convert are exterminated. These people (I talk of the fundamentalist Muslims, not Muslims as a whole) do not want dialogue but will gladly ‘chit chat’ with us while they plot against us.

Fact Finding?

2006-08-24T13:34:00.000-04:00

I sent this to the MPs listed below after the three of them when on a 'fact-finding' junket to Lebanon. The trip was sponsored by the National Council on Canadian-Arab Relations, an organization with close ties to Syria and, by extension, Hezbollah.

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj (Liberal) and Ms. Nash (NDP) were quoted saying a variety of statements that sounded to many, myself included, as sympathizing with and apologizing for Hezbollah. They even implied that refusing to negotiate with them indicated some misunderstanding or intransigence on our part.

CCd in my message were the leaders of the three main opposition parties, my MP Andrew Telegdi (Liberal), Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Foreign Affairs Minister, Peter MacKay.

I will edit this post if I hear from any of the recipients.

To:
Borys Wrzesnewskyj
Peggy Nash
Maria Moureni

I’ll start this letter by letting you know where I am coming from:

1/ I believe that a sovereign nation has the right to defend itself from terrorism
2/ I believe that a sovereign nation has the obligation to root out terrorism within its borders
3/ I believe that a sovereign nation has to be able to act autonomously (spare me the Bush-Harper rhetoric)
4/ The National Council on Canadian-Arab Relations has strong ties to Syria
5/ The National Council on Canadian-Arab Relations sponsored your visit and I believe it has no interest in giving you a balanced view
6/ The links between Iran and Syria and Lebanon and Hezbollah have been clearly established

Hezbollah attacked Israel from within Lebanese territory. So, that makes Israel ’s actions against Hezbollah justified (1) and it puts the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the Lebanese ‘government’ (2) for not rooting out Hezbollah. Clearly no one can call Lebanon a sovereign nation as they have no control over many parts of Lebanon . The Lebanese ‘government’ has allowed itself to be a vassal of Syria (3) and Syria allowed Hezbollah to exist and no doubt funds Hezbollah with help from Iran . Surely I’m not the first to fill you in on these details.

I understand that Mr. Wrzesnewskyj and Ms. Nash have called for the de-listing of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. I have to wonder just what happened to make you come to such a misguided and myopic conclusion.

You have allowed yourselves to be sucked in by a tried-and-true propaganda machine. You were shown some bombed-out buildings and asked only who’s bombs they were. You are too simple and foolish to even ask why.

You and I will likely agree that Lebanese civilians are paying the biggest price in this conflict. But we would disagree as to why. I’m sure you believe that Israel targets innocent civilians.

Lebanese civilians are used, most cowardly, by Hezbollah as human shields and then their corpses and destroyed homes are used as propaganda to fan the flames of hatred and intolerance. Where does it end? Well I don’t know that, but collaborating and negotiating with and apologizing for Hezbollah will only encourage them to continue to target Israeli civilians and then hide behind Lebanese civilians. There is nothing in their agenda that makes them a legitimate group. They are no more interested in peace than you are in war. Hezbollah is bent on the destruction of Israel and the murder of as many of its civilians as possible. If Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization, then the work ‘terrorist’ has no meaning. Hezbollah and groups like it, whether Islamic or otherwise are cancers on civilizations.

And you let them use you. The National Council on Canadian-Arab Relations used you to further their political agenda.

Israel is a sovereign nation that has showed admirable restraint over its 58-year existence against many intractable enemies.

You suggest we should afford ‘elected’ members of Hezbollah some dialogue. But I encourage you to look at 20th century history and see just how effective appeasement can be with enemies of peace. The British, led by Neville Chamberlain, tried to appease Hitler and the Americans tried to ignore the problem and in the end nearly 50 million died in WWII.

I am convinced that we need to take a stand against hate and tyranny (this time in the form of Islamifascism).

Do I want war? No, absolutely not. But history tells us that you pay a big price if you are willing to say to an intractable enemy ‘I want peace at any cost’.

Your willingness to look at only one side of the conflict shocks me. Your short-sightedness and ignorance disappoints me. Your willingness to collaborate and speak for terrorists disgusts me. That you are Canadian shames me.

I defy you to respond to my message.

Paul Suggitt
Waterloo, Ontario

Our troops in Afghanistan

2006-03-13T13:48:00.000-05:00

I sent the following in an e-mail to Jack Layton and CC'd the other New Democtratic Party Members of Parliament. I also CC'd the Prime Minister, Stephen Harper and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Peter MacKay.

Mr. Layton,

I’d like to talk to you about tradition, courage and hypocrisy.

I understand that you (and because of that, your party) want to debate our role in Afghanistan. No doubt this is an aim to getting our troops out of there. Here I talk to you about tradition. It is a Canadian tradition to fight against tyranny in support of peace, liberty and justice. Canada has demonstrated its resolve in the form of war against forces that threaten the peace, liberty and justice of others. Yes, Canadian Forces are not just peace keepers. We have the wherewithal to be peace makers too. Another Canadian tradition is to do far more than our share. I am proud of these traditions and, more importantly, so are those in our Canadian Forces. You disrespect them with your stand.

You don’t believe this is our fight too. You believe we should stay out. I can be thankful that you and your soft, short-sighted ilk are not in power. You would have us discard our traditions and take on new traditions of dithering and ignorance and betrayal and short-sightedness. Personally, I am glad of the opportunity to rebuild Canada’s stature on the world’s stage with this mission. The recklessness and stupidity of the previous Liberal governments eroded it. Your form of recklessness would have us fighting these terrorists on our soil instead of theirs.

And if you believe, as many people are being told to believe, that the US is an imperialistic war-mongering power (a concept to which I do not subscribe) would it not be a good idea to have a seat at the table when these kinds of actions are planned and implemented?

Those traditions I talked about came to be through the courage and sacrifice of previous, harder generations. I talk about those who fought in the World Wars and in Korea. This is the same courage demonstrated today by those brave men and women in uniform. Have you asked the soldiers in Afghanistan if they want to come home? Have you asked them if they believe in our mission there? I think you would be shamed by their answers. How can you make politics hoping to bring them home for their sake when they don’t want to? And how would letting down our allies help us? Shame on you for your cowardice and politicking Mr. Layton.

Next I talk about hypocrisy, specifically that displayed by the very same Liberals who, quite rightly, sent our troops to Afghanistan in the first place. No doubt your shameful behaviour seems more reasonable to you with these hypocrites in your corner.

You love to tell others that they are wrong. Now I tell you Sir, you are wrong. You would turn your back on those who fight for freedom? You would turn you back on those who crave it? Just what kind of Canadian are you?

If I had no use for you and your party before, I have even less now.

Shame on you.

Electoral Reform

2006-02-01T12:58:00.000-05:00

I sent this to The Record.

I'm writing this in response to the two letters you published on 01FEB that called for electoral reform; specifically proportional representation.

I could not disagree more. Even when the Conservatives earned only 2 seats in 1993 but 'earned' far more I would not have supported such folly.

If we did as the proponents ask, we could say goodbye to majority governments. Moreover, in order to get anything at all done we would have to pander even more to fringe and special interest groups. These groups would then hold the country hostage while the responsibilities of the government would not be met.

What if you had to include environmental matters in a bill regarding child pornography to get the Green party to vote for it?

And this would only be the start. Instead of having three or four parties on your ballot you would have a dozen. We could then expect parties to crop up representing any and all single issues. Now imagine having to give concessions to the 'Gay and Lesbian Party' or the 'Christian Fundamentalist Party' to get support on a matter of foreign policy. Now imagine needing both of them to support you.

No, its better to have a few parties who, for the most part, cover the spectrum and have a well-rounded platform that touches all the responsibilities that a government has.

Hamas democratically elected?

2006-01-27T16:30:00.000-05:00

What are we to think when a jurisdiction holds a democratic vote and elects a government that will not be satisfied with anything less than the total annihilation of its neighbour?

Such is the case in Palestine. I used the word ‘jurisdiction’ on purpose. Words like ‘nation’, ‘country’ and ‘civilization’ just seem inappropriate in this case.

Palestinian nationhood is a goal that seems even harder to achieve now that Hamas is to form a government. Or was it ever the goal?

So, why did Hamas win? Do Palestinians not want peace and prosperity for their children?

The culture of hate put forth by so many leaders including the candidate who ran for Hamas after having sent one of her teenaged boys to his death on a suicide attack is surely a factor.

Perhaps its my soft Western mind but I wonder how anyone can regard such an individual as anything but a terrorist.

It is right of all nations to condemn the new Palestinian ‘government’. Palestine does not belong in the company of sovereign nations. To recognize this ‘government’ is to condone terrorism.

The best that can come out of this is political pressure from the rest of the world who realize too late that Palestinian intransigence is the main stumbling block to peace. I don’t hold out a lot of hope on this front.

The irony is that the conditions that exist in Palestine, while not totally of their own design, are exacerbated by their own behaviour. There was a time not long ago that the two societies had a more symbiotic relationship. Thousands of Palestinians worked in Israel. Now, of course, those Palestinians are unemployed because Israel is exercising its right to protect itself. Now, the lack of opportunity and prosperity has turned Palestine into a terrorist hotbed.

While Israel may not have handled all situations perfectly during its existence (and what nation has?) we cannot fault its attempts to protect itself and we must applaud its willingness to negotiate in good faith and its desire to live in peace. We cannot expect Israel’s patience to be boundless.

If I seem one-sided its because I believe that Palestine and its leadership needs to bear the brunt of responsibility for the state it finds itself in.

Rosie O'Donnell Doesn't Like Conservatives

2006-01-27T13:25:00.000-05:00

Rosie O’Donnell, at the Sundance Film Festival this week, was asked for her reaction to the results of our Federal Election here in Canada. I only caught a snippet on the news as the full content was to appear on ET Canada the following hour, but I got the gist of her reaction.

Rosie said that she was disappointed that we ousted the Liberals and then went on to lament the loss of some kind of gay haven where she could go and let her hair down.

My disappointment is in her comments multi-facetted.

I am Canadian. I voted Conservative. I voted Conservative for myriad reasons. And, I am not so daft as to focus on any one issue.

It seems her main concern, or perhaps only concern, regarding the election is the Conservative’s stand on gay marriage.

Like many liberals she seems to suffer from the tendency to over-simplify her thought process. If she knew anything about Canadian politics she might have known that the Liberals had long ago lost any moral authority to rule. Ottawa stinks with Liberal corruption. They were arrogant and lazy with power. They stole our money. They wasted our money on several projects. They spent $2B on registering long guns while (hand)gun crime rose alarmingly in our cities. They fostered the rise of the Separatists in Quebec through inaction and bungling. They soured relations with the US, our biggest ally and trading partner. They made the same old and tired promises in election campaigns in 1993, 1997, 2000, 2004 and 2006 and each time they won they failed to deliver. There are virtually no responsibilities they had that they didn’t entirely bungle.

The most disturbing is the implication that we did wrong by ousting the Liberals. Canada’s political landscape is complex. Its not all about how we treat gays and lesbians. Its not just about gay marriage.

Now, for the record, I oppose gay marriage. More specifically, I oppose the re-definition of ‘marriage’. I oppose it for two reasons. First, the laws we have in Canada provide the conditions whereby clergy will probably end up going to jail for refusing to marry gays and lesbians on the gounds of their religious beliefs. (For the sake of brevity I won’t get into the details of the failings and flaws of the “Charter of Rights and Freedoms”) Suffice it to say that a gay’s ‘right’ to get married will end up trumping another person’s right to practice their religion.

My second reason for opposing the re-definition has already reared its ugly head. The fact is, doing so has set a precedent. People who support the ideas of polygamy, bigamy, incest and bestiality, while clearly on the fringes of society, will be encouraged by the idea that ‘marriage’ can be changed at any time to fit their beliefs. Now, I DO NOT compare gay and lesbian relationships to polygamy, etc. and I am sure that gays and lesbians do not want to have to debate those matters any more than the rest of society. But when you are convinced to re-draw a line, you will likely be forced to re-draw it again and again. It’s a slippery slope and quite frankly I don’t want people around the world laughing at us when the Supreme Court has to hear some case and decide one’s right to marry his horse or his daughter, or have a harem.

I am a libertarian at heart. I am fine with allowing couples (two people) entering into a 'civil union' with all the same rights and privileges and responsibilities as marriage. But I want it in law that NO ONE will be forced to perform these unions. I want safe-guards such that my rights won’t get trampled by those of others. The Charter fails here.

My second cause for disappointment is the notion that before voting Conservative, I was to consider what kind of gay refuge for foreigners that I might be destroying.

As in most countries our politics is not about one single issue. I find that too many people are ‘single-issue’ people. Environmental zealots care only about a party’s stand on environmental issues and gays and lesbians are often single-issue people such that nothing (like fiscal policy, foreign policy, trade policy, tax policy, defence policy, etc.) seems to matter that doesn’t address or celebrate their sexuality. Other groups like union memberships and those who oppose all concepts of free trade suffer from the same kinds of self-centered myopia.

I find that conservatives tend to be big(ger) picture people.

I figured Rosie O’Donnell would be more broad-minded having traveled the world and having had the experience of hosting a talk show, but I see now that she is indeed a single-issue lesbian.
But its just like liberals, be they US Democrats or Canadian Liberal and NDP supporters, to disrespect the democratic will of the people for having the audacity to disagree with them.

Now, Canada is still going to be open. It will not become a Christian theocracy as some dim-witted people fear. Canada has a tradition of inclusion and freedom that dates back to when other nations employed slavery.

This is my country. I cast my informed vote based on my values in the way I thought was best for my country. I do not generally care if my vote offends the sensibilities of individuals who do not pay taxes here or care not to inform themselves. But I do care if they use their celebrity to tell me I’m wrong.

Remembrance Day

2005-11-11T16:39:00.000-05:00

I make it a point to go to the Cenotaph every Remembrance Day.

For me, today is one of the most important days of the year. It reminds me that the peace and prosperity we enjoy has been bought and paid for and that we must be vigilant to preserve it.

Remembrance Day also reminds me of the mere triviality of many of my worries. The people who provided us this peace did so selflessly. They suffered lost years, lost innocence, lost limbs and lost lives. They saw the horrors of war; horrors we dare not imagine. These images haunt them and not us.

And all they ask is that we remember; not their glory, but their sacrifice. They ask us to remember so our societies can be more vigilant than the leaders of their times and avoid the calamities they endured.

Peace HAS a price. And vigilance is less expensive than the alternative. There were then as there are now people ruled by an ideology of intolerance and hatred and greed and avarice. They are inclined to destroy us if we let them. We can fight them now, or we can fight them later at a far higher price.

This is their lesson.

2005-09-15T11:09:00.000-04:00

I’m reading an article on CNN about a US District Court judge in San Francisco who has declared the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional.

At issue is the Pledge’s reference to God. The argument is that the Pledge coerces children to affirm the existence of God.

I don’t think it does.

Whether YOU believe in God or not you cannot deny that the United States of America (and the rest of the Americas for that matter) is a Christian nation. This is to say, that most of the people practicing a religion choose Jesus Christ as their savior and follow some Christian belief structure. The same was true of the founders of United States of America. And when they constructed and adapted the Constitution they did so with their faith as a building block.

So, the phrase ‘under God’ could be taken to acknowledge that the nation was built and is maintained under the guidance of the teachings, as perceived by many, of a God. I think it falls short of requiring that the individual reciting the Pledge (or their parents) affirm the existence of or believe in any God.

This is a prime example of political correctness run amok. This is a tradition in which very few can find offense. Yet it may be banned to appease the miniscule number of parents who disagree with its use because of their own interpretation. This is undemocratic. It is alarming when a Constitution, a cornerstone of democracy, is used to circumvent democracy.

I am Canadian so, of course, I have never recited the Pledge. But this still bothers me as I see this same kind of nonsense going on here.

2005-09-13T11:56:00.000-04:00

On Monday 12SEP2005 I sent this to the Editor of my local paper; The Record. It is main local daily paper published for Waterloo Region. In my opinion, it is not a balanced paper. It leans quite a bit to the left and, like most print media in Canada, is in the Liberals' back pocket.

The fact that I have to choose between supporting a paper like this or not knowing what goes on in my community bothers me.

I indeed was called last week by a saleslady. I did not mention to her that we used to subscribe but cancelled it for the reasons stated and because we would only get 3 or 4 of the six editions actually delivered to us each week. The content was most important to me; the reliable delivery most important to my wife.

I expect no response.

Good day,

I saw the front page on Sunday and unless I was mistaken it is yet another reason to not buy your paper. I used to subscribe but I haven’t for a long while.

I think the gist of the article was that we have a shameful number of people in the Region who are living below the poverty line. And you quoted a number in the order of 47,000.

Well, considering the fact that the definition of poverty is something like 'the least fortunate 10% of the population' and the fact that the population of Waterloo Region is approaching 500,000; don't you think this is a non-story?

Now, if I got the wrong end of the stick and indeed the story was substantive, for a change, then I apologize. But I simply could not bring myself to buy your left-leaning, socialist rag. Not to worry though; most papers in Canada are as balanced as yours. I was assured by the saleslady who called last week to ask me to subscribe that 'a lot has changed at The Record in the last six months'. But I guess they haven't.
I assured her that The Record would not likely change to get me as a reader as they would lose more readers than I am worth. The public has been spoon-fed unbalanced tripe for so long by the print media that truth and logic would now be as palatable to them as sour milk.

Don't bother printing this in your column for my benefit, I won't be reading it.

Regards,