Archive for the ‘Federal Politics’ Category

Quote of the day – Rasmussen Reports

Thursday, November 5th, 2009

Government’s magic touch:

On the heels of Ford’s better-than-expected third quarter profits and its promise of solid profitability by 2011, 68% of Americans adults hold a favorable opinion of the one company that passed on a government bailout. Ford continues to far outdistance public perceptions of General Motors and Chrysler.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 24% view Ford unfavorably.
But just 34% of Americans have a favorable opinion of GM, while 56% view the automaker unfavorably.
Chrysler’s ratings are even lower, with just 29% who view the company favorably. Sixty-three percent (63%) view Chrysler unfavorably.

Rasmussen Reports, November 4, 2009

Quote of the day – Rex Murphy

Monday, September 28th, 2009

What is the matter with Michael Ignatieff that this is so? What’s missing from the portrait? Why, with so fresh and unspotted a leader, do the Liberals lack energy, borrow what little drama they possess from the tired, sham outrages of Question Period? It’s difficult to pinpoint. It’s not because of the “just-visiting” ads. They speak more to the narrowness of his opponents than to the flaws of their target. Nor has he been seriously spattered by cherry-picked quotations from some of his writings – his musings on the torture debate, for example – or his inclination toward the first person plural, the “we” in his writings, while tenured in America. They’re predictable “hit points” but they don’t really resonate. It isn’t any perceptible difficulties (I leave the spat over Quebec nominations out of the mix for now) with his caucus.

Manner is one part of the answer. He is cocky and uncertain almost simultaneously, aggressive and challenging one moment, hesitant and even confusing in his message the next. That message, what there is of it, is a muddle. He casts the word “vision” around like it’s a talisman, but speaks in the mushy platitudes of a high school valedictorian. He seems stranded between the two models of successful Liberal leadership, caught between the saloon and the salon. He cannot, by nature, mimic Jean Chrétien’s carefully crafted populist style. Neither does he have the electricity and presence of Pierre Trudeau. Mr. Trudeau’s braininess was sexy, Mr. Ignatieff’s you merely gather from the résumé.

Mr. Trudeau wowed on contact. You’re supposed to be impressed by Mr. Ignatieff. That dreadful feeble Ignatieff-before-the-trees ad, with its anodyne “we can do better” slogan, is breathtakingly pointless. It radiates the very absence of message or point that presumably it was constructed to dispel. And here we come to the centre of what’s the matter.

What has he to say to Canadians? Why did he come home? How is a Canada with Michael Ignatieff as its leader a better, different Canada than one without him? What’s special, distinct and intrinsic to his personality and style that adds something to the country he proposes to lead? Mr. Ignatieff has not only not answered these most basic questions. He signals by style and statement that he hasn’t worked out the answers for himself, not to speak of his fellow citizens.

Rex Murphy, September 28, 2009

In this critique of Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, Rex Murphy has identified the essence of what the Liberal Party in Canada has come to represent over the last few decades. They are a party without a clear vision for Canada, as I have written before. When in opposition they seem to have a grasp on what they don’t want to do: they would scrap the GST; they would withdraw from the free trade deal; etc. But when in power they promptly do the opposite. Perhaps then Ignatieff is the perfect leader for the Liberals. As his record indicates his is “flexible” in his ideology, ready to reverse his position as soon as it appears it might score some political points. And perhaps the Liberal Party is exactly where it belongs – sitting in the opposition benches – as it appears all they are capable of is opposing.

Quote of the day – Stephen Harper

Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009

President Ahmadinejad has said things, particularly about the state of Israel, the Jewish people, and the holocaust, that are absolutely repugnant. It is unfitting that somebody like that would be giving those kind of remarks before the United Nations General Assembly. Canada does not want to be equivocal at all in terms of our view on that; we find it disgraceful, unacceptable, and we’re going to be absolutely clear on that.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, September 23, 2009

Remembering the FLQ

Wednesday, September 9th, 2009

There has been much debate recently about the events being planned to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham. Perhaps most controversial is the decision by organisers to include a reading of the 1970 FLQ Manifesto. This decision has the support of the National Post editorial board, which writes:

The FLQ Manifesto is undeniably part of Quebec’s history. It is a text that evokes a particular time — one that, in fact, does so splendidly, evoking the feverish, fetid atmosphere of the late Sixties with a suddenness and a brutality that makes one glad those days were so long ago. It is perfectly proper that the manifesto should be recited as part of a general airing of important historical texts, as it was once recited to help save the life of James Cross, the still-living British diplomat kidnapped by the Front de liberation du Quebec on Oct. 5, 1970.

Source.

I too, support the argument that we must not forget our past.

To understand the FLQ and it’s violent actions, it’s important to first understand the ideology they were loyal to. The FLQ were first and foremost a radical Marxist movement. For the FLQ and most Marxist groups, the primary objective is to defeat capitalism – using any means possible. For the FLQ, the goal of Quebec sovereignty provided the “noble” cover to their part in the much wider global struggle against capitalism.

Much of the FLQ Manifesto reads as though it were lifted directly out of Marx’s A Communist Manifesto:

We are the workers of Québec and we will continue to the bitter end. We want to replace the slave society with a free society, functioning by itself and for itself; a society open to the world.

Our struggle can only lead to victory. You cannot hold an awakening people in misery and contempt indefinitely. Long live Free Québec!

Long live our imprisoned political comrades. Long live the Québec revolution!

Long live the Front de liberation du Québec.

In addition to capitalism, the other enemy of Marxism is organised religion. In this passage the FLQ takes a swipe at both enemies in one sentence:

We are terrorized by the capitalist Roman church, even though this seems less and less obvious (who owns the property on which the stock exchange stands?)

In fact, there is very little reference to Quebec as a “distinct society” in the FLQ Manifesto. Instead it is quite clearly a call for “workers” to rise up against their “bosses”. Quebec nationalism is merely a smokescreen.

This pattern of seeking out what appear to be noble causes can been seen throughout history in the Marxist battle against capitalism. The most recent example of this wolf in sheep’s clothing is the battle over how to deal with climate change, which is rather ironic considering the environment records of the communist world.

While the FLQ now appears to be a historical footnote, it’s important to understand that it’s underpinnings are still very much alive and kicking today.

Ontario Schools – An non-level playing field

Monday, August 17th, 2009

A couple of weeks ago I met with a friend of mine who has taken on the very challenging task of creating a new business – a new business that would create employment in her community and provide a very worthwhile and needed service. Sheileen is starting a new private primary school.

The reason we were meeting was to see if I might be able to offer any advice to help her market the new school.

Talking to Sheileen and listening to her describe her vision and her dedication to education convinced me there certainly was a place for her new offering in the education market in her area – Toronto. Sheileen has years of experience as both a teacher and as an education administrator, in fact she had run her own successful school (at the high school level) in the past.

The challenge Sheileen faces, however, is that the “market” for education does not come close to resembling a true competitive market. The Ontario government fully funds public and Catholic primary and secondary education through general taxation. In other words, whether you have a child enrolled in a publicly funded school or not, you’re already paying for it. If a parent choses to send a child to an independent school they have to pay for it on their own. This is hardly a level playing field when it comes to education, and this is also discriminatory:

Against the backdrop of this obvious inequity, the United Nations’ Human Rights Committee issued a report in 1999 criticizing Ontario’s educational policy as blatantly discriminatory. The committee recommended that Ontario either extend public funding to all independent schools irrespective of religious orientation or withhold such funding from all such schools.

Source.

This has long been a concern of parents who choose to enroll their children in independent schools, and has made it very difficult for independent schools to compete fairly for students.

And now, as if the financial disadvantage wasn’t enough, the Ontario Government has introduced another way to discourage parents from choosing an independent education option for their children:

Ontario will start requiring high school credits and grades received from private schools to be flagged on student transcripts with the letter “P” starting this fall.

Education Minister Kathleen Wynne confirmed Tuesday that the move was in response to public concerns that some private schools were providing “easy marks” for a fee. Such fees can run up to $2,000 for a three-week summer Grade 12 English course.

Source.

So because “some private schools” are not upholding adequate standards, the government will flag ALL private school grades with a “P”. Instead of identifying and dealing with only the offending schools, the government will stain the reputation of all private schools.

This is clearly an unfair policy, and I believe it is more about boosting public school enrollment than it is about “improving transparency”.

So what advice can I offer Sheileen? What marketing angle or creative campaign could possibly overcome these very real obstacles to success? I will continue to ponder that one.

——-

To learn more about Sheileen’s new school, please visit:
www.alderwoodtoronto.ca

The politics of personal destruction

Monday, August 10th, 2009

I wanted to highlight this article for two reasons: Firstly, it includes the use of one of my favorite words, “bamboozle”. Secondly, it does a nice job of capturing the mood and the political reactions that we are witnessing over the Obama Healthcare debate taking place in America.

As Jennifer Rubin points out:

The White House’s attempt to paint ordinary citizens who come to speak out against ObamaCare as pawns of the insurance industry takes on a comical air when one considers the president’s own background and tactics. As Charles Krauthammer remarked:

There is a certain irony in an administration denouncing ordinary Americans who get together to express what they believe and to confront authority, when that administration is led by a man who began his career as a community organizer, whose job, as I understand it, is to take ordinary Americans, get them together to express what they believe, and express demands against the authorities.

So it’s unbelievably hypocritical. And, of course, as we just heard, this only happens when you have a conservative protest. It is called a mob. If it’s a liberal protest, it is called grassroots expressing themselves.

Remember, just a year ago under the Bush administration, dissent was the highest form of patriotism. And today it is a kind of either organized anger, it’s a facsimile of anger, it’s unpatriotic, it’s whatever.

Ultimately, the “blame the voters” tactic is self-defeating, if not downright embarrassing. The White House can’t demean the voters whose support they need. They must persuade and engage, not spy on and smear the town hall attendees.

Source.

Our very own homegrown “Obama-Gates” case

Saturday, July 25th, 2009

Quite a lot of fuss has been made over the past week regarding the question of racial profiling and the role it played in the arrest of Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. President Obama now regrets weighing into the case with his remark the officers “acted stupidly”, and he has since back-peddled on that statement (though not apologized). While I don’t think Obama should have commented on the Gates case without knowing all the facts, I do appreciate that he is attempting to diffuse the racial tensions that have emerged.

Here in Ontario it seems, the same cannot be said. Here we have the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, who have just ruled against a Toronto police officer for questioning and following a black mail carrier following a report of phone lines being cut in the area.

In spite of the fact there was no evidence to support the claim of racism, the Tribunal has found the officer guilty:

The two officers testified Mr. Phipps’ skin colour was not a factor in their actions and they did not discuss it.

“I accept their evidence that (Mr. Phipps’) skin colour was not discussed between them,” Ms Joachim said. She did find that on a “balance of probabilities” the fact that Mr. Phipps is black was a “factor, a significant factor, and probably the predominant factor, whether consciously or unconsciously” in Const. Shaw’s actions.

Source.

This is a disturbing ruling. It essentially states that if a case of racism is brought before the Tribunal involving a person of colour vs. a white person, the white person will be assumed guilty despite a lack of evidence. The white person must have been racially motivated “whether consciously or unconsciously”.

—-

I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised this case has received remarkably little media attention, but I did find this column by Margaret Wente in The Globe and Mail.

Quote of the day

Friday, July 24th, 2009

In any event, it always amuses me when people express surprise that criminals commit crime – and that when you group a bunch of criminals together (like, say, in jail) they don’t walk out ruminating on Kant, but instead, as criminals, do what criminals do – ie, commit crime. You’ve got your causation mixed up – it is not jail that causes people to commit crime, it is people being criminals that causes them to go to jail; and then, when they get out, they tend to commit other crimes. Not because of jail, but because they are criminals.

Bob Tarantino, July 24th

h/t to Kate.

The Hypocrisy File – It’s not bad if liberals do it.

Thursday, July 23rd, 2009

Let’s just imagine for a moment, the outcry and the venom that would come from the NDP if a U.S. Republican leader were to embark on a cross-Canada crusade in the midst of a national Canadian policy debate. Jack Layton has stated that he is doing just that – in the United States. He is off to defend the honor of Canada’s socialized health care system, and spread the gospel according to Jack.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Apart from the obvious hypocrisy of this political meddling south of the border, one has to wonder what’s in it for Layton? I also have to wonder why Jack is not spending his time dealing with the many issues of national concern, right here in Canada.

But this is Jack Layton, of course.

“Government Motors” – Phase Two

Thursday, July 16th, 2009

I was wondering how long it would be before Toyota and the other major automakers started to grumble about the anti-competitive nature of the government auto bailouts. And now we have a fairly targeted and expensive rebate program that favors the government-owned automaker:

“How long does this continue?” Mr. Beatty said. “We can’t set up a situation where the future of the industry depends on constant subsidies…. This suggests that [the government] is prepared to be interventionist beyond their aim to help the industry recover.”

Toyota, known for its hybrid technology, was not informed of the government’s intention to offer the rebates and was taken off guard that the announcement venue was a Chevrolet dealership, Mr. Beatty said.

“The question is: Is this a well-thought-out industry strategy? Or is it sort of the next stage in advancing a particular product and helping a particular company?”

Industry analyst Dennis DesRosiers echoed Mr. Beatty’s concern.

“A cynic would say this is just government subsidizing a product that is produced by a company they own. I think that is a bit too cynical. I just think it is bad policy from a variety of perspectives.”

Source.

Here’s an interesting take on the new rebate plan by Victor Wong.

—-
Update: Today’s National Post editorial has picked up on the anti-competitive theme:

The government can’t very well say it doesn’t want to pick winners in this race while it is riding one of the horses. In taking a chunk of the shares, it has effectively made a moral commitment to distort the marketplace, to reduce the economic efficiency of auto customers’ buying decisions, and to require Toyota to compete in Ontario with one hand tied behind its back.

Source.