Monday, January 30, 2006


This past weekend I saw a young lady walk by wearing a backpack with a cloth over it that had the following written on it:

"Conservatives are Nazis, Harper is Hitler, I'm ashamed to be Candian."

I was dumbfounded when I read this. I was shocked, offended, angry, and confused.

I was shocked because I could not believe that someone would be so ignorant to wear this. I understand that people are not Conservative supporters, but this was a little extreme.

I was offended because I am a proud Conservative and a proud Canadian. Is this person, and the person who came up with this material insinuating that I am of the same ilk as a dictator who committed horrible evils during his reign?

I was angry that someone would use the same freedom that was won for our country, and our entire world by defeating the very sane dictator and party that she compares the Conservative party to.

I was confused as to how anyone could actually believe that to be true.

Politics is all about differences, its about choosing a government most in line with what we believe in as citizens of this country. Living in a democratic country means accepting the outcome of an election, you do not always have to like it, but you better acknowledge the outcome of a system that you believe in. It is one thing to disagree with a government that you did not vote for, but to insult that party in this way is an insult to every single person who voted for that party. I disagree with Liberals and NDP policy, but I do not insult a person who votes for that party.

This person, and all who agree with that disgraceful view should be ashamed to be Canadian. I am ashamed for them.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

A Speech to Build A Nation On!

In case you missed it... here is Stephen Harper's speech from Monday night. As this was our new Prime Minister's first opportunity to address the nation it provided him the opportunity to set the base for his term as leader. I've heard a speech or two in my time, and it's my opinion that not only did Prime Minister Harper take full advantage of this opportunity... he delivered one of the best speeches I have heard from any Canadian politician in years. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was both inspiring and passionate, addressing everything that needs to be addressed. It was the perfect end to a fantastic election and the perfect beginning to a new Canada... Strong, United, Independent and Free!

You can watch the video at, its under the Election 2006 section in two parts.

Monday, January 23, 2006

The Big Man Weighs In...

Doesn't Michael Moore have a "documentary" to work on? Or maybe things are a little slow these days for left-wing conspiracists in the United States so he's decided to invade Canada. Anyhoo... here's his thought's on today's election.

Why Proportional Representation is not the way to go

There has been much discussion over the past few years over changing our electoral system in Canada. It happened in BC with the Citizens' Assembly, and most recently was brought up again during a federal election leaders debate when NDP leader Jack Layton actually stated that "Canadians want a system of Proportional Representation." Well, sorry Mr.Layton, but this Canadian doesn't.

Proportional Representation (PR) is a greatly misunderstood electoral system. The common misconception is that it is a superior system to our current first-past-the-post model because it more accurately distributes seats to the percentage of the popular vote. And at the basic level that is correct, however, the devil, as they say, is in the details, and that is where PR runs into trouble.

For this argument, imagine a Parliament with 100 seats. For starters, it is not as simple as giving a party with 30% of the vote 30 of the seats. First of all, has anyone ever seen a party get a full % of support? How do you distribute a seat to a party who got 30.4% of the vote and a party who got 29.6%? Do both parties get 30 seats even though one party got .8% more of the vote, which might translate into tens of thousands of votes. So do those votes count? How can you fairly distribute a number that is not whole? The short answer is that you can't, not without great difficulty and concession. I realize that this would only impact 1 or 2 seats for a party, but under a PR system, minority governments are the standard, and in a minority government, 1 or 2 seats may make a huge difference.

The second problem stems from the first, but creates a broader issue. Does a party who gets 0.9% of the vote deserve a seat? If so, what about a party with 0.4%? or 0.3%? Where do we draw the line? What is the minimum percentage of popular support that a party must gain in order to gain a seat? This is a difficult question to answer for two reasons. One, Canada is made up of 10 very unique provinces, and so if we do creat a minimum threshold, do we make it a national threshold, or a provincial one? Consider the ramifications for the Bloc Quebecois, they stand at 45-50% support in Quebec, however, across Canada their support is only 18%. Therefore under PR would the Bloc be entitled to 50% of Quebec's seats or 18% of Canada's seats? The second problem lies with lesser known parties, it is common fact that a PR system leads to more political parties, and so by creating a minimum threshold (for example 5%) then you are effectively saying that voters for a party that only received 3% do not count, however those for parties who get over 5% do count. Again, this is a very complicated rule that needs to be clarified, and huge concessions would have to be made to get this done.

There is also a concern over the individual who gets elected under a PR system, because under PR you do not vote for the person, you vote only for the party. So it is the party who indicates who will assume the seats they have been awarded after an election. So who are we voting for? We don't know. Are they accountable to us? No, they are accountable to the party itself. Which MP would be considered my MP for my riding? There would not be traditional ridings, there would only be a set number of seats for the House to be distributed. I do not like any of these answers, and I'm sure I am not alone in that opinion.

Finally, Jack Layton would have us believe that his party is in support of PR because he wants what Canadians want, but he is mistaken in that. The primary reason that Mr. Layton wants a PR system is because his party has never represented what a majority of Canadians want. The truth is that parties with no hope of ever forming a government are always in favour of a PR system because they will fare better under that system. The NDP is very happy tipping the balance in a minority government parliament. Under PR, minority governments are the norm, and so under PR, the NDP will always have the balance of power in their hands. So why is this bad some of you may ask? The answer is that PR benefits parties like the NDP who have strong identified support in certain sectors, and who are unable to attract the mainstream or "average" voter. The NDP has never, and probably will never form a government in Canada because they do not speak for the average Canadian, their views do not represent those of a majority of Canadians. Because of this they want to change the rules so that they can reward themselves for only speaking for a certain group. So why should we reward parties who do not even attempt to attract the majority of Canadians with having the balance of power in a Parliament?

Our current system may not be perfect, but what it does is encourage political parties to represent all of Canada, and not only special interest groups (NDP), or one province (Bloc), or just one single issue (Green, Marijuana party). The reason this election is really just a two-horse race is because only the Liberals and Conservatives aim to represent all of Canada, and they do so by the rules of our current electoral system. We should not reward parties who do not want to play by the rules, we should not look to change our electoral system to Proportional Represenation.

Most Overused Quote of the Year

"If you don't go out and vote, you can't complain about the government."

I woke up at 7:30 am, after listening to my radio alarm, and then shortly afterward my shower radio, the amount of times I had heard that quote was 14. I have now heard it more times than I could possibly hope to remember, but it would at least have to be over 50.

I understand that this one-liner seems to be the way for people on radio and tv to motivate people to go out and vote, but seriously, are you telling me that there isn't a better motivator? How about the rarely used "people died fighting in wars so that we could have the ability to vote for our leaders." I guess that just doesn't strike a chord anymore.

What really annoys me is how the quote itself, is incorrect. For starters, can someone complain if they don't vote? Of course they can. And what's more, starting tomorrow morning, do you think any elected politician is going to ask someone if they voted before they are willing to hear a complaint? Not if they like their position as elected they won't. Finally, for those who rally under the mantra of "its our right to vote", they must understand that in the true meaning of a "right", there is also within the right, the right not to do that selfsame thing. Freedom of speech also entails the freedom to say nothing at all. So, in truth, people not voting are actually demonstrating their right to vote as well. Thats why in Australia where voting is the law, there is no right to vote.

I am not trying to encourage anyone not to vote, I hope voter turnout is 100%, but for pete's sake people, stop using the quote above!

Sunday, January 22, 2006

Sunshine Girl?

I just didn't think it was fair that only people in Winnipeg got to see this gem. So enjoy!Too bad this picture isn't worth a thousand votes. Ah well, if you're going to go out, you might as well go out in a blaze of glory.

Remember, no matter who you vote for, go vote.

Saturday, January 21, 2006

I Vote for Anne and I Live in a Storage Locker

A large number of electoral irregularities have surfaced in the Edmonton-Centre campaign. Registered voters are claiming business offices, storage units and truck stops to be their registered place of residence. Check out the Conservative Party news release. The Small Dead Animals blog and the Edmonton Journal have reported on the electoral irregularities as well. This should make things interesting...

Friday, January 20, 2006

Election Predictor

Here's a little somethin' somethin' to pass the time until Monday's results... compliments of the Downtown Conservatives and Hill & Knowlton!

Monday, January 16, 2006

Everyone's got Ads!

I really like this new Conservative ad. Apparently the Liberals really don't. I can't imagine why, they were the pioneers of using quotes from other parties to help bury them. I haven't seen the ad attacking the NDP yet, but I hope its even better.

Yikes! Whats with Jack Layton telling Liberals to vote NDP "Just this once?" Sounds like Jack has been taking campaign lessons from the guy who peer pressures kids to try smoking. God help us if voting NDP turns out to be addictive.

Lastly, I wonder what it sounds like in Paul Martin's war room this week, I wonder if it sounds anything like this. (Warning: profane language) Just substitute "8-10 record" with "second in the polls", and "Purdue" with "Harper."

The Wrong Kind of "PR" - Part 1

In an interesting and much unnoticed move, during the Leaders debate, NDP Leader Jack Layton took a moment to speak on behalf of "all Canadians" and declared that we all wanted a new electoral system of Proportional Representation (PR) , and the reason we all wanted a new electoral system is that voter turnout is so low in Canada. Despite the fact that he clearly DOES NOT speak on behalf of all Canadians, Mr. Layton's comments have been a week-long cause of pondering on my behalf. After all, whats wrong with a PR electoral system? (lots actually, but thats another column, which will be Part 2), Would PR answer the glaring issue of voter turnout in elections?

My answer is yes, however Mr. Layton got the wrong PR acronym. Proportional Representation does not necessarily lead to a higher voter turnout, in fact, it might lead to an even lower voter turnout (again, more on this to come)

Reading a column on voting among youths turned out the premise that because many students are busy with school and work, and because they have very little extra money for things like newspapers and television, they won't vote because they are not properly informed enough to make a decision. I laughed at this article when I read it because of how this columnist actually believed this farce that he was told, and whats more, he printed it for all to see. The truth is that he was duped by a clever student who did not want to appear in a negative light to someone who would put her comments in a newspaper. How can I be so sure of this conclusion? Because I myself once heard the exact same answer from a friend, a friend I considered both "politically-enlightened" and "politically-intuned." And, just like how I laughed at that silly column, I laughed even harder when the same answer was given to me in person by that friend.

After wiping the tears from eyes, and after shrugging off the weak attempt to back up the answer, I asker again what the real reason was, with a promise that I wouldn't laugh as long as they were honest with me. In response to this, I received the other common false explanation of "all the parties lie, so you can't believe whatthey say." Again, this was a standard response that led to my laughter, and I could tell that my friend quickly realized that repeating something that they read in the paper is not a good enough explanation. So I asked for more information on exactly what the parties have lied about? To this question my friend could not come up with a concrete answer. Many examples were given, but none of them were actual examples of the party lieing. Instead, what I heard was examples of what certain parties were saying about other parties. Upon further questioning, it seemed quite obvious to me, that the problem isn't that people don't believe what they hear, the actual problem is that many people believe EVERYTHING they hear. They take it all in.

Now, imagine hearing 3 sides to an issue (a,b,c), and all 3 sides tell you in such a convincing way that they are right and that the other is wrong, and so, instead of believing one side over the other, you assume that maybe all of them are partly correct, or upon further thought, they can't all be right and so perhaps they all must be wrong. And if someone were to ask you to make a choice between (a), (b), (c), or (d) none of the above, which one would you choose?

My money is on the fact that you all chose (d). And that premise is the real reason why voter turnout is so low.

Coming up in Part 2....why Proportional Representation isn't the answer people think it is......and finally in Part 3.......what is the solution? If there is one at all......

Friday, January 13, 2006

Who uses public health?

This morning the story has broke that our most honest lefty Jack Layton has decided that private clinics are a-ok to him. I believe he has chastised Stephen Harper for saying that he would send a loved one to a private clinic if it is needed. I also believe that he has said that public money will not be able to go to private clinics. Jack has mentioned that he had no idea that the clinic was private but I find that hard to believe. It has a putting green. Don't believe me? It is a clinic that has a "country club appeal." Oh and the CBC has said it is a private clinic. Jack should have known.

But Jack defends going to this clinic because "Ontario health paid for it." Isn't that what Jack wants to stop? Public money going to private clinics? Maybe I misunderstood that part of his platform.

And we all know that Paul Martin loves his private health clinics. The person who says he is the biggest defender of public health sure doesn't practice what he preaches. So Paully Paul supports one.

Where has this left us? With this common knowledge. The Liberals and the NDs say one thing and do another. They say they are against private health but support it.

Harper, on the other hand, supports public health but realizes the important roll private health care plays in our system. Although Harper has never used a private health clinic. So he is the only one that actually uses the public system...hmmmmmm. I guess Harper is like the other two, say one thing do another. The difference, Harper says he would use a private system, except he never has.

Huh, to me this is so very, very scary because he uses the public health system when he says he will use the private.

I got three words for you:

Go Stephen, go!!

Thursday, January 12, 2006

I'm fat AND ugly

  • The CBC ran an interesting story on why campaigns go negative. Very simply, it breaks down to a quote by longtime (I never heard of him) Liberal strategist Keith Davey who said "if the other guy says, 'You're fat', don't say, 'I'm not', say 'You're ugly.'" I assume that is where you would insert the laughs.

  • I also enjoy CBC's article on potential Cabinet Ministers in a Conservative Government. I noticed they didn't have a date on the article, which I find interesting because didn't we see this article last election? Remember the whole news story surrounding Harper and his transition team? And do we all remember what happened? Soon after, the Liberals went negative, health care became the major issue, and voila, another Liberal government. So lets not count our negative ads before they are released, if in some way that makes sense.

  • And finally, if you enjoy being dumbfounded as much as I do, you'll love this story. A Liberal candidate in Alberta, is ASHAMED of her party! In fact, she is soo ashamed, that she mentioned it at a school forum in front of kids! This follows another Liberal MP apologizing in Vancouver, and blaming the whole fiasco on an idiot. But who is the idiot? Didn't Paul Martin take responsibility for the adds? I think the biggest lie the Liberals have told so far in this campaign is where they say "we aren't making this up", I firmly disagree, I think its quite obvious that they have been making everything up as they go along.

Wednesday, January 11, 2006


I saw this today and got a kick out of it...

From Paul Wells' site... January 11, 2006

It begins

Just now at the Subway on Bank St. I was buying my lunch and there... in line... standing in front of me... was a soldier.

In our cities.

In Canada.

A soldier.

He seemed to be ordering the six-inch ham and turkey.

With chipotle sauce.

In Canada.

We're not making this stuff up.

Monday, January 09, 2006

Support for Harper


Today at the Black Dog Pub there is an invite, to all who wish to go, to the Under Dog (that is the big room in the basement of the Pub) and watch tonights leader debate. For those that don't know, the Black Dog is on the South side of Whyte Avenue in between about 105 and 104 street (I think). The kicker to this is that this invite was in See Magazine and I would guess that our man Stephen is going to need supporters down there. If you can make it, head on down and have a pint and watch the left choke on their indecencies!

Thursday, January 05, 2006

Corruption and Corruptability

I found an article from the World Bank that is pretty good. You can read it here but I want you to pay attention to something written right under the heading, “Agenda for Further Research.”

The author drops this little nugget of gold, “If the costs of corruption are so high, why don't governments get rid of it? A possible answer is that once a corrupt system is in place, and a majority of people operate within that system, individuals have no incentive to try to change it or to refrain from taking part in it, even if everybody would be better off if corruption were to be eliminated.”

We look at our current Liberal Government. We could argue that there is a system of corruption in place. We cannot assume when this started. It may have started in the 90’s, it could’ve started in the 80’s and, really, it could have been at any time in our history when corruption began to creep into our institution. All it takes if for it to get in and it takes a while to remove.

I am not saying that the corruption talked about for the most part in the article is the same corruption in Canada. Nor I am saying, however, that the majority of those in our Federal Government – those in the Liberals especially – are corrupt. I don’t believe that to be the case. I think that all parties have MPs who are good or evil. However, when the top level leaders, those who are to be trusted by the people, do corrupt actions, the entire party must be brought to surrender because that is necessary for trust to remain in the institution.

Check out this article here. It is from the CBC but it has some very interesting points surrounding Canadian corruption. When you read it, think about what you read of Mr. Mauro – his conclusions – and look at how they are reflected with what Brian Stewart has written. The same themes seem to flow through both.

One of the other things that should be mentioned is another answer to the question in bold above. Why is there corruption in Canada if the costs are so high? I think we can answer this by saying, the costs, unfortunately, in Canada are not high. This has been proven many, many times. And if the Liberal Party of Canada is re-elected to another term, whether minority or otherwise, I think it will show that this country does not punish corruption.

My hope is that the people of the Great White North will realize that corruption should be punishable and there should be a cost. It is my hope, but failure is my fear.