Listening to Oshawa's rock station today 94.9 ( my favorite), I heard for the first time the NDP radio ad attacking the Conservatives from NDP leader Jack Layton. Aside from the fact the NDP candidate is also the head of local 222, which represents GM workers and many of the parts plants in the area, Layton's question was beyond the pale. Layton states Stephen Harper got voted in and then did nothing for the people of Oshawa. Well, let's look at a few examples of what Oshawa has received in the last number of years since the Conservatives took office.
1. Billions to save GM from bankruptcy. If Layton has even half a clue, he must know GM's entire economy relies on the survival of GM.
2. Extension of EI benefits allowed many auto workers to continue receiving benefits until the auto sector took off again.
3. Extensive job retraining for laid off workers. Many of those GM workers with little seniority benefited from federal job retraining programs, which gave extensive extensions to EI as well as covering the cost of courses.
4. Stevenson Road/401 Interchange. A combination of federal/provincial/municipal money resulted in a much needed 401 interchange for the city.
5. A number of infrastructure upgrades from the economic stimulus program.
6. Federal transfers for health care increased. Some of that money made it's way to Oshawa General Hospital.
There are numerous other examples. Conservative incumbent Colin Carrie has been an excellent MP for the area, fighting for the loans to keep GM, and by extension, Oshawa afloat. Layton may want to get his facts straight before making such an idiotic ad.
p.s. Also interesting the Liberals haven't named a candidate for the Oshawa riding. Maybe Dipper turned Liberal supporter Dolby was late, waiting 5 days to throw his support to his coalition partner.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Media Forgets To Mention Man Accusing Former Conservative Campaign Worker Is Ex-Paul Martin Aide
More stories today about what is supposed to be an embarrassment for the Conservatives regarding a volunteer worker named Giulio Maturi. Allegations were made in 2009 by one Benoit Labonté that Maturi advised him to use campaign workers who were paid by a private company. So I can see why the Conservatives might want to shy away from having this person associated with the party, even though he denied the allegations.
But there is something a little more troubling about this story. It's how the media is handling it, apparently ignorant to the fact who Benoit Labonté is and his recent past. Benoit Labonté was an aide to former Liberal PM Paul Martin. That's right, he's a Liberal. So I guess the media don't think it's worth mentioning. The thing is he seems to have a somewhat shady past himself. The media has run with his allegations, despite the denial from Mr. Maturi that it ever occurred. But what of Benoit Labonté? Well, you would think the media might mention this, no?
"Montreal opposition leader Benoît Labonté is denying allegations he had dealings with the construction entrepreneur at the centre of the city's water-meter scandal.
The allegations were reported Friday by RueFrontenac.com, the online news site written by the locked-out journalists from the French-language daily Journal de Montreal.
Labonté met with Tony Accurso in March 2008 while preparing to launch his bid to lead the Vision Montreal party, the website said, citing anonymous sources.
The website alleges Labonté eventually asked for and received more than $100,000 in donations from Accurso."
Full story here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2009/10/16/mtl-labonte-accurso.html
Update: Doing a little more searching on google produced this. Appears the allegations against Labonte were admitted to:
http://montreal.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20091022/mtl_poll_091022/20091022/?hub=MontrealHome
But there is something a little more troubling about this story. It's how the media is handling it, apparently ignorant to the fact who Benoit Labonté is and his recent past. Benoit Labonté was an aide to former Liberal PM Paul Martin. That's right, he's a Liberal. So I guess the media don't think it's worth mentioning. The thing is he seems to have a somewhat shady past himself. The media has run with his allegations, despite the denial from Mr. Maturi that it ever occurred. But what of Benoit Labonté? Well, you would think the media might mention this, no?
"Montreal opposition leader Benoît Labonté is denying allegations he had dealings with the construction entrepreneur at the centre of the city's water-meter scandal.
The allegations were reported Friday by RueFrontenac.com, the online news site written by the locked-out journalists from the French-language daily Journal de Montreal.
Labonté met with Tony Accurso in March 2008 while preparing to launch his bid to lead the Vision Montreal party, the website said, citing anonymous sources.
The website alleges Labonté eventually asked for and received more than $100,000 in donations from Accurso."
Full story here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2009/10/16/mtl-labonte-accurso.html
Update: Doing a little more searching on google produced this. Appears the allegations against Labonte were admitted to:
http://montreal.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20091022/mtl_poll_091022/20091022/?hub=MontrealHome
Ignatieff Finally Admits Plan To Take Power From A Conservative Minority...
I've done two previous posts this week begging someone in the media to ask Ignatieff if he would support a Conservative minority budget should Stephen Harper win another minority government. I actually left a comment for the National Post's John Ivison on a column he did about the coalition talk being done with and put to rest, asking him to ask Ignatieff that question. Today we got the answer: "
VANCOUVER — Michael Ignatieff has said he would not be able to support a Conservative budget, if it is the same one that was rejected by the three opposition parties last week. In a broad-ranging interview with the National Post, the Liberal leader was asked if he could support the same budget that Jim Flaherty, the Finance Minister, introduced in the House of Commons last week.
“I think we’ve given a clear answer on that question,” he said. If they win, the Conservatives would be obliged to bring down a budget and Mr. Flaherty has already said he intends to re-introduce the same financial plan that the three opposition parties rejected. Indeed, the Conservatives have been campaigning on many of the measures contained in Mr. Flaherty’s plan.
It suggests the country is destined for an endless cycle of elections until one side or another wins a majority government. The Conservatives have accused Mr. Ignatieff of hatching a plan to form a coalition government with the NDP, supported by the Bloc Québécois, and Mr. Ignatieff’s admission that he could not support Mr. Flaherty’s budget will add to suspicions that the opposition parties are planning to act in concert. Mr. Ignatieff ruled out a coalition or a formal agreement with the Bloc on Saturday.
VANCOUVER — Michael Ignatieff has said he would not be able to support a Conservative budget, if it is the same one that was rejected by the three opposition parties last week. In a broad-ranging interview with the National Post, the Liberal leader was asked if he could support the same budget that Jim Flaherty, the Finance Minister, introduced in the House of Commons last week.
“I think we’ve given a clear answer on that question,” he said. If they win, the Conservatives would be obliged to bring down a budget and Mr. Flaherty has already said he intends to re-introduce the same financial plan that the three opposition parties rejected. Indeed, the Conservatives have been campaigning on many of the measures contained in Mr. Flaherty’s plan.
It suggests the country is destined for an endless cycle of elections until one side or another wins a majority government. The Conservatives have accused Mr. Ignatieff of hatching a plan to form a coalition government with the NDP, supported by the Bloc Québécois, and Mr. Ignatieff’s admission that he could not support Mr. Flaherty’s budget will add to suspicions that the opposition parties are planning to act in concert. Mr. Ignatieff ruled out a coalition or a formal agreement with the Bloc on Saturday.
Ignatieff's Election Platform Debunked- Corporate Tax Cuts And CPP
With Ignatieff releasing another plank in his platform today, changes to supposedly boost CPP, and with Ignatieff continuing to repeat how those bad banks don't deserve corporate tax breaks, it's time to put the two planks of the Liberal platform together, something it seems Ignatieff and the Liberal Party failed to do. The problem for Ignatieff is with today's platform release, it's like the Liberal leader is now going to try and strengthen CPP when in fact his platform to raise corporate taxes damages the strength of the CPP plan. Why? Well, you can start with this:
Who benefits from bank profits?
"Canadians do." At least, that's the line from the bankers. But what actually happens to those billions in profits? It's tempting to think of Daddy Warbucks-like bank CEOs gleefully counting out their bonuses and stock options. But CEOs don't make billions. Only millions. Of the $13.3 billion in profit made by all of Canada's chartered banks in 2004, they paid out $4.5 billion in dividends to their stockholders. You're probably thinking about Daddy Warbucks again.
But some of the biggest shareholders in Canadian banks are the big public and private pension funds and the big mutual funds — in other words, most Canadians. Let's take the Canada Pension Plan, as an example. It owned $2.6 billion in stock of the Big Six banks as of March 31, 2006. That's about $150 in bank stock for every one of its members.
At the $41-billion Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System pension plan, banks occupy four of its top 10 equity holdings. Bank stocks are popular holds in hundreds of equity mutual funds too, because banks are such a big part of the Canadian economy, and because the market performance of the financial sector has been nothing short of sizzling over the last few years. For example, the giant Investors Dividend fund — with $11.8 billion in assets — lists five banks as its top holdings.
After paying out their dividends, banks use the leftovers to invest in their own operations. And they like to point out that they paid $7.6 billion in taxes in 2004. So, if you're so inclined, criticize the big banks for branch closures, or for not paying more interest, or for their service charges, or because you think they're too big and impersonal. But if you're a holder of bank stock (and directly or indirectly, we all are), rising profits have also meant rising dividends and stock prices that have, on average, doubled in the last four years.
Money we can take to the bank.
So there you have it. Much of the strength of the CPP is based on investment returns from corporations such as banks. And banks are only a percentage of corporations the CPP is heavily invested in. Raising corporate taxes results in lower dividends paid to funds such as CPP. Many mutual funds, trusts, and other investments held by seniors make their cash frm divedend payments. Why does Michael Ignatieff want to damage these dividends? One would think when a party puts forth an election campaign platform, each plank would mesh with the others. In the case of corporate tax cuts, make that corporate tax increases, Ignatieff and the Liberal Party are actually hurting the very CPP plan they claim to want to improve.
Who benefits from bank profits?
"Canadians do." At least, that's the line from the bankers. But what actually happens to those billions in profits? It's tempting to think of Daddy Warbucks-like bank CEOs gleefully counting out their bonuses and stock options. But CEOs don't make billions. Only millions. Of the $13.3 billion in profit made by all of Canada's chartered banks in 2004, they paid out $4.5 billion in dividends to their stockholders. You're probably thinking about Daddy Warbucks again.
But some of the biggest shareholders in Canadian banks are the big public and private pension funds and the big mutual funds — in other words, most Canadians. Let's take the Canada Pension Plan, as an example. It owned $2.6 billion in stock of the Big Six banks as of March 31, 2006. That's about $150 in bank stock for every one of its members.
At the $41-billion Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System pension plan, banks occupy four of its top 10 equity holdings. Bank stocks are popular holds in hundreds of equity mutual funds too, because banks are such a big part of the Canadian economy, and because the market performance of the financial sector has been nothing short of sizzling over the last few years. For example, the giant Investors Dividend fund — with $11.8 billion in assets — lists five banks as its top holdings.
After paying out their dividends, banks use the leftovers to invest in their own operations. And they like to point out that they paid $7.6 billion in taxes in 2004. So, if you're so inclined, criticize the big banks for branch closures, or for not paying more interest, or for their service charges, or because you think they're too big and impersonal. But if you're a holder of bank stock (and directly or indirectly, we all are), rising profits have also meant rising dividends and stock prices that have, on average, doubled in the last four years.
Money we can take to the bank.
So there you have it. Much of the strength of the CPP is based on investment returns from corporations such as banks. And banks are only a percentage of corporations the CPP is heavily invested in. Raising corporate taxes results in lower dividends paid to funds such as CPP. Many mutual funds, trusts, and other investments held by seniors make their cash frm divedend payments. Why does Michael Ignatieff want to damage these dividends? One would think when a party puts forth an election campaign platform, each plank would mesh with the others. In the case of corporate tax cuts, make that corporate tax increases, Ignatieff and the Liberal Party are actually hurting the very CPP plan they claim to want to improve.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
The Question That Puts Talk Of A Coalition To Rest... And Yet No Journalist Wants To Ask
All this talk of coalitions is a moot point. If any journalist wants to really put all this to rest, they should ask the right question That being.
1. Mr. Harper, if the Liberals win a minority, will you respect the will of Canadians and support the throne speech and budget, and allow for stable government for a reasonable amount of time ( say 18 months) before seeking a vote of non-confidence?
2. Mr. Ignatieff, if the Conservatives win a minority, will you respect the will of Canadians and support the throne speech and budget, and allow for stable government for a reasonable amount of time ( say 18 months) before seeking a vote of non-confidence?
3. Mr. Layton, if the Conservatives win a minority, will you respect the will of Canadians and support the throne speech and budget, and allow for stable government for a reasonable amount of time ( say 18 months) before seeking a vote of non-confidence?
If journalists really want the coalition done with, they need to have each of the leaders, on camera, reply to the question with either a yes or no answer, with no wiggle room left post election. Canadians deserve this!
p.s. This is quite similar to a recent post I did. Hopefully someone in the media gets the hint this time and asks the question as posted and gets a yes or no answer.
1. Mr. Harper, if the Liberals win a minority, will you respect the will of Canadians and support the throne speech and budget, and allow for stable government for a reasonable amount of time ( say 18 months) before seeking a vote of non-confidence?
2. Mr. Ignatieff, if the Conservatives win a minority, will you respect the will of Canadians and support the throne speech and budget, and allow for stable government for a reasonable amount of time ( say 18 months) before seeking a vote of non-confidence?
3. Mr. Layton, if the Conservatives win a minority, will you respect the will of Canadians and support the throne speech and budget, and allow for stable government for a reasonable amount of time ( say 18 months) before seeking a vote of non-confidence?
If journalists really want the coalition done with, they need to have each of the leaders, on camera, reply to the question with either a yes or no answer, with no wiggle room left post election. Canadians deserve this!
p.s. This is quite similar to a recent post I did. Hopefully someone in the media gets the hint this time and asks the question as posted and gets a yes or no answer.
Does Ignatieff Even Know About University Education Programs In The Armed Forces?
I don't think so. Ignatieff brags today about his $1 billion dollar a year program for anyone attending a university. Of course it probably never dawned on Ignatieff, nor any media journalist that Ignatieff is prepared to give every person who attends a university a minimum of $4000 meaning those mega-buck CEO's children, those high income earning executives working in those large corporatuions Ignatieff likes to bash would also get $4000. Is that the Liberal plan. Raise corporate taxes and then give the rich cash they probably don't need?
"The “Canadian Learning Passport” will offer $4,000 tax-free grants to every high school student who chooses to go to university, college or CEGEP, according to a news release given to reporters covering the Ignatieff campaign."
You know, Ignatieff has been talking for some time about how us Canadians need better access to university educations. You know, all those hard-working factory workers could be doing so much better. Small business owners too. But you know what really shows Ignatieff's ignorance on Canada, the country he spent most of his life away from? While he continues to rail against jets, citing we shouldn't be spending money on such things as new fighter jets, despite the fact our current jets are now 30 years old he never once mentions the fantastic educational programs any Canadian can get by joining our armed forces. Read this and tell me again how the Liberal plan is just so fantastic. Ignatieff offers $1000 a year, and the average university tuition is $6000+. And why doesn't Ignattieff ever mention this info.
PAID UNIVERSITY Enrol in the Canadian Forces through the Regular Force Officer Training Plan (ROTP) and you will receive free university tuition, books and academic equipment in addition to a salary with benefits. You can attend the Royal Military College or an approved Canadian university. Finally, you will have a guaranteed job upon graduation. In return for having your university education paid for, you will have to serve between 36 and 48 months, calculated on the basis of two months' service for each month of subsidized education.
PAID COLLEGE Enrol in the Canadian Forces through the Non-Commissioned Member Subsidized Education Plan (NCM SEP), and you will receive free college tuition, books and academic equipment in addition to a salary with benefits. Finally, you will have a guaranteed job upon graduation. In return for having your college education paid for, you will have to serve a number of years calculated on the basis of two months' service for each month of subsidized education. For example, if you receive paid college education over the course of 4 semesters, you will have to serve in the military for at least 32 months upon completing the program (each semester is four months long).
Reserve Force UNIVERSITY REIMBURSEMENT + PART-TIME JOB Enrol as an Officer in the Canadian Forces through the Reserve Entry Training Plan (RETP), and you will attend the Royal Military College. You will receive an officer cadet’s salary when doing military training but you must pay for your own tuition and books. You will be eligible for a reimbursement of up to $2,000 per year to a maximum of $8,000. It is also possible to sign up first as an officer or a non-commissioned member in the Primary Reserve and set up an “Individual Learning Plan” to attend courses leading to a college or university degree related to your trade; upon successful completion of such courses, you will be eligible for a reimbursement of up to 50 per cent of tuition and other mandatory costs. Reservists can leave the Canadian Forces at any time with no obligation. Education fees for successfully completed courses are reimbursed as long as the student was a Reservist during the entire duration of the course.
"The “Canadian Learning Passport” will offer $4,000 tax-free grants to every high school student who chooses to go to university, college or CEGEP, according to a news release given to reporters covering the Ignatieff campaign."
You know, Ignatieff has been talking for some time about how us Canadians need better access to university educations. You know, all those hard-working factory workers could be doing so much better. Small business owners too. But you know what really shows Ignatieff's ignorance on Canada, the country he spent most of his life away from? While he continues to rail against jets, citing we shouldn't be spending money on such things as new fighter jets, despite the fact our current jets are now 30 years old he never once mentions the fantastic educational programs any Canadian can get by joining our armed forces. Read this and tell me again how the Liberal plan is just so fantastic. Ignatieff offers $1000 a year, and the average university tuition is $6000+. And why doesn't Ignattieff ever mention this info.
PAID UNIVERSITY Enrol in the Canadian Forces through the Regular Force Officer Training Plan (ROTP) and you will receive free university tuition, books and academic equipment in addition to a salary with benefits. You can attend the Royal Military College or an approved Canadian university. Finally, you will have a guaranteed job upon graduation. In return for having your university education paid for, you will have to serve between 36 and 48 months, calculated on the basis of two months' service for each month of subsidized education.
PAID COLLEGE Enrol in the Canadian Forces through the Non-Commissioned Member Subsidized Education Plan (NCM SEP), and you will receive free college tuition, books and academic equipment in addition to a salary with benefits. Finally, you will have a guaranteed job upon graduation. In return for having your college education paid for, you will have to serve a number of years calculated on the basis of two months' service for each month of subsidized education. For example, if you receive paid college education over the course of 4 semesters, you will have to serve in the military for at least 32 months upon completing the program (each semester is four months long).
Reserve Force UNIVERSITY REIMBURSEMENT + PART-TIME JOB Enrol as an Officer in the Canadian Forces through the Reserve Entry Training Plan (RETP), and you will attend the Royal Military College. You will receive an officer cadet’s salary when doing military training but you must pay for your own tuition and books. You will be eligible for a reimbursement of up to $2,000 per year to a maximum of $8,000. It is also possible to sign up first as an officer or a non-commissioned member in the Primary Reserve and set up an “Individual Learning Plan” to attend courses leading to a college or university degree related to your trade; upon successful completion of such courses, you will be eligible for a reimbursement of up to 50 per cent of tuition and other mandatory costs. Reservists can leave the Canadian Forces at any time with no obligation. Education fees for successfully completed courses are reimbursed as long as the student was a Reservist during the entire duration of the course.
Ignatieff's Education Plan Will Cost In Excess Of $30 Billion...Or Is It $200 Billion?
Let's see, $1 billion a year. Now multiply by 30 years. That's the mathematical formula the opposition uses for the F-35's. Of course if history is any indication, we should use the gun registry cost formula, which is the Liberal estimated cost X 200%
Monday, March 28, 2011
In 2008 Jack Layton's Price For Corporate Tax Cuts Was Six Cabinet Seats
What's his price today. John McCallum admits the Liberal plan to raise corporate taxes will cause job losses. Stephane Dion stated corporate tax cuts had to be included in the 2008 coalition agreement. Dion signed it. Layton signed it. Duceppe signed it.
And yes, Michael Ignatieff signed it. And now we are told how bad corporate tax cuts are? But wait. The coalition in 2008 talked of the national daycare plan, that regurgitated dream of the Liberals since 1993. Never happened then. Won't happen now. They planned on introducing said plan along with maintaining the corporate tax cuts. They also boasted of plans for roughly $40 billion in stimulus spending.
Fast forward to March 2011. It's the early days of an election campaign. The coalition rails against the corporate tax cuts, ignoring the fact they were passed by a majority of votes in Parliament in 2007. The Canadian economy has weathered the storm better than most countries on the planet. Why? A major reason is those corporate tax cuts.
For all of Stephane Dion's faults, he realized how important those cuts were to keep the Canadian economy growing. Ignatieff and Layton don't seem to get it. Today Ignatieff again attacked the corporate tax cuts, citing the banks, oil companies, and insurance companies as not needing any more tax cuts. So it's time for a little economics 101.
1. Banks are bringing in large profits. Is that really a bad thing Mr. Ignatieff? When someone wants to start up or expand a small business, where do they go? The banks. If someones business is struggling with the recession, where do they go for funds to get by? The bank. When someone wants to buy a car, where do they go? The bank. Does Ignatieff not realize that the number one reason the auto sector was in such dire straights was the fact the banks cracked down on credit due to lower profits? Lower taxes, bigger profits. More cash to put back into the economy.
2. Oil companies. Ignatieff and Layton, not to forget Duceppe, seem oblivious to the fact the oil industry contributes billions of dollars to government revenues. Revenues for health care and transfer payments Mr. Duceppe. They also provide highly paid jobs and invest heavily in R&D. It's also funny the coalition only mention Alberta's "big oil". Isn't Newfoundland experiencing an economic revival because of oil?
3. Insurance companies? Many insurance companies took a huge hit on investment losses due to the meltdown of the American markets. The coalition themselves point out corporations that don't make a profit don''t pay taxes. Do they realize corporations that make a profit do?
All of this is sound reason for going ahead with the corporate tax reductions. If that's not good enough for Layton, is the price of six cabinet seats and limos still acceptable?
And yes, Michael Ignatieff signed it. And now we are told how bad corporate tax cuts are? But wait. The coalition in 2008 talked of the national daycare plan, that regurgitated dream of the Liberals since 1993. Never happened then. Won't happen now. They planned on introducing said plan along with maintaining the corporate tax cuts. They also boasted of plans for roughly $40 billion in stimulus spending.
Fast forward to March 2011. It's the early days of an election campaign. The coalition rails against the corporate tax cuts, ignoring the fact they were passed by a majority of votes in Parliament in 2007. The Canadian economy has weathered the storm better than most countries on the planet. Why? A major reason is those corporate tax cuts.
For all of Stephane Dion's faults, he realized how important those cuts were to keep the Canadian economy growing. Ignatieff and Layton don't seem to get it. Today Ignatieff again attacked the corporate tax cuts, citing the banks, oil companies, and insurance companies as not needing any more tax cuts. So it's time for a little economics 101.
1. Banks are bringing in large profits. Is that really a bad thing Mr. Ignatieff? When someone wants to start up or expand a small business, where do they go? The banks. If someones business is struggling with the recession, where do they go for funds to get by? The bank. When someone wants to buy a car, where do they go? The bank. Does Ignatieff not realize that the number one reason the auto sector was in such dire straights was the fact the banks cracked down on credit due to lower profits? Lower taxes, bigger profits. More cash to put back into the economy.
2. Oil companies. Ignatieff and Layton, not to forget Duceppe, seem oblivious to the fact the oil industry contributes billions of dollars to government revenues. Revenues for health care and transfer payments Mr. Duceppe. They also provide highly paid jobs and invest heavily in R&D. It's also funny the coalition only mention Alberta's "big oil". Isn't Newfoundland experiencing an economic revival because of oil?
3. Insurance companies? Many insurance companies took a huge hit on investment losses due to the meltdown of the American markets. The coalition themselves point out corporations that don't make a profit don''t pay taxes. Do they realize corporations that make a profit do?
All of this is sound reason for going ahead with the corporate tax reductions. If that's not good enough for Layton, is the price of six cabinet seats and limos still acceptable?
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Sunday Night Blues Special...Week 1 Stevie Ray Vaughan
Being a lover and long time guitar player of the Blues, I've decided to post an example of some of the finest blues guitar playing ever seen. To lead off I've slected probably one of Stevie Ray Vaughan's greatest persformaces, filmed at the legendary El Mocambo, Texas Flood.
Liberals Now Admit Coalition Is Still On. Over Too You Andrew Coyne!
H/T frmgrl at Joanne's blog http://www.bluelikeyou.com/
H/T JDot http://twitter.com/acoyne/status/51679943502999553
H/T JDot http://twitter.com/acoyne/status/51679943502999553
The Media Need To Drop The Coalition Issue And Move On....
Way to much time and energy being put into the he-said, she-said, who said-what coalition clamor. What it comes down to is a simple question and a yes or no answer. If any journalist wants to be done with the coalition talk and move onto more important things like the economy and health care there is an easy way to do it. Have Mr. Ignatieff and Mr. Layton answer one simple question. Have them do it on camera for all to see. The question is:
1. Mr. Layton, if the Conservative government is again voted in with a minority government, will you and your party, the NDP, allow the Throne Speech and budget to pass and not put forth a motion of non-confidence for a period of at least 18 moths.?
2. Mr. Ignatieff, if the Conservative government is again voted in with a minority government, will you and your party, the Liberal Party of Canada, allow the Throne Speech and budget to pass and not put forth a motion of non-confidence for a period of at least 18 moths?
If the leaders of the respective parties say yes, we can move on. If they fudge the answer, or try and allow for wiggle room, Canadians will know that a coalition of Lib-NDP-Bloc is the most likely scenario in the case of a Conservative minority.
Either way, Canadians know what to expect and can make their voting decision on that.
1. Mr. Layton, if the Conservative government is again voted in with a minority government, will you and your party, the NDP, allow the Throne Speech and budget to pass and not put forth a motion of non-confidence for a period of at least 18 moths.?
2. Mr. Ignatieff, if the Conservative government is again voted in with a minority government, will you and your party, the Liberal Party of Canada, allow the Throne Speech and budget to pass and not put forth a motion of non-confidence for a period of at least 18 moths?
If the leaders of the respective parties say yes, we can move on. If they fudge the answer, or try and allow for wiggle room, Canadians will know that a coalition of Lib-NDP-Bloc is the most likely scenario in the case of a Conservative minority.
Either way, Canadians know what to expect and can make their voting decision on that.
Layton's Memories Of 2004 Seem To Differ From The Facts
Seems memories change over time. Watch the above youtube video of Jack Layton from today. The Globe and Mail is trotting it out as proof Stephen Harper wanted a coalition in 2004. Then take a listen to that tweet(H/T Joanne at Blue Like You). That's Jack Layton from 2004 when questioned about a coalition including Conservatives, NDP, and Bloc. Today's comments don't seem to jibe with those Mr. Layton made in 2004.
It also suggests that when you listen to Layton's 2004 comments, where he flatly refuses to support a Conservative government, that his 2010 budget demands were nothing more than playing Canadian voters for fools. Layton's claim to fame, at least according to him, is that he wants to make Parliament work. Sure doesn't seem like it from those comments.
I apologize for lack of html. For whatever reason my links won't seem to work.
Make CBC Accountable And Non-Partisan...
Looking at CBC and their constant Conservative bashing is a disgrace. Take a look at this story here:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2011/03/questions-limited-tempers-flair.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter Next, read the comments section. Try posting a favorable comment regarding Stephen Harper and the Conservatives and see if it gets posted. When leaving comments please copy and paste a send to my email paulsblues45@hotmail.com in the event CBC won't allow the comment.. Keep your comment clean and on subject so CBC has no reason not to allow. I intend to stockpile a list of comments and ask CBC to explain why they were not allowed. With Sun TV slated to go live in a few weeks this would also make for a wonderful story. You can also reach CBC here to vent your opinion.
Telephone •Toll-free phone (Canada only): 1-866-306-4636
•TTY/Teletypewriter (Hearing impaired Only): 1-866-220-6045
Mail: Audience Relations,
CBC P.O. Box 500 Station A
Toronto, ON Canada, M5W 1E6
E-mail: ombudsman@cbc.ca Mail: Kirk LaPointe Ombudsman CBC
P.O. Box 500, Station A
Toronto, Ontario
M5W 1E6
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2011/03/questions-limited-tempers-flair.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter Next, read the comments section. Try posting a favorable comment regarding Stephen Harper and the Conservatives and see if it gets posted. When leaving comments please copy and paste a send to my email paulsblues45@hotmail.com in the event CBC won't allow the comment.. Keep your comment clean and on subject so CBC has no reason not to allow. I intend to stockpile a list of comments and ask CBC to explain why they were not allowed. With Sun TV slated to go live in a few weeks this would also make for a wonderful story. You can also reach CBC here to vent your opinion.
Telephone •Toll-free phone (Canada only): 1-866-306-4636
•TTY/Teletypewriter (Hearing impaired Only): 1-866-220-6045
Mail: Audience Relations,
CBC P.O. Box 500 Station A
Toronto, ON Canada, M5W 1E6
E-mail: ombudsman@cbc.ca Mail: Kirk LaPointe Ombudsman CBC
P.O. Box 500, Station A
Toronto, Ontario
M5W 1E6
Liberals Who Should Have Been In Contempt Of Parliament...
So Ignatieff wants to try and ride on with the government contempt thing. Well, the first point to make is the reason the government even had to deal with such crap is the fact the opposition parties outnumber the Conservatives. If the Chretien/ Martin Liberals had of been in minority, let's take a look at a few of the notables who could be alleged in contempt of Parliament.
1, Jean Chretien. Chretien stood in the house for two years and stated he never talked with the head of BDC regarding a loan for the golf course in Shawinigan. It was only when Frances Bedouin came forth Chretien admitted as much. ( it's also noteworthy Bedouin was victorious in a lawsuit that found he had been systematically attacked emotionally and monetarily as a result of outing Chretien.
2. Paul Martin. Martin told the house his company, CSL had received roughly $2 million in government contracts when the amount was in the hundreds of millions.(Martin later stood in the house and corrected the record, with the amount in the range of $166 million)
3. Art Eggleton. Eggleton was also found to have possibly misled the House by speaker Peter Milliken, who much like the Conservatives had his fate sent to committee. For some reason the Liberal dominated committee never found Eggleton in contempt, despite proof directly from Hansard.
4. Alfonso Gagliano. Gagliano stated all rules were followed in the sponsorship program. When the shiiite hit the fan Chretien named him Ambassador to Denmark, rather than have him answer questions in the house concerning the scam.
5. Lawrence Macauley. Macauley was booted from cabinet after it was learned he had given the university in his provice federal funds. That university just happened to be headed by his brother. Macualey used the O.J. simpson defence, stepping down from cabinet to clear his name. Still waiting Mr. macauley.
6. Judy Sgro. Ms. Sgro got caught up in a situation as a cabinet minister which was turned over to the ethics commissioner. Sgro stood in the House and stated the ethics commissioner had completely exonerated her, when in fact the report found her partly responsible.
7. Any Liberal who stood in the House and stated all rules were followed in regards to the sponsorship program. The AG had in fact notified the Liberal government previously of problems and improprieties with the program.
Obviously there are many more. For example, the Liberals led by Ignatieff claim Bev Oda misled the committee. Well then, what to make of this: "OTTAWA - MPs went behind closed doors Wednesday night to decide whether to pursue perjury charges against half a dozen politicians and bureaucrats who said one thing at the Gomery inquiry and another when they testified before the Commons public accounts committee. "
Feel free to add more into the comments section Just be sure to included the word alleged. Seems someLiberal MP's like to email me threatening legal action.
1, Jean Chretien. Chretien stood in the house for two years and stated he never talked with the head of BDC regarding a loan for the golf course in Shawinigan. It was only when Frances Bedouin came forth Chretien admitted as much. ( it's also noteworthy Bedouin was victorious in a lawsuit that found he had been systematically attacked emotionally and monetarily as a result of outing Chretien.
2. Paul Martin. Martin told the house his company, CSL had received roughly $2 million in government contracts when the amount was in the hundreds of millions.(Martin later stood in the house and corrected the record, with the amount in the range of $166 million)
3. Art Eggleton. Eggleton was also found to have possibly misled the House by speaker Peter Milliken, who much like the Conservatives had his fate sent to committee. For some reason the Liberal dominated committee never found Eggleton in contempt, despite proof directly from Hansard.
4. Alfonso Gagliano. Gagliano stated all rules were followed in the sponsorship program. When the shiiite hit the fan Chretien named him Ambassador to Denmark, rather than have him answer questions in the house concerning the scam.
5. Lawrence Macauley. Macauley was booted from cabinet after it was learned he had given the university in his provice federal funds. That university just happened to be headed by his brother. Macualey used the O.J. simpson defence, stepping down from cabinet to clear his name. Still waiting Mr. macauley.
6. Judy Sgro. Ms. Sgro got caught up in a situation as a cabinet minister which was turned over to the ethics commissioner. Sgro stood in the House and stated the ethics commissioner had completely exonerated her, when in fact the report found her partly responsible.
7. Any Liberal who stood in the House and stated all rules were followed in regards to the sponsorship program. The AG had in fact notified the Liberal government previously of problems and improprieties with the program.
Obviously there are many more. For example, the Liberals led by Ignatieff claim Bev Oda misled the committee. Well then, what to make of this: "OTTAWA - MPs went behind closed doors Wednesday night to decide whether to pursue perjury charges against half a dozen politicians and bureaucrats who said one thing at the Gomery inquiry and another when they testified before the Commons public accounts committee. "
Feel free to add more into the comments section Just be sure to included the word alleged. Seems someLiberal MP's like to email me threatening legal action.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Would Michael Ignatieff Drive This Car If PM?
So it appears an election is a done deal. And Michael Ignatieff is going to harp on about buying new fighter jets for our armed forces. But I'm wondering, if Ignatieff thinks it's ok for our armed forces to use 30 year old planes in missions such as what is going on in Libya, is he prepared to apply the same fiscal measures and austerity to himself were he e PM? That car in the picture shares something in common with our CF-18 fighter jets. Both were delivered new in the same year.
So Mr. Ignatieff, will you ride around in this car? After all, Canadians need national daycare. Hey, if you cancel those corporate tax cuts you might be able to get the windows tinted and a personalized plate that reads COLISHN
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Ignatieff Overplays His Hand...
I don't claim to be clairvoyant, but the scenario that unfolded today as budget details were released is exactly what I thought would happen months ago. Ignatieff, sorry, make that Donolo, decided the Liberals could not continue to look like punching bags whenever any vote of confidence occurred and they played peek-a-boo behind the curtains. Liberals were sure Layton would take over that role as Layton also feared an election. So confident were Liberals that Ignatieff declared Liberals would vote against the budget months ago, before it had even been crafted.
Today it looks like Ignatieff/Donolo may have misjudged Layton. Although there appeared to be a slim chance for Layton to support the budget if NDP amendments were made. Jim Flaherty closed the door on that scenario by declaring there would be no amendments. The Conservatives go into an election campaign from a position of strength, both in the polls and in the details of today's budget.
After Layton's poor decision to have the NDP support keeping the gun registry, Dippers were more than a little vulnerable in key rural riding's. By voting against the budget, Layton hopes to reconnect with disenfranchised NDP supporters. Gilles Duceppe sees the Bloc as capable of picking up more seats, and has nothing to lose in an election.
Which appears to leave Michael Ignatieff in a lose-lose situation. Step off the cliff and force the election. If Harper gets a majority Liberals have no chance at power for a minimum 4 years. Harper gets a minority and Liberals are probably looking at 2-3 years before another election. Backtrack into the waiting pack of wolves by having enough Liberals miss the budget vote to allow passage and get eaten for again looking like a patsy.
Today it looks like Ignatieff/Donolo may have misjudged Layton. Although there appeared to be a slim chance for Layton to support the budget if NDP amendments were made. Jim Flaherty closed the door on that scenario by declaring there would be no amendments. The Conservatives go into an election campaign from a position of strength, both in the polls and in the details of today's budget.
After Layton's poor decision to have the NDP support keeping the gun registry, Dippers were more than a little vulnerable in key rural riding's. By voting against the budget, Layton hopes to reconnect with disenfranchised NDP supporters. Gilles Duceppe sees the Bloc as capable of picking up more seats, and has nothing to lose in an election.
Which appears to leave Michael Ignatieff in a lose-lose situation. Step off the cliff and force the election. If Harper gets a majority Liberals have no chance at power for a minimum 4 years. Harper gets a minority and Liberals are probably looking at 2-3 years before another election. Backtrack into the waiting pack of wolves by having enough Liberals miss the budget vote to allow passage and get eaten for again looking like a patsy.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Globe And Mail Oda Editorial-Facts Don't Matter...
Today's editorial in the Globe and Mail is a perfect example of lazy journalism, and the reason why most Canadians have tuned tuned out to all the faux scandals screamed about by the opposition parties and msm. Today's editorial takes Bev Oda to task for the insertion of the word "not" into the now famous Kairos document. The fact the government presented to committee other documents similarly changed to deny funding for other projects seems lost on the Globe. Case in point:
"That Ministers have the prerogative to make funding decisions in their departments is not in dispute. But is this any way to run a department? Couldn’t new forms be printed with a “Do Not Fund” box to avoid confusion? Instead, we have government by handwritten insertion. With such improvisation, poor decision-making is sure to follow, and the potential for abuse is high.
And that is evident when you combine Ms. Oda’s testimony with that of Margaret Biggs, the president of the Canadian International Development Agency (effectively, Ms. Oda’s deputy minister). It is now clear that the Ms. Biggs had signed off on a “Yes” decision to fund Kairos before the “Not” was inserted."
"That Ministers have the prerogative to make funding decisions in their departments is not in dispute. But is this any way to run a department? Couldn’t new forms be printed with a “Do Not Fund” box to avoid confusion? Instead, we have government by handwritten insertion. With such improvisation, poor decision-making is sure to follow, and the potential for abuse is high.
And that is evident when you combine Ms. Oda’s testimony with that of Margaret Biggs, the president of the Canadian International Development Agency (effectively, Ms. Oda’s deputy minister). It is now clear that the Ms. Biggs had signed off on a “Yes” decision to fund Kairos before the “Not” was inserted."
Question for the Globe. Did you even bother to research anything before putting this to print? Apparently not. I notice you mention the head of Cida, Ms. Biggs. Perhaps it might have given your editorial a little more credibility if you had actually taken the time to look into Ms. Biggs testimony before committee previously. Most notably:
"Ms. Margaret Biggs (President of CIDA): Yes, I think as the minister said, the agency did recommend the project to the minister. She has indicated that. But it was her decision, after due consideration, to not accept the department’s advice.
This is quite normal, and I certainly was aware of her decision. The inclusion of the word “not” is just a simple reflection of what her decision was, and she has been clear. So that’s quite normal.
I think we have changed the format for these memos so the minister has a much clearer place to put where she doesn’t want to accept the advice, which is her prerogative."
So those few sentences pretty much throw your whole editorial out the window, with not a shred of credibility left to go with it. Adding the word "not" was common practice. That practice has now been changed with a new form to allow for denial by the minister. Ms. Biggs also alluded to the fact she already knew the minister was not going to approve the Kairos funding ahead of the word not being added. The form, according to Biggs, was returned to her with the word "not" inserted, so she was fully aware of the change as well as denial of funding.
You know, I'm not a professional journalist. Nor am I a professional blogger. But I know the value of importance and having my facts straight before putting it out there for others to read. One would hope the Globe sees this, and sees fit to correct the record. It's something any newspaper that considers itself reputable would do. You might also want to check and see when the word "not" was inserted. The testimony is all there for all to see.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Conservative Communications Completely Sucks Again Over Contempt Finding....
Again, it's time to give those Conservative communications gurus, the completely inept ones, talking points. Monte Solberg did a reasonable job on Evan's show, but still lacked that one talking point that Canadians will understand. When you have opposition twits running around how this is unprecedented in Canadian history, only one point is necessary to show the Canadian voter that all it is partisan politics.
Why will the government be found in contempt? Plain and simple. The opposition parties outnumber the Conservatives on the committees. Why weren't the Liberals found in contempt when the speaker made a similar ruling on two MP's be sent to committee? Plain and simple. Liberals had a majority on the committees.
Does anyone really think any political party would find itself in contempt of Parliament? No!
Would any opposition party jump at the chance to find the ruling party in contempt to score partisan points? Absolutely. Especially when the governing party continues to lead polls.
Why will the government be found in contempt? Plain and simple. The opposition parties outnumber the Conservatives on the committees. Why weren't the Liberals found in contempt when the speaker made a similar ruling on two MP's be sent to committee? Plain and simple. Liberals had a majority on the committees.
Does anyone really think any political party would find itself in contempt of Parliament? No!
Would any opposition party jump at the chance to find the ruling party in contempt to score partisan points? Absolutely. Especially when the governing party continues to lead polls.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
What The Toronto Star Said About A Quebec Arena....
That is, when it thought it could damge the Conservatives over the issue. Quite amazingly, the Star, the paper of the Liberal Party of Canada, seems not to want to publish Ignatieff's proise for that same Quebec arena. But why won't they? I present to you Exhibit A, an editorial run in the Star on February 2nd, 2011. I have highlighted the seeetest parts in color.:
"The Harper government is sitting in a $101-billion sinkhole—the two-year federal budget deficit—and is going ahead with billions in corporate tax cuts. The economy is unsteady, young people are anxious about their futures and parents are desperate to pay for daycare. Yet, despite the lack of public support outside La Belle Province, the Tories are still toying with investing millions of dollars in Quebec City’s dream of building a professional hockey arena.
What a misguided idea.
Not only can’t taxpayers afford luxuries like a National Hockey League arena in a city that was abandoned by its hockey team 16 years ago, but other provinces are likely to join the queue for a similar hand-out. Saskatchewan is hoping to build an arena for its football team, the Roughriders. Hamilton wants to refurbish the Ivor Wynne Stadium. And Calgary will likely seek help to fix the 28-year old Saddledome. Who would be able to say no to these other worthy projects if Quebec gets its wish?
When Quebec Conservative MPs don Nordique hockey jerseys to promote their support for the arena, as they did last fall, it amounts to a blatant election ploy.
NHL commissioner Garry Bettman insists the league is not planning to expand and he is concerned that fans’ expectations will be shattered if stadiums like the one proposed for Quebec City are built but never receive a pro hockey team. “I get concerned because I don’t want our fans to be led on,” he says. “We don’t want to get involved in the creation of a building in Quebec City or anywhere else.”
The head of the Bloc Québécois, Gilles Duceppe, has been angling for federal money, and Pierre Karl Péladeau, the CEO of Quebecor Inc., has offered financial help for the $400-million stadium, answering the federal request for private-sector involvement. The Liberals have given a gutless nod to the project provided there is a solid business plan and the arena promotes “cultural outreach in the Quebec City region,” whatever that means. This is an old game played by Quebec (even more than others) before every federal election: give us money and we’ll give you votes.
The irony is that when the Liberal government promised financial help in 2000 for the Ottawa Senators and other NHL teams, Harper, then head of the National Citizens Coalition, took umbrage. “Canadians are being forced to subsidize millionaire hockey team owners,” he cried, “and that’s a mistake.”
The Conservatives should get a penalty for high sticking for even considering this idea. They – and the other federal parties – should drop it now.
"The Harper government is sitting in a $101-billion sinkhole—the two-year federal budget deficit—and is going ahead with billions in corporate tax cuts. The economy is unsteady, young people are anxious about their futures and parents are desperate to pay for daycare. Yet, despite the lack of public support outside La Belle Province, the Tories are still toying with investing millions of dollars in Quebec City’s dream of building a professional hockey arena.
What a misguided idea.
Not only can’t taxpayers afford luxuries like a National Hockey League arena in a city that was abandoned by its hockey team 16 years ago, but other provinces are likely to join the queue for a similar hand-out. Saskatchewan is hoping to build an arena for its football team, the Roughriders. Hamilton wants to refurbish the Ivor Wynne Stadium. And Calgary will likely seek help to fix the 28-year old Saddledome. Who would be able to say no to these other worthy projects if Quebec gets its wish?
When Quebec Conservative MPs don Nordique hockey jerseys to promote their support for the arena, as they did last fall, it amounts to a blatant election ploy.
NHL commissioner Garry Bettman insists the league is not planning to expand and he is concerned that fans’ expectations will be shattered if stadiums like the one proposed for Quebec City are built but never receive a pro hockey team. “I get concerned because I don’t want our fans to be led on,” he says. “We don’t want to get involved in the creation of a building in Quebec City or anywhere else.”
The head of the Bloc Québécois, Gilles Duceppe, has been angling for federal money, and Pierre Karl Péladeau, the CEO of Quebecor Inc., has offered financial help for the $400-million stadium, answering the federal request for private-sector involvement. The Liberals have given a gutless nod to the project provided there is a solid business plan and the arena promotes “cultural outreach in the Quebec City region,” whatever that means. This is an old game played by Quebec (even more than others) before every federal election: give us money and we’ll give you votes.
The irony is that when the Liberal government promised financial help in 2000 for the Ottawa Senators and other NHL teams, Harper, then head of the National Citizens Coalition, took umbrage. “Canadians are being forced to subsidize millionaire hockey team owners,” he cried, “and that’s a mistake.”
The Conservatives should get a penalty for high sticking for even considering this idea. They – and the other federal parties – should drop it now.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Note To David McGuinty: Paul Martin Lost The 2006 Election
Ahhh, more outrage from the usual suspects. The Liberal Party, the party that spent $100 million on a whim for Challenger jets. $350 million for an advertising program that did little advertising and a lot of stolen taxpayer money. The same guys who said the gun registry would cost $2 million, which turned out to be $2 billion. Guess they still struggle with where exactly that decimal point goes. So today, we have Liberal MP David McGuinty telling us how bad the Conservatives are for spending money on advertising. Gotta love this brilliant quote:
"Mr. McGuinty noted that is “way more” – 2.5 times on average – than what Paul Martin’s Liberal government spent on advertising in 2005 and 2006."
2006 eh McGuinty? By my recollection, the vote took place on January 23rd, 2006, meaning Paul Martin would have been considered PM for all of 23 days. Of course those 23 days were spent campaigning, so I doubt much government advertising was done.
So if any journalist has any common sense, one would think they would take a look at money spent on advertising year by year under the Liberals. I think what you would find would be similar to Liberal MP Scott Brison's recent rant about unemployment rates being higher under the Conservatives by years he quoted under Liberal rule. Of course a quick check of StatsCan unemployment numbers show quite a few time periods under Chretien/Martin with a higher unemployment rate. And that was during boom times.
I eagerly await a CBC journalist to let us in on the numbers.
"Mr. McGuinty noted that is “way more” – 2.5 times on average – than what Paul Martin’s Liberal government spent on advertising in 2005 and 2006."
2006 eh McGuinty? By my recollection, the vote took place on January 23rd, 2006, meaning Paul Martin would have been considered PM for all of 23 days. Of course those 23 days were spent campaigning, so I doubt much government advertising was done.
So if any journalist has any common sense, one would think they would take a look at money spent on advertising year by year under the Liberals. I think what you would find would be similar to Liberal MP Scott Brison's recent rant about unemployment rates being higher under the Conservatives by years he quoted under Liberal rule. Of course a quick check of StatsCan unemployment numbers show quite a few time periods under Chretien/Martin with a higher unemployment rate. And that was during boom times.
I eagerly await a CBC journalist to let us in on the numbers.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Why Gloria Galloway Fails Miserably At Covering Ignatieff's "Cottin-Pickin" Gaffe
Conservative Senator Don Meredith takes issue with Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff’s use of the term “cotton pickin’ minute” and wants him to apologize. Not to worry. G&M journalist(?) Gloria Galloway is quick to write about it, all the while explaining that it isn't even a racist comment. She tries a number of explanations, even using Bugs Bunny to cover Iggy's gaffe. Here's a quote from Galloway's article:
The Liberal Leader’s quote was, at the very least, insensitive and, certainly offensive to many people, Mr. Meredith said. The reference, he said, hails back to a time when slavery was acceptable and an entire group of people were held to be lesser than others because of the colour of their skin.
But does it?
"According to American essayist Heather Michon, the phrase “cotton picking” arose in the American South in “sometime the 17th Century to describe a nuisance or something troublesome or unpleasant.” At that time, cotton was a garden crop tended by Southerners, black people and white people alike, Ms. Michon says."
I guess Galloway might need someone to educate her on black history and slavery in the southern U.S. Better yet, she might want to talk to Oprah Winfrey on the subject. I'm guessing if she did, or even took a smidgen of her time to look at the reference made by Ignatieff, instead of immediately hitting the keyboard trying to dismiss the gaffe as baseless, she would realize Ignatieff stepped in it and needs to apologize. Better yet, Galloway might want to head down to Blockbuster Video and rent the movie "The Cottin Pickin Truth".
So for you Gloria Galloway, a quick summary of the term Ignatieff referenced, and what memories or meaning it has to many people.
"The Cotton Pickin' Truth... Still On The Plantation" is a documentary about slavery in the United States of America and the harsh living conditions for many African Americans today as a direct result of being forced to live in involuntary servitude. The documentary features human rights activist - Dick Gregory, former slave until the 1960's - Mae Louise Miller, Presidential advisor and Harvard Law Professor - Charles Ogletree, Capitol Hill correspondent - George Wilson, Glendora, Mississippi Mayor - Johnny Thomas, and many more.
Producers of the film, Tobias "Profit" Smith and Timothy Smith, are a father and son film making duo who firmly believe in putting "the mission before the money." They set out to produce a documentary on former slave Mae Louise Miller in July of 2009. In the process of researching slavery in America, they uncovered people still living on present day plantations in Mississippi. They also discovered that the average living conditions for people in the Mississippi delta are far below subsistence level.
"The Cotton Pickin' Truth... Still On The Plantation" is a shocking and compelling documentary about slavery that calls for rewriting of American history as we know it.
The Liberal Leader’s quote was, at the very least, insensitive and, certainly offensive to many people, Mr. Meredith said. The reference, he said, hails back to a time when slavery was acceptable and an entire group of people were held to be lesser than others because of the colour of their skin.
But does it?
"According to American essayist Heather Michon, the phrase “cotton picking” arose in the American South in “sometime the 17th Century to describe a nuisance or something troublesome or unpleasant.” At that time, cotton was a garden crop tended by Southerners, black people and white people alike, Ms. Michon says."
I guess Galloway might need someone to educate her on black history and slavery in the southern U.S. Better yet, she might want to talk to Oprah Winfrey on the subject. I'm guessing if she did, or even took a smidgen of her time to look at the reference made by Ignatieff, instead of immediately hitting the keyboard trying to dismiss the gaffe as baseless, she would realize Ignatieff stepped in it and needs to apologize. Better yet, Galloway might want to head down to Blockbuster Video and rent the movie "The Cottin Pickin Truth".
So for you Gloria Galloway, a quick summary of the term Ignatieff referenced, and what memories or meaning it has to many people.
"The Cotton Pickin' Truth... Still On The Plantation" is a documentary about slavery in the United States of America and the harsh living conditions for many African Americans today as a direct result of being forced to live in involuntary servitude. The documentary features human rights activist - Dick Gregory, former slave until the 1960's - Mae Louise Miller, Presidential advisor and Harvard Law Professor - Charles Ogletree, Capitol Hill correspondent - George Wilson, Glendora, Mississippi Mayor - Johnny Thomas, and many more.
Producers of the film, Tobias "Profit" Smith and Timothy Smith, are a father and son film making duo who firmly believe in putting "the mission before the money." They set out to produce a documentary on former slave Mae Louise Miller in July of 2009. In the process of researching slavery in America, they uncovered people still living on present day plantations in Mississippi. They also discovered that the average living conditions for people in the Mississippi delta are far below subsistence level.
"The Cotton Pickin' Truth... Still On The Plantation" is a shocking and compelling documentary about slavery that calls for rewriting of American history as we know it.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Conservative War Room Asleep At The Switch Again...
Why is the Conservative communications so absolutely pathetic? Perhaps it's time to make changes in the personnel and ways the party responds to events. Conservative bloggers have done a better job than anyone working for the party in discussing in and out, including providing obvious examples on in and out done by the opposition parties. Now today, the media are inundating the airwaves, print media, and internet regarding the just released report from Kevin Page on the F-35 costs. Guys and gals, come on. The response has been brutal when answering questions in the House or on tv.
Need some prpoer talking points? Here are a few.
1. As pointed out by Alberta Aardvark, Page' cost estimate is based over 30 years, rather than the 20 of the government. Adding 1/3 to the number of years obviously would result in a much higher final number. Maybe mention that.
2. Liberal MP Domenic LeBlanc has repeatedly said the $30 billion is more than we spend on health care. If you watched Evan's show, you would see him mutter quickly under his breath in a year. Yet the Conservative MP doesn't call him on it, by, I don't know, maybe citing how much the government spends per year on health care and how much that would be over 30 years. (hint: it's a lot more than $30 billion)
3. The current jets in use by the armed forces also have daily, monthly, and yearly operating and maintenance costs. Has anyone pointed that out? Nope. Anyone mentioned the current costs of maintaining those aircraft. Uh Uh. Estimated what maintaining those current jets would cost over the next 30 years, and making the public aware? Nope. Apparently that doesn't make sense.
4. When you have Ignatieff and LeBlanc ranting on about cancelling the new jets if they get into power, start quoting what the Liberals said about buying those aircraft carriers Conservatives bought after the 2006 election. You know, the ones that came in so handy during the earthquake crisis in Haiti. Remind them of how the Canadian government had to go begging to other countries to get Canadian troops to Afghanistan.
5. Start mentioning quotes from different individuals in the Canadian Aircraft Industry, pointing out the number of jobs that will result from the purchase. Might want to calculate how much contracts for the F-35 would add to GDP. Not to mention those contracts would be a boon to Quebec, badly in need of said jobs.
6. Remind Canadians of the $500 million Chretien spent to cancel helicopters. Mention the deaths caused by the aging helicopters we are still using many years later. Pull a LeBlanc. Tell Canadians what that $500 million would have bought.
7. Liberals led by Ignatieff are claiming the jets cost $1000 for every man, women and child. Hey. That's true enough. It's also quite misleading. Dividing that $1000 per person over 30 years works out to $33.33 per person per year. And that's assuming no growth in our population for 30 years. That number would probly be somewhere around $20 per person per year over the 30 years. Whereas McGuinty's health tax takes $300+ directly out of your pocket if you live in Ontario.
8. Ask Ignatieff what the Liberals think is a fair cost for jets, and what that works out to per man, woman and child. Ask him wjhat he thinks reasonable maintenance costs are.
You want a majority next election? Better raise your game a little, no, make that a lot. I'm getting sick of seeing sand thrown in our faces.
Need some prpoer talking points? Here are a few.
1. As pointed out by Alberta Aardvark, Page' cost estimate is based over 30 years, rather than the 20 of the government. Adding 1/3 to the number of years obviously would result in a much higher final number. Maybe mention that.
2. Liberal MP Domenic LeBlanc has repeatedly said the $30 billion is more than we spend on health care. If you watched Evan's show, you would see him mutter quickly under his breath in a year. Yet the Conservative MP doesn't call him on it, by, I don't know, maybe citing how much the government spends per year on health care and how much that would be over 30 years. (hint: it's a lot more than $30 billion)
3. The current jets in use by the armed forces also have daily, monthly, and yearly operating and maintenance costs. Has anyone pointed that out? Nope. Anyone mentioned the current costs of maintaining those aircraft. Uh Uh. Estimated what maintaining those current jets would cost over the next 30 years, and making the public aware? Nope. Apparently that doesn't make sense.
4. When you have Ignatieff and LeBlanc ranting on about cancelling the new jets if they get into power, start quoting what the Liberals said about buying those aircraft carriers Conservatives bought after the 2006 election. You know, the ones that came in so handy during the earthquake crisis in Haiti. Remind them of how the Canadian government had to go begging to other countries to get Canadian troops to Afghanistan.
5. Start mentioning quotes from different individuals in the Canadian Aircraft Industry, pointing out the number of jobs that will result from the purchase. Might want to calculate how much contracts for the F-35 would add to GDP. Not to mention those contracts would be a boon to Quebec, badly in need of said jobs.
6. Remind Canadians of the $500 million Chretien spent to cancel helicopters. Mention the deaths caused by the aging helicopters we are still using many years later. Pull a LeBlanc. Tell Canadians what that $500 million would have bought.
7. Liberals led by Ignatieff are claiming the jets cost $1000 for every man, women and child. Hey. That's true enough. It's also quite misleading. Dividing that $1000 per person over 30 years works out to $33.33 per person per year. And that's assuming no growth in our population for 30 years. That number would probly be somewhere around $20 per person per year over the 30 years. Whereas McGuinty's health tax takes $300+ directly out of your pocket if you live in Ontario.
8. Ask Ignatieff what the Liberals think is a fair cost for jets, and what that works out to per man, woman and child. Ask him wjhat he thinks reasonable maintenance costs are.
You want a majority next election? Better raise your game a little, no, make that a lot. I'm getting sick of seeing sand thrown in our faces.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Canadian Press Quotes NDP Candidate About National Childcare...
Yet seems to omit the fact she ran as a federal NDP candidate. She was also a supporter of David Miller and ran for Toronto council. When quoting someone in an article titled "Canadian economy threatened by lack of national childcare plan, group says", one would think the writer might show a little journalistic integrity and state that persons political affiliations and history of running both federally and municipally.
Oh wait. Canadian Press. Ditchburn, Bryden,etc., etc. Never mind.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/canadian-economy-threatened-by-lack-of-national-childcare-plan-group-says-117492078.html
Hey, maybe someone from the Canadian Press can ask John Baird what he thinks of the National childcare plan. Oh no, wait. Even better. Don Burroughs.
Oh wait. Canadian Press. Ditchburn, Bryden,etc., etc. Never mind.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/canadian-economy-threatened-by-lack-of-national-childcare-plan-group-says-117492078.html
Hey, maybe someone from the Canadian Press can ask John Baird what he thinks of the National childcare plan. Oh no, wait. Even better. Don Burroughs.
Elections Canada And Liberal MP Mark Holland....
With all the media hoopla over the Conservative Party and Elections Canada, including another lead story on NNW, I have to ask. When one asks Elections Canada about certain candidates and possible violations and complaints filed, EC refuses to give out information citing privacy issues. And yet somehow actions taken by Elections Canada seem to still make there way into the media, albeit only involving Conservative party officials. Think about the media being tipped off to the search of the Conservative Party office.
So perhaps someone in the msm might be able to ask EC if any Liberal MP's or candidates have any current investigations ongoing for campaign transgressions. In the 2008 campaign complaints were filed against various candidates from all parties, which is quite normal.
So what is the status of any complaints that may have arose for my MP, Liberal Mark Holland? I'd like to know before the next campaign, whenever that may be. I'm not alleging Holland did anything to violate Elections Canada rules, nor do I have any proof he did. I heard there were some allegations (unproven as far as I know) made from the rival candidates campaign teams to Elections Canada. One would think that 2 1/2 years is sufficient time to investigate and make a decision on said rulings.
I'm sure those in the media will be quick to investigate. Over to you Kady.
So perhaps someone in the msm might be able to ask EC if any Liberal MP's or candidates have any current investigations ongoing for campaign transgressions. In the 2008 campaign complaints were filed against various candidates from all parties, which is quite normal.
So what is the status of any complaints that may have arose for my MP, Liberal Mark Holland? I'd like to know before the next campaign, whenever that may be. I'm not alleging Holland did anything to violate Elections Canada rules, nor do I have any proof he did. I heard there were some allegations (unproven as far as I know) made from the rival candidates campaign teams to Elections Canada. One would think that 2 1/2 years is sufficient time to investigate and make a decision on said rulings.
I'm sure those in the media will be quick to investigate. Over to you Kady.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Cancel The Corporate Tax Cuts, Buy Michael Ignatieff His Own Podium...
See previous post for the latest on the list of things to make Liberals outraged.
If Ignatieff Is Going To Give A Speech, And Only Kady O'Malley Knows About It....
Is he really going to talk? In the latest case of faux outrage with the Liberals and their msm buddies, apparently the Conservatives were supposed to have psychic powers to know that Ignatieff would be delivering remarks once the PM finished. Seems the Conservatives never knew, along with most of those in the media:
"Those at the event Friday tweeted about the the media being "kicked out" after the news conference while others say that reporters and organizers didn't know Ignatieff would be speaking.
Dimitri Soudas, Harper's spokesman, said it was "unclear" to those at the event that Ignatieff would be commenting. A Liberal advisory stated that Ignatieff would attend but didn't suggest he would be making remarks."
And who were the journalists tweeting? Well, CBC's Kady O'Malley was quick to tweet. Which begs the question. Liberals never issued a press release stating Ignatieff would speak. Conservatives were unaware as were apparently most of the media in the room. Yet Kady knew, and was one of a handful of journalists who refused to leave. So how did Kady know Ignatieff was going to speak?
"Those at the event Friday tweeted about the the media being "kicked out" after the news conference while others say that reporters and organizers didn't know Ignatieff would be speaking.
Dimitri Soudas, Harper's spokesman, said it was "unclear" to those at the event that Ignatieff would be commenting. A Liberal advisory stated that Ignatieff would attend but didn't suggest he would be making remarks."
And who were the journalists tweeting? Well, CBC's Kady O'Malley was quick to tweet. Which begs the question. Liberals never issued a press release stating Ignatieff would speak. Conservatives were unaware as were apparently most of the media in the room. Yet Kady knew, and was one of a handful of journalists who refused to leave. So how did Kady know Ignatieff was going to speak?
Thursday, March 3, 2011
NDP MP Pat Martin- Today's Hypocrite Of The Day....
Dipper blowhard Pat Martin up in arms on Power and Politics today screaming about Jason Kenney's parliamentary email being used for partisan purposes, which is definitely a no-no. Perhaps someone in the media might want to ask Martin his comments on this, or is it just against the rules when a Conservative does it ( kinda like the in-and-out bs).
H/T Alberta Aardvark
http://thealbertaardvark.blogspot.com/2011/02/linda-duncan-call-your-office.html
H/T Alberta Aardvark
http://thealbertaardvark.blogspot.com/2011/02/linda-duncan-call-your-office.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)