Politics-Federal

Of Mice And (Boys Pretending To Be) Men…

Mulder

Tell me about the rabbits Stephane Dion.

“My first interest was for the society of animals, not of man,” he recalls. “We had a neighbour named Gaston Moisan, a biologist who was a deputy minister of natural resources. He set traps for the rabbits, to band them, and used to take me with him. He was 5-foot-7, but he was a giant for me.”

A charming childhood anecdote — except, according to Mr. Moisan, it never happened. “I don’t know how he could have imagined that,” the retired bureaucrat and university professor says. “I had nothing to do with Stéphane. And I never sensed any interest on his part for my work.”

H/T to Darcey at DustMyBroom.

Liberals Know All About Special Advisors (Because They Wrote The Book)

Mulder

When the Liberals claim Prime Ministerial adviser positions, like that of Walid Khan, are not getting any value out of the positions, they ought to know.

Liberals may be basing their skepticism about the value of MP Wajid Khan’s report to Stephen Harper on their own experience with special prime ministerial advisers.

Onetime Liberal MP Sarkis Assadourian says he never did a day’s work after being appointed a special adviser to former prime minister Paul Martin.

Shortly before the 2004 election, Assadourian agreed to step aside in his Brampton riding so that a star recruit, Ruby Dhalla, could run for the Liberals in his stead. In return, Martin gave him a job as a special foreign policy adviser.

“They put out a press release and he said to the media and the nation with a straight face I was working with him as (his) adviser on the south Caucasus and Middle East,” Assadourian said in an interview.

“The whole thing was a lie . . . I never a single day worked in his office. I was never paid a single penny.”

Repeat after me. “The whole thing was a lie ….. The whole thing was a lie ….. The whole thing was a lie.”

Wait it get’s better:

“For 15 months I was lied to,” he said.

Asked if he regrets accepting Martin’s job offer and giving up his seat, Assadourian said: “I regret knowing him as a person.”

Paul Martin should hang his head in shame.

H/T to DBT and Jack’s Newswatch.

Smackdown – KerPlonka Lands One On Chin Of Rob Edger (And Paints Another Face On Stephane Dion)

Mulder

In an assessment of Stephane Dion’s call for aid to help minority’s deal with hate crimes, Jarrett Plonka does a find job dismantling the argument and pointing out numerous flaws with various Liberal’s positions on this matter. But what gave me a smile was his reply to a comment from Stephane Dion’s Blog Campaign Co-Chair, Rob Edger.

Rob Edger: What’s your alternative?

Jarrett: Basically, either treat all these so-called “hate crimes” as leniently as we do with “normal crimes,” or treat all “normal crimes” with the fire and brimstone with which we appear to want to treat “hate crimes”.

Jarrett is wise beyond his years and disarms the question quite handily. He goes on:

I know which one I’d choose in an instant. The decision is harder for the Cotlerites to whom I referred, who have to balance their desire to have that progressive society while reconciling some of the internal contradictions (including a few that I outlined) that notion presents.

I know which one I would choose too Jarrett.

Supreme Court Gets This One Right

Mulder

This post will probably be misinterpreted, but I am glad that the Little Sister’s bookstore lost it’s fight to have the legal battle paid for by tax payers. This case has absolutely nothing to do with gay and lesbian literature. But to me, the SCC got it right because they are not creating a separate path for charter challenges.

Little Sister’s wanted to take Canada Customs to court for detaining many of its imported gay and lesbian material at the border, including books, videos, and magazines. They said the agency has been engaged in censorship, with no one overseeing their decisions on what constitutes obscenity.

But the cost of such a battle would have been around $2 million. The store said they had already spent more than $500,000 on the case and wanted Ottawa to pick up the tab for them to move ahead with their Charter challenge.

“But the court ruled the case didn’t meet the threshold of exceptional case,” CTV’s Rosemary Thompson reported from the halls of the Supreme Court.

“The courts are saying they don’t want to create a parallel system of legal aid. They’re saying that only in the most exceptional circumstance where a case has broad implications can you argue that you need the government to front your costs.”

Well thank goodness for small miracles. And my reason for saying that is that I am getting tired of every moonbat and his/her brother trying to beat us over the head with our own constitution.

Examples you say?

Well we have the Canadian Federation of Students trying to get students who take student loans declared a protected social category so they could declare bankruptcy shortly after getting out of school and not have to pay back student loans. Yes, I am for good low cost education, but I am not for creation of a system that lets students get out of debt free. It took me 10 years to pay back my student loans but I did it. I didn’t pay back a whole lot the first few years because I didn’t make a lot of money, but as I got decent raises from working hard, I managed to increase my payments. Knowing I had that debt drove me to work harder too. (Thankfully the CFS is sitting with a loss in the Provincial court on this matter. I do not know if they plan to appeal to the SCC yet.)

Or we can take a look at a challenge made by the homeless over a decade ago which states:

“A person’s constitutional right to shelter takes precedence over any property rights of the owner of an unused apartment building.”

Yeah, that sounds fair. I have a building I am trying to rent but until I do, the homeless are allowed to squat in it. I can just imagine what showing the building would be like to prospective buyers/renters.

Then we have a BC union challenging the right of a city to use contract labour which they consider breaking of a contract with the employees union. Hey, if contract labour can do the job cheaper, then tough noogies on the union.

But how often do you hear about cases that are not about students, homeless, unions, etc.? How often does a charter challenge actually affect us all? It is this question that we should ask ourselves. And when we feel like we want to find good charter challenges to get behind, we will start looking more and more at agencies like the right leaning Canadian Constitution Foundation which is funding an Alberta charter challenge that is similar to the Chaoulli case in Quebec.

From the Frasier Institute:

Bill Murray, a chartered accountant in Calgary, has launched a charter lawsuit against Alberta’s health-care laws, which are almost identical to the Quebec law struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada in Chaoulli. Mr. Murray was prevented by his government from both accessing specialist recommended surgery on his hip and from spending his own money on comprehensive health insurance. The Chaoulli case could set an important precedent in the debate over access to health care in Canada – should Canadians be able to buy medical insurance for their children or themselves as they can for their pets? What is the fallout from private citizens challenging their right to private medical insurance in the courts?

If you want to support challenges that are good for everyone and not just the special interest groups, the Canadian Constitution Foundation can use your help. Go check them out. I truly believe that if a charter challenge is strong enough and if enough people back it, they will find the money somehow. That’s why I am glad we are not going to pay for the Little Sister’s in their challenge. And it also explains why I am going to be supporting the CCF moving forward.

p.s. Ezra Levant sits on their board.

H/T to my friend Sandy for info on the CCF.

Liberals Better Think Twice About A Spring Election

Mulder

The results of a CFRA poll indicate that the Liberals should be thinking twice about taking down the government this spring.

There is renewed speculation about a spring federal election. Please rate the performance of the Harper minority government.
Excellent 34.4%
Very Good 43.6%
Adequate 13.7%
Very Poor 8.05%
Other 5.55%
Total Votes: 1801

This may not be a scientific poll as it was conducted online, but when 91.7% of the 1800 or so respondents believe the government is doing Adequate or better and a whopping 78% feel they are doing Very Good or Excellent, then the opposition parties need to pay attention.

If you take out the Other results, the weighted value of the Adequate or better answers go up to 97% and the Very Good or Excellent total is a commanding 82.6%. These are quite dramatic results and make me very proud to be one of those who think the Harper government is doing an Excellent job.

The environment may be a key issue to the press, but to citizens it is not as important as good government, good leadership and an accountable team that will not squander our tax dollars and this poll shows it.

Obesity Doesn't Care If You Can Play Mozart

Mulder

From this article:

An online petition to the Government of Canada, signed by more than 35,000 people, says the credit is unfair and places a higher value on fitness than on music or visual and dramatic arts.

The Canadian Conference of the Arts urged the government to include a variety of arts activities, including music, theatre and visual arts, in the tax credit.

I don’t think these art critics get the intent of the tax credit, but this raises quite an interesting conundrum.

The arts tend to be championed by the left. Tax cuts tend to be championed by the right.

Hmmmmm…..

H/T to Clear Conservative Thought

Hypothetically, Decima Research Is A Biased Pollster

Mulder

Showing their true Liberal colours, Decima Research ran a poll which presented people with a HYPOTHETICAL situation as follows:

Decima Research asked people to choose between two hypothetical election promises – a $1,000 Conservative tax break for every household and a $1,000 Liberal break limited to households that took pro-environment action.

Fifty-one per cent of respondents said they would prefer the Liberal promise versus 28 per cent who preferred the Conservative pledge, say the survey results provided to The Canadian Press. Twenty-one per cent were unsure.

So the campaign promises were hypothetical, yet Decima chose the Liberals and the Conservatives and portrayed the Liberals as environmentally friendly. Why would they not choose the Green Party and the Liberals in this scenario with the Green Party being the one with the pro-environment tax break condition?

To make things worse, even if the two options were apolitical, the pro-environment tax break combination is far more appealing to anyone, not just those interested in the environment making it the easy choice for most. In fact, I am surprised that the results were not much higher for the pro-environment choice which means that half of respondents either did not like the plan or were not willing to answer. This is actually quite dramatic when you think about it.

How about we try this one. Choose between these two hypothetical campaign promises. a) The Liberal plan to offer a $1000 tax break per household or b) the Conservative plan to offer a $1000 tax break to households that take a pro-safety stance by joining their neighbourhood watch?

I think we know which option would win out there.

“I think what we’re seeing here is a signal that’s really about what kind of policies people want,” Decima CEO Bruce Anderson said in an interview.

“While they appreciate the idea of tax cuts they also appreciate that policy should be increasingly directed towards achieving environmental improvement. That’s what that 51 per cent are telling us they think.”

I think Bruce Anderson needs to revisit his polling skills if he thinks this poll was by any means fair or determinate of people’s feelings about the situation.

Aside from the claims Decima Research makes, I can safely say that this poll does give one clear indication. And that would be that Decima Research is clearly a biased pollster.

H/T to Political Staples

Floor Crossing – Sometimes Good, Sometimes Bad, But Always Ugly

Mulder

After seeing the floor crossing issue come up in the comments of another post, I thought I would put up a post on this issue.

My personal opinion of floor crossing is that I tend to smile when my party gains a member (the good), I tend to fume for a day when someone from my party crosses to an opposing party (the bad). And in all cases I never once complain or state that an MP should not be able to cross the floor but there are always a bunch of people ticked off and screaming bloody murder. (the ugly)

There is always a financial issue that is the biggest hit. Electorial District Associations work hard to raise money to get their party member elected and I do believe that local party members in the MP’s constituency have a right to be angry.

But I honestly think that Partys change, constituent views change and MPs crossing the floor allow for some form of compensation for these things without having to hold a by-election.

As for the Khan crossing, I think Liberals in his riding should be more upset with Stephane Dion than with Khan because it was Dion’s ultimatum that ultimately forced Khan to do what he felt was right and that was to do what is best for Canada. If his constituents feel that he should have chosen the Party over the nation then shame on them.

I would also like to take this moment to point out that the only party that seems to really be upset about floor crossing as a concept is the NDP. Even though they are the ones who have gained the most from this crossing, I respect them sticking to their guns. I tend to think they are against it because as far as I, or wikipedia, know, there has never been a federal floor crossing to the NDP party. No wonder they are against it.

Thermodynamically Speaking, Global Warming Will LOWER Sea Levels

Mulder

I have seen, read or heard numerous indications saying how the Earth’s Ocean’s will rise as iceberg’s melt. That was quickly refuted via Archimedes and good old fashioned displacement science.

Then came the fear-mongering about Antarctic ice melting. Considering the average temperature on the south pole is anywhere from -37 Celsius to -57 Celsius, I do not think a few degrees of planetary warmth will do much.

So now the environmentalists want to attack Greenland ice shelfs and other glaciers that are overland.

Well here is some science that no one has mentioned that counters rising sea levels.

It is a very well known but not well announced fact that warm air holds more moisture than cold air. By doing a bit of formula manipulation with the Ideal Gas law, I calculated that a cubic meter of atmosphere can hold an extra 0.85 grams of water vapour for every degree Celsius that the temperature rises. This fluctuates a very very small amount depending on what the two temperatures are or how high up in the atmosphere you go.

However, for a good rough estimate, you can assume the lowest 11km of the atmosphere holds about 75% of the Earth’s atmosphere density. Using the Earth’s average radius of 6.37 Million meters, I calculated that that 11km zone around the planet can hold AN EXTRA 851 Billion cubic meters of water. Taking into account the water surface area of the planet is 361 Billion square meters, then simple division would tell us that the planet’s water level would drop approximately 2.36 meters for every degree Celsius of increased average temperature.

Remember this when someone tells you melting ice will raise sea levels.

You can also point out that increased CO2 levels create bigger, stronger and more abundant plant life. These plants will need more moisture for photosynthesis which means they will be taking in more water than plant life in an environment with less CO2 and they will also convert more of that CO2 into O2.

i.e. warmer temperatures and more CO2 creates a buffering environment that counters the high levels with thriving plant life.

I think that’s enough science to last a week. I urge others to doublecheck my math. The data I used included:

The Ideal Gas Law (PV=nRT)
The Earth’s water surface is 361,126,400,000 square meters
The Earth’s average radius is 6.37 Million Meters
The average temperature is 283 Kelvin (or 10 degrees Celsius)
The average air pressure is 1 atmosphere or 101.325 KiloPascals
The weight of one mole of H20 is 18 grams