I left my heart in San Diego

Over at Stageleft, they ask a provocative question:

 It appears that we’re not very good learners though, try as they might the UpperRightQuadrant was unable to clearly explain to us the difference between an institution like the LA archdiocese reaching a settlement over sexual abuse being (possibly - there’s one question still outstanding, we might have misunderstood that as well) reasonable, possibly even ok, but an institution like a government doing the same is not.

Well, I’m certainly no constitutional lawyer, but I would hazard a guess that the recent bankruptcy of the San Diego archdiocese may give a clue to the ultimate answer. A Catholic archdiocese can’t use the enforcement arm of the government to throw non-tithers in prison for parish contributions that have fallen into arrears. If parishioners stop contributing, the pennies at the bottom of the well dry up.

Make sense?

Toronto to Ontario: Cough It Up Or Else…!

Well isn’t this great? After two weeks of intensive efforts to protest the July 16 vote on implementing Toronto’s new tax powers, Hogtown’s councilors voted to suspend the tough work of either hiking taxes or cutting programs until after the next provincial election in Ontario, hoping that “a new regime will be more willing” to dole out the cash for their notoriously wasteful system.

Let me translate this situation for everyone though:

Toronto, having begged and received taxation powers from the Government of Ontario a year ago, is now refraining from using those powers because the people of Toronto don’t want to pay that much tax.

Instead, Toronto will try to blackmail every provincial leader in the fast-approaching election this fall to dish out oodles of cash to Canada’s most wasteful municipal government so that Torontonians still receive the same level of service from their city, but the cost is generously shared by the rest of the tax paying masses in Ontario, who get…what exactly?

And just in case everyone else in Canada is smirking, let us not forget that Toronto also likes to fleece the feds as well when election time comes a callin’ in Ottawa. We all pay for Toronto, and we all pay for its mistakes! The only difference now is that Toronto has new taxation powers through which it can blackmail two levels of governments which are concerned about 23 precious ridings!

Let me tell you a dirty little secret

The dirty little secret is that environmental organizations and global warming pessimists receive far more money from Big Oil than do global warming optimists such as myself. While professional environmental lobbyists are totally dependent upon environmental crises for their continued existence, atmospheric researchers and meteorologists have day jobs which are not. Some outspoken global warming pessimists have received large cash awards (hundreds of thousands of dollars) for the positions they have taken; there are no such monetary awards for global warming optimists. Instead, we have to endure scorn from several outspoken peers in the scientific community, some of whom are successful at thwarting our publication of scientific articles and government funding of our research proposals.

As long as the global warming pessimists can convince the public that we skeptics are simply shills for Big Oil, they do not have to address our scientific arguments. The claims that there are no peer-reviewed scientific articles that oppose a manmade source of global warming are, quite simply, wrong (see below). Fortunately, the tide is slowly turning, and more and more scientists are now speaking out about their doubts concerning mankind’s role in recent global warmth.

Read the whole thing 

Another Day, Another Billion Dollars for Natives

*

leaders of the 16,500 Cree of northern Quebec announced a historic $1.4-billion deal with Ottawa on Monday.

If ratified in a referendum in October and approved by Parliament, it will see them take control of all policing, courts and social and economic development in their communities — and perhaps eventually form their own state within Canada…

Keep in mind that it’s your tax dollars being handed over to allow Cree leaders the opportunity to play “make-believe nation” and “We’re an autonomous state but can we please have another billion dollars ’cause the last billion ran out.”

The Conservatives’ Record

My previous post on the Conservative Party’s approach to fundraising apparently struck a chord in the conservative base. I received 15 kudos to 2 protests. That tells me there are a lot of conservative supporters that are getting mad at Mr. Harper’s government.

Still, I think that the two who contested my words bear addressing. In the 17th comment, DJeffery pointed out that the media won’t cover the positive coming from Mr. Harper’s government, then proceeded to list a number of initiatives and positive changes that have occurred that I should be giving them credit for. While I believe my main point stands, that it was these points that the Conservative Party should be using in email campaigns for donations, and not the incompetence of Stephane Dion as Liberal Leader, we should discuss these points too, in order to really establish whether the Conservative Party is worthy of the grasroots (cash) support it so covets.

To address Djeffery now: trust me, it isn’t that we’re listening to the media. It’s that the Conservatives aren’t doing their job effectively, and they are wasting time on issues that mean nothing.

Street Racing - I’m sorry. I haven’t noticed any discernible difference in this. How about an earnest reformation of the ENTIRE justice system, so criminals actually get punished? I will happily pay my taxes if they go to new jails. Preferably cut-rate jails with cinderblock walls and no Satellite TV.

Democratically extended the Afghanistan Mission - their support of the troops has been admirable, but liberal government spending coupled with increases to defence budgets just puts the flavour of Dubya in my mouth. I don’t have the hate-on that the Bushitlerchimp crowd does, but I do seriously disapprove of his management of the American economy and have no desire to see such a management approach here in Canada.

Income splitting for seniors - I mentioned this one and gave full credit for it, but it is a token - we are talking pennies of relief to a small, small segment of Canada with little spending power and also relatively little use for it. (No offence to seniors who may be reading this.) The fact is that single income families are a huge segment of Canada, and they are responsible for raising the majority of children in this country. They ARE the parents of the next generation of Canada. They have sacrificed their careers for their children, teaching their kids priceless lessons on what is most important to productive, responsible, caring human beings. Their thanks from the government for their sacrifice? Paying tax in a tax bracket much higher than warranted.

For example, a family with both parents working $30 000 a year jobs gets taxed on the gross household income of $60 000 like they were in the $30 000 a year bracket. This is significantly lower than a family with an identical income, $60 000, earned by one parent. The latter family places a much lower burden on the resources of the government, schools, publicly funded daycare, etc., (not to mention the positive effects on the rearing of children with a parent at home, well documented) because of their choice, yet they pay MORE tax? Come on.

Legislation that will make it easier for Canadians to vote - I missed that. What?

Banning corporate and union donations to political parties. - Nice move I’ll admit, but nothing Chretien wouldn’t have done. And that is all I need to say about that. (I never wanted to compare Stephen Harper to Jean Chretien.)

Protecting whistle-blowers - Well, wasn’t this part of their 5 point plan? Again, 5 points should be the STARTING POINT.

Enhancing the ability for the Auditor General to “follow the money” - Ditto.

Improved marine and border security - A lovely idea, whose time has come. Yet, tangible progress has yet to be made. I haven’t heard of actual increases in manpower for these services. I have not heard of any new bases of operation being built. I have heard that border guards should be armed, but I haven’t heard that they actually have been armed yet. Again, talk is not action.

Gave tax relief to low income working families - What is low income anyway? Did you know that a household must earn over $100 000 a year to be able to afford to own a home in the Lower Mainland of BC? ANY home? Alberta is nearly as out-of-control, but at least wages are higher in Alberta. BC still has crappy wages, but impossible housing costs. I don’t see any relief there. And a percentage point or two off the lowest income bracket isn’t really going to help low-income people tangibly. A higher quality of Macaroni and Cheese isn’t going to solve their problems.

Provided a working tax benefit - Huh? If you’re… working… then you get the benefit… of tax?

Allotted funds for more debt reduction - Yeah, there’s a hallmark of Canadian Conservativism. We’d never hear that from the Liberals… oh wait. We actually did.

I don’t mean to make fun, because this item is something I strongly believe in, but aside from the NDP, it is generally conceded that this is a high priority item by all parties.

Added a registered disability saving plan - hardly unique to Conservativism.

Alloted more funds for farmers - Is this a reference to the dismantling of the Wheat Board? I am not even sure if that is what they did or not. Is what our farmers need really more government handouts? Seems like a socialist solution to me - “give ‘em more money. That’ll fix their problems.”

Introduced a workable environment Green Plan - Meh. They had a workable green plan under Rona Ambrose. They let the media bully them into firing her and addressing global warming, which seems to come under more fire with every passing day (as the ice caps melt on Mars, Jupiter gets warmer alongside its moon losing ice, and so on). I’d rather they address chemical pollutants and particulate first - the stuff that REALLY damages the environment. Cutting back on gases that actually CAUSE OUR PLANET TO GET GREENER doesn’t qualify to me as a “green plan”.

Redressed the Chinese head tax - oh there’s a good one. Another “apology for the sins of our fathers”. Yes, it is awful that people 100 years ago did bad things. But those people are DEAD! Why do we, Canadians today have to pay for their sins? I didn’t get a $1000 cheque when I turned 18 marked, “courtesy of your forefathers taxing Asian immigrants for being Asian”. Did I just miss that lineup? Politically correct BS that I had hoped ended when we voted the Liberals out.

Redressed the Hep C compensation - Right. No other Federal political party would have done this.

Reduced the landing fee for new immigrants - Don’t get me wrong. I love immigrants. I think they are great - they leave their old land and ways to come to Canada, the land of government handouts opportunity. They bring with them a spirit of entrepreneurship, but sadly what I see too often is the abuse of our public programs to their benefit. They cap up our population so we can continue to support our bloated and failing social programs (because we are making so few babies we can’t do it ourselves anymore - again discouraged by tax disincentives and a lack of support for the people who are actually growing the next generation of Canadians). Canada was built on immigrants, and we should do our best to ease the burden on them as they enter the country, but don’t forget there are costs associated with immigration - integration costs money. Initiating memberships into our social safety net costs money. Processing them costs money.

We must be careful about these things, but most of all, again, is this necessarily a Conservative policy? I don’t see any distinctiveness here.

Negotiated the softwood lumber treaty with the U.S - Again, not necessarily a Conservative policy - this could have been done by the Libs just as easily, had Martin not been a belligerent prick. In fact, it WAS accomplished by a Liberal - David Emerson.

Implemented a Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights and Taxpayers’ Ombudsman - what are my rights as a taxpayer again? Getting the shaft? What is “right” #2?

Provided support for HIV/AIDS vaccine research - Oh yeah. That’s definitely a Conservative touchstone - AIDS research funding. The Liberals never did ANYTHING to address AIDS did they?

Provided a process for prospective Supreme Court appointees - A process that just brings appointee candidates to the public, without providing any mechanism other than the media to give the government feedback - they are still appointed. Nothing has changed except exposing prospective appointees to the public before appointment.

Ended Canadian Wheat Board monopoly following barley referendum - but they didn’t end the Canadian Wheat Board. A whole government bureaucracy still exists, without purpose, paid for by you and me. I call that half-finished. I guess that extra funding for farmers (see above) was something different then…

Announced a study of biofuel in North Battlefield, Sask - That’s something right out of the Liberal playbook. When trying to look like you care, you announce a “study”. I’ll be surprised if the findings are not all “verbal” like 90% of the Liberal “studies” from the last 13 years.

Completed an Indian Residential School Agreement - again, Grandchildren paying for the sins of previous generations. Again. I’ll say it one more time: again, I never got a check from the government signed, “courtesy of government sanctioned social engineering experiments of the 40’s”. So why am I paying for it?

Independent tribunal to settle Indian land claims will be ready by January - It was my understanding that a number of years ago the federal government diverted all responsibility for negotiating aboriginal land claims to the provinces. That is why the BC government has been proceeding with all kinds of negotiations for the last 10 years - that was the basis for BC negotiating the Nis’gaa Treaty. Now the feds are getting involved AGAIN? Well, I am sure aboriginal peoples across the land are thrilled that they now have to deal with ALL THREE levels of government again. That will make their claims go so much quicker.

Not to mention the legislation they’d like to pass but the opposition and senate won’t let them - Good. Then we won’t. There isn’t that much. The last one that I heard was being held up was the senate reform measure. Yes, it’s sad that it’s being held up, but if this is the only blatantly conservative bill being held up, then I maintain, this government is not doing NEAR enough to show us that they are appreciably different from the previous Liberals.

I maintain my position - if the Conservatives want my donations,

1. They need to act much more substantially Conservative in their policies - not just govern, but govern Conservatively.
2. They need to solicit me with their strengths, not their opponents’ weaknesses. I give them money because they are good, not because their opponents are bad.
3. They need to stick by their guns. Caving into special interests (or the media for that matter) makes them appear weak and encourages their opponents. It can also be used against them, to undermine credibility. Sticking to their positions keeps me loyal. Succumbing to pressure to appease special interests will not gain them the special interest vote. They will still oppose them. But it will lose them my vote.

Persecuting the Obviously Innocent Man: Potentially Lord Black’s Saving Grace

From June 26, Mark Steyn provides an excellent take on why the inclusion of Mark Kipnis seriously undermines the case agains the other three. In order for the charges of fraud to stick, Mark Kipnis has be an accomplice; the handler who arranged all the agreements knowing they were stealing from shareholders. But Mark Kipnis did not derive any benefit, beyond his usual yearly bonus, for helping arrange the non-compete agreements. Mark Kipnis refused to fold and cop a plea like David Radler, thus suffering the government’s wrath for not toeing the line.

It’s really quite amazing when you think of it! Here is a man—the sole American—of no signifant social acquaintance to either Black, Boultbee, Atkinson or Radler. The idea that he perpetrated fraud for no derivable benefit rebuffs the heart of the goverment’s case that any fraud, whatsoever, was perpetrated. And the fact that Kipnis refused to roll over for the government, refused to lie rather than tell the truth, being persecuted with men of no significance to him at all, speaks to his exemplary virtue!

In finding Kipnis guilty of fraud, on the same counts as Atkinson, Boultbee and Black, the jury has committed the same error the government made at the beginning. They have lumped a clearly innocent man into the series of appeals that now follow.  If this was fraud, what did Kipnis gain from it?  Clearly his annual bonus was hardly compensation for the kind of “fraud” the prosecution alleged.

Those now claiming the jury “separated the wheat from the chaff,” fail to recognize that this jury failed to acquit Mark Kipnis. In doing so, they have furthered the persecution of an man most obviously innocent; any success Kipnis gets on appeal, now rippling across to the other three.

Here’s how Steyn accounts for Kipnis’s contribution to these recent proceedings:

The points made by Ron Safer are peripheral to his client, the Fourth Man Mark Kipnis, but they’re helpful to Conrad Black, Jack Boultbee and Peter Atkinson. That’s the sub-text of this trial. Having failed to roll Kipnis and Atkinson before they got to court and thus forced to prosecute four guys rather than the two they’d planned for, the government was confident it could still rattle the multiple defendants sufficiently that they’d be distancing themselves from Black and in effect damaging each other’s cases.

It didn’t happen. The four separate defences have proceeded in unity. They stuck together. …
Ron Safer has done a terrific job in summing up, marshalling the arguments and evidence and graphic aids (a Letterman-style “Top Ten List”) in very colloquial but focused way. What I find interesting is the use of little excerpts from witness transcripts - itsy-bitsy nothing exchanges no-one paid any attention to at the time nevertheless managed to elicit some or other confirmation of this or that that bolsters a point he’s making in closing argument. It’s almost as if he planned it that way, which he almost certainly did. Many of the other defences have a haphazard quality to them, as if they’re winging it and figuring they’ll settle on a strategy once they see how things are shaping up. What Safer is saying today he planned on saying back in March. Like a great novelist or songwriter, he decided what his ending was going to be and then figured out how to work up to it. Very impressive. …

Ron Safer for the defence:

“Why didn’t the government call any US auditors?”

True. They only called Marilyn Stitt from KPMG’s Toronto office, not the guys at the New York office who were principally responsible for Hollinger International.

“Why didn’t they call Pat Ryan?”

True. The defence had to call him as a hostile witness. He testified that at the Audit Committee meeting he specifically drew Governor Thompson’s attention to “Subparagraph F on page F-16″ and sought his approval.

The Synchronized Skimmers didn’t miss anything. Neither Mark Kipnis nor anyone else tried to hide anything from Jim the Skim. They didn’t need to. The non-competed were approved -”time and time and time again,” as Safer put it.

“Goodbye. That’s it. Not guilty.” …

At the climax of his presentation, Mr Safer, like Hercule Poirot, tied up all the loose ends, including the most intriguing question of all: If there’s no crime, why did David Radler plead guilty?

Today Safer gave us an answer: the very first transaction, the sale of American Trucker back in 1998. Radler and Todd Vogt (”and where’s Todd Vogt?” asked Counsellor Safer, noting the government’s conspicuous avoidance of one of the key figures in the Radler operation) transferred $2 million from the Trucker sale from International to Inc with no non-compete, no Audit Committee approval, no nothing. “He had no way out on American Trucker,” said Safer. “None… On American Trucker alone, he’s going to jail for more than 29 months.”

Facing five years or more for the one transaction for which there’s no defence, Radler the ultimate deal-maker decided to negotiate one last deal, with the US government. For six months of golf and community theatre on a farm in British Columbia, Radler gets to keep his company and almost everything else. “He’s got his millions, he’s got his plea deal,” said Safer. “In stark contrast to Mark.”

Ron Safer struck at the heart of the government’s case and emptied it of meaning. The other three defendants are very fortunate the government got cocky and decided to punish Mark Kipnis by tossing him in the shark tank with Black and co. Without Ron Safer in court, their prospects would be considerably diminished.

Bowing before Big Brother has its benefits

Radler to serve half an hour in a Canadian “prison”, become even richer thereafter. Justice has clearly been served!

The cream of American society selected to sit on the jury were apparently deeply moved by video footage of Black moving boxes about. “Damn, all this paper…Finally, a medium we comprehend!” If only the prosecution had been able to produce and convince Albert Schultz to act in “Non-Compete Payments: The Movie”, Black might have been convicted on all four-hundred and ninety-seven charges or so laid against him.

As it were, the jury could only agree to convict on a tiny fraction of the charges laid. And this is a victory for the prosecution? Why yes, it is. After all, who is holding Fitzgerald (who recently translated millions of dollars in investigation into a single obstruction of justice conviction) and his crack team of career advancement seekers to account for laying a gratuitously high number of charges against Black in an effort to confuse and overwhelm the jury? Pierre Lemieux gratifyingly alludes to inquisitors hanging from lamp-posts, or rather the frustrating lack thereof. Again: Justice is clearly served!

Meanwhile, Canadian columnists (with the exceptions of Andrew Coyne and especially Lemieux) were busy frolicking in their coast-to-coast orgy of glee yesterday. Can you blame them? How often does the author of “Accidental Canadians” and the Toronto Star Oracle who mistakedly identified Franklin Delano Roosevelt as a Republican have the opportunity to peer down their noses at the author of serious biographies of Maurice Duplessis, Roosevelt, and now Richard Nixon?

Fear not. Black can no longer return to Canada and the Liberals will soon be back in power. Then we’ll all be able to wallow happily in our country’s mediocrity once again.

Justice Denied: Four Strikes Against Lord Black Where There Should Be None

Reaction to the conviction of Lord Black on four counts is, for the most part, malicious hackery carting out old worn stories of extravagant living, disconnected to whether or not Black was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. As far as most media outlets are concerned, “it was a complex case … But boy, that jury sure seemed to separate the wheat from the chaff.”

Stupid analogies to harvesting grain aside, as the jurors begin to speak out it becomes clear, while they may have conscientious, they hardly qualified as a jury of Lord Black’s “peers,” capable of processing the material, discerning what was actually proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and rendering a fair verdict.  Lord Black was not convicted beyond a reasonable doubt because the government’s smoking gun, David Radler, turned out to be a first class serial liar.

Pierre Lemieux provides about the best reaction:

… On the 13 charges against Lord Black (42 in total against all accused), was there any chance that jurors, in their quest to compromise toward unanimity, would not retain at least one? The probability of finding 12 persons who have not been plunged, from their most tender years, into the sea of statist slogans that pass for a social and legal philosophy is, I fear, very small.

A Jury of His Peers: The Conrad Black Jurors Begin to Speak

Check out this, er, incisive analysis from one of the sterling intellects on the jury that just convicted Lord Black:

A member of the jury that has very likely sent Conrad Black to prison after delivering a guilty verdict on charges of fraud and obstruction yesterday said the convictions were reached “in spite of” evidence from the U.S. government’s star witness, David Radler.

…

[Juror Monica] Prince said she also believed Mr. Radler was “covering for his buddy” and trying “to cover for Black” during his weeklong testimony in the four-month trial.

Can there be any doubt that Lord Black should have opted for a bench trial?

E3 2007: How To Lose Buisness 101

Sony just announced today that the 60 GB PS3 model, which had its price lowered to $500 USD (but yet $550 CAD despite a near-par dollar!) will be discontinued in a matter of months! In other words, you will still only find $600 USD ($650 CAD) PS3s by Christmas time. Does anyone else see this as not only a negation of anything positive Sony did this week but also a major PR disaster that is going to cost them big time? Seriously people, what is your take on this? I’m personally astounded!

« Previous Page — Next Page »