Just watch me

A new biography of the former prime minister, whom Canadians have long been taught to regard as a great liberal politician, reveals that as a youth and young man, Mr. Trudeau was an anti-Semite, admired fascist dictators such as Hitler and Mussolini, promoted revolution and longed for an independent and Catholic Quebec that would be home only to francophones.

From the hysterically right wing Ottawa Citizen. Read the paper. Have a smoke.

Vino de Rothschild?

Bookkeeping proves to be a sensitive business for a politician. When the matter was discussed in Parliament after La Presse disclosed the facts, Premier Chrétien declared: “This Parliament would be much better off if we had more Gagliano’s.”

Achtung! Thank you for smoking

Do you smoke? No?

The first tobacco ban was imposed by the Nazi Party under direct orders from Adolf Hitler. (Follow the Wikipedia entry to footnote 1).

A Curious Genetic Failure

What say you, Messrs. Dion, Ignatieff, Rae et al.? Do you agree with this stunt? Not surprisingly, the Nazis do. (Anti-semitic link deleted). ……

(From the good folks at Wikipedia):

The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone’s origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.

The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit. The first criterion of a good argument is that the premises must have bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim in question.^[1] Genetic accounts of an issue may be true, and they may help illuminate the reasons why the issue has assumed its present form, but they are irrelevant to its merits. ^[2]

According to the Oxford Companion to Philosophy, the term originates in Morris Cohen and Ernest Nagel’s book Logic and Scientific Method.

Illustrative Example for those who may have failed their logic course:

From Attacking Faulty Reasoning by T. Edward Damer, Third Edition p. 36:

“You’re not going to wear a wedding ring, are you? Don’t you know that the wedding ring originally symbolized ankle chains worn by women to prevent them from running away from their husbands? I would not have thought you would be a party to such a sexist practice.” There may be reasons why people may not wish to wear wedding rings, but it would be logically inappropriate for a couple to reject the notion of exchanging wedding rings on the sole grounds of its alleged sexist origins.

Liberal Is As Liberal Does!

A slate of Ontario Young Liberals executive hopefuls have a new website, but what’s amusing is seeing that their vision matches up quite nicely with the true federal and provincial Liberals visions. They should be shoo-ins!

Liberal Is As Liberal Does!

A slate of Ontario Young Liberals executive hopefuls have a new website, but what’s amusing is seeing that their vision matches up quite nicely with the true federal and provincial Liberals visions. They should be shoo-ins!

Norman versus Paul

Paul Wells speaks, Jan 29, 2007

President Bush has had a difficult time lately in Iraq. He lost the mid-term elections, fired his defence secretary, and is about to launch his presidency’s last stand — a “surge” of thousands of fresh troops in one more desperate attempt to take and hold Baghdad.

Norman Podhoretz speaks Jan 16, 2008 :

It took Lincoln three years to find Sherman and Grant. It took George Bush three years to find Petraeus.

10 Ontarians That Would Be Better Leaders Than John Tory

It must be a sign of desperation, but the key argument that I hear from John Tory’s defenders is that there is no better alternative. This is a very optimistic take on Mr. Tory given that outside of Toronto, the only thing people know him for is an ill-fated promise regarding school funding and opportunistically backing down on said promise in the last week of an election in the hope of getting a larger caucus. More specifically, he isn’t known as principled, honest, strong, for his vision, or trustworthiness.

Aside from Mr. Tory’s lack of credentials, let’s look at ten other names associated with the PC Party that we could reasonably expect to run in a leadership race if one is called at the end of February:

---

1. Peter Van Loan Red Tory

I start this list off with another red tory because a great deal of John Tory’s support comes from that wing of the party. Mr. Van Loan has been rumored to have a campaign network ready for when the top job becomes available provincially and is currently an attractive catch for the party, as he currently serves in a highly visible cabinet position within the Harper government in Ottawa. He also wouldn’t be the first federal minister/header to quit his post and risk a crack at a Premiership, with Brian Tobin and Jean Charest being two of the latest examples.

---

2. Tim Hudak Blue Tory

The MPP for Niagara West—Glanbrook, Hudak is young (his family just received the blessing a of a new baby girl in the fall), talented and said to be interested in taking a run for the leader’s job but does not want to get into the fray of the current leadership vote. Hudak is one of the PC all-stars in the Opposition caucus and also has ministerial experience under former Premiers Harris and Eves.

---

3. Peter Shurman unknown

The new MPP for Thornhill and potentially the party’s version of Dalton McGuinty, who only had a term’s experience in the legislature when he went on to be Liberal leader. Shurman is a natural public speaker, having been a radio talk show host on CFRB 1010 before the PCs drafted him as a star candidate. While very opinionated, he would also enter the race without any ideological baggage, having not made it clear on what part of the party he most associates with, and thus he can heal the rift that Tory began in creating a Red Tory-centric party upon winning the leadership in 2004.

---

4. Fred Eisenberger Teal Tory

Given the prominence of the environment these days, the former Hamilton East – Stoney Creek candidate in the 2004 federal election might be poised to open up a new flank against the Liberals. Eisenberger is currently the Mayor of Hamilton and has been able to push forward a few initiatives that have been designed to clean up the city’s environment, while also calling for moderation on city spending. He might just serve as the “ideas candidate” in the race if he enters, and could easily position himself to be noted as a star candidate in 2011 even if he lost.

---

5. Christine Elliott Blue Tory

The wife of federal finance minister Jim Flaherty and a successful lawyer, Elliott currently holds the honour of being the only GTA candidate to win a by-election since the party’s loss in 2003 (Burlington, for the record, is not the GTA thank you!). A strong performer in the legislature, she would also be able to rebuild much of her husband’s campaign machinery and allow the family a third straight run for the leadership, although this time through the first woman who has a realistic chance of winning the contest.

---

6. Patrick Brown Red Tory

The MP for Barrie, Brown grew up within the Ontario PC’s youth wing before going on to contest the 2004 and 2006 federal elections. He would bring a youthful flare to the race and probably be able to contest the leadership quite competitively having been an up and coming star for the current generation of 25 to 35 year old party members. He has also been an ideas man, serving as a successful councilor in Barrie before being elected as an MP and helping to bring that city’s budget under control.

---

7. Frank Klees Conservative Populist

Having ran last time, it’s no secret that Klees is expecting to take a crack at the top job again. Being a more populist candidate, he was also pressured to leave the Harris cabinet in 2000 and run for the leadership of the then-upstart Canadian Alliance. Klees is an impressive public speaker and serves as the party’s current spiritual successor to Mike Harris as far as being forthcoming with his ideas in plain simple terms is concerned.

---

8. Elizabeth Witmer Red Tory

Another caucus member and former leadership contender, Witmer bowed out of the 2004 contest only because John Tory entered it. She is adored in her riding of Kitchener – Waterloo, and is probably the only PC member more liberal than Tory. She still has a following among the party faithful and like Klees, has made it no secret that she eventually wants to the lead the party into an election.

---

9. Tony Clement Moderate Tory

Having tempered his image in a stint as Canada’s health minister, Clement could easily contest his third leadership contest this decade and improve on his respectable third place finish in the 2002 race. He has a base of supporters already lined up, and both accomplishments and networks within the provincial and federal spheres.

---

10. Peter Kent Red Tory

While a bit of a stretch, this name has been thrown around as well given that Mr. Kent might not be able to contest the Thornhill seat federally until well over a year from now. Like Tory, he is well known and has a likable reputation in Ontario’s capital, but unlike Tory he’s a capable debater (having worked with Global’s news team for decades) and isn’t tied to the old boys club of the party.

---

And there you have it: ten names representing a geographically, philosophically and gender diverse field of potential candidates within our party. This list contains experience from all levels of government: municipal, school boards, provincial and federal. It wouldn’t be a stretch to see even just four of the ten people enter a leadership contest this year, and who knows who else is silently waiting in the wings of the party, waiting for their time to arrive…

Cashing In On Abortion

It’s a little late, but here is my post on the 20th anniversary of the R v. MORGENTALER ruling.-Matthew

---

This past weekend, I posted a blog entry on the column that the National Post printed on Saturday featuring Ryerson University professor Judy Rebick, a woman whose current job title I found out is strikingly Orwellian: the Canadian Auto Workers–Sam Gindin Chair in Social Justice and Democracy.

Needless to say, my challenge to all that would take it on to move beyond the respective three or four talking points that each side has trudged out over the past 20 years was well met and I was both pleasantly surprised and very grateful to those who posted their constructive responses. It demonstrated to me that at least some people out there are honest when they say that abortion to them is an undesirable procedure and that society should be looking for a solution that benefits both mothers and children (I would also add fathers personally) alike. This was truly the type of debate that our society should have been having back in 1988 when the ruling came down from the SCC.

Moving onto what to do with this problem, it was suggested here in the comments that pro-lifers should pursue an agenda of getting the government to fund the needs of mothers who wish to carry their babies to term but are financially restricted. It’s a valid argument coming from the social democrat side of Canada’s political spectrum and I welcome any pro-life liberals who wish to pursue this further. I personally find the cause to be noble, like many ideas on the left, however I did take some time to reflect upon it during the past few days and cannot help but be reminded of the words of Mark Steyn in his now-infamous book, America Alone. Steyn made a point early on in the book that even if Bill Gates offered to pay for all the social services in the U.S., he would still oppose subsidies as he believes they make people dependents and society unable to reach its fullest potential. In fact, he goes further and states that there is an inherent danger to such programs in that allows people to ignore the real cost of whatever is being provided, while also bringing them to believe that such benefits are entitlements. Now, I’ve met my share of mothers over the years and I know that a good majority of them would never want to raise their children in such an environment. Still, there is a large, but harmful minority out there for any given government silo full of grain.

This leads me to rely on the largely ignored competent of a successful libertarian society: such a society must be built upon community. It seems that we have confused community and government these days, but there are vastly different and that difference is crucially important to understand. If a single-parent family is just a faceless number, there would be no accountability aside from across-the-board standards that the government bureaucracy sets up. If instead, a church or local organization like Birthright or the United Way were to set up a program to assist single mothers in becoming self-sufficient as they raise their children, then we have a humanizing aspect that both keeps a watchful eye on any abusive recipients while also allowing for additional funding or leniency for those families with special needs.

Either way though, whether through the government or organizations, I feel that the idea of stepping up to the plate and providing the money for these women who go through the difficult situation of single-handedly raising their children is long overdue. To my pro-life colleagues, perhaps rising to the occasion on this matter would be a better effort to focus our attention on in the next 20 years than our efforts of the past 20, although ultimately finding new ways of eliminating any proclaimed need for abortion would help us even further to bridging the gap between the respect for all human life and society’s acknowledgment of this respect.

Tory’s Tories: Group Hug Or Else?

I know that infighting isn’t looked upon kindly within the conservative parts of Canada these days, what with the recent 13-year Liberal situation which was caused by the division of what is now the Conservative Party of Canada but I don’t think anyone sheds any tears about the arguments made against David Orchard back in the day or people like Belinda Stronach or Keith Martin. They were, of course, the easy cases for our hindsight vision, with all of them formally confessing the Liberalism that many of us knew was buried not so deep inside.

This accusation has also been directed John Tory’s way, first when he was fighting in the 2004 leadership campaign and now that he is insisting on continuing at leader, no matter the consequences. Indeed, we probably wouldn’t have seen Tory become a Liberal if one of his opponents got the crown instead of him, but the only reason I can be assured of that is because of his closeness to the Bill Davis establishment in the party and not because of anything the man represents himself.

The argument goes that Tory is void of any principle and is actually quite the egomaniac (something that has been evident to anyone who has followed his career). Tory apologists strongly deny this, and also attack anyone who dares to speak out these days against the leader-in-limbo as being disloyal to the PC Party.

Case in Point: Meet Joan Tintor, Tory apologist and self-appointed defender of the PC Party’s image. Joan just finished a post today of *how dare they*s claiming that the Yes campaign is hurting the party by accusing the Grassroots PC campaign of agreeing with McGuinty on something. Now, aside from the irony of a pro-Tory individual claiming that the other side is too cozy with the McGuinty government or that the release she quotes doesn’t confirm such an accusation, Joan also goes on at length about how members are hurting the party by not agreeing with the implied argument that anything, ANYTHING the McGuinty government does is either inherently wrong or not enough. Apparently Dalton’s government, despite winning a second majority, is the first in history to do everything wrong in four years! Imagine if this were true; what would that say about the alternative people saw in John Tory then?

Of course Joan, thanks to your guy, we’ve got another three-and-a-half years of McGuinty as of today; I don’t think that a past-president of the PC Party agreeing that McGuinty did some obscure thing properly (and the release does not clearly state that!) will cost us the election in the same way that John Tory’s leader-knows-best platform full ‘o’ gems did. Maybe if Tory let us vote on that stuff in June, your crew wouldn’t have to be going through this stresses of this review right now. But he did, and as a real leader, U.S. President Truman, stated on his desk: “the buck stops here”. It was from Tory’s desk that the campaign staff appointments, the policies and the strategies came from, not to mention the verbal gaffes or this. Maybe when the Tory Tory crowd can properly convince the rest of us, PCs and general public, that Tory isn’t as inept as we all saw him as during the past 12 months, then you guys can play Chicken Little and claim that every deviation from the John Tory Script hurts our chances of getting a PC government in Ontario.

Next Page »