Nader is Running for President – Democrats Everywhere Shed a Tear

Ralph Nader, everyone’s favorite third party candidate (and election spoiler) has decided to throw his hat in to the presidential ring. Hard core Democrats everywhere have been throwing hissy fits ever since:

Ralph Nader’s living in the past. The problem is, he could, once again, destroy our future. True, the 2004 election was so lopsided his 0.38 percent of the vote made no difference. But, if it’s close again this year, we could be looking at 2000 all over again. Nader could be the difference between a new direction for America and a continuation of the disastrous policies of George Bush and Dick Cheney.

Unfortunately, that doesn’t concern Mr. Nader. He cares more about what’s good for Ralph Nader than what’s good for America.

and here is more…

Had Ralph Nader not run in 2000, President Al Gore would be finishing his second term. The Iraq war would never have happened, Abu Ghraib would have been nothing more than a fiction in horror movies. There would be a progressive majority on the Supreme Court rather than Roberts and Alito.

Had Ralph Nader not run in 2000, President Gore would have received the Nobel Peace Prize for historic global warming policies enacted during his presidency.

Now here comes Nader again, mid-life crisis and all, a little boy in a man’s body, desperately in need of gainful employment, and pathetically in need of media attention, doing it again.

Where’s Sherlock When You Need Him?

I liked Chuck Cadman. I also thought that what the Conservative Party did to him was on the murky side of wrong — it upheld its democratic principles, but at the expense of a good MP. The Cadman tragedy would have never happened in the federal party didn’t allow opportunistic forces to hijack meetings in return for a questionable, at best, boost in local membership levels. That is history though, and as the greatest Man ever said, “let the dead bury the dead”.

Now that accusations are coming out that two Conservative officials attempted to bribe the late MP for Surrey North, I have to admit that I’m having a bit of troubles following it. The original source of this new scandal is not only Mr. Cadman’s widow (which in itself isn’t that interesting), but is someone who is simultaneously running under the Conservative banner in Mr. Cadman’s former riding.

Mere and meek scribe that I am, I believe that the Prime Minister’s best move from here is to announce an RCMP investigation as soon as possible to put out this fire in its infancy. After all, why would a woman who wants to run for a political party suggest that said party was also acting against the law with regards to her late husband. It just doesn’t add up. I think what we will find is that, if the author — a reporter in B.C. — has crossed all his “t”s and dotted all his “i”s, either there were people in the Conservative Party who are guilty of corruption, or our candidate in Surrey North is equally guilty of lying. Perhaps more suggestive is the revelation that Paul Martin got an early transcript of the book; a curious courtesy afforded to a former PM and arch-rival of the current one if anything. Again, it might be nothing, but until the truth comes out, something about it seems just a bit too suspicious.

Just a further comment to the Opposition that flirts with this being an election trigger — 2004 saw a Canadian public that was willing to at least let the investigation play out before passing judgment. Heed the warning.

Flaherty steering the economy

or, “My arrogant opinion on the Federal Budget 2008“

I agree with Jack Layton who says this budget does nothing to help working families but I doubt that he has the same reasons as me. Instead of “helping” people or industries with subsidies, I would rather just see tax cuts and spending cuts.

1) the $5000 tax-free savings account
This is the most flamboyant feature of the budget and it is clearly a public relations stunt to gain votes. I am not going to condemn it because I think it is a good one. It is a step in the right direction by reducing the cost of saving. Furthermore, the more people keep in the bank, the more investment will be stimulated — if that is what you want to do. However, I fear it might just confuse the average person. [As such, I am sure this sounds like music to the ears of the accountants, brokers and other middlemen.]
Nevertheless, I have a few beefs. First, if it really is such a great thing, why wait? Why not start it now?? Secondly, why such a small amount of money?
In my opinion, it would have been much simpler just to lower the income tax rates. This tax-free savings account only helps people who have an idle $5000 lying around.

2) a new Employment Insurance crown corporation
This may be a devious strategy to wrestle control away from the current bureaucracy as an initial step towards more radical change. We will see. Nevertheless, I want the elimination of employment deductions all together.

3) new electronic passports
This is a step in the right direction because the validation is extended to ten years. Maybe in the future it will be extended even longer or dispensed all together.
Hold on. Why is this announced in a budget?? Oh, well.

4) subsidizing public transit; $500 million to support capital investments
I find this peculiar because of the amount. Spread across the entire country, I question what good this could do. I also question how it would be spread out. Instead, I recommend tax cuts and leaving municipalities to raise the funds on their own.

5) subsidizing transportation infrastructure
Subsidizing the transportation infrastructure is a tough one. A lot of environmental damage is a result of the transportation sector. I think the environment would be better protected if the full cost of transportation was borne by the consumer instead of subsidized. [Just in case you are wondering, yes, I know our fruits and vegetables would cost more. I do not see that as a bad thing.]

5) more funding for hiring police
Well, this is like public transit — see above. I recommend reducing the federal taxes instead and let the municipalities raise their own funds. Instead, lower levels of government are turned into beggars or lobbyists to higher levels of government.

l
By the way, is it just me or does it seem a bit fishy that the federal finance minister is also the MP for an auto worker city? Anyway.

6) new funding for research (Automotive Innovation Fund, Canada Global Excellence Research Chairs, scholarships, etc.)
My views on research are very radical. I have a better idea: let every other foreign government subsidize research and we buy their cheap imports. A win-win situation — unless you are a researcher at the government trough, I suppose.
There is something to note specifically about these research “initiatives” as we like to call them: they are targeted to specific fields and sectors. Primarily, they are targeted at universities as opposed to the federal public service and to specific fields, namely: environmental, energy, natural resources, health, communications and information technologies.

Let me explain my radical laissez-faire perspective on research.
In general, I do not think the government should be picking winners and losers. Too much cronyism is concealed that way. If there is potential “economic growth” to be seen in an industry, those industry players should be the first to know it. They should fund their own damn research — otherwise, I do not trust the potential. If they are not able to ante-up for their own business, the tax-payer should not be the one to pay. Otherwise, the justification of “economic growth” is phony and maintains inefficiencies or monopolies.

7) more student aid
Student aid is the same as funding research — see above. I am against it. [I also think that formal education is over-valued as a result of the excessive subsidization.] However, this is clearly a vote-getter on the part of the government. It may also have been tossed into the budget to avoid an election.

8) reduced federal corporate income tax rate
On the surface, this seems like a good move however, if reduced corporate taxes are such a good thing, why wait until 2012 to get it done?? I do not buy any gradualist arguments. Furthermore, I would like to see tax rates go down for non-corporate businesses too.

9) increased Guaranteed Income Supplement exemption and the Northern Residents Deduction
These are just vote-getters. Like most of the proposed “tax relief” schemes, I would rather they just reduced tax rates instead of introducing more layers and loopholes.

10) I have had enough and I like round numbers.

—-

Unfortunately, the federal government can not lead us all to prosperity by lowering taxes because, collectively, we are just spending funny money. We constantly have to play catch-up with the growing money supply.

Notice the general theme of this budget (or most any federal budget for that matter) is that instead of letting us keep more of our own money directly, the government gives us incentives on how to “save” our money in specific government-chosen ways. Those methods of “saving” stimulate the economy, so to speak, but they also inflate the money supply. The real winners of these “initiatives” are the agents on the receiving end before the money cycles through the economy.

Obama and Clinton Would Pull Out of NAFTA

Canadians were recently polled and it was found they overwhelmingly favour the Democrats over the Republicans. Yesterday’s comments by both Clinton and Obama should have those same Canadians rethinking their preference:,

During a nationally televised debate in Cleveland, the two Democratic presidential candidates suggested Canada and Mexico would be given just six months to make compromises on the deal in order to satisfy the U.S. government.

“I will say we will opt out of NAFTA unless we renegotiate,” Mrs. Clinton said. “I have said we will renegotiate NAFTA (and) you would have to say to Canada and Mexico, ‘That’s what we are going to do’.”

Said Mr. Obama: “We should use the hammer of a potential opt-out” to force Canada and Mexico to reopen trade talks.

Is Milk the New Oil? Commodity Prices Set New Highs

The new global economy is going to change the way we look at basic commodities. Here is one example in New Zealand:

It turns out that, along with zippy cars and flat-panel TVs, milk is the mark of new money, a significant source of protein that factors into much of any affluent person’s diet. Milk goes into infant formulas, chocolates, ice cream and cheese. Most baked goods contain butter, and coffee chains like Starbucks sell more milk than coffee.

And here is another video relating the issue to Canadian producers…

Something to Think About: Co-Ed Showers

To guys, it seems like a great idea.  To girls, generally horrifying.  Not only because women in general don’t like to be checked out, but because they don’t want to have to look at most men’s bodies.

Why am I bringing this up?  I ran across a worldnet article about co-ed showers in Maryland, that are being lobbied to shut down.

The article talks about people with gender identity issues, and sensitivity to that in public shower facilities.  This spurred me to think, what basis  does any company have to offer sex-discriminatory facilities?  In any regard?  What is the real reason we have segregated bathrooms and showers?

Gender privacy is related to sexual attraction as far as I can tell.  But in a day and age when GBLT preferences are normalized,  gender specific bathrooms  may be just as sexualized as co-ed ones.  You are probably less likely to be “checked out” while in a gender specific bathroom (there are relatively few GBLT people as a percentage of the population), but it could still happen.  Plus, transgendered people may be anywhere in between at any given time – how do you decide which bathroom they are permitted to use?

I totally understand why women have places like “Curves” and “For Women Only” gyms.  Heterosexual male nature can lead to unappreciated attention.  However, by the same token, the very nature of the gym is discriminatory, as a woman may still encounter unappreciated attention from lesbian or bisexual women.  Why are they allowed to exist?  Why are courts forcing the Boy Scouts to accept girls, but girls are permitted to have all-girl clubs?

The contrarian in me needs to point out the silliness and inconsistency of life.  What do you think: should gender specific facilities be done away with or not?

Canadians should recognize Kosovo

In light of the recent savagery committed by Serbs in their own streets, Canadians should recognize Kosovo independence and tell Russian politicians to go to hell. The Russian ambassador to Canada has the unmitigated gall to give the following insulting advice:

“We are both federal states and when you live in glasshouse you don’t throw stones.“

Yes, Mr. Ambassador, but Canadians do not torch embassies nor do they poison their political opponents. Canada is a “federation” but Canadians are different from Russians and Serbs. [I wonder if the Russian ambassador considers a bayonnet and a butter knife as being the same too, hmm???]

If Canadians want to maintain any semblance of being part of a civilized nation, they will distance themselves from the bullying arrogant rhetoric of Russian statesmen.  Canadians will align themselves with other civilized people who did not hesitate to recognize the obvious: Kosovo independence.

The Final Word on John Tory (hopefully)

No one could say it better than Ronald Reagan whose presidency was dotted with strokes of verbal brilliance the likes of which we have not seen since. Reagan, “the great communicator” relied on the perfect phrase or quip to propel him into the Oval Office and guide his legislative agenda to completion.

Tonight is the eve of the Ontario PC Party’s Annual General Meeting; it’s an event that is typically a happy time where various candidates vying to represent the party’s internal offices go out of their way to put on one of the best weekend-long parties of the year (for those who think that we do important stuff like policy development and outreach, um, we do that to…kinda!). This year’s event is a bit more serious though and has a bit more of a dampener on it as half of the party’s base will emerge from this weekend unhappy with a crucial vote’s result either installing John Tory as chief of the party for the next three-and-a-half years or preparing the way for a new generation of leadership to step up to the plate.

It’s been no secret to most readers here that I have been against Tory’s leadership even before he met his inevitable smiting on October 10th. I’m not alone either as various MPPs, candidates, Blogging Tories and other assorted PC Party members led an unprecedented rebellion against Tory’s style or campaigning and leading while the campaign was going on. Some of those have faded back into submission since Tory’s announcement of fighting on for his job, but most have made it vocally clear that the man is a polarizing figure who cannot win against Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals.

Somewhat ironically, Tory’s campaign chose the slogan “Leadership Matters” which brings me back to Reagan. To me, the slogan is an excellent benchmark by which the party should evaluate Tory; specifically, we have to decide on Saturday whether Tory is a small-l leader and whether his work mattered (for good or ill). For any undecided delegate who reads this over the next 2.5 days, I borrow and paraphrase Reagan’s closing remarks during the 1980 presidential debate since it fits so well:

“I think when you make that decision, it might be well if you would ask yourself, are you better off than you were four years ago?
…
Is [the PC Party] as respected throughout the [province] as it was [in 2004]? Do you feel that our [political] security is as safe, that we’re as strong as we were four years ago? And if you answer all of those questions yes, why then, I think your choice is very obvious as to whom you will vote for. If you don’t agree, if you don’t think that this course that we’ve been on for the last four years is what you would like to see us follow for the next four, then I could suggest another choice that you have.

History tells us that the PC Party is the natural governing party of this great province because it knew how to seize the spirit of the day. It was creative, it was visionary and it was inspiring…as were its leaders. I think we all know, if we reflect deeply, that Mr. Tory — for all his merits — does not inspire the people of Ontario. Unlike Dalton McGuinty or Mike Harris, Mr. Tory is not viewed by your average Ontarian as just not being ready for the job but as someone who is unable to explain just where he wants to take Ontario…and that scares them! We, ourselves, should not be afraid to do what needs to be done and do what the party’s constitution recognizes as a very real and sometimes necessary decision. With the McGuinty government locked in to power for another three years, we have an opportunity right now to unite the party’s warring factions, mend broken bridges with different voting blocks in the province and prepare for an upcoming campaign with a fresh leader, fresh ideas and a fresh team. Under such a leader there would be no doubt about the leadership qualities that our party would have; the ability to inspire, to motivate and to encourage trust. This is the kind of person we need to lead us into the next campaign, and as I said back at the end of January, we have at least 10 great names in our ranks who are ready to assume the position!

On the BC Budget: the Carbon Tax

It was promised, it is delivered. (Gads. I sound like a Stephen Harper commercial.)

The big leadoff is the carbon tax proposed. It affects a number of different sectors, but the one that hits home the hardest is the gas tax component. 2.4 cents to start, rising to 7.2 cents in 2012! All I can say is ack. This hurts everyone. Absolutely everyone. Yes, even transit riders. They’ll increase transit fares for the increased cost of gas. Yes, even bicycle riders. The price of commodities (safety gear, the bikes themselves) will increase because of shipping costs rising. But for me, with a wife and kids at home, I think it sucks because it is a blanket over everything without exception.

Wonder Woman’s Mikey made this point a few months ago: when you have a family, driving a Prius or a Smart car is not an option. Your family vehicle becomes a mass transportation vehicle. It becomes a bus. If the big beastly gas-guzzlers like crew cab trucks and grand caravans or even regular vans are needed for capacity, why should their fuel efficiency and carbon footprint not be measured per passenger instead of per vehicle? But that it too nuanced for this government. Instead, they will just make life more miserable for every family in the province.

And don’t even waste my time bringing up “it was your choice to have kids”. My kids are going to pay for your pension, your health care, and your economy when you are decrepit. If you don’t think it makes sense to ease the burden on families so we can invest in our kids and make them as highly educated and productive as possible, then you will reap that whirlwind upon retirement. Enjoy your single life while you can.

But while we’re on this “green initiative”, I have to talk about another asinine area of this budget. I quote:

In June, every B.C.er will get a one-off $100 climate action dividend, for green purchases, amounting to some $400 million over the next three years.

Low-income families will get a climate action credit of $100 per adult and $30 per child, to be paid out quarterly.

I first noticed this “cash back” approach to governance 20 years ago in Alberta under Ralph Klein. He started coming up with “rebates” and junk like that to literally cut Albertans a cheque of “free money” around election times. When I got to BC, I would find that conveniently, right around elections, formerly money-losing utilities like BC Hydro, or the public insurance company ICBC would suddenly report a “profit” and like magic, issue all British Columbians cheques too! I had hoped that the BC Liberals would not stoop so low, but here we are – cutting cheques in the name of “climate action”. What are we supposed to do with this money? No use is stipulated. It could go anywhere, and will go everywhere. What does this money giveaway have to do with “climate action”? Give us an extra hundred bucks to party on a summer weekend and enjoy the “climate”?

But lastly, I have one more hate for this budget. This completely falsifiable claim, that governments have been using in Canada from time out-of-mind to introduce new taxes to us, relying on Canadians’ ignorance of our own laws and our saturation of American content in TV and media to fool us into thinking our governments work under the same rules.

The tax, which will raise $1.8-billion by 2011, will be revenue-neutral. The higher taxes will be offset by tax cuts to individuals and business.

See, in the USA, they actually have to take tax increases to the polls. People have to vote on tax increases. Plus, when they say a tax is for “this purpose” it is written into the actual proposal for the tax, and the government cannot legally use that revenue for any other purpose. In Canada, they don’t. Some taxes and levies can be imposed without even a vote in legislature. But worst of all, no matter what Carole Taylor says, these “environmental taxes” go straight into general revenue. She can claim that it is “revenue neutral” and will be offset by tax cuts, but she is not legally obligated to do that, and has the entirety of government structure, revenue and expenses, to hide this. It is simply a lie to make us think that a new tax is ok.

That is what I think of the Environmental taxes offered in this budget. The pathetic thing is, if this tripe is what the BC Liberals serve up, I know that whatever the NDP would offer if they were in power would be exponentially worse. So I guess I have to like being beaten with a billy club, if the choice was either that or having my eyes gouged out and my fingernails removed.

The Politic Ignores Politics?

One of our most loyal commenters comments:

While this continues, the world seems to pass thepolitic by: Afganistan and military spending on used German tanks for spareparts that don’t really fit the tanks currently in use, candidate nominations in the US, upcoming federal Budget speculations, provincial budgets being passed, introduction of a carbon tax in BC, the impact of the high dollar on Canadian exports – and China now surpassing Canada as the leading exporter to the US, etc, etc, etc, etc.

Those are definitely contemporary  Why haven”t we addressed them?  I’ll take a guess.

I don’t know a lot about tanks, and neither does anyone here, unless I miss my guess. It isn’t surprising that people are reticent to talk about what they don’t know a lot about.

Candidate nominations in the USA frankly, bore me. At work I have a cubicle-mate who loves talking about them, but really, there is so little separating the candidates that I can’t find it in me to be that interested.  Forgive me for not holding my breath from the beginning of primaries to November.

Speculating on the federal budget? Speculations tend to be boring too, especially when everyone and their dog is in on it.

The BC provincial budget was moderately interesting, and the carbon tax issue begs to be discussed, but geez man. It only happened yesterday! Is there a rule amongst blog commenters that they expect all bloggers to comment within 12 hours on any given issue or they are publicly flogged?

The high dollar and Canadian exports – more of an economics question. I can’t claim to be an armchair economist any more than an armchair quarterback for the NFL, so I wouldn’t tackle that one but lightly.

China surpassing Canada as the leading exporter to the USA – I am surprised this is news. I had thought that was the case for decades by now. Heck. I look around my world and I don’t see much of anything not made in China. That does seem to be cause for concern.

So, thanks. I like to think that blogs are a better place because of commenters, and this comment was actually thought-provoking. I can’t speak for everyone here, but as I have time, I will definitely address at least one of these suggestions.  As for the rest, I have read elsewhere that we should be providing more insightful political commentary.  That challenge is appreciated, but asking us to write about subjects that we don’t have any knowledge of seems like a good recipe for bad commentary.  I’d rather stick with subjects I know enough about to defend my positions on.  You may not agree with me, but at least I can take a bash without a second thought.

Next Page »