Speaker Milliken’s House Party Crashed

Few people, even within political circles, understand the job of Speaker Peter Milliken. Milliken is the guy who sits at the centre of the shot that is commonly shown during Question Period footage on what could be mistaken for a throne at the head of the chamber. He is also the Liberal Member of Parliament for Kingston and the Islands, a riding so safe that when I tinkered with seat projection models a few years back and plugged in numbers to the tune of the Tories getting 90% of the vote nationally (I can dream, right?), there was one Liberal seat left in the country and it was Milliken’s! I’m not sure if this factors into the equation or not, but Milliken has actually done a stellar job as speaker during two turbulent minority and one majority Parliament where behaviour was not the issue (he was first elected Speaker after the 2000 election and has been reelected twice since — something that is quite uncommon in Canadian legislatures).

Having served as a legislative page in Queen’s Park during earlier times, I’m probably too aware for my own good of the speaker’s job gotten to know and watch Chris Stockwell when he held the job in the late 90s for Ontario’s chamber. Because of this, I’ve watched the various provincial and federal gents who have held the role since my time in the legislature and agree for the most part that Speaker Milliken has done a fantastic job at being a fair broker in Parliamentary proceedings; despite being a Liberal, he has sided with all four parties at various times in accordance with parliamentary procedures.

However, aside from his superb diplomacy skills, his reported concerns that are coming out tonight have been ringing a little hollow to me personally. Even though Milliken was addressing parliamentary committees in his comments, he has shown little inclination to get his own circus under control. And to be honest, it’s almost as if he’s too nice and that’s why our Question Periods are now the shameful spectacle that they are. Back in my page days, it wasn’t uncommon for Peter Kormos, NDP MPP for Welland and a personal favourite, to get himself ejected from the legislature for unparliamentary language — language he used during his questions! As far as I have seen, and please correct me if I’m wrong here, Milliken has not ejected any MPs in Ottawa for making a mockery of the chamber. In the interest of fairness, there are numberous MPs from all four parties who I personally feel should’ve been made examples in this last parliament: Peter Mackay (for the Belinda dog comment), Thomas Mulcair for his rage incident the other day, and Denis Coderre for calling Rona Ambrose a “potted plant” in 2006. All should’ve been kicked out of the chamber, forced to make an apology if they wanted to return and as a result of procedure, bared from returning to the chamber until the next day.

Just imagine for a minute what that would’ve done to the minority government or the opposition parties had they not controlled the numbers that they needed to get bills passed, motions carried or even survive a confidence vote. If Milliken were serious about improving the work environment for our elected officials, he would be throwing the book at the various MPs (of all parties!) who heckle so loudly that the members who have the floor during QP cannot be heard even when assisted by a microphone. Sure, Milliken gets up when that member sits down out of futility and politely asks the chamber to let the statement become audible but that only lasts for five seconds (I’ve timed it) before the whole show starts again.

Of course, this is not to say that the party whips and leaders don’t have some responsibility on this front either, however it’s actually the speaker’s job (aka we’re paying him for this!) to keep order in the House. He has many parliamentary procedures and tricks that he can use to make life pretty miserable for any member/party that bucks his authority and I think that he’s proven his trustworthiness to flex a little muscle to get the chamber under control. If he cannot do that, despite the goodwill that he has brought over the past seven and a half years, I seriously have to question if Peter Milliken is the man that we want to be chief babysitter up in Ottawa.

I Hate the Word, “Regret”.

Brad Wall is the latest politician to get caught doing something naughty then after being faced with demands for apologies, he says he “regrets” his action.

Now me, I have no problem with what he did.  Probably dumb to go blabbing about it in speeches, but the act itself, talk about a non-story.

But saying that you “regret” something is not an apology.  If you apologize for something, then that means you are communicating the following:

• The action was wrong and hurt someone
• You accept the consequences or punishment for having done it
• You wish to restore or heal the hurt
• You promise to act to restore the hurt (or better, you do it).

Saying you “regret” something means:

• You wish you hadn’t done it
• You don’t want to face the consequences of having done it
• You have no interest in restoring whatever hurt you caused

If there was one wish I could wish about the media, it would be that they start holding these politicians accountable to apologies, instead of letting them get off with expressions of “regret”, embarrassment, etc.

On the Origin of Matter, Energy And Internet Debates

I was reading through Ezra’s blog last night to see if he bothered to dignify Warren Kinsella’s latest rants on him (he didn’t, thankfully!), and came across an extremely interesting post by the author from a few days ago. As nice as it was to see that there are still a few (sadly a minority) of homosexual activists who understand the basics of freedom, what struck me more was the biography that Wikipedia had for deceased filmmaker Theo Van Gogh.

Under his picture, Wikipedia lists his religious views as “Atheist” which isn’t all that interesting in and of itself unless you consider just how fumingly hostile the internet atheist crowd (complete with their own icon) is to the idea of being called religious or having their beliefs associated with the realm of faith.

While it might be true that they aren’t seeking to build any “bridges to the Divine” as a commonly held definition of religion holds, they certainly put a great deal of faith into their beliefs (and in the hostile circles, dogma that they expect the rest of us to follow).

To demonstrate, I borrow from St. Thomas Aquinas, a high Middle Ages philosopher and Dominican friar who contributed a tremendous amount of work to the understanding of the world, universe and existence during his lifetime. In my favourite work of his, titled “The Existence of God” — a document that is still studied today for its significance and logical cohesion — Aquinas gives the following physical arguments:

1) Things are in motion, ergo Someone had to put them into motion. Aquinas wasn’t even aware of the degree to which this is true, with not only the very macro (planets, stars, galaxies) but also the very micro (gamma rays, subatomic particles) participating in motion.

2) In the world, something never brings about its own existence, otherwise it would have to predate itself. Taking things back far enough though, something had to cause the initial object, particle, energy, what have you, and therefore there must have been a first “cause” which Aquinas deems as “God”.

In other words, what Aquinas did was to look at the origins of the universe and realize that whatever the first form of existence was — to satisfy the nihilist, let’s say it was a small particle, A*, from which the rest of existence came from) — that form had to come from somewhere. Apply special theories, like it transitioning from a parallel universe, or another form of existence, or what have you and you will still have to trace things back to an A*.

A* had to exist, because our universe now exists. Therefore, A* had to come from something more than just a simple A**; it had to be created. If it was created then, the creator would be two things:

1) Eternal, since otherwise we’re back to A* again, and
2) powerful enough to call up something out of nothing

We can argue about semantics, such as if the eternal trait was direct or is passed back even further, however we still need a God existing without being created to get to where we are today (and frankly, it’s missing the point here, which revolves around atheistic understanding), or to what extent creation took place (which, again, is another topic for another day!). The point is that you cannot have existence like ours without the two above mentioned traits existing somewhere down the line.

To believe otherwise would be an article of faith, with no physical rationale or evidence to lend credit to it. So, is it wrong to call atheism a religion? Perhaps in the strictest sense, in that some believe religion requires God or a god(s). However, is it a faith movement? Well, between Thomas Aquinas, Wikipedia and the Conservation of Matter and Energy, I’d say the answer is a pretty definite yes!

Legalizing Incest: Less Libertarian, more Socialist Concerns

Is it wrong for the government to prohibit incest?  This is the question that German authorities are asking themselves after a brother and sister have had four children together.

They’ve been prosecuted several times for breaching the incest law that Germany has on the books.

The history of the couple, as the article states, can be summarized: the man is 8 years older than his sister, and was taken from the home at the age of 3, before she was born.  They never met until he was 23 when he was finally re-introduced to his birth mother and met his sister for the first time.  It was not love at first sight - they did not become intimate until after their mother died, and they admit that their relationship happened in part because of the trauma of losing their mother.

Their first child was born when she was 17.

Here are the problems: first, this is a grown man who should have known better, allowing a teenage girl who is obviously in serious grief, make a huge mistake.  Second, the article make mention that the girl is also “a bit slow mentally” according to the article.  So you have someone with some cognitive limitations, in massive grief, not yet 18, getting sexually involved with her brother.  Third, all four of their children have suffered from physical or mental handicaps resulting from their genetic heritage - it is not healthy for the offspring of such a relationship.

My opinion is this: it should still be illegal because:

• This case proves the point that incest, even consensual incest, is the result of severe problems that need to be treated by psychologists.
• This case shows many signs of a person taking advantage of, or failing to act in the best interests of another.  Was it really consensual given all the variables?  Is it healthy for either of them?
• There is the question of public health.  As much as society seems to want to pretend there aren’t, the children’s health belie that idea.  Sanctioning or destigmatizing incest will result in more unhealthy babies, more unhealthy children, and more unhealthy adults.  In a day of socialized medicine, where everyone pays for other people’s unhealthy choices, these things need to be thought about.  If medical care were private, then that would be one more reason, personally, not to get sexually involved with close relatives - you don’t want to get stuck with high medical bills for children resulting from it.  But when it is public, then everyone pays for your bad decisions.  (I know this could be applied to all kinds of unhealthy lifestyle choices - that perhaps is a subject for another post - the reality that in a universal health care state, the state has the right to intervene in its citizens’ lifestyle choices, because if you and I are paying the medical bills, we have the right to expect that the governing body will legislate to minimize health care costs.  Interventionist, yes.  Limiting to personal freedom, yes.  That is the price you pay for taking from the government.)

At first glance, this seems to be a question of personal liberty.  As long as the participants in the “lifestyle” are consenting, the public should have nothing to say about it.  But in reality, in a socialist system, “lifestyle” choices become issues of public concern and legislation.  You can’t have personal freedom in a system where you are beholden to the public teat for benefits mitigating the consequences of your “lifestyle choice”.

New Theory: Cadman “offer” could be legit

Greg Weston from the Ottawa Sun has presented an interesting new hypothetical scenario over the alleged “offer” to Chuck Cadman.

But a provision in the Commons pension plan allows an MP to “buy” more years of service, either by paying a lump-sum, or through increased monthly premiums over any period up to 20 years.

If Cadman bought an extra 10 years of service, it would have increased the pension to his widow by something in the order of $30,000 a year, and to his children by over $3,000 apiece.

If she lived another 30 years, her dying husband would have effectively provided his family with additional pension benefits worth about $1 million — something Cadman might well have considered a “$1-million life-insurance policy.”

—SNIP—

The Conservatives say they made Cadman the perfectly legal offer of a repayable loan from the party to cover his campaign expenses.

—SNIP—

How Cadman actually spent the money would have been up to him.

Now, what is this special provision in the pension plan?

I cannot find an online copy of the Manual of Allowances and Services, issued under the authority of the Board of Internal Economy, House of Commons, 1993 to verify it.

Anyone have any ideas?

Gomery Whines, but Does Anyone Care?

Quick, someone get former Justice John Gomery some flowers and a thank you card - he feelings are hurt!

Mr. Gomery also admitted he was annoyed, even hurt, by an “ungrateful” Conservative government. He said the commission’s work and his report deserved better treatment at the hands of the Conservatives, who probably wouldn’t be in power today if it weren’t for the sponsorship inquiry.

“I think they owe the fact they are in office to the work of the commission. That wasn’t the objective, but it was the consequence and I think they are ungrateful to treat me that way,” he said.

Boo hoo. Actually, Gomery has it backwards - the backlash from the sponsorship scandal is one of the primary reasons the electorate turned away from the Liberals, not the actual sponsorship inquiry. The Auditor General’s report, the infighting between Martin’s and Chretien’s people and finally the media frenzy that followed was more than enough to remove the Liberals from office.

“I find it extraordinary that the government commissions a commission of inquiry to conduct a study and then, when recommendations are made, they don’t even tell you they received them … My feelings are hurt, if you must know, all that effort, thought and good intentions.”

The Liberal Government (under Paul Martin) called the inquiry, not the Conservative Government. What exactly did Gomery want… an award for doing his job?

The Liberal Platform’s Cement Ship

So the Liberals want an election again? Must be an even day of the month…

Still, Don Martin reveals some ideas that the Official Abstinence wants to put in their *winning* campaign platform:

Well, insiders say they’ll include a scaled-down version of MPDan McTeague’s registered education savings scheme into a platform featuring pledges to fight homelessness, bolster infrastructure, act for a greener environment and bail out the auto sector, all allegedly without running a deficit.

Did your read that? “… act for a greener environment and bail out the auto sector…”. The Liberals want to help the environment, by which I presume means cutting down on CO2 emissions, while propping up one of the largest emitting industries in the country. Is this just an example of arrogant incompetence, or are the Liberals planning on making everyone else sacrifice more so that the auto sector can do less?

If the latter is affirmed, where will the deep cuts come from? Alberta can only bear so much, not just politically but also as far as the sheer amount of impact reductions would bring. The Maritimes are also far too small to count for very much. Quebec is already running around like a chicken sans la tête. So in other words, the Liberals will already be lying: either to industries like the auto sector (other industries aren’t going to be pleased if one sector gets favourable treatment at their expense) or to the voting public who will vote for them based on their environmental rhetoric.

Of course, well before e-day, there’s a strong possibility — around the realm of odds that the sun’ll come up tomorrow — that the current governing party will point out this paradox to voters. After all, if the Liberal strategy actually worked, why don’t they also promise to resolve the Middle East dispute by giving both Israel and the Palestinians rights to the land or that Coke and Pepsi will both share the Greatest Cola Ever award? It might have something to do with the Conservatives being quite willing to also remind voters that whichever way you cut it, under the Liberals you the voter will be paying for it!

Gay Rights: Stifling Choice

It is interesting to read how the gay community reacts to people who are no longer gay.

Case in point, the story that broke from CTV pulling an ad placed and paid for a year: a spot featuring a man who merely states that few voices ever talk about the fact that some homosexuals don’t want to be.  Some, even, no longer are.

This fella, he characterizes the message of the ad to be “Hi. Are you tired of all the discriminatory nonsense we put you gays through?  Well, turn straight!”  You can watch it yourself here.

Note the mischaracterization of the message: The message to him isn’t “if you don’t want to be gay, there’s help”, it’s “all gays must be cured”.  You hear what you want to hear I guess.

I am not sure why advocates of gay rights like to pretend that it is all the fault of the evil Christians.  The picture is painted that all gays were simply born sexually and emotionally attracted to the same gender.  Of course, this flies in the face of the accounts of many, many victims of physical, emotional and sexual abuse, who themselves point to such trauma as the origin for their attraction.  It is not as cut-and-dried as gay advocates would like to believe, whether or not there is a genetic origin of homosexual desire.

But even if there was, it would not matter.  The whole phraseology of GBLT lumps homosexuals in with transsexuals, for whom the genetic programming they have must be overcome, and also bisexuals, for whom the “gay lifestyle” seems to be a choice.  I am at a loss as to why lobbyists, so intent on protecting their freedom to be “gay”, would begrudge people the opportunity to choose the lifestyle that they desire.

I have met several men and women who used to be gay.  Their stories are both troubling and uplifting.  The rejection and the bigotry that they faced down in their younger years over their homosexuality was mirrored when they left that lifestyle behind.  Now, they face mockers and vile attacks from the homosexual community, for their own pursuit of what makes them happy.

But then again, it isn’t really about choice is it?  All those gays who think they’re not, they just need to shut up and be happy in their gayness, don’t they?

If they aren’t happy being gay, then they need counselling, therapy, perhaps some medications to treat their desire to be straight.

Because not wanting to be gay is just wrong.

More from Lifesitenews.com.

Alberta Liberals Contemplate Name Change

So they can’t sell the Liberal name in Alberta eh?

I recommend the NEP-erals.

Yet Another Example of Universities Outliving Their Usefulness

I am not against higher education, but I am against universities. What is meant by this is quite simple: universities, a product of the high middle ages (12th century A.D.) have changed somewhat from their early pioneers, but their structure has grown stale and become more of a hindrance to providing our society with the best education possible than a help. The rise of community colleges and those institutions’ recent degree programs is but one example of our quite realization of this. We still need to come a long way though before either reform or removal affects university institutions as we are all well-versed in the propaganda that if we mess with the system countries like India, China, and in the Middle East will overtake our local economies and wilt away our massive wealth.

After stories like students being ostracized by Ryerson University in Toronto for setting up the online version of a study group, I think we at least owe it to ourselves and our children to investigate other ways of delivering essential life skills. Having graduated within the last five years, I know well the tag that many professors would add to assignments stating that there could be no collaboration.

At least where I went to school, this rule was never enforced. For example, physics professors after class would visit the study lounge on a social call, see groups of students working together on the assignment he stated was to be done alone and sometimes even offer hints to the solutions to help the group along. In first year, it was well known that a conglomerate of students would book the residential study lounges around the clock so that they always had a private, taxpayer and tuition-funded room between the ten of them; the administration turned a blind eye when it was pointed out that the same names had the room booked from January through April. Put simply, any professor at Waterloo who honestly expected either independent assignment completion or an unnetworked mob of students in his/her class to try and use the power of numbers to their advantage was just being plain naive!

If a professor or university is going to impose such a rule on its classes (one again that I don’t see much merit for as tests are structurally designed to show individual work, while assignments are always cited as learning tools), shouldn’t it work both ways? In other words, if the student is obligated to do the work independently then the university should ensure the student fair competition from his/her classmates by designing an assignment that can only be done independently without intentional and manipulative cheating. It’s only fair that Ryerson and other schools provide this in exchange as many schools, especially engineering schools like the one this troubled student is currently in, now work through a bell-curve system where it’s not about how well you do on your assignment but how you rank in comparison with your classmates. If the school is going to turn a blind eye to some forms of group work (eg. study lounge groups, going to knowledgeable friends/family) then it can’t assume to go after internet work because at least these cases have evidence prepackaged.

Of course, the former examples are unenforceable, as they should be, so again I ask why universities would even dare to set guidelines on assignments that collectively are only worth 10% of the mark because the prof knows they’re not good gauges of knowledge anyway? I wish the student now in trouble with his school all the best, and if things don’t go his way today I hope that he considers a long-term fight over this where the university will come under public scrutiny over their ridiculous rules. Maybe then, with its own reputation on the line, Ryerson will be more keen to come into the 21st century, and leave the 12th!

« Previous Page — Next Page »