President Robert Mugabe threatened a state of emergency if businesses profiteer from the economic crisis, a move that could give him even more sweeping powers to punish his opponents in the event that political power-sharing talks fail.

The real profiteering in this economic crisis comes from the government, the issuer of the currency.

This is beyond horrifying. The Mugabe Solution to control astronomical price inflation — which is a direct result of the government printing and printing worthless money while forcing people to use it — is to:

• change the digits on the bills
• put time limits on how much can be used
• to print more money!

He must believe in magic!

They do not believe in magic. They understand full well the economics of what they are doing and the government is using it to their advantage as much as possible. They are doing what all governments do: print money, hand it out selectively, tax and let the tax-payer pay more through consumer price increases. The outrageous inflation rates are a direct reflection of the outrageous tyranny and parasitism of the Mugabe government. Effectively, the government is forcing wealth away from the poor Zimbabwean towards the pockets of the government.

Get a load of this:

“No financial institution shall impose any fee, commission or other charge whatsoever in respect of the conversion from the old currency system to the new in terms of Subsection (9) or (10),” read the regulations.

A financial institution caught contravening the section would be liable to a fine of up to or exceeding Level 14, the highest level available.

I do not know what a “Level 14″ fine but I notice they are not denominating it in the form of a currency. I wonder why.

Historically, these disastrous hyper-inflationary episodes usually resolve themselves quickly if the printing press stops. My prediction is that once Mugabe is completely paralyzed with his own useless paper — i.e., his thugs are incapable of buying anything — a foreign country will wave a rescue package in front of him and inflation will disappear overnight. Such a rescue package will not come for free, mind you. Zimbabweans will have to concede some level of sovereignty which will likely be condemned as foreign imperialistic control when, in fact, it will all be solely Mugabe’s fault. Unfortunately, the poor Zimbabweans will continue to suffer until that day.

What we have after all those caveats is a shift that won’t do an iota to change the habits of Canadians, if the goal is still, in fact, to save ourselves from the sixth element of the periodic table. The fact that Dion is trying to convince us that life will go on normally also demonstrates that the professor didn’t take much chemistry in his undergrad as even the only item that doesn’t require carbon for production, computer software, still requires a bunch of energy that comes from carbon just to run the computers that make the programs. How is this not going to affect us?

Then, of course, we must consider what corporations are going to do. Being nobody’s fool, any industry that pollutes like the steel factories in Hamilton, the auto plants in the GTA or the oil refineries in Alberta, will just find a way to slip their sites south of the border where the environmental lunacy currently hasn’t hit the same heights. Under Stephane Dion’s loophole-ridden Canada, we sell our oil assets to the States, sacrifice jobs that would’ve been created to refine the black gold, then buy it back at a loss for our vehicles that aren’t going anywhere because of said lack of jobs.

So, with that all considered, can we really count on the Liberals to actually follow through with anything? Well, they’re still proposing a tax aren’t they? And since I just spent three paragraphs explaining the glories of this plan, and that your average Canadian voter stops reading after “insiders”, I’d say that Stephane Dion will successfully reduce our carbon pollution by putting the massive CO2 emitters currently in the Liberal caucus out on the street, and ensuring that their successors won’t be blowing so much hot air about a plan too gentle for environmentalists, too harmful for conservatives and too complex for a national party to win voters over on!

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

The economy will likely avoid a formal recession, but its outlook through the end of next year is decidedly “subprime” with the deep housing downturn restraining growth to just above 1 percent, a UCLA Anderson Forecast report released on Wednesday said.

A “witch’s brew of the popping of the housing bubble, a wounded financial system and increasing inflationary pressures coming from rising commodity prices will keep the economy on a subprime growth path for the next several quarters,” according to the forecasting unit’s report.

What he said amounts to a doctor saying “Son, we figured it out! Your headaches are caused by pain above your shoulders.” This type of superficial economic analysis is passed off all of the time and most people do not even notice. It keeps the ball rolling and diverts attention away from the source.

The truth is that this “subprime” mess is all caused by The Fed printing lots of money backed by absolutely nothing. The Fed printed money to “stimulate” the economy and to finance expenses (for instance, a war) for which raising taxes would be a politically difficult sell.

Despite what the socialists would have you believe, you can not make something out of nothing. However, you can certainly confuse people about the real value of assets in the short run thus provoking poor business decisions on a larger scale. So, instead of financing public expenses by taxing Americans in an accounting sense, Americans are being taxed by price inflation, rising unemployment, credit crunches and decreasing economic growth. What a fantastic mix.

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

“Today I called for an additional one cent per litre of the gas tax to be dedicated to public transit each and every year,” said Mr. Layton.
“That would give over a half a billion dollars guaranteed every year for public transit systems across the country.”

Such statements are nonsense without considering the effects of substitution. That one cent per liter dedicated to public transit is one cent per liter taken away from some other budgeted expense.

Furthermore, it is foolish to speak of a specific amount of money guaranteed every year for anything. Hey, Jack! Did you know that people are not driving the same cars as they were driving in the past? Did you know that technologies in fuel efficiency are growing? That may affect your “one cent per litre” total accumulation — negatively.

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

Every adult should be forced to use a ‘carbon ration card’ when they pay for petrol, airline tickets or household energy, MPs say.

The influential Environmental Audit Committee says a personal carbon trading scheme is the best and fairest way of cutting Britain’s CO2 emissions without penalising the poor.

Under the scheme, everyone would be given an annual carbon allowance to use when buying oil, gas, electricity and flights.

Someone forgot to tell British Environmental Audit Committee about the fact that theses carbon trading schemes are a scam.

Update:
More carbon trading fraud:

Billions of pounds are being wasted in paying industries in developing countries to reduce climate change emissions, according to two analyses of the UN’s carbon offsetting programme.

Leading academics and watchdog groups allege that the UN’s main offset fund is being routinely abused by chemical, wind, gas and hydro companies who are claiming emission reduction credits for projects that should not qualify. The result is that no genuine pollution cuts are being made, undermining assurances by the UK government and others that carbon markets are dramatically reducing greenhouse gases, the researchers say.

No surprisingly, the UK government rejects the criticism:

The UK government last night defended the CDM. “We completely reject any assertions that [it] is fundamentally flawed,” a spokeswoman said. “We’ve worked consistently for and seen improvement in CDM processes over the past few years of its operation. We believe the CDM is essentially transparent and robust, though we will continue to press for the environmental integrity of projects.”

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

Yes, it is theoretically possible that a government could calculate the possible revenue generated by a new tax, and reduce other taxes to balance the budget.

But, I do not know of this EVER happening in Canada.  Government always miscalculates and apologizes later.  The reason is that it is expedient to lie to get your way, if your only cost is to apologize after.  It is always easier to get your way then apologize later than it is to suffer the ignominy of not getting your way, even if you were wrong.

Every tax increase ever introduced in Canada has been accompanied by the promise that it will be “revenue-neutral”.  It has never been true.

I defy anyone to prove any assertion of this post wrong.

If there is any way forward, it is the passing first of legislation that forces government to dedicate revenue from certain taxes to certain services.  This needs to be done for every tax in existence on the books.  It is only with accountability for income and expense that this promise can be seriously meant… and kept.

If this was done, then the government may actually become accountable to the people.  But we know that nobody in government wants that.

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

“We need a fiscal regime that will discourage pollution rather than reward it. Perhaps the time has come for Canadians to pay less tax on good things like work, savings, and investment. And perhaps the time has also come to put a price on waste and pollution,” he said.

He mentions some peak-oil nonsense but maybe, just maybe, the federal Liberals will advocate a genuine paradigm shift of reducing the current tax burden and changing how governments collect revenues.

Get to work, Dion. Get your message out there. So far this is what they are saying about you:

Stéphane Dion n’a pas encore fourni les détails de sa proposition ni expliqué la façon dont il compte s’y prendre pour taxer le carbone.
Or, les conservateurs profitent de ce vide pour présenter son projet comme une taxe dont le seul effet sera de faire grimper le prix du litre d’essence à 2,25 $.

How can the Liberals be surprised if the Tories just spin it as a tax grab? That is what Liberals do!
I hope Dion is sincere about this but really, it is a simple idea. I do not understand the hesitation.

Hey! I will give the Liberals a head start by giving them free advice. Use this policy:
1) reduce income taxes and employer deductions
2) raise taxes on oil
Simple enough. If they want to make it politically palatable they could propose to do it gradually. For example, reduce or increase each one by 1% each year for 3 years. Understandably, nobody can predict the over-all net gain (or loss) to the government coffers and just tell that to the electorate. Just say that after 3 years, the situation will be re-evaluated. Maybe 3 years down the road taxes on oil will have to be raised by 2% to support a continued 1% income tax reduction. I would expect a lot of the electorate would vote Liberal if they actually proposed something like that — I would still not vote Liberal but that does not matter.

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

While the reasons for the union, essentially a private organization unaccountable to voters, to reject such a honey of deal remains unclear at this time, it might be time to eulogize this sort of hostage-victim relationship that the transit workers have enjoyed with the city over the last few decades since it’ll never be sweeter than this again. Combined with an illegal strike in 2006, today’s sudden cancellation of service will likely mark a turn in already sour public temperament after the aforementioned week of learning from the media just how much they had to empty the cupboard this time to appease the already well-compensated workers. As a general rule, you don’t come back to the kid you just stole lunch money again for another sucker punch indulgence. That’s exactly what the TTC has done here, prompting both Comrade Miller and a formerly reluctant Dalton McGuinty to reach a deal legislating back-to-work orders, on top of considering a further provision making the TTC essential service. If that last part is successful (and it should be since paying our taxes to public unions is also an essential service), the TTC will have lost most of the ridiculous bargaining powers it used to hold the 2 million-plus city at bay. The threats of literally shutting down the city will evaporate over night and Toronto might actually be able to keep new contract raises under the rate of inflation.

If, on the other hand, the TTC fights back and takes a page from the teachers unions’ during the Bill Davis years in the 1970s, we’ll enter into an ugly, painful, but necessary stage where the public’s outrage with an out of control union will flare up so quickly that we might actually begin to see private transportation grow to a significant level of business. Fleets of shuttle cars, taxis and other creative means of moving people would remove any necessity for the TTC, which would be relegated to a poor cousin dependent on government honey for survival, and much akin to the CBC today. We might see a Mike Harris-type Premier come along and ask why the TTC’s subway service just couldn’t be privatized like the 407 was nine years ago, since commuters already pay for the TTC as it is.

In short, the TTC is about to be de-clawed, and if it shows any teeth because of the procedure, it might find itself further surgically altered. The TTC’s literally putting all it’s stakes on the line today though. Enjoy the nice Saturday weather and smugness today though, for tomorrow you find out that you’ll get more than you bargained for!

UPDATE: Views from Joanne and Tony, with more to follow I’m sure!

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

Keeping track of all the National Post entries, I have to admit that all the big ones were covered: The Charter, multiculturalism, abortion, The Tragically Hip (actually, that last one didn’t appear, but it should’ve!). The topics covered by Post columnists had the common theme of being either the cumulation of, or source of the social ills we experience today. As I got thinking about this, I quickly came to think of our “biggest mistake” as being something which is a cause, not an effect and furthermore, our biggest mistake should’ve been the biggest cause of things that has hurt us as a nation since.

Once I got into this frame of mind, the riddle became simple: government education! You have to go back a’ways to find a time before we had such a system, but as Ontario’s last election showed, we’re still paying the price for it today. If you take any other problem that we’ve had in the last 100 years since the advent of “public” education, you’ll find that an argument can be made that the government’s meddling in our childrens’ upbringing caused it: Poor performance in the world? Government education. A narcissistic and euthanasia-bent society? Government education. The crumbling of our ability to govern ourselves? Government education. You get the point I’m sure. There’s also the more minor results (relatively speaking) like the over-bearing and scofflaw unions that now indoctrinate our children year after year, or the massive debts that our provincial governments have accumulated because they got tangled in the teaching domain in the first place.

The one thing that makes this mistake unique from the others explored though is that it isn’t unique to Canada. The United States, western Europe, and Australia have all been duped by the allure of having big government pay for every little boy and girl’s enlightenment. If it weren’t for the sparsely populated elitist, religious and cultural private schools consistently out-performing the government systems in the western world, we wouldn’t even have a way of knowing just how much we’re failing our kids. It does present an opportunity for Canada as well though. If we were to take a leadership role in the 21st century by revitalizing and reinvigorating our school systems, doing away with political controls and the presumption that parents aren’t the best decision makers for their children, it would take practically no effort for us to excel to the head of the pack and become the best-educated most potential-blessed nation on the Earth. We’d become the new Japanese, as it were. It’s all something to think about, both from a contemporary and from a visionary point of view. Who knows, our kids might even learn how to properly do their taxes in a couple of generations!

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

Finally something from the NDP that makes sense but unfortunately, the Conservatives object. Damn. Pat Martin brought this up last year too.

Getting rid of the penny will save minting costs. Furthermore, retailers will stop counting and rolling the wasted metal. The only people who stand to gain by maintaining the penny in circulation are the people who work at the Royal Canadian Mint.

Anyway, if the Mint does not eliminate the penny, consumers will eventually. With enough time, the face value of the pennies will be worth less than the metal. People will haul them over to scrap-metal yards to have them melted down.

——–

You know what perplexes me the most? Retailers can get rid of the penny themselves. They can quote after-tax prices in round numbers.

I get pissed off every time a cashier asks me “Do you have an extra penny?” or “two cents?” or “three cents” or whatever to round out the change that I receive. They want to avoid depleting their register of petty cash. I think: “You are the one quoting the dorky prices!” Retailers should quote prices with taxes included and round up their prices to the nearest nickel. We should not be wasting one iota of effort handling pennies.

The other day I went to the hardware store to buy a custom-sized nut and washer. Not only did this little washer cost more than the nut but it cost more than a dime. After handing over my change to the cashier the following hit me: I could have just taken a nickel or a dime and drilled a bloody hole through the middle!!!!!

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

Next, The Garth has been in a huff this week over Conservative leaflets being mailed out to residences that are covered by the House of Commons budget for MPs to mail out resources to 10% of a riding. While I think there is merit in exploring the relevance of this sort of programme in a day and age when we have the internet among other handy resources to get the word out to constituents, Turner and the Red Star fail to mention that the Liberals are doing the exact same thing. I’ve received periodic messages from Stephane Dion in my mail (I live in a swing riding that is currently held by a Conservative) attacking the government and playing up all the blessings a Liberal government would bring. The mailing originate s from the House of Commons — specifically the Office of the Leader of the Opposition. Garth, you haven’t been naughty with your ten-percenters, have you?

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

So how does the Ontario government respond today with its annual budget? A bunch of fluff: a new programme to retrain 20,000 workers for new jobs; special tax cuts for Northern Ontario and squeaky wheel businesses that need to be taken off corporate welfare if they ever hope to actually contribute to (as opposed to leech off of…) the tax pool; continuing the ill-fated planning that all governments since the ’60s have done of making Toronto the centre of the universe through the transit system just when many businesses are choosing to move outside of Hogtown due to congestion and killer municipal tax rates; increasing welfare rates by 2% so as to give people using the programme every reason to stay on the government dole; and killing off any notion of a surplus with little pet projects while offering absolutely nothing to the overtaxed families of the province. This is how the provincial government of Ontario, which will in all likelihood come cap-in-hand to the feds later this year, intends to make Ontario economically competitive in a time of high uncertainty. Tinker here, grease that wheel there and hope for the best.

The facts don’t lie though and they’re clearly pointing to us becoming a “have-not” province; not something that should mean that the feds owe us something, but an indication that the leading economic growth that we experienced under Mike Harris has officially evaporated. You can’t blame oil for Quebec, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick out-pacing our growth here either. Nor should the feds do anything more as they at least took their surplus last year and put it to some good use by giving us the most competitive business taxes in the G7. Juxtaposed to Dalton? Well, at least the kiddies’ll have apples at school when they want them!

What’s saddest of all is that only now will people begin to realize just how foolish we all were to elect a super-majority government on the basis of an ill-advised opposition leader’s pet project; if nothing else, Dalton’s health tax should have assured his Liberals that they would only receive a minority mandate. The fun’s only begun though since we still have another three feel-good, do-nothing budget to go from these folks. I can only imagine what we’re in store for next year, when the 20,000 PhDs that Dalton trains this year realize that all the retraining in the world doesn’t mean a hill of beans when there’s no jobs out there to apply said training with!

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

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!

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

I think we all have a strong objection to the money that we earned by our own sweat being used to fund programs that we find offensive or objectionable.
For any Christians who think that this is a step in righting the wrongs of past Liberal governments who have used taxpayer dollars for Christianophobic material is that the shoe will eventually get onto the other foot; not if, WILL! A Liberal government in the future need only redeclare the program as serving to protect minority voices and volia, feminazis will be the typical type of group getting film funding.

The same goes for those on the left who are self-professed agnostics, atheists and the like. Think of how you would feel if this program in its current form went through. Not nice to know that your money is funding ignorant, intolerant hate-speech, or whatever you’re describing religious opinion as these days, is it? As I said, the shoe will always go on the other foot in a democracy like ours, so why are we taking turns being offended when we should just let the people who make the money such programs are greased by make the decisions themselves…with their dollars?

In extension, my only hope is that now that we’ve woken up the socialites to the notion that group-specific funding can be divisive, they won’t be as hypocritical as to call for programs like the Court Challenges Program to be reinstated. Just some food for thought…

(h/t to Bene Diction Blogs On)

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

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.

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

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.

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

Meanwhile, I have a few friends in teachers colleges across the province who have reported back that specific unions have come into their classes to tell them the names of Liberal candidates in the local areas that they were expected to vote for “if you want a job after school” or how there are now classes dedicated to teaching how great a man Pierre Trudeau was (even if he were a great man, a controversial statement in itself, should we not teach the students to judge history for themselves?). As they say, your tax dollars at work.

I found this video on YouTube today that brought me back to these issues and reminded me of just how intellectually bankrupt our system is, and ethically destitute the unions which brought it about are. The United States has many good things, and many bad but one constant in the latter category has been its education system which has been a point of grief in that country since at least the time of the civil rights movement. Watching the video, it really depressed me to notice how much of the show could be cast in Ontario these days — particularly the part around the 22 minute mark. John Stossel is a personal favourite, and 20/20 (like all TV investigative journalism shows) should be watched with caution but aside from the fact that the network has a vested interest in not being sued for slander, Stossel makes his best point at the end of the show: a hope that this sparks a debate.

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

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.

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

Sydney’s Cardinal Pell heavily criticized an Australian medical journal for publishing a professor’s letter calling for a tax on children of $5000 per child and $800 yearly for each child after birth, as punishment for parents who have families larger than two children.

…

Dr. Barry Walters condemned Australia’s “baby bonus” program, writing that “showering financial booty on new mothers” encouraged “greenhouse-unfriendly behaviour” and that Australia should adopt population plans similar to those in India or China. Trees should be planted to negate the ecological effect of every child born, he said.

But Cardinal Pell said that anti-human environmental proposals from extremist minorities were the real cause for concern.

Sadly, extremist minorities, the likes of which we saw around here courtesy of Atheism’s American high priest, soon become oppressive majorities after they use their influence in the education system to brainwash enough young voters to militantly support the agenda in question.

Just for the record as well, it’s not like India (whose culture is known to mimic ancient Rome’s and prefer male babies while slaughtering its daughters — feminists? feminists?!) or China export there excess human capital to other nations like our grande immigration scheme in this country likes to imagine. The bodies pile up pretty fast.

This professor’s letter also begs the question of what would happen if expectant parents aren’t able to pay a sickening carbon tax on newborns. Does the state then empower itself to violate the mother physically and abort the child? (Feminists? Feminists?!) The only crime that I can see the armies of The Left truly convicting this professor of is demonstrating modern liberalism’s true agenda of pursuing a Utopian world (which won’t work under real-world circumstances) through means that would make Hitler, Stalin, et al blush in jealousy. At least the ancients, as primative as I’ve been told they were in comparison to our highly evolved brains and culture, were honest enough to admit when all they wanted was a good old genocide to appease their blood-thirsty gods!

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

Now that we’ve all settled into winter here in Canada and the Bali Summit is complete, the focus is starting to turn to the mission in Afghanistan. It struck me yesterday in my travels during the Boxing Day trials that these two political theatres have an interesting correlation that everyone on the Left, the Right and in between should heed:

In the environment sphere, the Left tells us that despite the fact that the U.S., China, and India (the global leaders in CO2 emissions and real pollutants) have, to date, not signed onto any treaty that would limit their emissions Canada should step up to the plate and do more than our fair share in reducing these emissions so as to at least reduce the alleged damage that would occur due to CO2 build-up in the atmosphere.

In the global security sphere, the Right is telling us that despite the fact that Great Britain, Germany, and Italy (the other coalition partners that are part of the NATO mission in Afghanistan) aren’t contributing their fair share in the heavy-fighting reasons in southern Afghanistan that Canada should step up to the plate and finish the job no one else is willing to in Afghanistan so as to at least bring stability to the Afghan people.

It’s an interesting comparison especially when you factor in the rebukes to each respective argument. While I would argue that the Afghan mission has more success, both initiatives are only tentative and not guaranteed to bring on a better world and both are costing our economy money that opponents would be better spent.

The only consideration that I believe we should be factoring into these issues as we consider how to move forward on them is that in both cases the other countries of the world are either too lazy or too hypocritical to engage in the endevours themselves, so whether it is fighting the Taliban in the mountains of Asia or car emissions on the 400, we shouldn’t be looking to the international community for either guidance or support. Rather, our policies should be based on a clearly thought out vision that is prudent and ultimately promotes Canadian values and growth. Consider this when both issues come up in next year’s almost-certain election when all four party leaders pitch their vision (or lack thereof) of why we should hitch our coach to their particular wagon!

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

Such is the case with the new music copyright and piracy legislation that the government is in the process of introducing. Now, before I go any further, let me say that I completely understand and agree with the argument that Canada’s copyright legislation is currently too lax, and that this country, thanks to Pierre Trudeau and his beloved philosopher-kings in the Supreme Court, is endorsing theft. But, as the old childhood lesson goes, two wrongs don’t make a right.

The fact of the matter is that if you’re downloading movies or music for free online without the explicit permission of the owner(s), you are committing theft. The argument that the money just goes to overpaid music execs who abuse their meal ticket artists is irrelevant. Below I will get into why I have little respect for the music suits as well, but that does not mean that I am free to engage in vigilante justice. Otherwise, people could rightfully justify (also in their own minds) taking gas from the pumps without paying (”it just pays for oil barons to build another mansion”). In fact, you could basically steal anything since there’s an infinite number of excuses out there that we could all use to justify the unauthorized use/possession of a product under the law. So, in that sense the entertainment industry is correct in pushing the government to give legislative teeth to the companies’ claim on their products.

That said, I think in this case a revision of our laws will actually cost the music industry in particular more than it will gain — and that’s certainly not a bad thing either! Music companies have, for decades now, abused the fact that they hold the power to make or break artists with just a word. Twice, in the late 70s, and more recently in the late 90s, this power has been challenged by the free market spirit of competition. Both times, record sales have declined. The former case had CDs and MTV, among other forces to thank for bringing it to a close. However, almost a decade later, the internet phenomenon has seriously wounded the way that music companies do business and demonstrated that it is an obsolete model that is on its way out.

So what do these companies propose as a solution? Rather than adopt to the emerging realities, these companies go to the governments of the world and demand compensation through new taxes and laws that presume guilt from every single buyer. The new legislation that Minister Prentice is proposing will actually bite the hand that feeds the music industry: people like me who actually buy their music will be forced to pay a new tax on sites like iTunes to compensate the company for our neighbours who chose to get their music by theft. Wonderfully fair, isn’t it?

So, will the music industry actually right any wrongs through this methodology? Hardly! Already, the music industry’s reputation is in decline among music buyers for having the audacity of proposing that the government force Canadians to pay their bills for them. Remember too that this is a group of companies that HATES to give consumers what they want until there is absolutely no other choice: we still find CDs full of filler songs and at prices only moderately lower, post-Napster, than they were before; the selection on iTunes is still dull since companies are reluctant to allow users to purchase individual songs; artists are still being scammed and, in older cases, unable to maintain control of their creations (I’ll note here that while this is technically legal, it demonstrates that our property laws really need revisions as well!).

In short, the music industry as we know it is dying but it’s trying to drag the rest of us down into the ground with it. Too bad the government is actively going to help it. To show just how misguided these attempts are though, might I suggest you merely go down to Buffalo and purchase a US iTunes card — the store has better selection, and there won’t be a squeaky wheel tax levied on the purchase!

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

On the latter note, we’ve seen such bright lights as a ban on two-garage houses and on pellet guns here in Kitchener recently (with another wise-guy idea to ban windows that open more than a foot wide to prevent saps like me from falling out of apartments on the way, although balconies are still perfectly legal…), now it’s Hamilton’s turn to show that they too can take their stupid pills with the best of them! Tonight, Hamilton city council is debating a motion to limit garbage to one bag per household. As my 16-year-old sister quickly pointed out, there’s some very nice fields around Hamilton (seriously, they exist!) that can and will become insta-landfills if this bylaw goes through — memo to councillors: Captain Planet would be proud!

But while Hamilton’s representatives are debating whether they should limit garbage to one or two bags, clear or black plastic, coffee, tea or Sega, might I also point out that we’re talking about Hamilton here guys! The poor performance of the local football team this year is only a reflection of the malaise that engrosses this city; that is why many, like yours truly, simply leave at the first opportunity! I did come back though to enjoy the expressway that the city finally managed to build, after only 50 years of trying too!

Back to the garbage issue, I ask what is stopping the limit from backfiring with, say, students at MacMaster University and Mohawk College who would see piling garbage on the street curbs regardless of whether it gets taken or not as part of their duty to add to Hamilton’s breathtaking (literally) charm? Are we really so certain that these young citizens, known for their loud house parties, poor house maintenance and minimal loyalty to the larger community will so giddily comply with such a restrictive law, especially when they live with 5-6 other adults typically?

What is also stopping someone from, say, dumping some trash in somebody else’s pile? Or just on the street as is. I know the environazis and eggheads down at City Hall have to think that this is sheer brilliance but as soon as you lower the limit to something ridiculously low unless you’re single or a very clean couple then grey areas will start to appear among the green. On that note, speaking of green that is, I must’ve missed council’s debate over the tax reductions 500,000 Hamiltonians will see next year now that they’re having a major service cut back!

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

However, nothing could be completely rosy in a piece by the Red Star on the subject of a Conservative politician.

He takes issue with 10 billion of the surplus being paid towards the debt.

“In moderation, debt reduction is useful. But given the real problems this country faces – from infrastructure, to poverty, to the environment, to the need for public transit, to housing – couldn’t Flaherty have spared just $3 or $4 billion to fix up the public space we all inhabit?”

Never mind that at 5% interest on the debt, with that one paydown Flaherty has saved Canadians a half a billions dollars PERMANENTLY that can be used for exactly what he describes: infrastructure, poverty, the environment, public transit, housing… the list goes on.  It will take only 8 years for that half billion to turn into the 4 billion he wanted spent on programs.  How many Liberal promises were made to spend 4 billion on various programs over 8 years?

But Flaherty didn’t have to raise taxes to do it.  That’s what makes him a Conservative, and that is why the Left should never be allowed to run this country again.

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

Leader Stephane Dion says a Liberal government would consider rescinding Tory government cuts to the goods-and-services tax.

Is there video footage of this statement? If so, it would make the “didn’t get it done” clip look tame by Tory attack ad standards.

Is partisan politics supposed to be this easy?

Meanwhile, as Stephane Dion continues his policy of unprincipled abstention, constituents of Liberal MPs are somewhat less than grateful for the privilege of paying their elected members to sit in Ottawa and drink martinis while members of the other parties vote in the House of Commons:

I am so happy that my MP is representing me by not voting in parliament. He deserves a raise.

Update: Joanne on Dion’s most recent public relations triumph:

Definitely one to sway the average voter, Stephane. Well done.

Keep going with your instincts while you sit there on your hands.

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

The premier first broached the subject in June, but decided to renew his request for at least 10 more seats after hearing Harper’s own views on democracy when the prime minister addressed the Australian parliament last week.

McGuinty said Harper’s description of democracy as “an instinctive sense of fairness, self-restraint and compromise” doesn’t match Ontario’s current situation.

“I call on you now . . . to restore representation by population in the House of Commons,” McGuinty wrote in the letter.

“I continue to urge you to make a simple amendment to Bill C-56 so that Canadians in Ontario receive the same treatment as those in British Columbia and Alberta.”

On the subject of polling blues, Shane Edwards explains why swings in party support in Quebec have such a dramatic effect federally on the party totals in the House of Commons.

It’s worth asking, what would it take to “restore” representation by population in the House of Commons?

My own view is that anyway you cut it PEI is going to lose at least half of its four MPs, and such a project will likely entail raising the total number of MPs in the House of Commons to around 400 members, if not more; that is, to prevent a major constitutional blow out over it—except from PEI.

Considering the British House of Commons has 641 members, and their chamber can’t even fit all of them in one sitting, this is doable. It could also entail some nice changes to the Canadian House of Commons, making it both a more intimate setting for debate by abolishing the desks, and, also, making it more unruly since 400 members are harder for party whips to reign in than at present (contingent on the number of parties)—less goodies to go around.

No doubt such a dramatic increase would entail a loud debate over the expense of maintaining an MP, the office resource they are afforded. That said, I think democracy would be better served in Canada by more members in the Commons, by making it harder for even a majority government to maintain party discipline.

In Britain, the government at Westminster regularly struggles to keep the support of its MPs. Just consider the controversy over Gordon Brown’s willingness to sign up to what is basically an EU constitution under the guise of the “Reform Treaty.” Just consider this story from the end of August:

Gordon Brown is facing a deepening party split over Europe after it became clear that more than 120 Labour MPs, including several senior ministers, want a referendum on the new EU reform treaty.

The figure - more than a third of the Parliamentary Party - was disclosed by Ian Davidson, a Scottish Labour MP who, despite being close to Mr Brown, is co-ordinating the strong internal campaign for the British people to be given a say.

Mr Davidson, who has written to Mr Brown on behalf of the Labour rebels demanding major changes to the proposed EU Treaty - or alternatively a referendum - told The Daily Telegraph that support among his fellow MPs was running at levels similar to 2004 when Tony Blair had to give way and promise a plebiscite.

“On the basis of the soundings and conversations I have had with colleagues, the support for a referendum is similar to last time round when well over 120 Labour MPs publicly or privately backed a referendum,” Mr Davidson said.

It is understood that several senior ministers are privately supporting the campaign.

Back to Canada, McGuinty is whacked if he thinks, and it appears he does, that Alberta should just roll over while Ontario gets more seats.

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

the bleak statistics — whether a 70-percent high-school graduation rate as measured in a study a few years ago by the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, or poor math rankings in comparison with other industrial nations — come at a time when our schools inflate grades and often honor multiple valedictorians at high school graduation ceremonies. Aggregate state and federal education budgets are high. Too few A’s, too few top awards, and too little funding apparently don’t seem to be our real problems.

Of course, most critics agree that the root causes for our undereducated youth are not all the schools’ fault. Our present ambition to make every American youth college material — in a way our forefathers would have thought ludicrous — ensures that we will both fail in that utopian goal and lack enough literate Americans with critical vocational skills.

The disintegration of the American nuclear family is also at fault. Too many students don’t have two parents reminding them of the value of both abstract and practical learning.

What then can our elementary and secondary schools do, when many of their students’ problems begin at home or arise from our warped popular culture?

We should first scrap the popular therapeutic curriculum that in the scarce hours of the school day crams in sermons on race, class, gender, drugs, sex, self-esteem, or environmentalism. These are well-intentioned efforts to make a kinder and gentler generation more sensitive to our nation’s supposed past and present sins. But they only squeeze out far more important subjects.

The old approach to education saw things differently than we do. Education (“to lead out” or “to bring up”) was not defined as being “sensitive” to, or “correct” on, particular issues. It was instead the rational ability to make sense of the chaotic present through the abstract wisdom of the past.

So literature, history, math and science gave students plenty of facts, theorems, people, and dates to draw on. Then training in logic, language, and philosophy provided the tools to use and express that accumulated wisdom. Teachers usually did not care where all that training led their students politically — only that their pupils’ ideas and views were supported with facts and argued rationally.

But hope remains; order today your copy of The Encyclopedia of Stupidity.

Matthijs van Boxsel’s rollicking compendium of human follies and foibles is like no other encyclopedia. Cataloging acts of stupidity past and present, van Boxsel introduces us to a world in which peasants collect water with a sieve, men attempt to build towers without ladders, and “village idiots” and “dumb blondes” prove the veracity of the stereotypes-a world that we call home. Van Boxsel’s intent is not only to provide laughs on every page, which he does, but also to show readers how stupidity is the foundation of civilization. Through such anecdotes as “The Not Terribly Good Club of Great Britain” and “The Hell of Fools,” he dissects the idea of stupidity and finds that it is a crucial condition for intelligence, that blunders stimulate progress, and that failure is the basis for success.

Hailed as a “warming, enlightening, and invigorating read” (Manchester Evening News) and a “weirdly wonderful compilation” (Observer), The Encyclopaedia of Stupidity quietly instructs while it uproariously entertains, making the unassailable point that to err is indeed to be human.

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

It’s official: Mike Colle (Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence) is the first causality of the upcoming provincial election here in Ontario. The Toronto Sun is reporting that Colle resigned today after the provincial auditor found millions of dollars were sent off to various agencies without proper scrutiny and, in some cases, without the agencies even asking for the sums they were given. This has potential; finally the Provincial Liberals are caught with something that has traction for the opposition parties, and frankly it couldn’t have come at a worse time for McGuinty given that Simcoe Day, not Labour Day, is shaping up to be the beginning of the campaign period. Will it last until October 10th though? Well, I personally that it just might since it’s a tangible beef for Ontario voters to digest; unlike most of McGuinty’s lies, this is an obvious and unjustified misuse of taxpayers’ dollars and it still has echos of the federal Liberals’ sponsorship scandal despite the auditor finding no direct connection between these misplaced funds and the Ontario Liberal Party. A less polite way of saying that is that he didn’t find anything, but he didn’t give the Liberals a free pass either.

The bigger question right now is how well Howard Hampton and John Tory are able to use this message to wedge their way into voters’ consideration. Before voters will start looking at the PCs or NDP, they first need to be convinced in great numbers that the Liberals have to go. So far though, the NDP has lacked the influence and the PCs the nerve to make this happen…

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

A question to those who tried to defend Toronto’s wasteful habits and spendthrift giddiness here and elsewhere earlier this week though: why, if these cutbacks are so easy and obvious, didn’t Toronto consider them before robbing their own residents…or worse, their neighbours’?

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

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!

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

Anyhooo, this one starts with a speech Morton gives saying Calg