Where the Gaia Worshipers…err, Sorry, “Secularists” Are Taking Us…

They say that university campuses are the driving force behind all the major political movements these days…well at least those on The Left. I was waiting for this to happen though:

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!

Give & Take

First off, Merry Christmas to all the readers of ThePolitic who visit here frequently. I hope that you and your families get to enjoy the Christmas holidays and are blessed with the knowledge that true peace is achievable through Him that was born when he didn’t need to be, and died that death would not be the end.

---

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!

Pirate Fairness

If I had to rate the Harper government’s performance so far, I’d have to give it an A since it has managed to do more good for Canada than 8 years of Mulroney rule and certainly more good than 12 years of Chretien-Martin rule. There are occasional examples though of when our current government will actually do harm to the freedom and liberties of Canadians Incidentally, they are usually associated with now-Industry Minister Jim Prentice.

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!

Trash Talk, Hamilton Style!

Emboldened by David Miller’s tenure as Mayor of the Centre of the Universe TM, many of Ontario’s other mayors and city councilors have recently gone on a spending binge, with budgets full of pet projects and good intentions.

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!

The Left: Bad at Math

In an astonishingly unslanderous article over at the Star, Flaherty’s tax cuts are called moderate.

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.

Trick or Treat, GST Edition

Oh man, oh man, oh man:

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.

More MPs? McGuinty asks PM

Over the weekend the Premier of Ontario, Dalton McGuinty, wrote a letter to the Prime Minister requesting more federal seats for his province in the House of Commons.

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.

This Age of Ignorance

Victor Davis Hansen has written a succinct piece on what’s wrong with America’s education system; much the same criticism can be legitimately raised here in Canada.

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.

My Goodness, How I Miss Mike Harris…

One wonders how good ol’ “Mike the Knife” would view this. Amen to the CTF and CFIB’s comments though!

Ontario Votes 2007: Shades of the Sponsorship Scandal

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…

« Previous Page — Next Page »