Harper sets record straight and scores

This one for the weeping hearts who lost their free flights to Cuba and those "Clear Hidden Agenda" language geniuses: your lies and uselessness have been exposed.

Abortion isn't an issue in this election and will never be. There's a Supreme Court ruling, and no measures can bring anything in by stealth. The activist liars should learn to deal with the fact that their cause is moot. I am sure they are aggrieved by the death of the cause for their existence, but hey, at least activist energy can be channeled to more effective and necessary campaigns.

As for arts funding being redirected to children's programs I'm all for it. Art, music, drama, virtually any form of expression can help children and youngsters develop a skill, channel their feelings, relate to other group members and learn responsibility. Without these means, the kid can be stranded and look for other ways of relating. One of those (many) ways is through youth gangs.

The Cuba aficionados will now have to justify their assertion that they prefer their own comfort to potentially helping thousands of children and building a more serene, responsible and, pardon the pun, harmonious society.

Liberal ads betray immaturity

Seeing the latest Liberal ads purportedly lambasting "Harpernomics" made me smile first and frown a second later. Do Canadians really fall for this, or are the grits just releasing junk into the ether for the fun of it?

Quoting the Toronto Star in their ads is plain childish. Alleging polluters are given blank cheques is false, since the Tories have environmental regulations at the provincial level. And if the Liberals believe that old-fashioned notion of government driving economic development it means they haven't grown up since the '80s. The sole driver of economic development is the wealth producer, not the redistributor. Companies and consumers create the drive needed to push the economy forward.

The ad about "liberal leadership" cites Dion's "achievement" of bringing together 182 countries to fight global warming. Rule of thumb dictates that the more attendees a meeting has the less matters can be resolved. The image of Dion whacking his gavel on the table is emblematic of him driving another nail in the coffin of multilateral environmentalism.

I can't imagine anyone being fooled by these superficial attacks on what has been an excellent record of economic management and leadership in a minority. Can you?

There's still some teeth to British common law

Never mind multiculturalism, his faith and his beliefs didn't place this man above the rule of law, especially its child cruelty code. Being stopped from flogging himself with blades, he encouraged his children to do so instead. What a sicko!

Comments from the judge were very apologetic (we don't mean to condemn this stupid practice of yours) and the community leaders show their complete contempt for British law anyway:

The best way of achieving our aims now is to try and understand the law better and work within the law to move forward

You're in the country, for God's sake! If they've just discovered they should work within the law and understand the law it means they ignored it before they realized it still applied, despite eleven years of multiculturalist anarchy.

Reuters placed this news item in its "Oddly Enough" section. They are more right than they imagine. British law has been slowly eroded while society gets gloomier and more disorderly. News of the rule of law still mattering, especially in matters of religion and beliefs, is definitely odd.

Guilty as charged

More accountability, making youngsters face the consequences of violent action, you summarize it, I'm for the proposed amendment to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Tackling crime is a Tory natural monopoly, since we do not seek justifications for a person's behavior but believe everyone is both free and responsible.

It is not the intent of such legislation to criminalize youth, as many Liberal weeping hearts will no doubt attempt to make Canadians believe. In the same fashion it will not necessarily mean destroying a person's life for a crime committed at an early age. Education and training in prison are a reality, and the focus on rehabilitation is still present throughout the system.

This amendment is potentially a great deterrent for both youth crime and adults using youngsters to carry out the dirty work. Many of the comments on the CBC website point this out. What needs to be inserted into the legislation is punishment for carrying weapons.

Britain realized all too late that a knife culture was spreading among its youth, and now the consequences are dire. Preventing such trends from germinating in Canada is a step in the right direction.

Globe and Mail's disappointing bias

Yesterday's G+M carried a piece by Heather Scoffield which, though touted as an "analysis", betrays at best lack of thought and at worst outright bias and intent to mislead. Presenting Tory and Liberal stances, Scoffield ends each section with statements "who benefits" and "who loses". Scoffield's comparisons may be factual (I hope) but are so biased a toddler would spot it. For instance on Government spending the stances are compared as follows:

Liberal:

Poverty reduction, families and seniors would receive more income supplements, funded by new revenue flowing through carbon taxes. The Liberals' record shows the party eliminated the $42-billion deficit in the late 1990s, but allowed spending to gradually creep up as a share of GDP.

Tory:

Mr. Flaherty argues it should be tightly controlled, though his own budgets have contained spending increases at least as large as those in many Liberal budgets. Spending is budgeted to be above 13 per cent of GDP, a higher ratio than in most years of Liberal government. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation estimates the Tories' pre-election spending promises total $19.2-billion, announced between June 2 and Sept. 6.

As for the evaluations of impact on Canadians' lives, the bias is clear:

Liberal:

Who benefits: Lower-income Canadians, through cuts to income tax and enhanced income supplements.

Who pays: The 700 large polluters who would pay the carbon tax.

Tory:

WHO BENEFITS: The middle class, because of cuts to consumption taxes and income taxes.

WHO PAYS: People who have lost their jobs at factories that have closed, because funding is for struggling firms that remain open.

If the carbon tax revenue is used to reduce poverty and pump money to certain segments of the populace it means the tax isn't revenue neutral because the same money isn't going back to businesses through tax cuts (as Scoffield purports) or consumers. Unless, of course, the Liberals cut social programs and create a "Fairness Fund" where the Green Shift money will trickle. Low-income Canadians will be treated to a cut in their benefits but an equivalent replacement by the "Fairness Fund", while paying higher grocery and fuel prices.

Same old Liberal baloney; same old media.

Three issues I'd like to see in the ads

Browsing through the Tory TV ads I noticed three great absences:

1) Environment
2) Debt culture
3) Economic shift

First off, the environment. The Party let Dion monopolize the debate on the issue with his carbon tax plan that is crumbling as we speak. These are very good times for releasing an ad featuring the Prime Minister talking openly about the Tory environmental policy, how we plan to face the challenges of increasing fuel prices and increasing demand for renewables.

Under an ideal Tory plan rewards would be given for efficiency and enviro-friendliness, such as tax credits. Under Dion, one would be punished for consuming, no matter what. Going through the hassle of being efficient would only reduce the punishment. Clearly, this is a ridiculously powerful message that we should be sending out.

Second, the debt culture. The mortgage collapse and the current state of the US economy offer food for thought regarding how people manage their money. Canada hasn't got the massive household debt the US is facing, yet I am not aware of any particular incentives for saving up instead of borrowing for consumption.

If families be important, certainty is important for families. Focusing on a shift to a savings culture would help hammer out the message that the Tories care for family solidity and wellbeing rather than just the stereotypical money they spend and the kids they make.

Thirdly, the economic shift. Manufacturing in Canada is undergoing a systemic crisis. Fuel costs, overseas labor, unionized pay and a collapse in domestic demand have driven many plants out of business. It is naive to expect this unemployment will just go away and it is very unwise to appear not to do much about it. Both McGuinty and Layton have seized the initiative on re-training funds, one way or another. Why not the Tories? I'd like the party to speak up on helping transitioning the Canadian workforce into higher-skilled specialty manufacture and service industries. This would create demand for education jobs, free up resources for other investments and secure Canadians' future job prospects.

These are only three issues I'd like the Party to address. When you count the pennies before payday you probably care a little less about what goes on above the 60th parallel.

Governors vs Senators

I was stunned by the choice of Sarah Palin as VP not because I hadn't heard of her, but because she was the wildest of guesses in random VP chit-chat with my friends. Therefore before commenting on the matter I wanted to cool off, let the excitement and intrigue out of my system and attempt to look at facts soberly.

Firstly, she is a choice befitting McCain's character. It is a surprise move and smacks of mavericking. It also throws the Obama campaign temporarily into disarray. I suppose they had attack ads against every likely VP, ready to get on air as payback for the Biden ad stunt. They likely had nothing ready on Sarah Palin, so the momentum could not be sucked out.

What did suck out the momentum and the attention from aspects of Palin's career and life was hurricane Gustav, thankfully passing without catastrophic consequences. Now, however, we're back at it. And Palin's record and values are being legitimately questioned.

The most prominent flaw in Palin's value system is her own daughter, pregnant at 17. I was torn between a "Sucks to be a so-con" position and a feeling of understanding for Bristol Palin. However we must realize no-one is a saint and no-one has a perfect family. Palin's situation may turn out to be appealing to those voting families who faced or may face the same dilemmas.

Most parents fear their children will make mistakes, many parents experience disharmony between their value system and pragmatic (or cynical) reasonings (e.g. sex ed) and there are many families in the US who were teenagers when parenthood struck them. Independents who may be frightened by a conservative VP choice may feel reassured by Palin's collision with the rocks on which she built her beliefs. Whether it moderates Palin's stances or not, the Bristol factor is a potential reassurance to independents and undecided voters: as VP Sarah Palin will not have the grounding to push for socially conservative legislation even if she wanted to. Chances are John McCain knew all too well Palin's daughter was pregnant, and decided to play this wild card.

Maybe I'm just speculating. Palin, however, is more of an everyday woman than Hillary Clinton could ever hope to be, and is certainly bound to make Obama look more out of touch with the general populace than he already is.

Obama and Biden are careerist senators without experience of running anything. Obama has an evident desire for more power and more prestige, Biden wanted to grow up so he could enter the Senate. McCain and Palin, on the other hand, have both been in the governor's seat and have run communities. This means knowing what "in touch" is actually about.

A further ace up Palin's sleeve is her status as potential President should McCain die in office. People frequently look for former Governors in the Prez's seat, and Palin gives that reassurance. McCain-Palin is a truly executive ticket, while Obama-Biden offers legislative mindsets and greed for power.

We'll see.