Liberal Tobacco Hypocrites

The Anti-Tobacco Liberals are apparently not so much so when the end justifies the means:

“I have done crazy things,” Holland says in the audio recording. “Like...and if anyone repeats this I’ll deny it (until) the cows come home...I have gone to a shelter in the riding of St. Paul’s with a carton of smokes and said, ‘I’ll give you them after you vote.” I have done that...but they were already smokers...”(link)

Apparently this comment, according to Holland, was a joke. By the way this isn't her just denying it until "the cows come home."

People should be able to smoke whatever the hell they want so long as they don't harm others. The Ontario Fiberals should back off. Good luck on getting that from "Premier Dad." He'd rather ground us if we eat what we shouldn't, play where it's dangerous, and smoke what he'd rather not - and don't worry he'll make sure we make the right decisions on who to vote for - even if he has to exploit us in the process.

Update...

Holland has resigned, after making her fake confession.

The Liberals are now jumping on the offensive accusing Hudak of having ties to big Tobacco... I kid you not. You can't make this stuff up.

If you're going to make an apology, make it right or don't make it at all.

24 Hours To Go

It's tough to believe that it's almost been two weeks since voting began in the Blogger's Choice Awards, but that is the reality; We're now down to just 24 hours left to vote! The voting threads will be closed end of day tomorrow, so time is short to get those final votes in.

Head over to the voting page while you still can!

Reason TV: alcohol vs marijuana prohibition in the arts

Raw milk champion faces legal set back

Michael Schmidt is a diary farmer who established a business that allowed patrons to partially own a cow so that they could have a source of raw milk. The distribution of raw milk is illegal in Ontario and so Mr. Schmidt was arrested and charged. At first he defended himself in court but his case was later taken up by the Canadian Constitution Federation, the same organization that helped Peter Jaworski and his family.

Yesterday Mr. Schmidt’s case suffered a set back:

Newmarket, ON: Dairy farmer Michael Schmidt suffered a setback in his campaign to legalize raw milk today when the decision of Justice Peter Tetley of the Ontario Court of Justice reversed a lower court decision and found Schmidt guilty on 15 of the 19 charges.

Schmidt had been acquitted of all charges by Justice of the Peace Paul Kowarsky in January, 2010. The Ontario government and the Grey Bruce Health Unit appealed that decision. Justice Tetley allowed their appeal on some, but not all charges.

All claims that the legislation violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were dismissed.

The text of the decision has been posted on the website of the Canadian Constitution Foundation here.

Schmidt said: “This is just a temporary setback. We will continue to fight, both through the courts and through the legislature, for the rights of individuals to decide what they put into their bodies. The public supports us on this issue.

At this year’s Liberty Summer Seminar I had the opportunity to converse with Mr. Schmidt. He is an interesting and intelligent man to put it mildly and certainly the type who is willing to stand on principle. I have to say that I liked him.

But even if I didn’t like him, why the fuck can’t I buy raw milk if I wanted to?

Ontario Leaders Debate 2011: fiddling while Ontario burns

To the credit of the three leaders of Ontario’s largest political parties, there was a great deal of talk about policy in last night’s leaders debate. That is always nice to see both from the perspective of a policy wonk and a voter. I found, however, that most of the policies that were being hotly debated were pretty irrelevant.

Ontario is in economic and financial trouble. This is the issue that should be dominating the election but by tacit agreement none of the major parties are really talking about it. There are two questions that were asked that should have brought this issue to the forefront but all three leaders allowed each other off the hook and gave incredibly weak answers.

The first question was how the budget is going to be balanced.

Dalton McGuinty responded by talking about how much spending he introduced and plans to introduce.

Tim Hudak responded by talking about how he will make sure that ¾ of the budget is defended from cuts (health and education).

Andrea Horwath responded by saying something about blank cheques to corporations which I think was referring to corporate tax cuts, but that doesn’t make any sense on a couple of levels.

The second question is closely related to the first question, although perhaps not many people realize it. The last question of the night asked if the party leaders would be open to more private participation in the health care system. With health care spending growing faster than government revenue and taking up about half of the budget this is an important question for deciding how to get Ontario out of deficits.

Dalton McGuinty responded by saying he will beg for more money from the federal government (forgetting it seams that there is only one taxpayer).

Tim Hudak responded with an anecdote about how it sucks to have a child that is sick (I have absolutely no doubt that it sucks a lot).

Andrea Horwath responded with a rant against the capitalist system (which to be fair is at least on message).

There was another question that asked why politicians aren’t bolder. Each tried to respond by saying that they are bold, but the answers described above makes a lie of these claims. Yet the solutions to Ontario’s problems will require boldness and none of the leaders last night showed that they have an ounce of it.

Freedom Party on the BST

Freedom Party on speed limits

raising the speed limit to 120km/h is a good start but a better policy would be no speed limits at all.

Saudi Canada

I'm sure Ezra Levant didn't intent on it, but one of the curious unintented consequences of the Ethical Oil Ads, and their subsequent censure by CTV at the behest of the Saudis, has been to expose just how much influence the Kingdom of Saudia Arabia has in this country.

The fact that the Saudi's even care about their portrayal in Canuckland speaks volumes in itself, let alone the relative ease that the ads were pulled, shows some terrifying truths about the moral and (ironically) the ethical decay prevalent in this country.

Canada is definitely a more ethical country than Saudia Arabia (Despite what some CTV reporters seem to believe). But when our own media can't seem to stand up for our basic right to freedom of speech it definitely shows that our own historical ethicality is only half embraced by by our national elites. Can't fight the Saudi's - Lawsuits are too expensive. Notions of journalistic integrity are considered expedient by these Ivory Tower Newsmen.

What's worse is that these members of the "media party" have shown a willingness to take on lawsuits when it suits them. Damian Goddard was recently fired by the CTV child Sportsnet for merely expressing support for the traditional definition of marriage. Obviously his bosses were not concerned about the costs associated with any future lawsuits from Damian. Again the concept of freedom of speech seems to lost on the Saudi dominated Media Party.

Damian's lawsuit is pending, but obviously in this case the network in question decided that a potential lawsuit was worth the cost.

If anything the Ethical Oil ads have shown clearly that the Saudi way of doing things - oppresion, fear, and bullying - are rapidally finding a home in Canada.

That is to say if networks like the CTV and Sportsnet have any say in it.

It's a Saudi-Canada from now on.

Mandatory minimums and plea bargains

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the Conservative's crime bill is the unwillingness to learn from what has happened in the United States. Plenty of evidence regarding the negative consequence of mandatory minimums. Just two days ago the New York Times took a look at how mandatory minimums have influenced plea bargain negotiations.

Some experts say the process has become coercive in many state and federal jurisdictions, forcing defendants to weigh their options based on the relative risks of facing a judge and jury rather than simple matters of guilt or innocence. In effect, prosecutors are giving defendants more reasons to avoid having their day in court.

“We now have an incredible concentration of power in the hands of prosecutors,” said Richard E. Myers II, a former assistant United States attorney who is now an associate professor of law at the University of North Carolina. He said that so much influence now resides with prosecutors that “in the wrong hands, the criminal justice system can be held hostage.”

The justice system should not be set up in a way that discourages people from trying to prove their innocence. It should be about finding the truth not locking up as many people for as long as possible.

Education Inflation

“Undergraduate education is almost the equivalent of what a high-school degree used to be – almost everyone goes to university,” she said.

(...)

Mr. Steele thinks “students are being oversold on the idea of university, and some people are going purely out of a desire to earn a bump in income.”(link)

I bet McGuinty doesn't want many people reading this.

All of sudden cheaper tuition, more universities, and the "Education Premier" don't seem so useful anymore.

CBC: Nothing To Hide

A motion to call the corporation to testify before MPs was the first item of business this fall for the Tories on the access-to-information, privacy and ethics committee. It is expected to discuss Tuesday which witnesses to call.

The CBC is scheduled to present arguments before the Federal Court of Appeals on Oct. 18 about why the information commissioner should not be allowed to view certain records.(link)

What are they afraid of?

That well find out that Strombo smells? (Come one we all suspect it).

That the Mansbridge is actually a robot that the CBC built and designed to be a super-duper-Anchor during the Cold War?

That Lisa LaFlame is secretly a fairy princess (Oops! Wrong network).

Oh wait, I forgot, this was all explained in the latest Conservative Hidden Agenda Memo (TM): this is all a conspiracy by Harper to find out how the next episode of Murdoch Mysteries ends... That sly snake PM of ours...

Daring To Question The King

Doesn't always end well:

“If, Alexei Leonidovich, you disagree with the course of the president, there is only one course of action and you know it: to resign.”

Mr Kudrin responded with a jibe: “I will take a decision only after having consulted the prime minister.”

“You can get advice from whoever you want, with the prime minister if you want,” snapped back Mr Medvedev. “But as long as I am president, these decisions I will take myself.”(link)

Putin should just get it over with: have the coronation already.

Schwarzenegger vs. Layton

The hubris of one seems similar to the overreach of the other's supporters.

Hero: The Life and Legend of Lawrence of Arabia

Hero: The Life and Legend of Lawrence of Arabia, Michael Korda, Harper, 792 pages

I am an enormous fan of Lawrence of Arabia, David Lean's classic 1962 movie. I had read T.E. Lawrence's Revolt in the Desert years ago and made a mental note to try to track down a good biography of this famously enigmatic figure. Lead to to this book by a positive review in The Economist I was not disappointed. The author, somewhat ironically, is the nephew of the legendary British film producer Sir Alexander Korda, who sold the film rights for Revolt in the Desert to Sam Spiegel, the producer of Lawrence of Arabia.

The film, of course, is only a semi-representative sliver of the life of T.E. Lawrence. What this biography brings is the sense that, with little effort, a dozen good films could be made from the material of this remarkable life. As mentioned in the film, Lawrence was illegitimate, his Irish gentry father having run-off with his first family's governess. That alone would give enough for a solid Edwardian potboiler. His otherwise conventional upper-class childhood built on a lie (there was no divorce from the first wife), the complex relationship with his siblings and his many precocious talents call out for Masterpiece Theatre.

Through his life Lawrence possessed a remarkable ability to enter into highest circles of academia, government and culture with little apparent effort. His youth and scandalous birth paled when compared to his obvious brilliance. Becoming an expert in half-a-dozen fields while meandering through Oxford, his greatest challenge seems to have been one of avoiding boredom. Personal connections allowed him to spend three years doing archaeological work in the then Ottoman Empire. A masterful work on crusader castles followed almost as an afterthought.

War took him to Cairo and a junior position in the Arab Bureau. His military status was always nebulous, technically spending most of the war as a temporary officer. The bureaucrats could never quite define him. Officially sent into the Arabian deserts as an observer he became, through force of will and natural strategic aptitude, the leader of a guerrilla army that helped destabilize the Ottoman Empire. A series of brilliant military victories and a mad dash for Damascus made him a legend in the region. The shrewd American reporter Lowell Thomas popularized the legend through out the world, making Lawrence an early media stars.

In the years immediately after the war he plotted with his friend Churchill, Lloyd George and a collection of Arab Princes the map of the modern Middle East. Through his charm and cunning he placed kings on the thrones of Iraq and Jordan, the latter of whose descendants still rule in one of the more civilized nations of the region. The historians have been apportioning their blame ever since on Lawrence's slender shoulders.

His talent for "backing into the limelight" was matched by his abhorrence of fame, which was in turn surpassed only by the militant suppression of his own sex drive. Korda, mercifully, keeps the psychological commentary to a minimum and leaves us with the strange facts. Nothing evil, really, just very, very odd. Did we mention he had a fraught relationship with his pious mother? The same mother who lived in sin for decades with her former employer? Make what you will of it.

After having literally shaped the destinies of nations and kings, while somehow becoming a sort of adopted son to G.B. Shaw and serving as the model for Private Meek in Too True To Be Good, Lawrence enlisted in the RAF and then the Army. Despite having been at one point a Lt. Colonel, the king maker choose to become an aircraftman, leaving the service when his identity was discovered. A stint in the Royal Tank Corp made him deeply unhappy and he, with the connivance of the highest authorities, rejoined the RAF. His fame would soon enough force his temporary relocation to a remote base in British India, then again force his return to Britain. His death at 46 in a freak motorcycle accident served as an unworthy end.

Michael Korda, who has a long list of bestselling historical works, handles the vast material with the expected deft of an old hand. The style is easy and at times elegant. Beyond the author, however, stands the subject and his amazing story, the ultimate Boy's Own adventure story combined with a fascinating history lesson.

Counting The Vote

With now less than a week left to vote in the Awards (again, go vote here) it's quickly dawning on me that I have to count all these things. Perhaps I should be encouraging less votes at this point...

Nah, I only kid of course. Go on and vote. There's only 6 days left to do so! No need to worry about the necessity of the count. I have a plan of attack in place and have enlisted in some help from a good friend and fellow blogger, so I'll be fine.

As a reminder however, there is a three tier voting system wherby anonymous votes are worth one point, logged in voters are worth five points and votes from fellow BlogRoll members being worth ten points. This adds to the complexity of the count, but I'm so up for the challenge. It'll be fun! I like numbers, so lets get the totals up. Get out there and vote!

Australians to welcome their Queen

This coming October Her Majesty the Queen, Australia's Sovereign Head of State, will be in Australia to open this years CHOGM event. After that she will visit bush-fire victims in Victoria and flood victims in Queensland. No doubt she will receive a very warm welcome from most people. However our press is already mounting negative news headlines such as "Queen to snub Sydney". The media just don't get it and sadly probably never will.

However, ordinary Australians, as always, will welcome their Queen!

"We are two nations, but under one Queen and united by one set of values"

British Prime Minister David Cameron's address to a joint session of the Canadian Parliament


And, of course, how could our faces not light up when we heard (yes we, the blog that brought back the RCN & RCAF!) those magnificent names bellow across the chamber in the House of Commons:

Mr Speaker, amidst all this there could not be a more fitting tribute to the brilliance of the Canadian forces- and our pride at standing side by side with them -than the recent renaming of the Maritime Command and Air Command as the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force.

On Winning the Awards

We're now nearly a week into the two week awards session, and as the votes keep streaming in (if you haven't voted yet, go to the Blogger's Choice Awards page and do so) I figured it was time to discuss again what exactly the winners of these awards actually get (besides bragging rights that is).

While I can't promise grand gifts of any physical kind, what I can do is provide the 10 winners of these awards with as much promotion as I can within this network. The bigger bonus is that the promotion will last for a full year until the next awards session launch in 2012.

What will these promotions entail?

• Individual posts spotlighting each winner will be made a few days after the awards close and the votes are counted.
• Mini clickable images will be placed in this sidebar on this main blog and in the Blogger's Choice Awards section.
• Each winner will be publicized in the applicable category page with a larger clickable image plus RSS feeds for the blog.
• Everyone will also have the option to partake in 'Guest Blogging' features throughout the next year, meaning unique posts made here with links and promos to their blog found within. More on this later!

And this is only the promos within the blog network. All this will feed through Twitter and Empire Avenue and any other social networks I play with.

What I'm trying to say I guess is, all I can give is promotion to blogs, and whatever ways I could come up with to do that will be done! 

One week to go...

Troubles Voting?

It's been reported in a couple of places as of late that some are having issues voting in some of the threads, some of the time. One such heads up came from fellow BlogRoll member Viewpoint who not only posted a comment (in this thread) about the issue, but also conducted some research into it as well. From what has been learned, not much can be done if it is happening to you, so it seems. I am looking into options or tips in the meantime...

I am curious to know how widespread the issue is though. Have many experienced any troubles attempting to post a vote on the voting  page? Please let me know if so!

Niall Ferguson: 6 killer apps for prosperity

Niall Ferguson lectures on the importance of certain ideas and institutions for prosperity.



I don't share Mr. Ferguson's optimism regarding the progress of some of the emerging countries in Asia. I get the impression that they are trying to download half the app and it won't work like that.

The Conservatives thinks that growing pot is worst than raping a child

Of course my title isn’t true. I am willing to bet that 99.9% of all Conservatives, much like 99.9% of all sane decent human beings, would agree that raping a child is worst than growing pot. So it is incredibly puzzling to me why the Conservative government would want to create a justice system that views pot growers as being worst than child rapists. As Ethan Baron of the Province points out, the proposed sentencing guidelines for pot growers is harsher than for a pedophile:

Producing six to 200 pot plants nets an automatic six-month sentence, with an extra three months if it's done in a rental or is deemed a public-safety hazard. Growing 201 to 500 plants brings a one-year sentence, or 1½ years if it's in a rental or poses a safety risk.

The omnibus legislation imposes one-year mandatory minimums for sexually assaulting a child, luring a child via the Internet or involving a child in bestiality. All three of these offences carry lighter automatic sentences than those for people running medium-sized grow-ops in rental property or on someone else's land.

A pedophile who gets a child to watch pornography with him, or a pervert exposing himself to kids at a playground, would receive a minimum 90-day sentence, half the term of a man convicted of growing six pot plants in his own home.

The maximum sentence for growing marijuana would double from seven to 14 years, the same maximum applied to someone using a weapon during a child rape, and four years more than for someone sexually assaulting a kid without using a weapon.

As I suggested above, I don’t think that Conservatives take rape, especially pedophilia, lightly. But you do have to question why pot growers should be viewed even more harshly. Unlike a pedophile a drug dealer is not performing an act of aggression; a drug dealer does no violate the harm principle.

We can debate if not violating the harm principle is enough to say something should be legal, but surely we can agree that crimes that actively hurt people should be viewed as worst under the law?

Gary Johnson to be included in GOP debate

This is fantastic news. All things considered Gary Johnson would likely be my pick for president. I am ecstatic that he is finally being included in the debate. He is a voice that needs to heard.http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif

Government Spending Doesn't Create Jobs

Well it does create jobs, but it doesn't create wealth. And as the video points out wealth is what needs to be created for a more prosperous society.

Economic Freedom of the World Index shows decline in Canada

The Fraser Institute has released its new Economic Freedom of the World Index, and for the first time the United States ranks below Canada in terms of economic freedom. Not just below but significantly below. The United States ranks tenth in the world and Canada ranks a comfortable 6th. But before you get too smug you should take a moment to compare the scores of Canada this year to last year.

In the 2010 EFW Index (which is based on 2008 data) Canada scored 7.95 and came in 7th place. In the 2011 EFW Index (based on 2009 data) Canada scored 7.81 and came in 6th place. So we improved relative to the rest of the world but we declined relative to our past results. In fact all this really shows is that economic freedom is declining in Canada at a slightly slower rate.

Canada can’t even claim the prize for being the slowest to decline in the top ten. That prize goes to Singapore, which declined by only .02 points.

Australia deserves special mention as the only country to gain any points in economic freedom. They went from 7.90 to 7.98. The bulk of that gain came from increases in sound money and the freedom to trade internationally.

The bottom line is that when you look at Canada in isolation we are declining and when you compare Canada to our cadre of top economically free countries we aren’t doing that well either.

Getting out the Vote

With candidates hitting the campaign trail in Newfoundland and Labrador, one may think this post would be referring to the upcoming election. Well, it's not. Nope, this post is in reference to the ongoing 2011 NL Blogger's Choice Awards of course. :)

As day 5 fades into the night we currently have nearly 500 votes cast, spread throughout all the categories. The sports and recreation thread is on fire at the moment with over 100 votes to itself. That could be a dog fight to the very end it seems. It will be interesting to see how all the categories turn out in fact, as the days move along here. Remember nominees, shameless self promotion is accepted encouraged.

In getting out the vote I've been reaching out to the usual social media networks. The Facebook page has been notified, the Twitterverse informed and ever the traders within Empire Avenue know about this thing. With the number of votes already cast, it appears to be working and hopefully this number will continue to rise as the week progresses. Stay tuned!

Psst - I encourage you to vote in the actual election too. :)

After Two Days of Voting

We are now on Day 3 of the 2011 NL Blogger's Choice Awards! So far nearly 300 votes have been cast spread over the 10 voting threads, which to me is impressive. The hot categories at the moment are the Entertainment / Media and Science / Technology ones, both of which have nearly 50 votes. The other threads aren't far behind and I'm sure as the days go by, things will pick up even more.

As a friendly reminder, you can vote once per day, per category. If you're a fellow NL BlogRol member, your vote counts a heck of a lot with the 10 points it's granted. Head on over the Voting Page now and have your say!

Reason TV: The CA Marijuana Movement after Prop 19

Prop 19 was a fascinating and very plausable attempt to end maurijuana prohibition. Why did it fail? What about 2012?

Rob Ford's move not to bid for Olympic Games was right

The best concrete thing that Rob Ford has done so far is to nix Toronto's bid for the Olympics. In most cases hosting the Olympics is ran on a huge lost and even the more successful model of private funding may be impossible with modern security concerns.

Steve Lafleur explains in this Huffington Post article:

To determine the conditions under which a city can run a successful Olympics, Torontonians should look to the two large North American cities that have recently run Olympic Games and did not lose money: Los Angeles and Atlanta. Vancouver can hardly be considered a success. The Olympics cost the province $925 million, and the city is on the hook for $700 million from the Olympic Village debacle. This does not include roughly $3.5 billion in infrastructure spending, and $1 billion dollars in security costs. Hopefully repaying those debts will take less than the 30 years it took Montreal to retire its Olympic debt.

Los Angeles succeeded because the games were privately funded (including venue construction), and the city shielded itself from financial liability. Atlanta followed a similar model, but was later criticized for over-commercializing the games. Given post-9/11 security concerns, it is questionable whether that model would even be viable. After all, $1 billion is a lot of advertising.

Clint Eastwood on gay marriage

No one has ever articulated my own position on gay marriage as well as Clint Eastwood has:

"These people who are making a big deal out of gay marriage?" Eastwood opined. "I don't give a fuck about who wants to get married to anybody else! Why not?! We're making a big deal out of things we shouldn't be making a deal out of."

"They go on and on with all this bullshit about 'sanctity' -- don't give me that sanctity crap! Just give everybody the chance to have the life they want."

Also, I hope that the Ron Paul campaign team is in touch with Mr. Eastwood for a possible Paul/Eastwood ticket:

"I was an Eisenhower Republican when I started out at 21, because he promised to get us out of the Korean War," he told GQ. "And over the years, I realized there was a Republican philosophy that I liked. And then they lost it. And libertarians had more of it. Because what I really believe is, let's spend a little more time leaving everybody alone."

Obama's buy America plan not Harper's fault

It is part of the job of the opposition parties in Parliament to criticize the government. To do so effectively they need credibility and you don’t help your credibility when you blame the government for something that is clearly not its fault. A good example of this has come up recently with the Obama administration’s plan to introduce a “buy American” provision with its “jobs” plan. The Liberals and NDP seem to be blaming the Conservatives for this protectionist move.

The claim is that if the Conservative government had a stronger and better relationship with the US government then Canada would automatically be exempted.

The problem is that no matter how friendly Mr. Harper is to Mr. Obama, domestic politics will trump foreign relations every single time. This is an almost universal truth. It is most certainly true in Canada. Domestic politics kept Canada out of the joining the US in a joint anti-ballistic defense system even though it made sense from a foreign affairs perspective.

If the domestic mood in America is in support of a policy, there isn’t much that Canada can do to prevent it.

Basically the “buy America” provisions don’t mean that Stephen Harper sucks at managing Canada’s relationship with the United States. It means that the United States has a protectionist President that is damaging to Canadian trade.

The Liberals and NDP should reserve all their ire on this issue for Barrack Obama.

THE INTEGRITY OF AN HONOUR

Lord Black of Crossharbour, OC, PC (Can), KCSG
From our other magnificent corner of the web at Royal Salute

The Order of Canada is a civilian honour, and because it flows from the Sovereign, it's integrity and the guarding of it's reputation is important.

There have been some unfortunate cases concerning the Order of Canada, either according to the criteria used to appoint someone to the Order or that which wasused to remove persons from the Order, where division, instead of unity, has been unecessarily caused. This does not reflect well on the guardianship of the honour.

It has been reported that, according to Marie-Pierre Belanger in the Governor-General’s office, consideration is being given to the possibility of removing Conrad Black, Lord Black ofCrossharbour, from the Order of Canada.

Although the 'applicant' for this action is not identified, we expect that the reason given is because of a criminal conviction of Lord Black, according to American lawin an American court; ironically for charges that by most accounts, would never have been brought against him in a Canadian court. Indeed the credibility of the American conviction itself remains suspect.

There is a provision for the Advisory Council of the Order to recommend the removal ofa person from the Order if they have been convicted of a crime in Canada or otherewisewhose conduct has brought dishonour to the Order.

At royalsalute, we believe that for the Governor-General to remove an honour that has been granted to a person in recognition of their past distinguished contribution to Canada, it is essential that any suggestion or hint of political bias be removed absolutely in such an important matter. If the Advisory Council for the Order truly believes that a person should be removed, it ought to be for the most serious of reasons that cannot betraced to any kind of personal interest on the part of the applicant or the membersof the Council.

Lord Black is a controversial figure more for his being required to unecessarily renounce his Canadian citizenship in order to accept an appointment to the House of Lords than he is for his recent American adventure. In fact, it was the abuse of political power itself that 'cornered' Conrad Black. The old canard and myth of the 'Nickle Resolution' was used against him by the government of the day; a practice that really must be legislated to a halt once and for all. There are many Canadians who continue to receive honours from the UK.

The world of 'honours' itself ought not to be such a messy business. The respect and appreciation for an honour such as the Order of Canada, should alsobe of such strength that it cannot easily be intimidated or weakened because of the behaviour, personality, lifestyle or even foolish conduct of a member. Indeed, the Council that approves the awarding of the honour needs to take greater care of the reputation of the Order by the criteria it uses for those who receive it.

There are many highly distinguished, extremely accomplished Canadians, including those who serve or have served in the military and who have given enormously to their country but who have not received the Order of Canada; whilst there are many who have received the honour who have not lived in Canada for years but whose celebrity status, especially in the USA, is unfortunately regarded as the same as one who has made the contribution of a lifetime to Canada. These inconsistencies really ought to be rectified and are more urgently to be reviewed than the obviously thin argument against Lord Black.

We urge His Excellency, the Governor-General, and the Advisory Council to consider the precedent established by HM King George in the case of the Victoria Cross, the highest and most distinguished honour in Canada and all Commonwealth Realms. When a man who had been awarded the VC was found guilty of a crime in 1920 the question of his having his VC rescinded came before the King. HM felt very strongly that the Victoria Cross should never be forfeited. In a letter from Lord Stamfordham, his Private Secretary, on 26 July 1920, his views are forcibly expressed:

The King feels so strongly that, no matter the crime committed by anyone on whom the VC has been conferred, the decoration should not be forfeited. Even were a VC to be sentenced to be hanged for murder, he should be allowed to wear his VC on the scaffold.

The Victoria Cross is higher than the Order of Canada and even the Order of Merit which is also higher than the Order of Canada. It certainly is higher than the status of 'Officer' of the Order of Canada currently possessed by Lord Black.

There is wisdom in the King's judgment.

Gregory Benton, 14 Sep 2011

A PORTRAIT OF THE QUEEN

We are stunned by reports that the government has ordered Canadian embassies and missions to have the official Canadian portrait of HM the Queen hung in the ususal prominent place.

What we want to know is: Who removed the portraits of the Queen in first place? Who ordered them removed? When did they do it? Why?

The media thinks that this correction, like the restoration of the RCN and RCAF, is because they consider the Prime Minister to be a 'staunch monarchist'. That may or many not be true. What we do know is that the PM believes in Canada's Constitutional Monarchy, i.e., the Queen as Canada's Sovereign and 'Head of State' whose continuation and role is a formal part of the Conservative Party of Canada's platform.

This is not a matter of opinion. It is the law. It says so in the Constituion Act, 1982 just as it did in the British North America Act, 1867. If the Queen were not Canada's Head of State then why are there hollers from the usual suspects to abolish the monarchy?

Of course, the real issue here is that a certain government prior to the existing government had the portraits of Canada's Head of State removed not only from High Commissions and Embassies but within the offices of Parliament and on the government website.

These are the same people who instructed certain Governors-General to refer to themselves as Canada's 'de facto Head of State' which is, of course, ridiculous. The Governor-General of Canada represents the Queen not himself.

The politest term for this nonsense is the 'abolition of the monarchy by stealth'; so that, if one can pretend it doesn't exist then it will eventually not exist! They do not like Canada as it is and they don't like the law that makes Canada a Constitutional Monarchy even though Pierre Trudeau (whom some regard as the 'Father of their Country') knew that the monarchy was part of the 'deal' when his 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' was written into the Constitution.

To change or remove the office of the Queen, the Governor-General or Lieutenant-Governors in Canada requires under law the opening of the Constitution, and having unanimous consent of Parliament and the ten Provincial Legislators. That would take some doing.

So, rather than go the democratic way, these self-serving sneaks simply pretend it away. It was remarkable that, during the Senate Hearings concerning the name of the Navy, a certain infamous General and now Senator casually remarked that he personally chose to lop off the Crown from the badge of the Canadian Army. One wonders: Who gave him the authority and why was he permitted to do that? This is the sort of behaviour more suited to a banana republic where certain people feel entitled to act at whim without deference to authority, i.e., the rule of men in place of the rule of law. That wasn't his personal badge. It represented the Land Forces of the Queen in Canada and belongs to Canada not him.

Imagine a Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police choosing to remove the portrait of the Queen from all RCMP offices and then, just, like, because, he lops off St. Edward's Crown from his badge.

Canada is, of course, a country of freedom and political parties as well as individuals have a right to express their opinion but if they wish to have the monarchy removed from their office space and coins, they should run for Parliament and get a mandate. In addition, if they are in the employ of the Crown and act against the Crown, i.e., bring the Crown into disrepute, they should be disciplined.

One is not required to be a monarchist to be a Canadian citizen but one is required to make an oath of allegiance to Canada's rightful Queen, her heirs and successors in the law.

Unless and until Canada's constitutional reality changes, if ever, they, like the current government is doing, should respect Canada as she is and that includes the Queen and Royal Family and the portrait of Canada's Sovereign in all public buildings.

And the media should wake up and realize that the monarchy has not been abolished just because it has previously been ignored and dismissed by a self-appointed elite.

Gregory Benton, 8 Sept 2011

Is the Premier Office too powerful?

With the debate in the provincial election mostly focused on the leaders, I think this is a good opportunity to take a moment and consider if the Premier of Ontario has too much power compared to the other political institutions.

According to the NDP, being a responsible adult is a punishment

Ontario NDP leader Andrea Horwath has announced that if she was Premier of Ontario students wouldn’t have to pay interest on their government loans. She defends this position by saying:

“We have to stop punishing people for investing in their future. It doesn’t help any of us when people graduate buried under a mountain of debt,” she said, flanked by Ryerson students and Trinity-Spadina candidate Rosario Marchese.

Punishing people? In what way is demanding an interest payment on a loan punishing someone? Interest is what you pay to compensate a lender for losing the opportunity to do something else with the money they are lending you. Without such compensation this “loan” basically turns into a gift and the borrower turns into a charity case.

The distinction is important.

When a student is considering his/her course of study she/he must decide the best way to invest the money that he/she has borrowed. If he/she makes an unwise investment and has difficulty paying the interest then it is the fault of the student. To put it another way, the student is responsible.

If the student does not have to worry about paying interest then there is less of an incentive to invest wisely with what is essentially free money. Again, to put it another way, the student is not responsible.

In the NDP’s mind making someone responsible for their own actions is a punishment. To force someone to pay for the cost of their decision is somehow unfair.

In NDPverse no one should be responsible for themselves because then tough choices might have to be made and that is just too darn hard.

Stand firm Rob Ford

Rob Ford is a man under siege. In an effort to fix the City of Toronto’s financial situation he has insisted on finding “efficiencies” and not raising taxes. At this point it is pretty clear that “efficiencies” has to mean program cuts, but still this should not deter Mr. Ford. Government finances, despite the mythology of socialists, do not run on magic. Tough decisions have to be made and I am glad that we have a mayor that appears willing to make them.

I doubt that the results will be perfect.

I guarantee you I could find something to not like about Rob Ford’s administration.

But if Rob Ford’s legacy is a balanced budget without higher taxes then I will be glad that he was Mayor of Toronto.

Ontario NDP using Jack Layton's name (ii)

Yesterday I wrote that NDP leader Andrea Horwath was deserving of respect for telling local campaigns not to use the death of Jack Layton to win sympathy. She said that the NDP campaign will be focused on people, which I assume means on public policy.

Today it has come out that the central campaign has also used Jack Layton’s name to raise money. I don’t know if Ms. Horwath approved the fundraising letter or not, but either way I find it pretty disappointing.

It is disappointing because it appears from this article that Ms. Horwath has no intention of enforcing her directive not to employ Mr. Layton’s corpse as a political prop.

2011 Choice Awards Launched!

Voting for the 2011 NL Bloggers Choice Awards has been launched! 10 threads have been posted in the Blogger's Choice Awards section, each listing 3 nominees to vote on. To cast your vote, simple reply to the thread with you choice and that's it. Note that you can do so in all the categories and please remember, only one vote per day per category. Voting closes at the end of September.

To those who have been nominated, feel free to shamelessly promote your nomination. :)

Have fun!

Making sex offender registry public is a bad idea for public safety

The PC Party’s idea of a website of registered sex offenders makes no sense as a public safety proposal. I can understand the concept behind a registration for sex offenders and I can certainly understand restrictions on where someone convicted of specific sex crimes can live, but I don’t understand how a website would do anything for “a law-abiding family’s right to safety.”

No other policy would be as certain to turn a complying registered sex offender into a noncompliant convict running from the law. A sex offender that is known by his/her neighbours is certain to be driven out wherever she/he goes. Eventually any individual is bound to start ignoring the rules and refusing to cooperate with authorities.

Since there are 14,000 registered sex offenders in Ontario, it would be an impossible task to hunt them all down if they all or most decide to become noncompliant. So then you won’t know if your neighbour is a convicted sex offender and neither would the police.

Furthermore vigilantes are not uncommon where this policy has been introduced in the States. I can definitely understand the desire to beat your neighbour to a pulp if you discovered that your neighbour had once sexually assaulted a child (I actually got a little angry just typing the words “sexually assaulted a child). But that natural human emotion is not conducive to public safety and it does great injustice to sex offenders who were convicted of more minor crimes.

If anything it is likely that publishing the names of sex offenders would be bad for public safety.

In politics money isn't everything

The importance of money in politics is usually exaggerated. Consider the recent Republican victory in New York.

Money raised:

Bob Turner (R) $200,000
David Weprin (D) $500,000

Having more money is an advantage certainly, but you can't buy an election.

Ontario NDP using Jack Layton's name

Yesterday the local NDP candidate was canvassing my building. I didn’t get a chance to talk to him because my life partner was the one that answered the door and she gave him a curt no thanks. I thought this was unfortunate because I dearly wanted to ask him about something on his biographical blurb (what the hell is a Ph.D in corporate responsibility and economics?). I did however get my hand on his pamphlet (by stealing it from a neighbour) and I noted a reference to Jack Layton.

It was pretty blatant. The reference was a quote from Jack Layton’s death bed press release and that odd outline shape of Mr. Layton that has become popular among certain union activists. There was no claim that Mr. Layton endorsed the candidate, but it did serve as a reminder of the emotions that many felt after they heard of the federal leader’s death. It was obvious that the designer of the pamphlet thought that this would help the candidate’s chances.

I’m not surprised that the Ontario NDP is trying to use the death of Jack Layton for electoral gain. I was, however, disgusted that they would be so overt about it. It seemed indecent and made me wish more that I could have talked to the candidate to ask him why he felt it was appropriate.

In a move that is even more inappropriate, some NDP candidates have been using Jack Layton’s name in automatic phone calls. The scripts of the calls basically suggest that people should vote for the provincial NDP’s in memory of Mr. Layton.

I was happy to read today that the NDP leader Andrea Horwath has told the local candidates to stop this nonsense. She has gained some respect in my eyes.

Ron Paul advert: more choices than Romney and Perry

Regarding the Nominees

Just in case frequent visitors missed this post from a while back (or new visitors are jumping in for the first time), I wanted to remind everyone of some of the criteria I used in selecting nominees for this years awards session. They are listed below in no particular order:

• Longevity - As this is the first year for these style awards, long standing members have been given a certain amount more consideration. There will be a much larger pool for selection next year.
• Frequency of posting - Those who post more were considered more. Makes sense to me anyway. :)
• Design - This was totally based on my opinion and believe me when I say that all were awesome, so this was moot really.

Having said that, I mainly just wanted to reiterate how difficult it was to select the final 30 to be put up for vote. You have no idea, trust me. The content of this collection (as I'm sure any browser already knows) is vastly diverse and all enveloped in awesomeness, so choosing only 30 out of over 300 was tough... and next year will only be more difficult. I think I'll have to put a nomination period in place or something... hmmm...

Anyway, let's stick to this year. 3 days!

Civil Liberties and technology after 9/11

The Politics of Xenophobia: the 2007 and 2011 Ontario elections

There is emerging an interesting similarity between the 2007 and the 2011 Ontario elections. In both elections one of the worst human reflexes, xenophobia, has been used to turn a relatively minor policy proposal into a central point of the electoral debate. In 2007 the Liberals argued that religious school funding would mean funding Muslim schools, which they subtly and not so subtly suggested would be the same as funding radical Muslims and possibly terrorists. In the 2011 election the PC Party is arguing that a proposal to subsidize the hiring of recent immigrants is screwing over locals in favour of “foreign workers.”

I have often argued that the school funding issue was not the reason that the PC Party lost the 2007 election. It was a symptom of a deeper problem with the strategy and platform of the party. Still it is undeniable that the issue had an impact on the outcome.

It was interesting watching the Liberal Party, who have traditionally accused Conservatives of being racist, get away with a fundamentally racist argument. As I suggested above their argument came down to, “we don’t want to fund more religious schools because then we would have to fund Muslim schools. And Muslims are nasty radical terrorists.” It tapped into the worst element of human nature, the fear of the other. It was a disgusting strategy that seemed to have worked.

The PC strategy in 2011 is not quite as racist, but still cultivates the same xenophobic fear of the other. Many if not most people have a sneaking suspicion that other people are taking up resources that they could be using. If someone does not belong to what that person sees as their group, then often that suspicion becomes outright paranoia. In policy debates this emerges as an assertion that immigrants “take” the jobs away from locals.

By using phrases like “Ontarians need not apply,” and “foreign workers” to discuss the Liberal Party’s proposed subsidy the PC Party is pretty blatantly appealing to anti-immigrant sentiment. To be fair this policy does represent the taking of resources from one group and giving it to another, but that also describes almost every other government policy that has ever existed. You have to wonder why this particular redistribution is worse than any other.

Two more similarities between the debates around the religious school funding and immigrant job subsidy policies strike me.

First, they are both pretty minor policies. The spending being proposed in both policies, when taken as part of the total government expenditure, is about the equivalent of someone forgetting to round correctly. Also the number of people directly affected by these policies would be pretty underwhelming. Furthermore neither policy represents a major shift in government philosophy, but are both a natural extension of a principle already inherent in current government practice. This is hardly what you would expect parties to fight elections over.

Second, they are both bad policies that could be easily criticized without having to resort to racist or anti-immigrant sentiment. It would not take much effort to poke holes into either policy, especially the job subsidy idea. This suggests to me that the point isn’t to criticize the policies. The point appears to be to actually utilize people’s xenophobia for electoral gain. The proposed policies in of themselves are not important, but they do open the door to allowing politicians to use certain rhetoric.

In a province that prides itself for being cosmopolitan, it strikes me odd that xenophobia is playing such a prominent role in two elections in a role.

Blogger's Choice Awards Set to Launch Sept 15th

We're finally ready to launch the 2011 NL Blogger's Choice awards! As noted on this recent post in the Awards section, things will kick off very soon; this coming Thursday, September 15th!

Here's a run down of how things will work:

• NOMINEES: Each category listed to the right has 3 blogs carefully selected based on many elements; design, content, frequency of posting and longevity on the list to name a few. The decision was solely at the discretion of the organizer of this list (for this first year anyway).
• Early that day 10 posts will be made in the Blogger's Choice section, each listing the 3 nominees per category and will remain active for 2 weeks (well, 15 days) until the end of September. All one will have to do to vote is reply to the thread with their choice and that's it. 

• TO VOTE: All one must do is reply to the voting thread listing their choice(s). It'll be as simple as that. There is one slight addition however; certain value is applied to the type of blogger who replies:
• NOTE: We are limiting the amount anyone can vote for any blog to be daily.
• Anonymous voters will be worth 1 point. They can't be ignored, but shouldn't be overvalued (and flood control will be applied just for good measure).
• Logged / linked in voters will be worth 5 points, as to me the non-anonymity of these votes are worth more.
• Votes from fellow NL Blogger's currently listed on the roll will be worth 10 grand points. These are our true peers after all and adding this interactivity will only be a bonus in the end.
• WINNER: The winner of each category will gain a tonne of free promotion, for a full year, within this site and the network it extends into. From promotional posts and badges on each category page, I have plenty of ideas up my sleeve for over the next year. I wish I could announce grand prizes of extreme extravagance, but these gifts of free promotion should not be undervalued I suppose. That's what any blogger wants right; traffic?  

And with that, all that remains to do now is wait. Just a short wait however; 5 days. Just 5 days...

Conservatives should be libertarians

A moral code held up by force rather than conviction is not a benefit to social conservative ideas.

Obama's job plan won't work

Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute has written a nice summary of the bad ideas that can be found in Obama's new spending plan.

• A temporary payroll tax cut. This is not a tax cut at all because the president would “pay for it” with tax hikes later on. And if it’s temporary, it won’t encourage businesses to hire additional workers anyway.
• More federal infrastructure. When the federal government spends on infrastructure, it often misallocates the funds. The list of federal infrastructure boondoggles and cost overruns is endless — in public housing, dam-building, Corps of Engineers projects, bridges to nowhere, high-speed rail, etc. Instead, what we need is higher-quality infrastructure spending financed and built by the private sector. We need private airports, private air-traffic control, and private toll highways.
• A federal infrastructure bank. Such a financial scheme would reduce transparency in federal spending, which would go directly against a key Obama promise of increased budget transparency.
• Federal jobs training programs. Since the 1960s, federal jobs-training programs simply haven’t worked.
• New business tax credits. New tax credits for hiring will distort business decisionmaking and, by making the tax code more complicated, such credits would encourage more tax cheating. They would be the exact sort of tax loophole that Obama claims to hate.
• Crony capitalism. When Obama talks about “government and business working side-by-side,” it sounds to me like an invitation to corruption.
• Extending unemployment insurance. Such subsidies would help keep the unemployment rate high.

How will the Conservatives say no to new spending?

Three weeks ago I wrote a post that argued that the Conservative Party will have trouble resisting the calls for more “stimulus” spending because they have lost the credibility to offer an alternative (i.e. conservative) perspective. It has become the accepted wisdom of Canada’s political class that deficit spending can improve the economy. This is despite the lack of credible evidence proving this wisdom to be right. In fact there is considerable evidence that deficits are harmful in the long run and that government debt can cripple an economy. The Conservative Party can’t make these points, however, because it has publicly declared its faith in Keynes’ folly.

Yesterday Stephen Harper made a speech saying that the federal government will be “flexible” about its financial plan. This, more than any other statement thus far made, has opened the door to the possibility of more spending. Once that door has cracked open the pressure will be enormous for the Conservative Party to commit themselves to more years of deficit.

Lacking any credible intellectual defenses against this inevitable pressure, the Conservative Party will certainly succumb. The Conservatives’ only hope would be if the economy improves before they have to put forth an economic update in the late fall. It is only by arguing that it is not needed, as oppose to arguing that it is not useful, will the Conservatives be able to resist and keep to their already flawed plan to return to surplus.

As I said three weeks ago:

We are screwed.

Here We Go Again...

WASHINGTON, Sept 8 (Reuters) – U.S. President Barack Obama laid out a $447 billion jobs package of tax cuts and government spending on Thursday that will be critical to his re-election chances but he faces an uphill fight with Republicans.(link)

Obama's taken the old adage "IF AT FIRST YOU DON'T SUCCEED, TRY, TRY AGAIN" a little too literally.

If Obama were a poker player, he'd be the sorry bum chasing his losses from the past stimulus package gamble that failed so badly to save face.

Video for yesterday's GOP debate

Dalton McGuinty picking emotion over logic

Dalton McGuinty has “dared” Tim Hudak to go to London and “look the people in the eye” and tell them that he will cancel the government’s deal with Samsung to “create 16,000 solar and clean energy jobs.” The London mayor joined in on the taunt pointing out that London has an unemployment rate of 9.1%. It is this sort of appeal to emotion argument that makes me despair of politicians.

Having a job and keeping a job is an emotional issue for everybody. It is the way that you support yourself and any family that you may have. Without a job people often feel humiliated and degraded (plus you can’t afford stuff). I went nearly a year without employment after I graduated university, and so I have a taste of what the unemployed suffer through.

This is not a good argument for public policy.

If Dalton McGuinty wants to argue that solar power is the greatest benefit for the cost, fine because then we can have a fruitful discussion.

Instead Mr. McGuinty wants to paint the PC Party as being callous. Instead of having an honest debate the Liberals want to pull on people’s heart strings.

All political parties do this to one degree or another, but I fine this case to be particularly irritating. It must be hard to look someone in the eye and say that they have to find a new job, but if keeping that person employed is costing more than it is worth then it is the rest of us that are hurting.

At the same time if the market was allowed to distribute resources without government interference, it is more than likely that these people would be able to find a job producing something that people actually want to pay for. Thus they will the benefit the rest of us rather than hurt us.

But no, such a logical argument cannot be allowed to be heard.

Ron Paul vs Rick Perry

Yesterday I posted a video by Ron Paul's campaign pointing out that Rick Perry is an Al Gore liberal. Rick Perry's team pointed out that Ron Paul is too conservative for Reagan. Ron Paul's team responded that Rick Perry is too liberal for what is good for the country.

Should be an interesting debate tonight.

Dalton McGuinty's new post-secondary student subsidy is a bad idea

Dalton McGuinty has announced that if re-elected he will introduce yet another subsidy for people who want a post-secondary education. This is a bad idea. Even if the province was not drowning in red and could actually afford the cost of this program, it would still be a bad idea. It either endangers the very worth of Ontario’s post secondary education system or it simply wastes money.

The core concept behind a post-secondary student subsidy is fundamentally flawed to begin with. The idea is that: we can observe that people with degrees make more money, thus if more people have a degree then more people will make more money. This reasoning completely ignores why people with degrees do have higher incomes.

At least part of the reason why people with degrees make more money is that they tend to be more motivated people. An individual that is willing to invest in himself/herself is likely the same sort of individual that will work hard and advance her/his career. At the same time the reason why such a person would go to university in the first place is because employers find value in a degree or a college diploma.

So there is a demand for workers with a post-secondary education, but like everything else there is not an unlimited demand. Government subsidies can increase the supply of educated workers but the demand is reliant on market forces, thus supply outpaces demand. Anyone who has taken grade 11 economics knows (no university required) that if supply is greater than demand then the value of the supply decreases. This means that all those people who got degrees won’t be making as much as the government thought.

There is an old adage that people only value what they pay for. This popular wisdom is supported by evidence when it comes to post-secondary education. A study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York shows that where there is a high subsidy for education students tend to be less motivated. If it isn’t a struggle for a student to afford school then they are more likely to take it less seriously.

This has an effect of furthering the devaluation of post-secondary education. Since students get the same degree or diploma regardless of grades, employers don’t know if they spent a few years learning to think critically or perfecting the art of beer pong. Some employers ask for transcripts but that it not always practical.

The end result is that Mr. McGuinty’s plan would likely strip Ontario’s post-secondary education of its value. This is, however, the worst case scenario.

The best case scenario is that it will turn out that pretty much everyone who is going to go to university or college are already going. Then there wouldn’t be a drastically increased supply to devalue degrees and diplomas. The only result is that government would have wasted yet another few million dollars.

Another scenario is that universities and colleges say thank you very much for the extra money and increase tuition by exactly the same as the subsidy (which would screw over the 1 in 6 that don’t qualify for the subsidy). The net result would be pretty much nil except that the government would have wasted even more of tax payer’s money.

So this program will either be a waste of money or destroy Ontario’s post-secondary education system. I’ll say it again, this is a bad idea.

A Royal Majority

A popular decision for Minister Mackay:

A Harris/Decima survey conducted for The Canadian Press found that 56 per cent of respondents agreed with the change and only 31 per cent opposed it.

The poll suggests support is consistent across ages, genders and income levels. On partisan lines, Conservatives offered 72 per cent support, but even self-declared Liberals and New Democrats showed majority support.

Among Bloc Québécois supporters however, 74 per cent opposed the change.

Ron Paul: Rick Perry is an Al Gore supporter

This is by far the best advert I've seen from Ron Paul this year. They finally do away with that silly movie motif.



This is a great advert because it is an attack ad with a positive message. Rick Perry is a liberal cheerleader and small government mavericks can win an election.

(The Reagan worship in the GOP has reached silly heights the last couple of years, but I guess it makes sense for Ron Paul to try and cash in on it.)

Increase in private health care spending not necessarily bad

The Centre for Living Standards has released a report warning that Canadians are at great financial risk because of the large increase in private health care spending. They argue that since health care spending is using up a greater share of an individual’s disposable income Canadians are at financial risk if they become sick or unemployed. Fortunately this conclusion is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how individuals make spending choices.

It is important to note that the Centre for Living Standards has also found that “there has been a dramatic increase in per-capita consumption and wealth across the country.” Which means that we are all, for the most part, better off and we own more stuff. Since we already have all this stuff we can then use our left over disposable income to do something that use to be a luxury: take care of our health.

The concept is similar to Maslow’s hierarchy of need but it focuses more on economic choices. Once one desire has been satisfied we humans move on to the next desire and then the next and so on. Once I have bought a beer my desire for beer depreciates and is replaced by something else, perhaps a desire for a steak sandwich. Every individual has a different hierarchy of desires based on their own preferences and so it is difficult to generalize, but we can observe patterns in the choices that people are making.

It is likely that the Centre for Living Standards has simply observed one of these patterns. People may be more willing to spend a greater portion of their income on health care because they can afford it and because they have already taken care of their other desires. If this is the case then this is a sign not of Canadians being worse off but of being better off because they are able to satisfy more of their desires.

Of course I could be wrong and it could be that people are sacrificing more of their desires to afford the rising cost of health care. In some individual’s cases this could very well be what is happening, but considering the rarity of health related bankruptcies in Canada I am skeptical that there is an epidemic of financial risk due to health.

We shouldn’t overlook the fact that fundamentally the Centre for Living Standards has shown what should be obvious, we are all better off than we were 30 years ago. And that is good news

Ernie Eves says that he doesn't like democracy

Okay he didn’t exactly say that but that is what he meant.



Ernie Eves, the former Premier that confused Magna International with the legislator of Ontario, made some snarling comments about Norm Sterling being replaced by Jack MacLaren as PC candidate in that riding.



In case you aren’t familiar with the story: Mr. MacLaren and his friends felt that Mr. Sterling wasn’t representing their views. So they organized themselves and challenged Mr. Sterling in an election to choose the PC candidate. Due to the superior organizational abilities of Mr. MacLaren, and despite the interference of the outgoing association executive, he won.



This is how Mr. Eves characterized it:

“I don’t care who hears this,” Eves said at a recent tribute dinner for Sterling at a golf club outside Carleton Place. “The treatment that Norm got from his own party was not very polite, was not fair, it was not loyal, it was not compassionate, it was not even and it was not honest.”

Yes the horror and unfairness of a democratic vote. Clearly Mr. MacLaren didn’t understand that the point of internal party democracy is just to make people think that political parties are democratic institutions. You aren’t actually supposed to vote for someone that represents your views and aspirations. That would not be fair or compassionate!



I also think that the Tea Party comparison is hilarious. The Landowners Association is only superficially similar to the Tea Party activists. Unlike the Tea Party, the Landowners is a single advocacy group with a pretty clear political agenda. I’m not totally sure what the political agenda of the Tea Party is except “we are mad and we want you to do something about it.”



Really the thing that they most have in common is that they share a political strategy of being active within a political party; both organize and vote in internal party elections. That is to say, they both make use of grassroots democratic tools to make their opinions heard. Again it seems that Mr. Eves’ fundamental problem is that he doesn’t like democracy.



To PC leader Tim Hudak’s credit, his response was pretty good:



“It’s difficult to go through, no doubt about it,” he said. “But it’s democracy, and democracy can sometimes be messy.”



By messy I assume he means that you don’t always get the response that you want. By messy I think he means that sometimes you lose. Mr. MacLaren claimed that Mr. Sterling had become complacent, doesn’t the attitude that you shouldn’t be allowed to lose prove that?

I for one applaud the PC Party of Ontario for having the maturity and the sense to allow true democracy within its ranks.