Now obviously Globe and Mail is looking directly at the connection of Summerworks' presentation of Homegrown last year as the direct reason Summerworks lost its funding. For those not in the know last year Summerworks, a curated festival for many artistic directors across the country presented Catherine Frid's play Homegrown. Homegrown is a play about a woman's relationship (the playwrights actually) with the convicted terrorist Shareef Abdelhaleem, one of the so-called “Toronto 18”. Whether that's truly the reason or not...well
Showing posts with label Progressive Conservatives. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Progressive Conservatives. Show all posts
Monday, June 27, 2011
Friday, April 29, 2011
Angry Bairds
Okay, this should lighten up this blog just a little bit. In case it doesn't...you have no sense of ridiculousness.
Apparently a number of young Liberal Party coders put together their take on Angry Birds...aptly titled Angry Bairds. Basically you set up John Baird in a slingshot, while PM Stephen Harper looks on, and attempt to make cuts at organizations like the Wheat Board, Veterans, Health Care and the Long Gun Registry.
John Baird was appointed in 2006 to the Treasury Board. In May of 2006, Baird was told to cut one billion dollars out of the budget. He did so, announcing them on September 25th, the same day the Conservatives announced their 13.2 billion dollar surplus. He announced he'd made cuts to sixty-six programs, including Status of Women, museum fundings, adult literacy programs, youth employment, social development, BC's ongoing pine beetle crisis, and most keenly the Court Challenges program.
Following the Cabinet reshuffle in 2007, Baird was reappointed to Environment Minister. He is a vocal opponent of Kyoto, noted by environmentalist David Suzuki as being a 'disappointment'. Target goals released by Baird are to cut emissions by 2020 or 2025, a full eight to thirteen years longer than were outlined in Kyoto.
Baird championed cuts to research in Canada on climate change, a move staunchly opposed by industry experts. He was derided internationally at the Bali Climate Change Summit, and at the Cancun Climate Change Summit, Canada was awarded the three Fossil of the Day Awards. Awards given by 400 international NGOs which recognize countries who have done the most to disrupt or undermine UN climate talks. The Canadian government, under Baird, is noted at Cancun as being the only country which signed weaker greenhouse gas reduction targets.
The Game Here
http://www.angrybairds.ca/
Wikipedia Article on John Baird
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Baird_(Canadian_politician)
Apparently a number of young Liberal Party coders put together their take on Angry Birds...aptly titled Angry Bairds. Basically you set up John Baird in a slingshot, while PM Stephen Harper looks on, and attempt to make cuts at organizations like the Wheat Board, Veterans, Health Care and the Long Gun Registry.
John Baird was appointed in 2006 to the Treasury Board. In May of 2006, Baird was told to cut one billion dollars out of the budget. He did so, announcing them on September 25th, the same day the Conservatives announced their 13.2 billion dollar surplus. He announced he'd made cuts to sixty-six programs, including Status of Women, museum fundings, adult literacy programs, youth employment, social development, BC's ongoing pine beetle crisis, and most keenly the Court Challenges program.
Following the Cabinet reshuffle in 2007, Baird was reappointed to Environment Minister. He is a vocal opponent of Kyoto, noted by environmentalist David Suzuki as being a 'disappointment'. Target goals released by Baird are to cut emissions by 2020 or 2025, a full eight to thirteen years longer than were outlined in Kyoto.
- Al Gore famously criticized Baird's plan, calling it "A complete and total fraud." and "designed to mislead the Canadian people."
Baird championed cuts to research in Canada on climate change, a move staunchly opposed by industry experts. He was derided internationally at the Bali Climate Change Summit, and at the Cancun Climate Change Summit, Canada was awarded the three Fossil of the Day Awards. Awards given by 400 international NGOs which recognize countries who have done the most to disrupt or undermine UN climate talks. The Canadian government, under Baird, is noted at Cancun as being the only country which signed weaker greenhouse gas reduction targets.
The Game Here
http://www.angrybairds.ca/
Wikipedia Article on John Baird
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Baird_(Canadian_politician)
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Wikileaks Takes Aim At CPC
It's nice to know that I'm not the only critical one. The American government's Ambassador has apparently some interesting words for the Conservative Policy of late:
Written by US Ambassador to Canada, David Jacobsen. He also said:
The US Embassy also had this to say about the Senate controversy.
Take from it what you will, it is a wikileak, which some people deride as being nothing but contextless statements, but they were just recently released. Also the later part of the cbc article and leak itself on Laureen Harper is just silly.
WikiLeaks takes Aim at Conservative Policy
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/04/28/cv-election-wikileaks.html
- "they have used the crime agenda to great effect, making it an essential part of their 'brand,' in spite of the fact that they have not actually passed most of their proposed crime and security legislation,"
Written by US Ambassador to Canada, David Jacobsen. He also said:
- "The PMO apparently provided no explanation why it will end up waiting four months to enact its own sentencing credit law, but the delay has not prevented the PM from using crime — and the bill — as a partisan issue and to prep for imminent Senate appointments,"
The US Embassy also had this to say about the Senate controversy.
- A leaked cable from December 2008 suggests that U.S. Embassy officials in Ottawa saw Harper's appointment of senators as "a major about-face for a PM and a party that long campaigned for an elected upper chamber. The cost of the eighteen new senators also conflicts with political messaging about the need for official belt tightening."
Take from it what you will, it is a wikileak, which some people deride as being nothing but contextless statements, but they were just recently released. Also the later part of the cbc article and leak itself on Laureen Harper is just silly.
WikiLeaks takes Aim at Conservative Policy
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/04/28/cv-election-wikileaks.html
Conservative Majority To Protect Our Border?
This one is stretching a little thin. Anyone watching the Conservative war room of late has noted an increasingly desperate message of "We need a majority to-" The ends to that sentence are rampant. Keep taxes low. Protect your pension. Buy fighter jets. Okay that last one they haven't directly said, but have at.
Anyway the next one is that the NDP are not interested in maintaining our border...against our American Invaders. That's right.
Well that's not exactly the message being sent, I'm being sensationalist. But Harper is talking about how jobs are linked to our American counterparts. And how the earlier trade agreements signed this year help foster growth while protecting security against 'terrorists'.
Except that border, customs officials, and local offices aren't biting. Noting that constant reduction over the last year has trimmed their jobs, closed entry points, and forced office hours to slim. We'll see if this latest rhetoric will hold any weight, but I am forced to at the very least ask:
We live in Canada, since when has working together become so repugnant? Why do you need a Majority, Mr. Harper?
CBC Article on Border Jobs
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/04/28/cv-election-harper-ndp-1148.html
Anyway the next one is that the NDP are not interested in maintaining our border...against our American Invaders. That's right.
Well that's not exactly the message being sent, I'm being sensationalist. But Harper is talking about how jobs are linked to our American counterparts. And how the earlier trade agreements signed this year help foster growth while protecting security against 'terrorists'.
Except that border, customs officials, and local offices aren't biting. Noting that constant reduction over the last year has trimmed their jobs, closed entry points, and forced office hours to slim. We'll see if this latest rhetoric will hold any weight, but I am forced to at the very least ask:
We live in Canada, since when has working together become so repugnant? Why do you need a Majority, Mr. Harper?
CBC Article on Border Jobs
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/04/28/cv-election-harper-ndp-1148.html
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
The Ongoing F-35 Debate
It has occured to me that many Canadians are not sure why the government came down when it did. The response I most frequently hear is that the opposition defeated the minority over the budget. That is technically true yes. On one hand, yes the opposition defeated the minority Conservative government over quibbles about the budget. On a much more important sense, the opposition defeated the minority government not because it had major issue with the numbers, but with the spirit of those numbers, and the intention of those numbers.
The government fell last month because the opposition parties all agreed that the Conservative government was in contempt of parliament.
Think about that statement for a moment. The opposition members felt strongly that the government itself, was lying, obfuscating, or deliberately misrepresenting data to the Canadian people, in order to push it's own agenda. Were they? That's not really for me to say as a member of the citizenry, that's a direct inquiry for a judiciary body. I can only speculate, at best, on the information and research I myself have come up with. However since my last post about the F-35 Lightning planes, where I indicated that the numbers we were getting were not representative of all the data, the U.S. Pentagon has corroborated similar numbers, that the F-35 Project is wildly spiraling out of control in terms of cost.
Americans, for the number of jets they intend to purchase, speculated initially that the initiatve would cost approximately 382 Billion dollars. They have now revised that figure, that the cost of maintaining these jets for a 30 year life cycle, would be 918 Billion. More than twice the cost. The increase is considered comperable to the Canadian situation. Initially projected in 2001 at 75 million dollars an aircraft, that number, including it's maintenance for 30 years looks more like 375 million dollars.
Conservatives have unilaterally rejected the new numbers. Citing that we are in these comparisons, comparing 'apples' to 'oranges'. But if we factor in the numbers, the Conservatives have cited only 7 billion dollars for maintenance and service upgrades to the planes, over their 30 year lifespan. Kevin Page, the Parliamentry Budget Officer said the number should be more like 19.5 billion, but was derided with criticism from the party. The Pentagon speculative number is 24 billion.
No one seems to be able to corroborate the figures the Conservatives use, that is the problem. Their number appears to have been pulled out of thin air, or the 75 million per aircraft, which we now understand is a figure that is ten years old! If the numbers exist, if Canada has ink on a contract, why can't we, the people, who are paying for this ridiculousness see what we bought?
Edit: It has been pointed out to me that comparing the 'American F-35' to the 'Canadian F-35' is not similar. This is technically true. The majority of American F-35s are an F-35C class Variant, the C designation notes that it has a specific design in mind for use with Naval Carriers. Of which is one of the major sources of American Military power, and we in Canada have no Carriers. The Canadian Variant is the F-35A, outfitted with a drag chute (for slowing down on icy runways). It is still priced comprehensively similarly to the other variants. Only the F-35B, which is modified to have less fuel and a short takeoff system (similar to a harrier jet) is noted as having a different price, due to the engine differences.
Also, separately of note, is that Wikipedia has exposed information that IP addresses tracing back to the Winnipeg 1st Canadian Air Division attempted to remove critical information from the online wiki and add derogatory comments and insults to opposition party members. This happened last year, July 28th, 2010. Since then, perpetrators of this crime have not been named, and no disciplinary action has been disclosed.
CBC Article on Department of National Defence citing rising costs of F35s
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/25/cv-election-f35s-costs.html
CBC Article on Harper's Denial
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/04/26/cv-election-f-35-costs-316.html
MacLean's on the F-35 Cost, Where an interesting discussion is beginning to take place:
http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/26/how-much-is-that-fighter-jet-in-the-window/
Wikipedia Article on the F-35 Procurement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II_Canadian_procurement
The government fell last month because the opposition parties all agreed that the Conservative government was in contempt of parliament.
Think about that statement for a moment. The opposition members felt strongly that the government itself, was lying, obfuscating, or deliberately misrepresenting data to the Canadian people, in order to push it's own agenda. Were they? That's not really for me to say as a member of the citizenry, that's a direct inquiry for a judiciary body. I can only speculate, at best, on the information and research I myself have come up with. However since my last post about the F-35 Lightning planes, where I indicated that the numbers we were getting were not representative of all the data, the U.S. Pentagon has corroborated similar numbers, that the F-35 Project is wildly spiraling out of control in terms of cost.
Americans, for the number of jets they intend to purchase, speculated initially that the initiatve would cost approximately 382 Billion dollars. They have now revised that figure, that the cost of maintaining these jets for a 30 year life cycle, would be 918 Billion. More than twice the cost. The increase is considered comperable to the Canadian situation. Initially projected in 2001 at 75 million dollars an aircraft, that number, including it's maintenance for 30 years looks more like 375 million dollars.
Conservatives have unilaterally rejected the new numbers. Citing that we are in these comparisons, comparing 'apples' to 'oranges'. But if we factor in the numbers, the Conservatives have cited only 7 billion dollars for maintenance and service upgrades to the planes, over their 30 year lifespan. Kevin Page, the Parliamentry Budget Officer said the number should be more like 19.5 billion, but was derided with criticism from the party. The Pentagon speculative number is 24 billion.
No one seems to be able to corroborate the figures the Conservatives use, that is the problem. Their number appears to have been pulled out of thin air, or the 75 million per aircraft, which we now understand is a figure that is ten years old! If the numbers exist, if Canada has ink on a contract, why can't we, the people, who are paying for this ridiculousness see what we bought?
Edit: It has been pointed out to me that comparing the 'American F-35' to the 'Canadian F-35' is not similar. This is technically true. The majority of American F-35s are an F-35C class Variant, the C designation notes that it has a specific design in mind for use with Naval Carriers. Of which is one of the major sources of American Military power, and we in Canada have no Carriers. The Canadian Variant is the F-35A, outfitted with a drag chute (for slowing down on icy runways). It is still priced comprehensively similarly to the other variants. Only the F-35B, which is modified to have less fuel and a short takeoff system (similar to a harrier jet) is noted as having a different price, due to the engine differences.
Also, separately of note, is that Wikipedia has exposed information that IP addresses tracing back to the Winnipeg 1st Canadian Air Division attempted to remove critical information from the online wiki and add derogatory comments and insults to opposition party members. This happened last year, July 28th, 2010. Since then, perpetrators of this crime have not been named, and no disciplinary action has been disclosed.
CBC Article on Department of National Defence citing rising costs of F35s
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/25/cv-election-f35s-costs.html
CBC Article on Harper's Denial
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/04/26/cv-election-f-35-costs-316.html
MacLean's on the F-35 Cost, Where an interesting discussion is beginning to take place:
http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/26/how-much-is-that-fighter-jet-in-the-window/
Wikipedia Article on the F-35 Procurement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II_Canadian_procurement
Monday, April 25, 2011
'Does It Irk You?'
From Dawna Friesen’s one-on-one interview with Stephen Harper.
I feel like when I read this response, I see a man who doesn't believe his government has made any error. That literally he feels that his government has actually acted with integrity. Not that I'm making a case for saying all Conservatives are soulless bastards or anything of the like, I do believe that in their own way, perhaps they are justified. But surely on some fundamental level, we must agree that there have been improprieties over this last session of Parliament.
There has been no transparency over the F35 Issue. Why?
Bev Oda scrawled a tiny little ^not on a document, stood before the house and said she did not make that alteration on a legal document, and then later confessed that she had LIED, and had been confused about the question.
Richard Colvin has been systemically attacked for doing his job, raising serious allegations about the possibility that Canadian soldiers and military have had a direct hand in handing over innocent Afghani men and women for torture.
The entire world derided Canada's performance at Copenhagen, citing serious concerns that Canada has not done enough on a global level to be the leader on environmental policy it should be. We turned a blind eye and vilified our detractors.
For two days, downtown Toronto became the site of running skirmishes with police, ending in hundreds of innocent Canadians detained illegally, and abused. On our own country soil, men and women were run down, their belongings searched or confiscated, and they were arrested without due cause or without proper representation.
Canada lost its seat on the United Nations Security Council, literally because we did not pursue it enough and we were not considered influential enough on the global scale. Harper's ministers blamed Ignatieff''s mongering. Many of the other country's diplomats however said "Ignatieff who?"
Widespread nips and tucks to funding for organizations, institutions and services are quietly being eliminated beneath the government regime. Is the price of this 2% lowering of GST mean we Canadians will lose out on a host of important services and institutions from arts and culture, museum funding, status for women, to planned parenthood?
When the opposition, as is their job, raised serious concerns to the government over a number of these issues, Harper chose to prorogue parliament, granting himself and his ministers 2 months off work seemingly for the Olympics, that is 2 months with pay, while our entire legislative body of government ground to a halt.
Is this what our Prime Minister means when he says he believes he and his ministers have acted with Integrity?
Why doesn't it irk you, Mister Harper?
Dawna Friesen: When this is all over, not just the election, but politics—and you’re out of this game—and you look back, you will go down in history as the only Canadian Prime Minister—the only Prime Minister in the Commonwealth—to ever have their government voted in contempt of Parliament. Does that irk you?
Stephen Harper: Not at all, well it irks me in a sense that I think this was this was a completely unjustified act. It was an example of the kind of political games and maneuvering that are taking place in this minority parliament. There was no basis for that … it was a pretext for an election that Canadians did not want. There’s no case for that. This government—and we don’t say we’re perfect—but this government is focused on Canadians’ concerns and I think we’ve governed competently, our ministers and MP’s have acted with integrity, and we’re proud of that record and you know as I say, I think it’s unfortunate that those kinds of things are being done in a minority parliament but I think it tells you why we must have a majority government and not a minority parliament that focuses on that kind of stuff instead of the economy.
I feel like when I read this response, I see a man who doesn't believe his government has made any error. That literally he feels that his government has actually acted with integrity. Not that I'm making a case for saying all Conservatives are soulless bastards or anything of the like, I do believe that in their own way, perhaps they are justified. But surely on some fundamental level, we must agree that there have been improprieties over this last session of Parliament.
There has been no transparency over the F35 Issue. Why?
Bev Oda scrawled a tiny little ^not on a document, stood before the house and said she did not make that alteration on a legal document, and then later confessed that she had LIED, and had been confused about the question.
Richard Colvin has been systemically attacked for doing his job, raising serious allegations about the possibility that Canadian soldiers and military have had a direct hand in handing over innocent Afghani men and women for torture.
The entire world derided Canada's performance at Copenhagen, citing serious concerns that Canada has not done enough on a global level to be the leader on environmental policy it should be. We turned a blind eye and vilified our detractors.
For two days, downtown Toronto became the site of running skirmishes with police, ending in hundreds of innocent Canadians detained illegally, and abused. On our own country soil, men and women were run down, their belongings searched or confiscated, and they were arrested without due cause or without proper representation.
Canada lost its seat on the United Nations Security Council, literally because we did not pursue it enough and we were not considered influential enough on the global scale. Harper's ministers blamed Ignatieff''s mongering. Many of the other country's diplomats however said "Ignatieff who?"
Widespread nips and tucks to funding for organizations, institutions and services are quietly being eliminated beneath the government regime. Is the price of this 2% lowering of GST mean we Canadians will lose out on a host of important services and institutions from arts and culture, museum funding, status for women, to planned parenthood?
When the opposition, as is their job, raised serious concerns to the government over a number of these issues, Harper chose to prorogue parliament, granting himself and his ministers 2 months off work seemingly for the Olympics, that is 2 months with pay, while our entire legislative body of government ground to a halt.
Is this what our Prime Minister means when he says he believes he and his ministers have acted with Integrity?
Why doesn't it irk you, Mister Harper?
Friday, April 22, 2011
Tory Candidates Blowing off Forums
Calgary Center North is perhaps not a battleground, being part of the Conservative Calgary Bastion, but outgoing MP Jim Prentice's riding is somewhat up for grabs. Except the PC Candidate replacing him, Ms. Michelle Rempel doesn't seem to think so.
Rempel skipped the second debate now, the first time at the University of Calgary, the second now at an all-candidates forum at a Church. While the constituents who attended were angry, they were not without a sense of humor, as a potted plant was left out in place of the missing Candidate. And an organizer stated "The plant is of course welcome back at any time,"
Rempel is not the first Albertan candidate to boycott forums either. Nicole recently brought across my desk this second article about Lethbridge's Tory Candidate, Jim Hillyer's decision to boycott all remaining forums. While it's hard to say what kind of effect these decisions will directly have upon their possible candidacy, Mr Burles, who wrote the article and questioned several phone in callers about it, said constituents were unilaterally upset by the decison.
Calgary Nose Hill Candidate Diane Ablonczy has also indicated she will boycott all-candidate forums.
And locally for Edmonton? The Upcoming Wrecking Ball night at the Avenue Theatre has stated that all candidates will be on hand except for the Conservative one. The Conservatives are clearly running their campaign in a bubble, candidates are not operating with the same transparency as many other party members.
Will this have an effect on election day? Hard to say, but we'll watch as it unfolds.
Below, Alheli Picazo has also compiled a list of candidates across the country who have indicated they will boycott forums, or non-scripted events. Interestingly, and unsurprisingly they are all PC candidates except for one.
CBC Article on Skipped Forum
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2011/04/20/calgary-rempel-forum-skipped.html
Country 95 about Jim Hillyer
http://www.country95.fm/news/news-detail.asp?ID=3909
Alheli Picazo has compiled a list of PC Members refusing to take part in unscripted events.
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/apicazo/2011/04/election-2011-debate-absenteeism
Wrecking Ball Event Page
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=192015364175843&ref=ts
EDIT:
A slightly more comprehensive list from the CBC
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2011/04/all-candidate-no-shows-stop-me-if-youve-heard-this-one-before.html
Rempel skipped the second debate now, the first time at the University of Calgary, the second now at an all-candidates forum at a Church. While the constituents who attended were angry, they were not without a sense of humor, as a potted plant was left out in place of the missing Candidate. And an organizer stated "The plant is of course welcome back at any time,"
Rempel is not the first Albertan candidate to boycott forums either. Nicole recently brought across my desk this second article about Lethbridge's Tory Candidate, Jim Hillyer's decision to boycott all remaining forums. While it's hard to say what kind of effect these decisions will directly have upon their possible candidacy, Mr Burles, who wrote the article and questioned several phone in callers about it, said constituents were unilaterally upset by the decison.
Calgary Nose Hill Candidate Diane Ablonczy has also indicated she will boycott all-candidate forums.
And locally for Edmonton? The Upcoming Wrecking Ball night at the Avenue Theatre has stated that all candidates will be on hand except for the Conservative one. The Conservatives are clearly running their campaign in a bubble, candidates are not operating with the same transparency as many other party members.
Will this have an effect on election day? Hard to say, but we'll watch as it unfolds.
Below, Alheli Picazo has also compiled a list of candidates across the country who have indicated they will boycott forums, or non-scripted events. Interestingly, and unsurprisingly they are all PC candidates except for one.
CBC Article on Skipped Forum
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2011/04/20/calgary-rempel-forum-skipped.html
Country 95 about Jim Hillyer
http://www.country95.fm/news/news-detail.asp?ID=3909
Alheli Picazo has compiled a list of PC Members refusing to take part in unscripted events.
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/apicazo/2011/04/election-2011-debate-absenteeism
Wrecking Ball Event Page
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=192015364175843&ref=ts
EDIT:
A slightly more comprehensive list from the CBC
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2011/04/all-candidate-no-shows-stop-me-if-youve-heard-this-one-before.html
Poll Scrutineers City Center
Just a disturbing news tidbit I read on twitter, hasn't been independently verified yet, but apparently a poll scrutineer working Edmonton City Center, specifically a conservative one was observed by Mr Patrick O'Connor to be talking politics and debating platforms of other parties. This action is against Election Canada Protocol, and took place at station 600.
I'll try to find more information as it becomes available.
I'll try to find more information as it becomes available.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Quebec Only Conservative Ad
I don't know how long this will be kept up, surely the Conservative War Room will petition to have it taken down as soon as possible, but here you go. This Attack Ad recently appeared in Quebec only...it is...well...interesting.
Do you think this ad represents Canada?
Do you think this ad represents Canada?
End of Planned Parenthood Support MP Declares
I'm not really sure what to make of this, but it has just recently come across my desk today. Basically a Saskatchewan MP, Mr Brad Trost expressed to a Pro-Life Association how successful they were in creating petitions that had an impact on de-funding the Planned Parenthood Organization.
Planned Parenthood is an organization that works both nationally and internationally to provide counciling, contraceptives, HIV related treatments, family planning and of course, abortion related services.
The organization has not officially said whether they were denied funding, only that the were still waiting to hear.
I think this is distressing intensely for many Canadians. Obviously for those who come down on the pro-abortion side, but also for those of us who could be pro-choice or pro-life itself. The problem is two fold, first is that there is a real danger, at least in my mind of the government intervening in organizations to deny them funding in terms of the balance that has already been struck.
Many organizations, such as Planned Parenthood offer a more professional and clincial look than the vast majority of pro-life sidewalk councilling. In fact, in BC it is illegal as of 95 to demonstrate in a non pro-choice manner outside clinics, facilities, hospitals and abortionist homes.
That is not to say pro-life people don't have their voice, but it also prohibits pro-abortion counter-protests, which throughout the 80s and 90s of course we all remember became shockingly violent. Our Southern Neighbours right now actually are going through a resurgance of demonstrations regarding abortion on both sides, many of which have turned violent.
I want to be clear that I'm not personally on the side of either. I think that there are always circumstances which will influence the individual one way, or the other. It's up to individual cases, and I am, and always will be of the mindset that the opportunity to make informed, educated decisions far outweighs the removal of choices. People need to be more educated, not less. People need to have more options presented to them, not be made ignorant, willfully or otherwise. To see the government intervene in this way, makes me question to what point we allow our government to make decisions for us.
More importantly, there are dangerous flags in my mind when an MP says they can't disclose information about how they were influenced. How many people signed this petition. Where was it circulated, for how long. Was an independent study and review done? Does this truly reflect the views of all Canadians? What about minority groups, does the unilateral cut of funding serve the interests of all groups? Why can't this information be disclosed. Who made the decision to slash 18 million dollars in expected funding. Why is our representative of government making flagrant statements about taxpayer money. I for one am quite alright with my taxpayer money being used for contraceptives, my views are not accurately represented in his statement.
What do you think?
Read the Article from CBC here:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/20/cv-election-planned-parenthood.html
Article Debunking Myths about Planned Parenthood (American, but still interesting)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-planned-parenthood/2011/04/14/AFogj1iD_story.html
Planned Parenthood is an organization that works both nationally and internationally to provide counciling, contraceptives, HIV related treatments, family planning and of course, abortion related services.
The organization has not officially said whether they were denied funding, only that the were still waiting to hear.
I think this is distressing intensely for many Canadians. Obviously for those who come down on the pro-abortion side, but also for those of us who could be pro-choice or pro-life itself. The problem is two fold, first is that there is a real danger, at least in my mind of the government intervening in organizations to deny them funding in terms of the balance that has already been struck.
Many organizations, such as Planned Parenthood offer a more professional and clincial look than the vast majority of pro-life sidewalk councilling. In fact, in BC it is illegal as of 95 to demonstrate in a non pro-choice manner outside clinics, facilities, hospitals and abortionist homes.
That is not to say pro-life people don't have their voice, but it also prohibits pro-abortion counter-protests, which throughout the 80s and 90s of course we all remember became shockingly violent. Our Southern Neighbours right now actually are going through a resurgance of demonstrations regarding abortion on both sides, many of which have turned violent.
I want to be clear that I'm not personally on the side of either. I think that there are always circumstances which will influence the individual one way, or the other. It's up to individual cases, and I am, and always will be of the mindset that the opportunity to make informed, educated decisions far outweighs the removal of choices. People need to be more educated, not less. People need to have more options presented to them, not be made ignorant, willfully or otherwise. To see the government intervene in this way, makes me question to what point we allow our government to make decisions for us.
More importantly, there are dangerous flags in my mind when an MP says they can't disclose information about how they were influenced. How many people signed this petition. Where was it circulated, for how long. Was an independent study and review done? Does this truly reflect the views of all Canadians? What about minority groups, does the unilateral cut of funding serve the interests of all groups? Why can't this information be disclosed. Who made the decision to slash 18 million dollars in expected funding. Why is our representative of government making flagrant statements about taxpayer money. I for one am quite alright with my taxpayer money being used for contraceptives, my views are not accurately represented in his statement.
What do you think?
Read the Article from CBC here:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/20/cv-election-planned-parenthood.html
Article Debunking Myths about Planned Parenthood (American, but still interesting)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-planned-parenthood/2011/04/14/AFogj1iD_story.html
Monday, April 18, 2011
Conservative Twitter Fail 2
So Almost a week later, 5 days at this point now, still no response from the Conservative engine through social media on a number of topics posted, nor even really a greeting or hello. I constructed both an email and a physical letter, and have sent them off requesting information from Laurie Hawn's office. Now we start the clock, will we get a response? Will the conservative MP ever address or even acknowledge my concerns?
In my 600 ish word email/letter, I have broached the serious concern that many Canadians have that the party itself of the Conservatives seem to have lost the moral ability to govern. Which is not necessarily a poor reflection on Mr Hawn himself, but rather that I am concerned that our government no longer accurately represents our people, and instead has it's own agenda which is not being shared in a clear, and transparent manner. Furthermore I am of the opinion that the lack of transparency is being deliberately misused in a corrupt manner by both duly elected officials, and appointed ones.
The questions have begun to stack up, and slowly become overwhelming. Why is there no forthcoming answer on the Afghan Detainee issue? Why is there no fiscal transparency on the F35 crisis? What is the Prime Ministers opinion on the procedural failure that happened during the G8/G20 Summit. What are the steps of progression on climate change, especially in the light of Copenhagen? How does the government account itself for the repeated calls of contempt on the part of its ministers, such as Bev Oda?
These are moral questions on the minds of Canadians, will they not be addressed? Will they not be answered? Will they not even be acknowledged? Are they existent only in the present moment of time when they are brought up and then hopefully forgotten by our own government?
In my 600 ish word email/letter, I have broached the serious concern that many Canadians have that the party itself of the Conservatives seem to have lost the moral ability to govern. Which is not necessarily a poor reflection on Mr Hawn himself, but rather that I am concerned that our government no longer accurately represents our people, and instead has it's own agenda which is not being shared in a clear, and transparent manner. Furthermore I am of the opinion that the lack of transparency is being deliberately misused in a corrupt manner by both duly elected officials, and appointed ones.
The questions have begun to stack up, and slowly become overwhelming. Why is there no forthcoming answer on the Afghan Detainee issue? Why is there no fiscal transparency on the F35 crisis? What is the Prime Ministers opinion on the procedural failure that happened during the G8/G20 Summit. What are the steps of progression on climate change, especially in the light of Copenhagen? How does the government account itself for the repeated calls of contempt on the part of its ministers, such as Bev Oda?
These are moral questions on the minds of Canadians, will they not be addressed? Will they not be answered? Will they not even be acknowledged? Are they existent only in the present moment of time when they are brought up and then hopefully forgotten by our own government?
Sunday, April 17, 2011
The F-35 Issue
The F-35 Issue is springing up again, as a cornerstone of fiscal discrepancy in the Conservative platform. Partisan Liberals and NDP have tremendous, and quite well founded concerns about the Conservative's plan to purchase 65 Lockheed Martin Jets, at around 75 million an aircraft, for an estimated 14 billion dollars total. I just want to point out the scope of that number. 14 Billion Dollars.
Not only is that 14 billion dollars, but it seems everyone except the conservatives are quite sure that number can't possibly be correct. It's too small by half. Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page thinks the number is more like 29 Billion Dollars.
29 Billion Dollars.
That's more than twice the cost. Someone thinks they are getting a two for one deal that doesn't exist! And Mr. Kevin Page isn't the only one who figures that number. Mike Sullivan, a man who works with the Government Accountability Office says the tag of 75 million per aircraft is too low, instead it will be more along the lines of 110 or 115 million each. In a link at the end of this article, CBC also posted a quick FAQ on the F-35, which directly state the cost of the F-35 as being 155 Million American per Jet.
American Defense Specialist Winslow Wheeler also weighed in.
Retired General Paul Manson, former Chief of Staff took umbrage at the comments, attacking Wheeler's credibility. However Mr. Wheeler has worked for 30 years on defense issues in the States for both Republican and Democrat members. And he spent 9 years as an analyst for Accountability pertaining specifically to military procurement, and aircraft.
I still have trouble wrapping my head around the sheer numbers. So let's look at it this way. 29 Billion dollars, translates for every single head in Canada to about 900 dollars of additional tax a person, going directly to the cost of purchasing or maintaining these pieces of aircraft. That 900 dollars by the way is assuming your children pay taxes that go to defence materials. I assume they don't, but you never know. 900 dollars each, to make 29 Billion dollars, for a plane that has no capability to do Search and Rescue, which is one of the primary functions of our own Canadian Air Force right now.
Oh and by the way? Montreal Gazette has pointed out that those numbers? They don't include the cost of an engine. That 75 million dollar price tag per aircraft? No Engines. NO ENGINES! I don't go out and buy an SUV without an Engine. Why IS THE GOVERNMENT DOING THAT?
This was mostly touched off today by a tweet Conservative MP Laurie Hawn posted today:
Tony Dewar, a Student at Okanagan College also chipped in.
Haven't gotten a response from Laurie Hawn yet, and am not sure one is coming. But there it all is, make an informed opinion! And what do you think, Canada, of our spending choices on government weaponry?
The Article from Montreal Gazette:
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Canada+Engines+included/4629251/story.html
Article from The Globe and Mail
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/harper-says-f-35s-wont-cost-more/article1979046/
CBC Article on The Spiraling Costs of the F-35
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/04/05/pol-fighter-jet-cost.html
CBC Article, an FAQ on the F-35
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/07/16/f-f35-faq.html
Not only is that 14 billion dollars, but it seems everyone except the conservatives are quite sure that number can't possibly be correct. It's too small by half. Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page thinks the number is more like 29 Billion Dollars.
29 Billion Dollars.
That's more than twice the cost. Someone thinks they are getting a two for one deal that doesn't exist! And Mr. Kevin Page isn't the only one who figures that number. Mike Sullivan, a man who works with the Government Accountability Office says the tag of 75 million per aircraft is too low, instead it will be more along the lines of 110 or 115 million each. In a link at the end of this article, CBC also posted a quick FAQ on the F-35, which directly state the cost of the F-35 as being 155 Million American per Jet.
American Defense Specialist Winslow Wheeler also weighed in.
- “If Canada’s government can get an F-35 for the mid-70 million dollars per airplane, well they should sign a contract right now and get it delivered. Because I can promise you nobody on this earth will ever get a flying F-35 for $75 million per copy. It’s pure fantasy."
Retired General Paul Manson, former Chief of Staff took umbrage at the comments, attacking Wheeler's credibility. However Mr. Wheeler has worked for 30 years on defense issues in the States for both Republican and Democrat members. And he spent 9 years as an analyst for Accountability pertaining specifically to military procurement, and aircraft.
I still have trouble wrapping my head around the sheer numbers. So let's look at it this way. 29 Billion dollars, translates for every single head in Canada to about 900 dollars of additional tax a person, going directly to the cost of purchasing or maintaining these pieces of aircraft. That 900 dollars by the way is assuming your children pay taxes that go to defence materials. I assume they don't, but you never know. 900 dollars each, to make 29 Billion dollars, for a plane that has no capability to do Search and Rescue, which is one of the primary functions of our own Canadian Air Force right now.
Oh and by the way? Montreal Gazette has pointed out that those numbers? They don't include the cost of an engine. That 75 million dollar price tag per aircraft? No Engines. NO ENGINES! I don't go out and buy an SUV without an Engine. Why IS THE GOVERNMENT DOING THAT?
This was mostly touched off today by a tweet Conservative MP Laurie Hawn posted today:
- votelauriehawn Laurie Hawn
- lesterleesm Lester Lee@votelauriehawn How do you account for the discrepancy of price, almost twice the cost than stated, RE:Kevin Page? #elxn41
- @votelauriehawn Defense specialist Wheeler also says the planes cost more like 150 million, twice PM Harper's estimate. #elxn41
Tony Dewar, a Student at Okanagan College also chipped in.
- MrTonyDewar Tony Dewar@lesterleesm @votelauriehawn Every single person asked except the Cons say that the F-35 costs are going to be at least 29 billion. #elxn41
- @lesterleesm Your welcome. I believe Kevin Page the parliamentary budget officer, numbers myself. He seems to be right on the money.#elxn41
Haven't gotten a response from Laurie Hawn yet, and am not sure one is coming. But there it all is, make an informed opinion! And what do you think, Canada, of our spending choices on government weaponry?
The Article from Montreal Gazette:
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Canada+Engines+included/4629251/story.html
Article from The Globe and Mail
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/harper-says-f-35s-wont-cost-more/article1979046/
CBC Article on The Spiraling Costs of the F-35
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/04/05/pol-fighter-jet-cost.html
CBC Article, an FAQ on the F-35
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/07/16/f-f35-faq.html
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Fallout of Guelph Special Ballots
So while Guelph's special ballot has been unequivocally allowed, Elections Canada has announced today that there will be no more special ballot voting. They have ordered all returning officers from setting up special ballot boxes on university campuses, specifically.
About Mr. Sona, the office of his candidate has unequivocally denied to comment. For some students, the stonewalling is as good as guilt, and more witnesses are coming forward about what exactly took place on Wednesday.
Mr. Ignatieff meanwhile has begun using the incident as a tinder for student voting where he can.
Weigh in Canada!
The Globe and Mail Article:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/elections-canada-puts-end-to-special-ballot-voting/article1987880/
About Mr. Sona, the office of his candidate has unequivocally denied to comment. For some students, the stonewalling is as good as guilt, and more witnesses are coming forward about what exactly took place on Wednesday.
- Kevin Bowman said Elections Canada officials at the voting station moved quickly to block the ballot box from Mr. Sona, took him aside, and a heated debate ensued. Voting soon resumed, and the sealed ballot boxes have been returned to Ms. Budra’s (The returning officer) office.
Mr. Ignatieff meanwhile has begun using the incident as a tinder for student voting where he can.
- “This is the kind of thing you’d expect, you know, maybe in Egypt or Syria or some country that doesn’t know democracy,” Mr. Ignatieff said.
Weigh in Canada!
The Globe and Mail Article:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/elections-canada-puts-end-to-special-ballot-voting/article1987880/
Friday, April 15, 2011
Elections Canada Declares Guelph Votes Valid
Good news for democracy, and for the students of University of Guelph.
Elections Canada has ruled that the ballots cast on Wednesday by the students will be considered valid. Recanting his previous party statements, Stephen Harper has declared "We encourage Canadians of all regions, all walks of life from all backgrounds to participate in the election and vote for the candidate of their choice," However the Prime Minister sidestepped any mention of wrong doing on the part of his MP running for office, or any of their volunteers or staff.
In other news, perhaps Mr Marty Burke is feeling the pressure, he's already missed two of three of his scheduled debates, and he's not the only Conservative candidate to do so. Diane Ablonczy of Calgary Nose Hill (my previous Calgary riding) has apparently declared she will not attend any debates.
The CBC article:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/04/15/cv-election-guelph-student-vote.html
The Official Conservative Article:
http://guelphmercury.blogs.com/guelphvotes/2011/04/tories-national-office-comes-to-burkes-defence.html
Elections Canada has ruled that the ballots cast on Wednesday by the students will be considered valid. Recanting his previous party statements, Stephen Harper has declared "We encourage Canadians of all regions, all walks of life from all backgrounds to participate in the election and vote for the candidate of their choice," However the Prime Minister sidestepped any mention of wrong doing on the part of his MP running for office, or any of their volunteers or staff.
- "The Marty Burke campaign states that none of its workers or volunteers interfered with the process; in particular, none of its workers or volunteers touched a ballot box or ballot," the Conservative statement said.
- She said she was trying to vote when “a guy came up making a huge scene stating that this polling station was illegal and tried to grab for the ballot box.”
“I found this to be disruptive and disrespectful, as many students were in the line at the time to vote,” Anstett said the posting on her Facebook page.
“It was clearly a legal polling station, as there was Elections Canada, Special Ballot written on all of the documents present.”
In other news, perhaps Mr Marty Burke is feeling the pressure, he's already missed two of three of his scheduled debates, and he's not the only Conservative candidate to do so. Diane Ablonczy of Calgary Nose Hill (my previous Calgary riding) has apparently declared she will not attend any debates.
The CBC article:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/04/15/cv-election-guelph-student-vote.html
The Official Conservative Article:
http://guelphmercury.blogs.com/guelphvotes/2011/04/tories-national-office-comes-to-burkes-defence.html
iPod Tax Bullshit
If you're like me, you probably really detest attack ads. Especially done in such a flagrantly biased manner. The one that has caught the eye of Patrick though, and then brought to my attention is this fairly recent one about the iPod tax that Michael Ignatieff 'supports'. I say 'supports' because McLean's magazine has recently completely debunked and explained the theory as to why the Conservative party is using this particular tidbit as one of their attack points.
McLean's writes:
There is an immense amount of difficulty in trying to rationalize some of these strange points the Conservatives are making, so kudos to McLean's Erica Alini for digging deep into the truth of it.
What we also notice though, being savvy social media users and Web 2.0 people, is that Conservatives have denied access of comments and likes/dislikes on all their ads posted to youtube. Probably to prevent exactly this sort of thing from happening, from people digging to find the truth, and then pointing out their references and citations at how these 'ads' are untrue.
The Conservatives are, to my understanding, the only party to be denying the people their direct input on their campaign this way. All the NDP videos I've seen welcome discussion and discourse over them, admittedly I haven't seen a lot of videos from the Liberals yet, but Patrick says they too are open for discussion. The Conservative Party seems intent on running their campaign in a bubble, an allegation that has been leveled against them time and time again.
The sad thing, is that many people will not explore further into these attack ads. And could very well be turned away from their nominal voting choice by untrue statements and proclamations.
This is neither fair, nor a way I should think we want our government to conduct itself.
McLean's Article about the 'iPod Tax':
http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/05/the-bull-meter-the-conservatives-on-the-liberals-ipod-tax/
The Conservative Attack Ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_pSUHZZ5Qw
McLean's writes:
- The claim a $75 levy was ever on the table—and that it was supported by the Liberals—is dubious for two reasons: first, contrary to Conservative claims, the Copyright Board never suggested the levy should be up to $75. That amount was proposed by a non-profit called the Canadian Private Copying Collective, which collects and distributes private copying royalties. But while they may not be the ones who collect it, it’s the Copyright Board that fixes levies on MP3 players, such as the ones that were in place until a December 2004 Federal Court decision struck them down. These ranged from $2 to $25.
- Secondly, the Liberals changed their policy on taxing digital audio devices in December and have explicitly rejected the notion of an “iPod levy.” They now support compensating artists with a yearly transfer of $35 million.
There is an immense amount of difficulty in trying to rationalize some of these strange points the Conservatives are making, so kudos to McLean's Erica Alini for digging deep into the truth of it.
What we also notice though, being savvy social media users and Web 2.0 people, is that Conservatives have denied access of comments and likes/dislikes on all their ads posted to youtube. Probably to prevent exactly this sort of thing from happening, from people digging to find the truth, and then pointing out their references and citations at how these 'ads' are untrue.
The Conservatives are, to my understanding, the only party to be denying the people their direct input on their campaign this way. All the NDP videos I've seen welcome discussion and discourse over them, admittedly I haven't seen a lot of videos from the Liberals yet, but Patrick says they too are open for discussion. The Conservative Party seems intent on running their campaign in a bubble, an allegation that has been leveled against them time and time again.
The sad thing, is that many people will not explore further into these attack ads. And could very well be turned away from their nominal voting choice by untrue statements and proclamations.
This is neither fair, nor a way I should think we want our government to conduct itself.
McLean's Article about the 'iPod Tax':
http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/05/the-bull-meter-the-conservatives-on-the-liberals-ipod-tax/
The Conservative Attack Ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_pSUHZZ5Qw
Thursday, April 14, 2011
University of Guelph Students Told Their Votes Don't Count?
This one just came to me a few minutes ago.
Essentially a conservative communications minister, named Mister Sona, (For Guelph Conservative Candidate Marty Burke) attempted to actually physically take the ballot box away, telling people around that such a special ballot was 'illegal' and that he was confiscating it.
Obviously he was stopped, but now the Conservatives' lawyer has filed injunction with Elections Canada, stating that partisan election material was at the special polling station. If their claim goes through and is proven, as many as 700 students who voted in the sealed special ballot would have their votes thrown out.
The special ballot held at the University of Guelph is the third time it's been done, and the Elections Canada media advisor said this is the first time any objection has been raised.
Are there any students who attend Guelph who voted yesterday around to comment?
http://www.guelphmercury.com/news/local/article/517010--conservatives-ask-elections-canada-to-nullify-votes-cast-at-u-of-g-wednesday
Yvonne Su, a co-organizer of the Vote Mobs taking Guelph also wrote an article about yesterday, available here.
http://www.guelphmercury.com/opinion/columns/article/516819--just-voted-a-column-from-a-yes-woman
Essentially a conservative communications minister, named Mister Sona, (For Guelph Conservative Candidate Marty Burke) attempted to actually physically take the ballot box away, telling people around that such a special ballot was 'illegal' and that he was confiscating it.
Obviously he was stopped, but now the Conservatives' lawyer has filed injunction with Elections Canada, stating that partisan election material was at the special polling station. If their claim goes through and is proven, as many as 700 students who voted in the sealed special ballot would have their votes thrown out.
The special ballot held at the University of Guelph is the third time it's been done, and the Elections Canada media advisor said this is the first time any objection has been raised.
Are there any students who attend Guelph who voted yesterday around to comment?
http://www.guelphmercury.com/news/local/article/517010--conservatives-ask-elections-canada-to-nullify-votes-cast-at-u-of-g-wednesday
Yvonne Su, a co-organizer of the Vote Mobs taking Guelph also wrote an article about yesterday, available here.
http://www.guelphmercury.com/opinion/columns/article/516819--just-voted-a-column-from-a-yes-woman
Afghan Records Won't Be Released
In a ruling today, the two judges overseeing the reporting of the Afghan Records controversy had decided that the reports will not be released before the election.
Richard Colvin, a Canadian Diplomat alleged in November 2009 that Canadian Armed forces handed over innocent Afghan detainees to be tortured. In his own words:
Harper at the time, that December, sought to prorogue parliament, and did successfuly despite widespread protests. When Parliament returned in the next year, Conservative support had been shored up and the danger of a no-confidence vote had been lessened.
I think the question we should pose at this time is do we still think this is an election issue? Obviously, these two judges who are presiding think it is not. They believe that the findings of the report should have no basis on our electorate.
What do we as Canadians think?
If the issue found moral wrongdoing on the part of the conservatives, say in the form of intentional coverup, or even unintentional, would that alter the way you vote?
The CBC article regarding the Judge's decision.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/14/cv-election-afghan-detainees.html
This is an article released last week by the Journal about the Tory stance on the report.
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Tories+seek+curtail+Afghan+report/4566478/story.html
Richard Colvin, a Canadian Diplomat alleged in November 2009 that Canadian Armed forces handed over innocent Afghan detainees to be tortured. In his own words:
- "According to our information, the likelihood is that all the Afghans we handed over were tortured"
Harper at the time, that December, sought to prorogue parliament, and did successfuly despite widespread protests. When Parliament returned in the next year, Conservative support had been shored up and the danger of a no-confidence vote had been lessened.
I think the question we should pose at this time is do we still think this is an election issue? Obviously, these two judges who are presiding think it is not. They believe that the findings of the report should have no basis on our electorate.
What do we as Canadians think?
If the issue found moral wrongdoing on the part of the conservatives, say in the form of intentional coverup, or even unintentional, would that alter the way you vote?
The CBC article regarding the Judge's decision.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/14/cv-election-afghan-detainees.html
This is an article released last week by the Journal about the Tory stance on the report.
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Tories+seek+curtail+Afghan+report/4566478/story.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)