Liberal MPs Judy Sgro and John Cannis have been busted for breaking the rules and now must break out the cheque book to pay back the taxpayer.
"The House of Commons has ordered at least two MPs to pay back thousands of tax dollars the government paid for their rent after a Chronicle Herald-Ottawa Citizen investigation early this summer found they were breaking rules that barred MPs from renting from family members.
Toronto Liberal MP John Cannis was ordered to pay back more than $80,000, and York West MP Judy Sgro, also a Grit, paid more than $60,000, a source said.
Cannis has refused comment on this matter since last June and Sgro has previously stated that she had no idea she was violating the rules; and why would she think so, because owning a condo yourself and then transferring the title to your kids so you can charge your rent to the Canadian taxpayer is just something that anyone would do in similar circumstances and happens every day in Ottawa. NOT!
Updated: Judy, Judy, Judy......"To claim such expenses, MPs must sign a travel expense claim, certifying that their claims comply with the bylaws of the board of internal economy. The first rule in those bylaws forbids MPs from entering into a "contract for goods, services, premises or employment" with a family member. "
So the taxpayer gets some money back and the 2 Liberal MP's go about their business, thanks to the majority of the MSM who will ignore the story, as if nothing happened.
Previous blog post on Sgro,
Previous blog post on Cannis
NDP: Someone call the cops.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Friday, October 29, 2010
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Congratulations Michael Ignatieff, You are now Number 1!
I believe in giving credit where credit due, and Michael Ignatieff deserves full credit and a hearty congratulations for finally reaching #1.
Number one at what you ask; read on...
Michael Ignatieff has now reached the top spot on the list of Members of Parliament absent from recorded votes in the House of Commons and is clearly #1 at skipping out on his job of representing the people who elected him to be their voice in Ottawa in order to do other (and I assume more important to him) things. In essence proving that he is in it for himself.
Ignatieff's voting record:
In the 40th Parliament, 3rd session (March 2010 - Present) out of the 125 recorded divisions, Michael Ignatieff was recorded as absent a total 96 times which works out to him missing votes 76% of the time.
While you may be personally shocked by the 76% figure, missing votes in Parliament is really nothing new for Ignatieff.
In the second session of the 40th Parliament (Jan 2009-Dec 2009) Ignatieff was recorded as absent on 76 separate recorded divisions. When taken together with his 3rd session record (above) it brings the total to a whopping 172 times that Ignatieff has been absent from recorded votes in the House of Commons since hiselection undemocratic appointment as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada in Dec 2008.
That is a lot of absences by anyone's standard but what makes it even harder to understand is that it is Ignatieff and the Liberal party who scream the loudest in front the media about getting back to work, working hard for Canadians, padlocking parliament, and spinning to the people that the Liberals are working hard at being a realistic alternative in the next election. They like to talk a good game but the record of Ignatieff and the Liberals proves otherwise. ( Note the total number of Liberals in the top 50 of that list. 72% are Liberals while just 6% are Conservatives. Bonus: for added fun scroll down the list to the bottom and note which party clearly has the best voting record.)
So stand proud Michael. The top spot is now yours and you continue to be a shining example of how hard the Liberal Party of Canada worksfor themselves on behalf of the people of Canada. Today is your day Michael; enjoy it.
Preemptive counter spin: You may hear that one of the reasons that Ignatieff missed so many votes was because he does not vote on private members bills, but don't believe it because that is nothing but a flat out lie.
Number one at what you ask; read on...
Michael Ignatieff has now reached the top spot on the list of Members of Parliament absent from recorded votes in the House of Commons and is clearly #1 at skipping out on his job of representing the people who elected him to be their voice in Ottawa in order to do other (and I assume more important to him) things. In essence proving that he is in it for himself.
Ignatieff's voting record:
In the 40th Parliament, 3rd session (March 2010 - Present) out of the 125 recorded divisions, Michael Ignatieff was recorded as absent a total 96 times which works out to him missing votes 76% of the time.
76%
While you may be personally shocked by the 76% figure, missing votes in Parliament is really nothing new for Ignatieff.
In the second session of the 40th Parliament (Jan 2009-Dec 2009) Ignatieff was recorded as absent on 76 separate recorded divisions. When taken together with his 3rd session record (above) it brings the total to a whopping 172 times that Ignatieff has been absent from recorded votes in the House of Commons since his
That is a lot of absences by anyone's standard but what makes it even harder to understand is that it is Ignatieff and the Liberal party who scream the loudest in front the media about getting back to work, working hard for Canadians, padlocking parliament, and spinning to the people that the Liberals are working hard at being a realistic alternative in the next election. They like to talk a good game but the record of Ignatieff and the Liberals proves otherwise. ( Note the total number of Liberals in the top 50 of that list. 72% are Liberals while just 6% are Conservatives. Bonus: for added fun scroll down the list to the bottom and note which party clearly has the best voting record.)
So stand proud Michael. The top spot is now yours and you continue to be a shining example of how hard the Liberal Party of Canada works
Preemptive counter spin: You may hear that one of the reasons that Ignatieff missed so many votes was because he does not vote on private members bills, but don't believe it because that is nothing but a flat out lie.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
In war the age of someone trying to kill you does not matter.
A quick thought on the whole 'child soldier' meme being tossed about by so many lately.
Personally I believe that Omar K does not fit the established definition of a child soldier for a couple of reasons. First he was 15 which in some UN conventions (article 38) is the cut-off age for a CS, he did this with permission from his parents, factor in the age of majority in Afghanistan, and the little issue that he was not serving in what could be called a 'regular army'. IMHO all of this combined precludes him from the definition of a child soldier. (A following UN convention, that Canada signed, sort of raises that age to 18.)
But none of that really matters because, in international law and in every one of these UN conventions, the rules were written for the recruiters of child soldiers and not those that these child soldiers were shooting at and trying to kill.
In war the age of someone trying to kill you does not matter and it would be totally asinine for our soldiers to respond in combat, to child soldiers who are trying to kill them, any differently than they would towards anyone else doing the same. Not only would it be impractical to ask for ID on a battlefield before you return fire, it would also more than likely get you killed.
All of these conventions were intended for those that recruit children into combat ( and that includes parents who allow this type of thing), not those he was trying to kill.
Why are those that recruited /enabled Omar to enter the fight not the ones on the receiving end of all this outrage? I guess it is easier to send them a cheque every month than it is deal with the real problem.
A must read on the trial facts from the CBC.
Why Omar was NOT a child soldier.
Personally I believe that Omar K does not fit the established definition of a child soldier for a couple of reasons. First he was 15 which in some UN conventions (article 38) is the cut-off age for a CS, he did this with permission from his parents, factor in the age of majority in Afghanistan, and the little issue that he was not serving in what could be called a 'regular army'. IMHO all of this combined precludes him from the definition of a child soldier. (A following UN convention, that Canada signed, sort of raises that age to 18.)
But none of that really matters because, in international law and in every one of these UN conventions, the rules were written for the recruiters of child soldiers and not those that these child soldiers were shooting at and trying to kill.
In war the age of someone trying to kill you does not matter and it would be totally asinine for our soldiers to respond in combat, to child soldiers who are trying to kill them, any differently than they would towards anyone else doing the same. Not only would it be impractical to ask for ID on a battlefield before you return fire, it would also more than likely get you killed.
All of these conventions were intended for those that recruit children into combat ( and that includes parents who allow this type of thing), not those he was trying to kill.
Why are those that recruited /enabled Omar to enter the fight not the ones on the receiving end of all this outrage? I guess it is easier to send them a cheque every month than it is deal with the real problem.
A must read on the trial facts from the CBC.
Why Omar was NOT a child soldier.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Ignatieff tries to bridge the enormous gap between men and women.
Michael Ignatieff was busy campaigning again yesterday holding another open mike event and taking questions from the public. The previous one didn't go as well as he had hoped and from initial reports it looks like this one may have ended up the same way.
Some have said that last night Ignatieff discovered his feminine side, but if you take a look at what he actually had to say I would suggest that it was more like Ignatieff found his inner caveman rather than any so called 'feminine side'.
Here is what he had to say while speaking about the recent Russell Williams murder trial:
"I don't quite know what it's like to look at that news through a woman's eyes, but I can sort of imagine how difficult that week has been,"
"The thing that's so awful about this week is the breaking of that basic trust that we have to have between men and women in order to raise families, live with each other, work together as citizens. And a very bad man did that a lot of harm this week."
Yup, that was Michael Ignatieff claiming in one breath that he can't imagine what women must have thought about the Williams trial, but yet arrogantly claiming in another breath that relations between men and women ( every single one of us) has been somehow set back because of what some individual wacko did. I am sure every woman in the country is now eternally grateful for having Michael Ignatieff around to tell them about their future relations and trust with men and how they should be feeling rather than allowing them to think and feel for themselves. A true feminist ever their ever was one!
Think I am taking that a little bit too far? Just take a look at what else Ignatieff had to say, this time after a female University of Ottawa student asked him if he's in touch with his "feminine side" and able to represent the concerns of women?"
"I think it is true, in fact, that men and women both have a feminine side and a masculine side.
Some have said that last night Ignatieff discovered his feminine side, but if you take a look at what he actually had to say I would suggest that it was more like Ignatieff found his inner caveman rather than any so called 'feminine side'.
Here is what he had to say while speaking about the recent Russell Williams murder trial:
"I don't quite know what it's like to look at that news through a woman's eyes, but I can sort of imagine how difficult that week has been,"
"The thing that's so awful about this week is the breaking of that basic trust that we have to have between men and women in order to raise families, live with each other, work together as citizens. And a very bad man did that a lot of harm this week."
Yup, that was Michael Ignatieff claiming in one breath that he can't imagine what women must have thought about the Williams trial, but yet arrogantly claiming in another breath that relations between men and women ( every single one of us) has been somehow set back because of what some individual wacko did. I am sure every woman in the country is now eternally grateful for having Michael Ignatieff around to tell them about their future relations and trust with men and how they should be feeling rather than allowing them to think and feel for themselves. A true feminist ever their ever was one!
Think I am taking that a little bit too far? Just take a look at what else Ignatieff had to say, this time after a female University of Ottawa student asked him if he's in touch with his "feminine side" and able to represent the concerns of women?"
"I think it is true, in fact, that men and women both have a feminine side and a masculine side.
And thank God we do. It's one of the things that allows us to get over that enormous gap that separates men and women."
I will leave the stereotypical comment about the so called 'feminine and masculine' sides alone because Ignatieff was more than likely just searching for a quick way to respond to the question and didn't realize how utterly cookie cutter and un-progressive it was, but I do need some serious clarification on his next comment about that "enormous gap" that separates men and women.
What exactly in Michael Ignatieff's mind makes up this enormous gap? I doubt that he was referring to biological differences or even something like wage parity because those would make no sense in terms of context, so just what was Ignatieff talking about.
Are all women more emotional or have different emotions than men, do they think or act differently, are they less rational, capable, or intelligent than men, or maybe women really are from Venus while men do come from Mars.
I don't know the answer to what he meant with his enormous gap comment but believe me when I say that I am looking forward to watching professor Ignatieff trying to spin answer that question today. That is if some in the media care enough to call him out for these obviously stereotypical remarks.
Time to be open with all of us Mike. If you would be so kind as to please define for us what you believe that enormous gap that separates men and women is, those of us who believe that men and women are equal would appreciate the clarification and no doubt we all would be better off for it.
Update: so far no one in the media has asked Ignatieff to clarify his comments but Scott Feschuk called them 'beyond f'ing stupid' and Andrew Coyne called the comment 'beyond asinine'.
Charles Adler deals with Iffy's comments in his monologue. Brings up a good point about Ignatieff dividing men and women.
Update: so far no one in the media has asked Ignatieff to clarify his comments but Scott Feschuk called them 'beyond f'ing stupid' and Andrew Coyne called the comment 'beyond asinine'.
Charles Adler deals with Iffy's comments in his monologue. Brings up a good point about Ignatieff dividing men and women.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Michael Ignatieff lies to highshool students.
Michael Ignatieff took yet another day off of work on Monday and went to Guelph Ontario where spoke to students at
During the 40th Parliament’s 3rd session Michael Ignatieff voted 6 times on Private Member’s Bills and 3 times in the 2nd session)
40th Parliament, 3rd Session: C-391, C-471, C-309, C-310, C-311 40th Parliament, 2nd Session: C-291, C-308, C-391
During the 40th Parliament’s 3rd session Michael Ignatieff voted 6 times on Private Member’s Bills and 3 times in the 2nd session)
40th Parliament, 3rd Session: C-391, C-471, C-309, C-310, C-311 40th Parliament, 2nd Session: C-291, C-308, C-391
Friday, October 15, 2010
Edmonton votes Oct 18. My Choice for Mayor.
This Monday October 18th Edmonton votes and IMHO this time around there is only 1 real choice to defeat Stephen Mandel, our current liberal leaning mayor who feels that the people of Edmonton do not even deserve a say in what happens to our airport, and that is David Dorward.
David Dorward is a fiscal conservative business man with a long record of community service who understands that the citizens of Edmonton deserve a say in how this city operates and that they are not just a source of revenue for the pet projects of the mayor and city council.
The Edmonton municipal election is only a few days away and although our election is not nearly getting the media attention of the Toronto mayoralty race, the stakes are just as high if not higher ( letting the people be heard on the permanent closure of the City Centre Airport) So if you have yet to make up your mind there is still time to do some research and make an informed choice when you head out to vote this upcoming Monday. Stephen Mandel believes that he already has the election in the bag, as his indifference to the voters at the mayoralty debates clearly demonstrates, and he (and many other incumbent councilors) need to be reminded just who they are supposed to be working for.
On Monday Oct 18th, lets show the mayor and city council that they cannot take the citizens of Edmonton for granted. Get out and vote Edmonton!
David Dorward is a fiscal conservative business man with a long record of community service who understands that the citizens of Edmonton deserve a say in how this city operates and that they are not just a source of revenue for the pet projects of the mayor and city council.
The Edmonton municipal election is only a few days away and although our election is not nearly getting the media attention of the Toronto mayoralty race, the stakes are just as high if not higher ( letting the people be heard on the permanent closure of the City Centre Airport) So if you have yet to make up your mind there is still time to do some research and make an informed choice when you head out to vote this upcoming Monday. Stephen Mandel believes that he already has the election in the bag, as his indifference to the voters at the mayoralty debates clearly demonstrates, and he (and many other incumbent councilors) need to be reminded just who they are supposed to be working for.
On Monday Oct 18th, lets show the mayor and city council that they cannot take the citizens of Edmonton for granted. Get out and vote Edmonton!
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
What would make the Liberals happier: a double dip recession, or proof of our troops committing torture?
I am having trouble trying to guess which of the following would make the Liberals happier?
Canada entering into the second part of a double dip recession or having proof of Canadian troops participating in torture.
It is hard question to answer because if you do answer it honestly you know that the Liberal are cheering for both to happen.
Related The Debbie Downers of Canadian politics.
Just a quick comment on the it is Iffy's fault spin:
Ignatieff's comments on Canada not being deserving to win a seat on the UNSC were not to blame for the loss but there can be little doubt that they did nothing to help Canada at the UN.
Canada entering into the second part of a double dip recession or having proof of Canadian troops participating in torture.
It is hard question to answer because if you do answer it honestly you know that the Liberal are cheering for both to happen.
Related The Debbie Downers of Canadian politics.
Just a quick comment on the it is Iffy's fault spin:
Ignatieff's comments on Canada not being deserving to win a seat on the UNSC were not to blame for the loss but there can be little doubt that they did nothing to help Canada at the UN.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Liberal Senator Tommy Banks shills for shadowy anti-airport group
Unelected Liberal Senator Tommy Banks, who was appointed to the Senate by Jean Chretien against the wishes of the people of Alberta who had voted for Bert Brown twice for the job, has lent his voice to a 'shadowy' anti City Centre Airport group, yesforedmonton.com
Who are yesforedmonton? We don't know. A whois search reveals nothing as they have chosen to hide behind a proxy domain service, but there is plenty of speculation on who may be running this group. ( I have no way of verifying if any of the info posted at that link is accurate so reader beware) (updated with Journal story on the above link)
Not that I am surprised that an unelected Senator, who accepted the appointment knowing full well that the people of Alberta had chosen someone else for the job, would stand against giving the people of Edmonton their democratic say by plebiscite if the airport should remain open or not, but what I do want to know is why did Senator Banks choose to record a video for a group that nobody seems to know for sure who set it up, who is running it, or where it gets its funding from?
Who are yesforedmonton? We don't know. A whois search reveals nothing as they have chosen to hide behind a proxy domain service, but there is plenty of speculation on who may be running this group. ( I have no way of verifying if any of the info posted at that link is accurate so reader beware) (updated with Journal story on the above link)
Not that I am surprised that an unelected Senator, who accepted the appointment knowing full well that the people of Alberta had chosen someone else for the job, would stand against giving the people of Edmonton their democratic say by plebiscite if the airport should remain open or not, but what I do want to know is why did Senator Banks choose to record a video for a group that nobody seems to know for sure who set it up, who is running it, or where it gets its funding from?
Saturday, October 09, 2010
Mark Holland faces reality and apologizes, something he said he would never do.
Liberal MP Mark Holland, of secret box fame, has issued an apology after asserting back in March 2008 that he would not: Mr. Holland, the MP for Ajax-Pickering, yesterday said his comments did not warrant an apology and said that no bullying or legal threats would stop him from searching for the truth...
OTTAWA, Oct 8 /CNW/ - Today Mark Holland made the following statement with regards to the legal action between him and Mr. Chris Froggatt:
In an interview broadcast on CTV Newsnet on March 5, 2008, I made certain statements regarding Chris Froggatt, then Chief of Staff to Canada's Minister of Environment, and communications between Mr. Froggatt and the Ontario Provincial Police. I have since determined that my concerns regarding Mr. Froggatt were unwarranted. I apologize to Mr. Froggatt and retract the statements that may have caused grief to him and to his family.
This action has now been settled to the mutual satisfaction of both parties.
Here is what Mark Holland said in the House (March 11 2008) on this subject and how he claimed it was his privileges being violated. In other words he had no clue and thought he could say whatever he wanted wherever he wanted.
Smack down #1 from Peter Van Loan:
The fact that one is a member of Parliament does not give one licence to make reckless accusations that harm the reputation of any individual in this country, regardless of one's position or status.
Holland still did not get it:
Mr. Speaker, my comments are very clear. I stand by what I say both in this House and outside of this House.
As has been pointed out by the hon. government House leader, a privilege exists in respect of statements that members make in this House, but also in committees. Something he neglected to mention is that comments in committee are also protected. Statements made outside the House are not protected. If the hon. member received a letter that alleges he said something that was defamatory of someone else–and that is what I sense from the segment he read–somewhere other than in the House, then the question of privilege is not available to him to have this matter somehow protected under that guise.
Now if only if he would apologize to Alberta for his remarks about nationalizing the oil sands. Transcript of conversation here, Hollands letter denying his own words(and slamming Premier Stelmach) here.
Anyone see a pattern here?
ht The Phantom Observer
Related:
Stephen Taylor gets letters (where is the media coverage?)
Update: October 15th (1 week later) The Canadian MSM FINALLY picks up on the story. What took them so long, and more importantly, if this was a Conservative does anyone really believe that the CBC, CTV, Globe and Mail, etc would have not have been all over this story from day 1 as opposed to the ZERO coverage it has received by them?
OTTAWA, Oct 8 /CNW/ - Today Mark Holland made the following statement with regards to the legal action between him and Mr. Chris Froggatt:
In an interview broadcast on CTV Newsnet on March 5, 2008, I made certain statements regarding Chris Froggatt, then Chief of Staff to Canada's Minister of Environment, and communications between Mr. Froggatt and the Ontario Provincial Police. I have since determined that my concerns regarding Mr. Froggatt were unwarranted. I apologize to Mr. Froggatt and retract the statements that may have caused grief to him and to his family.
This action has now been settled to the mutual satisfaction of both parties.
Here is what Mark Holland said in the House (March 11 2008) on this subject and how he claimed it was his privileges being violated. In other words he had no clue and thought he could say whatever he wanted wherever he wanted.
I have repeatedly questioned the Minister of the Environment about his involvement in both the actions of Mayor O’Brien and his dealings with the OPP in this matter. It was those questions that led to the CTV Newsnet interview, of which Mr. Froggatt now complains.
It is clear that the primary goal of Mr. Froggatt is to prevent me from continuing to raise the very serious questions that I have about his actions and the actions of the Minister of the Environment with respect to the OPP investigation.
Mr. Froggatt is well aware that he is unable to directly control what I say in this House. As a result, he has chosen to attempt to intimidate me outside the House by threatening a lawsuit should I refuse to withdraw my earlier comments and refrain from accusing him of inappropriate activity.
I believe that the involvement of the Minister of the Environment in a bribery scandal and improper interference by the chief of staff to a minister are two issues that are clearly of public importance. Indeed, I have laid these issues before the House on a number of occasions. Mr. Froggatt’s attempt to stifle debate is clearly a violation of my privileges.
Smack down #1 from Peter Van Loan:
The fact that one is a member of Parliament does not give one licence to make reckless accusations that harm the reputation of any individual in this country, regardless of one's position or status.
Any comments that are made outside of this chamber, outside of one's direct role in the House, are comments for which a member must assume responsibility, comments which they should recognize have risks and that they should have a basis on which they can defend the truthfulness and accuracy of those remarks...
We protect members within the House to allow for freedom of speech but we also respect the rights of every citizen and recognize that there is a difference between what Parliament means and what the House means. It is by virtue of membership and participation in the House that those privileges exist. It is for the protection of what happens in this chamber that those privileges exist. It is not to give individuals licence to engage in reckless behaviour and destroy people's reputations without any basis, which is exactly the conduct that the member continues to engage in outside the House.
On that basis, he must, as any other citizen outside the House, be prepared to defend those comments, not to cry like a baby that he is not allowed to say what he wants. He must assume the adult responsibilities for the truth of the comments he makes. If they are not true, then he should own up to the lack of evidence and own up to the lack of truth and be prepared to defend those words in court. That is all he is being asked to do.
Holland still did not get it:
Mr. Speaker, my comments are very clear. I stand by what I say both in this House and outside of this House.
The issue is when members of Parliament in trying to execute their duties as members of Parliament ask legitimate questions of the government about matters of deep concern to the country, matters that are well reported, are sued by individuals who try to do indirectly what they cannot do directly, to try to intimidate individuals into not asking legitimate, fair questions on matters of fact, in my opinion, that is a serious attack upon the privileges of members of Parliament.
I believe the courts are being abused and used to try to stifle the abilities of members of Parliament to ask questions.
Smack down #2 From the Speaker: The complaint was all about statements he had made on a television program, and those are not ones that are subject to parliamentary privilege. As has been pointed out by the hon. government House leader, a privilege exists in respect of statements that members make in this House, but also in committees. Something he neglected to mention is that comments in committee are also protected. Statements made outside the House are not protected. If the hon. member received a letter that alleges he said something that was defamatory of someone else–and that is what I sense from the segment he read–somewhere other than in the House, then the question of privilege is not available to him to have this matter somehow protected under that guise.
Now if only if he would apologize to Alberta for his remarks about nationalizing the oil sands. Transcript of conversation here, Hollands letter denying his own words(and slamming Premier Stelmach) here.
Anyone see a pattern here?
ht The Phantom Observer
Related:
Stephen Taylor gets letters (where is the media coverage?)
Update: October 15th (1 week later) The Canadian MSM FINALLY picks up on the story. What took them so long, and more importantly, if this was a Conservative does anyone really believe that the CBC, CTV, Globe and Mail, etc would have not have been all over this story from day 1 as opposed to the ZERO coverage it has received by them?
Prime Minister Harper's visit to Edmonton Oct 8, 2010
PM Harper was in town yesterday and it looks like he had quite the full day.
He started the day doing an 'interesting' radio interview with Dave Rutherford. Transcript here.
A short time later the PM he announced an $1.95 million investment in the Alberta high-technology sector towards Nanotechnology products for the expanding worldwide market which is expected to be reach $3 trillion by 2015.
Following the tech announcement the PM headed back to school where he took part in Edmonton's 'read in week' by reading the book Thanks for Thanksgiving to a grade 2 class at Kensington elementary. I bet there were more than a few surprised students there yesterday. Story links here and here.
In the evening the PM spoke at a local hotel where he gave what sounded a lot like a campaign style speech to the assembled party faithful, and to put it mildly the PM didn't hold back. Story here (btw I think the #'s were closer to 800 then 500) All I can say is that when the 3 opposition parties do get together and decide to pull the plug to force an election ( and it will take ALL 3 to do so), the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister look ready to go.
And this time no one is going to be shy about using the word 'majority'.
He started the day doing an 'interesting' radio interview with Dave Rutherford. Transcript here.
A short time later the PM he announced an $1.95 million investment in the Alberta high-technology sector towards Nanotechnology products for the expanding worldwide market which is expected to be reach $3 trillion by 2015.
Following the tech announcement the PM headed back to school where he took part in Edmonton's 'read in week' by reading the book Thanks for Thanksgiving to a grade 2 class at Kensington elementary. I bet there were more than a few surprised students there yesterday. Story links here and here.
In the evening the PM spoke at a local hotel where he gave what sounded a lot like a campaign style speech to the assembled party faithful, and to put it mildly the PM didn't hold back. Story here (btw I think the #'s were closer to 800 then 500) All I can say is that when the 3 opposition parties do get together and decide to pull the plug to force an election ( and it will take ALL 3 to do so), the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister look ready to go.
And this time no one is going to be shy about using the word 'majority'.
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
A new low? Ignatieff again uses his mother's illness for personal gain.
Micheal Ignatieff sent out an email today titled "This is personal."
Here is what it said:
Here is what it said:
"My mother got sick with Alzheimer’s when she was in her 60s — early, in other words — and my dad took care of her at home. I’ve never admired my father more than when he looked after my mom, but it killed him, basically. It was tough, even with my brother, Andrew, stepping up, and our family and friends helping.
Like my Dad did, millions of Canadians care for family members at home when loved ones fall ill. They are a silent workforce, providing $9-billion in unpaid work each year. Many must use personal savings to survive, miss work or quit their jobs. Over half have household incomes under $45,000. Like the loved ones they are caring for, many of these caregivers are in the fight of their lives.
Yesterday, I announced a new Liberal Party policy to change that."
It goes on in detail describing this re-hashed policy plank but you get the idea. Ignatieff is using his own mother's illness to help his own fortunes and this isn't the first time!
In his book Scar Tissue described as a lyrical first person account of a son caring for a mother grappling with neurological breakdown, mirrored his own mother’s decent into Alzheimers” ....But not all family members shared critics' admiration for the book. Some expressed anger that privacy had been breached, a sentiment voiced about family stories published in Granta. There was distaste that the fiction veiled the fact it was not Ignatieff but his younger brother, Andrew, who cared for his mother in Toronto, sacrificing his work in international development to do so.
Related here:
Wow! Is there NOTHING that is off limits or that this guy will not do to for personal gain?
You know that "all about me" stuff is ringing truer with every passing day. It appears to me like Ignatieff carries no emotions, has few if any real attachments, and is just working his way through some sort of academic exercise with the goal of being PM only so he can write yet another chapter in a future book. If that exercise takes him to these depths, I don't think he is fit to be the leader of the Liberal Party let alone ever be the Prime Minister of Canada.
It goes on in detail describing this re-hashed policy plank but you get the idea. Ignatieff is using his own mother's illness to help his own fortunes and this isn't the first time!
In his book Scar Tissue described as a lyrical first person account of a son caring for a mother grappling with neurological breakdown, mirrored his own mother’s decent into Alzheimers” ....But not all family members shared critics' admiration for the book. Some expressed anger that privacy had been breached, a sentiment voiced about family stories published in Granta. There was distaste that the fiction veiled the fact it was not Ignatieff but his younger brother, Andrew, who cared for his mother in Toronto, sacrificing his work in international development to do so.
Related here:
In the August, 1984 — the summer of Michael Ignatieff's "good year" — there was a family gathering at the house in a village in Provence that George and Alison had bought in 1962 as their only permanent residence.
The older Ignatieffs were there. Andrew had flown in from the shanty barrios of Peru where he worked for the Canadian arm of Save the Children. Michael, Susan and baby Theo had come from London — making it the first time three generations of the family were gathered under one roof.
It was a taxing time. Alison had begun her descent into Alzheimer's. George, the all-powerful force in his sons' lives, was showing signs of frailty. There were raw emotions and difficult conversations as the family struggled with its psychological past, with the unfamiliarity of living together, with the pain of coming to terms with Alison's illness.
The sons' difficult relationship with their father came to the surface.
George, who had had no real childhood of his own, had little idea of what to do with fatherhood when it came to him. He could appear warm and affectionate, but found it difficult to convey his hopes and aspirations to his sons beyond declamations of grand dynastic expectations.
Michael said things that wounded his father. He accused him of crushing his mother's creativity and independence by taking over her life and making her subservient to his needs.
A year later, as Andrew would tell Sandra Martin for Saturday Night, he came home to Toronto from Peru for a visit, walked into a bookstore and saw the entire story of his family's summer laid out in an article Michael had written for the British literary magazine Granta.
Or, almost the entire story: Andrew had been written out of the script. He just didn't appear.
"I just remember standing there and my eyes filling up with tears in the middle of the bookstore," he said.
Not long afterward, Andrew quit his job in Peru to return to Toronto to care for his parents, while Michael's career continued to flower in England — as a television host, newspaper commentator, author and screenplay-writer.
In early 1989, he came briefly to Toronto to spell Andrew off as caregiver — "'once or twice a year, it's my turn" — and shortly afterward, Granta published "Deficits," a deeply moving account of a son looking after his mother, with a forensically detailed description of Alison's deteriorating mental state.
Said Andrew: "I came in one evening and my father was really upset, and I said, 'What's the matter?' and he said, 'Michael's written an article about your mother'"
There were family members — for example, Alison's sister, Charity Grant, and her brother, George Grant, and his wife, Sheila — who could never bring themselves to forgive Michael for having publicly exposed his intensely private mother.
That summer, George Ignatieff died. Andrew was with him. Michael was in France.
Wow! Is there NOTHING that is off limits or that this guy will not do to for personal gain?
You know that "all about me" stuff is ringing truer with every passing day. It appears to me like Ignatieff carries no emotions, has few if any real attachments, and is just working his way through some sort of academic exercise with the goal of being PM only so he can write yet another chapter in a future book. If that exercise takes him to these depths, I don't think he is fit to be the leader of the Liberal Party let alone ever be the Prime Minister of Canada.
They are not even pretending to be non biased anymore.
It looks like CBC Power and Politics has given up even pretending to be non biased.
“Our job — and we take it seriously — is to ensure that the information that we put out is fair and unbiased in everything that we do,” CBC President Hubert Lacroix
Yesterdays Question of the Day: "Is money for home-care a better use of taxpayer dollars than funding corporate tax cuts?"
Seriously, this was the question put up on the CBC website yesterday. It is not bad enough that the results of this bogus poll should be obvious, long before the first vote was cast, to anyone who passed grade 6, but the question itself comes right out of Liberal Party talking points and in fact Ignatieff used almost the exact same words himself when announcing the program. Want to make a wager that if you asked the question: Is buying puppies for everyone better use of taxpayer dollars than tax cuts?, that the puppies would win hands down?
Or better yet ( and I DARE you to ask this one Ryan): Is money for home-care a better use of taxpayer dollars than funding the CBC?
Today's question: "Are you concerned about illegal lobbying for government contracts?"
Wow, I wonder what the final results of this QOTD are going to be. DUH!
What does the CBC think they are accomplishing by rewording LPC talking points into their QOTD? Maybe they should get Frank Graves to write their question for them. On second thought...
“Our job — and we take it seriously — is to ensure that the information that we put out is fair and unbiased in everything that we do,” CBC President Hubert Lacroix
Sure you do.
BC Blue on another fair and unbiased report.
“Our job — and we take it seriously — is to ensure that the information that we put out is fair and unbiased in everything that we do,” CBC President Hubert Lacroix
Yesterdays Question of the Day: "Is money for home-care a better use of taxpayer dollars than funding corporate tax cuts?"
Seriously, this was the question put up on the CBC website yesterday. It is not bad enough that the results of this bogus poll should be obvious, long before the first vote was cast, to anyone who passed grade 6, but the question itself comes right out of Liberal Party talking points and in fact Ignatieff used almost the exact same words himself when announcing the program. Want to make a wager that if you asked the question: Is buying puppies for everyone better use of taxpayer dollars than tax cuts?, that the puppies would win hands down?
Or better yet ( and I DARE you to ask this one Ryan): Is money for home-care a better use of taxpayer dollars than funding the CBC?
Today's question: "Are you concerned about illegal lobbying for government contracts?"
Wow, I wonder what the final results of this QOTD are going to be. DUH!
What does the CBC think they are accomplishing by rewording LPC talking points into their QOTD? Maybe they should get Frank Graves to write their question for them. On second thought...
“Our job — and we take it seriously — is to ensure that the information that we put out is fair and unbiased in everything that we do,” CBC President Hubert Lacroix
Sure you do.
BC Blue on another fair and unbiased report.
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
Odds and ends.
A few things garnered from across the net that I found interesting.
Political correctness run amok as editors decide that cartoon which doesn't even have Muhammad in it is too controversial to print. Story here, and cartoon here
Speaking of editors. "Beased", ahem!
Obama's former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel makes a video about home.
George Galloway show us here exactly why he will NEVER sue Jason Kenney.
Hope for the unemployable peeping tom sect or perhaps the future of CCTV in Canada?
And finally support Canadian art, Terry and Deaner need your help. (Warning a sense of humour required. NSFW) Bonus footage with a VERY familiar background.
Political correctness run amok as editors decide that cartoon which doesn't even have Muhammad in it is too controversial to print. Story here, and cartoon here
Speaking of editors. "Beased", ahem!
Obama's former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel makes a video about home.
George Galloway show us here exactly why he will NEVER sue Jason Kenney.
Hope for the unemployable peeping tom sect or perhaps the future of CCTV in Canada?
And finally support Canadian art, Terry and Deaner need your help. (Warning a sense of humour required. NSFW) Bonus footage with a VERY familiar background.
Monday, October 04, 2010
Has Jack Layton given up on global warming?
How else can this be explained?
NDP Leader Jack Layton is calling on the Tories to show warmth to Canadians by removing the GST on home heating as winter approaches. Because making it cheaper to use any fossil fuels is sure to lower consumption and reduce green house gasses.
Maybe we should call this new NDP policy the 'Orange shift'.
NDP Leader Jack Layton is calling on the Tories to show warmth to Canadians by removing the GST on home heating as winter approaches. Because making it cheaper to use any fossil fuels is sure to lower consumption and reduce green house gasses.
Maybe we should call this new NDP policy the 'Orange shift'.
Saturday, October 02, 2010
Peter Mansbridge: "I have no opinion. On anything. Nor should I have."*
*Unless that opinion is on my buddy Lawrence Martin, then I DO hold a strong opinion.
Peter Mansbridge had this to say during the Thursday's At Issue Panel on the CBC National when talking about the Maclean's Magazine cover story on Quebec: "I have no opinion. On anything. Nor should I have." (9:40 mark)
Sounds good. As the anchor of a national news broadcast he should do his best to stay neutral, but wait a minute, here is what Mansbridge had to say a few minutes later about Lawrence Martin. "I'll say one thing about the book. 'Laurie' Martin is somebody we all know, and is a heck of a good journalist. People going around today in Ottawa, some people you know saying this isn't true, that isn't true. Ill side with Laurie, because of his credentials on journalism and seen the work he has done." ( 12:00 mark)
If that isn't an opinion, what is Mr. Mansbridge?
Related BC Blue on the At Issue Panel.
Peter Mansbridge had this to say during the Thursday's At Issue Panel on the CBC National when talking about the Maclean's Magazine cover story on Quebec: "I have no opinion. On anything. Nor should I have." (9:40 mark)
Sounds good. As the anchor of a national news broadcast he should do his best to stay neutral, but wait a minute, here is what Mansbridge had to say a few minutes later about Lawrence Martin. "I'll say one thing about the book. 'Laurie' Martin is somebody we all know, and is a heck of a good journalist. People going around today in Ottawa, some people you know saying this isn't true, that isn't true. Ill side with Laurie, because of his credentials on journalism and seen the work he has done." ( 12:00 mark)
If that isn't an opinion, what is Mr. Mansbridge?
Related BC Blue on the At Issue Panel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
