Monday, January 30, 2006



What Stephen needs to Do


As I do love to give free advice to people, I want to give some suggestions to our Prime Minister designate, Stephen Harper. You can thank me later Stephen. Here we go.

1) Pass the Federal Accountability Act. This should be done immediately. Do it before the corruption that is Ottawa begins to infect you and the Party. If you get it passed and make it as ironclad as you say, you will change the face of Canadian politics. Imagine a day when the PM and the PMO don't call all the shots and appoint everybody. Clean up Ottawa, immediately.

2) Appoint Jim Flaherty as your finance minister. The guy is smart, he understands the role and responsibility of being a finance minister. He will straighten things up.

3) Cut the GST. You promised this and do it. Fail and you'll be the next Jean Chretien.

4) Ignore Toronto.

and last, but not least

5) appoint me to the Senate. I promise I will attend meetings. Honest.

Sunday, January 29, 2006


A Eulogy


Brothers and Sisters will you stand for a moment of silence
(pause)
Thank you, you may be seated. I would like to call upon Brother Paul to say a few words on behalf of the deceased.

Thank you Pastor Paul

Brothers and Sisters, we are gathered here to pay our respects to the political memory of Paul Edgar Philippe Martin, a man who desired and dedicated his life to one goal and that was to be what his father, the late and loved Paul Martin Sr couldn't.

Brother Martin was born and raised in the little city of Windsor Ontario, a place he called home, unless he was in Quebec, where he would never admit to being raised in Ontario. But I digress, Mr. Martin revealed a great acumen for business, and following graduation from the University of Toronto, he entered the legal and business profession. One of his prides was that of the Liberian, no sorry, Bahamian, again, my apology the Canada Steamship Lines. But all his success in business did not take away from his desire to remove the shame of his family. His secret desire was to have a Martin become both the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada and Prime Minister, a post his father attempted to attain thrice but never succeeded. To a family such as the Martin's this was a blot that had to be erased.

When the time came, Paul was able to win a seat in Montreal, which was the headquarters of the CSL. There he prepared for the day, the day he would be Prime Minister. Opportunity came in 1990 when a leadership convention was called to replace John Turner, a good man who proved to be totally inept as a leader. He challenged Jean Chretien for the position. The two men struggled against each other and used questionable tactics against each other. The result was a victory for Jean Chretien but the legacy was animosity bordering on hatred by both men for each other.

Still they worked together and in 1993, the Liberals, on the non-promise of scrapping the GST won the election and formed the government. However it was Jean Chretien who was the Prime Minister and Paul Martin felt the same sting of bitterness that had plagued his father.

For all the animosity, M. Chretien did recognize Mr. Martin's ability as a businessman, something he was not. He appointed Paul as Minister of Finance and allowed him the authority to tackle the economic problems of Canada. The task was daunting but Brother Paul took them on. He slashed the deficit and culled back the debt. He did by raising taxes and slashing federal transfer payments and gutting the Canadian Healthcare system. In other words, he attacked the deficit by cutting back on services that people depended on. He directed an army of the poor, the sick and the economically dependent

Brother Paul could you speed it up a bit.

Sorry Pastor Paul; needless to say his work won the plaudits and applause of business. He was considered one of the best Finance Ministers ever in Canada. he was so beloved that when a joke article appeared stating Mr. Martin had resigned, the markets sank. It was an April Fool's Day joke and the effect was a loss of value in the stock market.

Beneath all the applause was two things, hatred for Chretien and a lusting after the job of Prime Minister. Things came to a head in 2002 when M. Chretien fired Mr. Martin. The gloves were off and Mr. Martin became blatant in his desire for the job. Free of his cabinet responsibility, Mr. Martin toured the country drumming up support for his run at the top job and also gathering forces for a direct attack against M. Chretien. Chretien, perhaps seeing the handwriting on the wall, decided to retire as leader of the Liberal Party. A leadership convention was called, and as expected, Paul Martin won the job as leader of the Liberal Party.

It was then that tragedy struck the life of Paul Martin. His tragedy was not a death of a close loved one, or a debilitating disease, his was the greatest of all tragedies, he achieved his desire. All his life he wanted to be Prime Minister and finally it was his. He at last could remove the shame of his family and yet in that very fact, he added to the shame.

To say Martin was a bust as Prime Minister is to say the sun will rise in the east and that the atomic weight of cobalt is 58.9332 Amu. Within the space of 12 months, he went from the greatest finance minister to being referred to, by Clyde Sanger, the Ottawa correspondant of the Economist Magazine as Mr. Dither. His first challenge was to face the electorate. Af first it looked like a cake walk, but then people quickly cooled to the vision of Mr. Martin and quickly a sure win was turning into a sure loss. It was only after Mr. Martin reminded the people of Ontario that his opponent Stephen Harper was an Albertan and therefore evil did he manage to pull off a minority win. For the next 18 months, Prime Minister Martin danced and ducked and tried to stave off the inevitable. Also at the same time, the Gomery Report was released pointing out the corruption of the Liberal Party of Canada. The Liberal government, the report found had diverted hundreds of millions of dollars from federal coffers into the hands of Liberal friendly advertising firms, who would turn around and donate the money to the Liberal Party of Canada. The news shocked and angered Canadians, and Paul Martin, was left to explain it all. His defense was that as Finance Minister, the man whose job was to protect the public purse didn't have a clue what was going on. Needless to say this defence impressed no one. It did however energize the opposition and eventually the three parties gathered together and brought down the government.

It must be said here the election campaign of Paul Martin will be studied and discussed for years. People will write and declare the Liberal campaign of 2005-06 to be the most incompetent campaign of all time. It will go down in history as the Keystone Kops of campaigns. In fact the Martin campaign will probably be the new buzz phrase for unadulterated incompetence. To pull a Martin may be a phrase that will describe such complete ineptitude in future days. From making policy almost on the run without thinking, to RCMP investigations to managing to insult practically everyone in Canada, Martin's re-election seemed doomed. It was, on January 23rd the electorate spoke, and the Liberals were defeated. The fact that it is a minority Conservative government speaks more for the stupidity of the people of Toronto than anything Mr. Martin could have done.

The story ends that night, in front of the television cameras, Prime Minister Martin did the only honourable thing, he resigned as leader of the Liberal Party. This act saved the party from putting on an almost daily public performance of the assassination scene from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, with Paul Martin playing the title role.

With that we say farewell to the late, the lamented and the loutish Paul Martin.

Amen.

Saturday, January 28, 2006

For this Saturday


I'm wearing my "We will Rise Again" t-shirt, so what better way to start the day then with singing...




The Ballad of Joss

Joss, the man they call Joss . . .

He wrote about spaceships and shepherds and whores,
Stood up to the networks and gave ‘em what for.
Fox cancelled his program, but that was their loss--
The creator of Firefly, the man they call Joss!

Our Joss saw the viewers’ hearts breakin’,
He heard the Browncoats’ lament,
He saw the Fox network takin’,
His show in a way that made no sense.
(He said) “You can’t do that to my program,
Can’t grind it under your heel.”
So he took all the cast,
And now at last,
They’ve landed a Big Damn Movie deal!

He wrote about spaceships and shepherds and whores,
Stood up to the networks and gave ‘em what for.
Fox cancelled his program, but that was their loss--
The creator of Firefly, the man they call Joss!

Now here is what separates Whedon,
From writers who slave in the core,
The man they call Joss,
Well, he said to Fox,
“I’m going where no show has gone before.”
He told us about reavers,
He told us about sin,
He took us to the black,
And we ain’t comin’ back,
‘till all those crazy Browncoats rise again!

He wrote about spaceships and shepherds and whores,
Stood up to the networks and gave ‘em what for.
Fox cancelled his program, but that was their loss--
The creator of Firefly, the man they call Joss!

Now, here is what separates Firefly
From other shows you’re likely to see—
It’s meaningful and witty,
And the setting’s really gritty,
And the theme song is about Serenity.
It’s a little like a western,
And a little like X-Files,
It’s better than Trek,
And funnier than Shrek,
And it beats out Andromeda by miles!

He wrote about spaceships and shepherds and whores,
Stood up to the networks and gave ‘em what for.
Fox cancelled his program, but that was their loss--
The creator of Firefly, the man they call Joss!


--James Hazlerig
fithelere@aol.com
www.BedlamBards.com

Thursday, January 26, 2006

Straight Goods - Minority preferred - Conservatives' rise in popularity has been driven by Canada's elite, not majority.

I've got a whole lot to say about the election, but that's for an upcoming blog. What you think I wouldn't have any comments about the election???? Come on, I'm a political science major, elections are like my Super Bowl.

Let me say, I enjoy reading Linda McQuaig, I've got a few of her books and usually I find her comments insightful. However, this one I believe is totally out of whack. I am afraid her progressive left leaning conspiracy theories are coming to the fore on this one. Notice her comment it's not the people that voted the Conservatives in, it's the elite that did the dirty job on the Liberals. Notice as well, what sort of people support the Conservatives; " Graves says Harper's sudden rise in the polls reflects his increased support among only a few groups — primarily among affluent, older, predominantly male Canadians". Yes, it's those darn white males that are bringing them Conservatives into power.

What I find so interesting is there is no comment at all about the general disgust people had for the extremes of the Chretien-Martin era; the out of control gun registry, the HRDC boondoogle, the AdScam. None of those events even cast a shadow on those wonderful progressive Liberals, none of those are worthy of bringing down the government and causing the Conservatives to win, its those honkeys that are responsible. In fact have you noticed individuals such as Linda are quite silent over the issue of the scandals of the Liberal party; she was quick to write a book about the alledged scandals of the Mulroney Conservatives, which ultimately proved false, but the Liberal scandals no one seems to want to bring them up.

If someone is suffering from a blind spot, it's unfortunately people like Linda McQuaig. She can't see past her ideology and when people are reticient to follow it, well, it must be those darn rich right guys.

Yes I understand the inability for the Conservatives to win in the major cities. That is cities such as Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal; the only ones that count. I examined the top ten cities of Canada and these are cities that have populations over 400,000; Conservatives have representatives in five of them. Those cities are Ottawa, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg and Quebec City. I would say that each of those cities are relatively important, most being provincial capitals and one the nation's capital. Then again, I am afraid the popular elite seems to see itself only in the Toronto axis and only when the rest agree with it, are they included in the axis of evil.

In a way, it is sort of sad. I hope Linda enjoys the next two years andn more fulminating about how the country is being ruled by rich white older guys and urban Canadians, and minorities and rural people and francophones....

Peace and out.

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

Here is my
Election Day Rock n' Roll Fantasy


1) Conservatives garner about 165-170 seats. This is a majority government and a workable majority, none of these 180-210 range majorities that prove to be a disaster. Also it's enough but not large, to keep the party aware that they can't be arrogant about it.

2) NDP as Official Opposition. The role of the Official Opposition is two-fold, the first is to criticize the government and show what problems may exist in any piece of legislature and the second is to act as an alternative to the government, a government in waiting if you please. Both the Conservatives and NDP are parties of ideology and policy, there might be some very interesting debate over various issues. As well, there will be a clear difference, rather then one of character. Plus chances are the NDP will be acting as the Official Opposition anyway, see the next two points.

3) the Liberals are going to be busy putting on performances of the assassination scene from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar for the next little while, with P. Martin starring in the title role. They will be tremendously busy sharpening knives. While it will be wildly entertaining, won't provide much policy. Make 'em the third party, that way there won't be that much blood to mop up.

4) the Bloc, reduce them to the Rump. As I mentioned in the point of the NDP, the role of the Opposition is to provide alternatives to the government, hard to do that when you really don't care about the other 9 provinces and 3 territories. Gilles, you a cool guy, but life is passing you by, 4th place for you.

5) Get some Greens in the House. Will make it fun.


Just a couple of thoughts.


Remember to Vote

Monday, January 16, 2006

Study suggests ridding law banning polygamy

It's

Conspiracy Theory Time


Last Monday as you know, PM Paul Martin decided to announce his parties desire to remove the "Notwithstanding" Clause out of the Constitution. Now, enough have been written as to why that's a bad idea so I'm not going to discuss this. What is interesting is a policy paper that was released only a couple days later suggesting that Canada should removed the legal restrictions to polygamy. In other words, make it legal to have more then one spouse.

Let's consider a few things shall we; if politicians thought same-sex marriage was a hot issue imagine if Canada became the first jurisdiction in the Western World to allow for bigamy and polygamy? If there was a court challenge, and while this writer thinks no court would declare that section of the Criminal Code unconstitutional, let's just say that I wouldn't put it past the idiots who make up the Supreme Court of Canada to just that sort of thing.

So, in a case like this, the notwithstanding clause would ensure that marriage be limited to only two people at any one time.

So where does the conspiracy come to play? Consider this, in 1982, the year the constitution was repatriated, the Minister of Justice who also had responsibility for constitutional negotiation was none other then Joseph Jacques Jean Chr├ętien. As the Minister of Justice and the fellow who signed it, he obviously had no problem with the 'Notwithstanding' clause. Even Pierre Trudeau thought the clause was important. So who would be the angriest about this who nonsense, but the man who brought it into being.

He no doubt has a large number of friends who work in the ministry and perhaps a few IOU's were called in.

No doubt they had discussed this, but the timing is suspect. Just one more way to discredit Paul Martin.

I would if he will qualify for EI?


Remember to vote on January 23rd.

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

Now this is Interesting


I came across this news item:

Martin would use notwithstanding clause to protect churches from gay marriage
18 December 2003
OTTAWA (CP) _ Prime Minister Paul Martin says he would use the notwithstanding clause in the unlikely event that the Supreme Court ruled churches must perform gay weddings.

Under the hypothetical scenario, Martin would be the first prime minister to use the Constitution's controversial veto clause.

``Oh, yes I would,'' Martin replied Thursday when asked during a yearend interview with CBC Radio whether he would ever use the clause.

But he emphasized that he would use it only under an extremely limited set of circumstances.

``I would look at it if it was a question of affirming a (religious) right,'' he said.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule next year on the federal government's controversial same-sex marriage legislation. The bill would allow gays to marry in civil ceremonies and in religious institutions that permit it, but would not force churches to carry out such ceremonies.

A devout Roman Catholic, Martin has repeatedly said he supports the legislation but doesn't want all religious institutions to be bound to it.

Martin has said before that he wouldn't use the notwithstanding clause to block gay marriage, as some critics have urged.



So at one time Paul had no problem invoking the Notwithstanding clause. Now he wants to get rid of it.

By the way the Liberals have this article on their website. Please notice the date, 2003, the same year that Paul also stated he would use the notwithstanding clause. Why do I think that little piece of information won't make it onto the Liberal website.
Martin targets Harper in election debate

Paul's big new promise last night was to amend the Constitution to remove the "Notwithstanding" clause.

Now if you heard that you may be asking yourself, 'self' what does it take to amend the Canadian constitution?

Here is what the Wikipedia writes about amending the Canadian Constitution: "With the Constitution Act, 1982, amendments to the constitution must be done in accordance with Part V of the Constitution Act, 1982 which provides for five different amending formulas. Amendments can be brought forward under section 46(1) by any province or either level of the federal government. The general formula is set out in section 38(1), known as the "7/50 formula", requires: (a) assent from both the House of Commons and the Senate; (b) the approval of two-thirds of the provincial legislatures (at least seven provinces), representing at least 50% of the population (effectively, this would include at least Quebec or Ontario, as they are the most populous provinces). This formula specifically applies to amendments related to the proportionate representation in Parliament, powers, selection, and composition of the Senate, the Supreme Court, the addition of provinces or territories. The other amendment formulas are for exceptional cases as provided by in the Act:

* In the case of an amendment related to the Office of the Queen, the number of senators, the use of either official language (subject to section 43), or the composition of the Supreme Court, the amendment must be adopted by unanimous consent of all the provinces in accordance with section 41.
* However, in the case of an amendment related to provincial boundaries or the use of an official language within a province alone, the amendment must be passed by the legislatures affected by the amendment (section 43).
* In the case of an amendment that affects the federal government alone, the amendment does not need approval of the provinces (section 44). The same applies to amendments affecting the provincial government alone (section 45).
". In other words, it isn't happening, especially if no one is interesting in doing this. That quote is taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_constitution#Amending_formula.

Why would Paul do this? Because he is desperate that's why. Nothing else has worked for him, so he chooses this issue that no one is interested in, in the hope no one will try to learn what it will take to amend a constitution. The 'notwithstanding' clause is there for a few reason, one is to correct an inbalance caused by a court decision. While it has not been used federally, it stands there poised to protect Canadians from a brain dead Supreme Court.

Nice try Paul. I hope you enjoy your retirement.

Monday, January 02, 2006

TheStar.com - Thugs know they won't be severely punished, says Rondi Adamson

It's the main point of all discussion, if criminals believe they can get away with it, they will. The justice system in Canada is a joke and everybody knows it. We live in a nation where child pornography means staying in your home for about a year watching television.

We live in a nation where embezzlement of government funds means a suspended sentence and being forced to give lectures in universities on the subject of "why you should not steal".

Rondi Anderson gives the right answer for dealing with gun crime: Rather than banning handguns, assuming that were possible, or wasting money on a gun registry (how many of the Boxing Day offenders do you suppose would co-operate with that?), how about a mandatory minimum prison term for gun crimes?.

Let's say that if you commit a crime with a gun you have a n automatic sentence of five years, and this is before the sentence on the particular crime. Let's also say that age is not a problem, if you commit a weapons related offence as a young offender you get five years, with absolutely no parole. Would this help, well, it certainly can't hurt.