Tuesday, May 31, 2005

'Deep Throat' Revealed

Although the main theme of this website is supporting the Canadian Liberal Party, and rebutting some of the idiocy that comes out of the opposition parties (because to rebut it all would be a full time job for 10,000 people. -Ed.) That doesn't mean that, from time to time, I can't pull my head out of Canadian Politics and touch on an event that interests me.

Today, an article written by Vanity Fair magazine's web site has solved one of the greatest policial mysteries of our time: Who was Deep Throat? For those of you who don't know about Deep Throat he was the famous informant who helped bring about the Watergate Scandal in the United States, that ultimatly lead to the resignation of Republican (Had to sneak that in there didn't you? -Ed.) President Richard Nixon.

For more information on the story check out CNN's coverage of it:
Ex-FBI official was 'Deep Throat'

Conservatives flip-flop so much their backs must ache

CTV.ca had an article on their site yesterday in which they quoted Conservative House Leader Jay Hill as saying this when it comes to the suggestion of a new non-confidence motion:

"As long as we have this loaded gun sitting there, they're going to have to take it seriously. The minute I say to you, or to anybody, `We're definitely not going to even try a non-confidence motion,' then they're not going to take Parliament seriously at all.''

This after he said that if the Liberals won a non-confidence motion they wouldn't try to bring them down for the rest of this session. This obviously leads to the question: "Mr. Hill, do you ever get tired of changing your mind?" They may have a loaded gun, but what they don't seem to realize is that WE'RE LEADING IN THE POLLS. So go ahead, pull that trigger, bring it on! I double dare you! A new confidence vote would only reinforce what Canadians already believe about Steven Harper: that his lust for power far exceeds any desire he may (may being the key word there -Ed.) have to do good for the people of Canada. Not to mention it would plunge us into a summer election, and we all know how popular those are in Canada. We only get 2 months of summer as it is, so most of us don't want to spend half of it listening to politicians, and the Liberals would make him eat that for dinner the whole campaign.

And as for not taking Parliament seriously, they're the ones who filed a bogus non-confidence motion and tried to pass it off as genuine, they're the ones who motioned to shut it down early three days in a row, and they're the ones who then tried to dissolve it completely. They've treated Parliament worse than even the Bloc Quebecois. I frankly don't know how much less seriously a party can take Parliament, unless they all collectively unzipped their flies and took a leak on it's steps.

In closing I'd like to say I think the chances of them calling another vote of non-confidence is slim, but on the other hand it wouldn't shock me given the brainpower (or lack therof -Ed.) currently running the Conserative Party.

Monday, May 30, 2005

If you ever need to get ill for some strange reason....

...Then head on over to Conservative MP Monte Solberg's blog. This guy is a real wizard folks. Although I must say I'm impressed by his most recent offering, noting that his use of sarcasm is quite adept for a person of his obvious narrowmindedness. (Is that a word? -Ed.)
First, reports of Al Qaeda actually training operatives in Canada. Then yesterday the Globe and Mail reported that Christians have infiltrated the ranks of the Conservative Party.

He says that like it hadn't already happened decades ago. What CONs like Monte (I drink at a bar called Monte's go figure eh? -Ed.) and his brethern fail to understand is that we Liberals don't hate Christians, we hate that they try to force their beliefs on everyone else. I don't care who you are or where you live that's just plain wrong. And there is nothing that could ever convince me otherwise.

Here's what we say: If you don't like Gay Marriage: DON'T BECOME GAY AND GET MARRIED. If abortion isn't your cup of tea: DON'T HAVE AN ABORTION. But their battlecry is: I don't like Gay Marriage or Abortions, so I'm going to shoot my mouth off until everyone agrees with me, because I'm obviously right. And when people don't know the difference between right and wrong it's up to me, some guy/girl who lives life in the 21st century according to a book that was written 2000 years ago, to tell them what to do.

As I said in a previous post we Liberals don't like abortions, no one does! But we believe it should be an option for those who need it, we believe in personal freedom, hardcore Christians believe in persecution and that garbage died in the middle ages.... or so I thought.

Thursday, May 26, 2005

New Poll Out Today

A new poll came out today by Leger which shows the following:

Liberals 38
Conservatives 27
NDP 17

Liberals 46
Conservatives 29
NDP 19

Too bad we didn't have an election, because the sooner we can get a majority back the better. But I'll keep trusting Martin, he seems to be getting better at the politcal game.


Wednesday, May 25, 2005

I Wear My Sunglasses at Night.....

You know it's bad when I'm quoting old Corey hart songs. But now that the byelection in Labrador is over it's going to be a pretty slow week for politics in Canada. So I guess I'll comment on the altest revelation coming out of the Gomery inquiry, that being the total cost of the entire sponsorship program since 1994 is a whopping 355 million dollars. Well whooptie friggin do! Let's put this in a little perspective shall we?

2005 - 1994 = 11
355 / 11 = 32.27

So that means each year the ENTIRE sponsorship scandal, per year, was 32.27 Million dollars. Not all this Billions of dollars stuff the Conservatives are shouting from the treetops. Now lets put this into even more perspective.

$32,270,000 / $1,304,066,820,000 (GDP of Canada) = 0.0000247457
0.0000247457 * 100 = 0.00247457

What that means is that the Sponsorship scandal, accounted for 0.00247457% of Canada's total worth each year. That's not 1 percent, it's not a tenth of a percent, that's not even a hundreth of a percent. That's 2 one thousanth's of a percent.

And we pretty much know that most of the money that was put into the sponsorship file actually went to what it was supposted to.

Is this scandal looking overblown to you yet? Me too.

Tuesday, May 24, 2005

Showdown On The Rock

Today's byelection in Labrador is the most important federal byelection in recent memory. Usually byelections aren't really that much more than midterm reports of the government in power, this one is much more than that. It could literally shift the balance of power in the House of Commons. Before today's vote the Liberals hold 132 seats (133 if you include the speaker, who as we've seen only votes to break a tie) The Conservatives hold 98, the Bloc 54, the NDP 19 and there are 3 independants: Chuck Cadman, David Kilgour, and Carolyn Parrish. Parrish has said she would support the government on confidence motions; no doubt trying to get back in to the party. Cadman voted with the government because his constituents told him they didn't want an election, and there is very little reason to believe they would change their minds before Gomery. And Kilgour already voted against the government once so there is little to suggest he wouldn't do so again. so that makes the totals look like this:

Liberals 132 + NDP 19 + Parrish 1 + Cadman 1 = 153
Conservatives 98 + Bloc Quebeccois 54 + Kilgour = 153

So as you can see, the Labrador seat is crucial. If the Conservatives were to win it they could essentially force an election at any of their opposition days.

However I would be shocked to see this seat go anything but Liberal. It's gone Liberal every time save once.

A New Approach on Abortion

I was watching "Meet the Press" on Sunday and they had Howard Dean on there and he said something very interesting on the subject of abortion:
DR. DEAN: It is an incredibly difficult area. It is an area which is conflicted. I don't know anybody who ever had an abortion who feels, "Oh, boy, this is just great. I can't wait to have another one." That's not what this is about. This is a very difficult, horrible choice. Does the government make that choice or does the individual make that choice? There are ethical constraints around the issue of abortion. There is no question about that. I think those ought to be done state by state. And I think doctors ought to have a lot more say about it than they do now.

MR. RUSSERT: Both parties have tried to use it politically.

DR. DEAN: I agree with that, and I think that's unfortunate. I think it is time now for pro-life Americans and pro-choice Americans or Americans who believe in individual freedom to get together, and we have common ground. The common ground is we'd all like to reduce the number of abortions. But put aside the rhetoric, the difficulty and let's work to reduce the number of abortions. That's something we can agree on. I don't think we're going to get there with abstinence-only education. I don't think we're going to get there if we condemn contraceptions or condom use and all that kind of thing. But let's see what common ground that we have. There are a lot of very reasonable Americans who call themselves pro-life. There are a lot of very reasonable Americans who believe in individual choice and personal responsibility. I think we can work together. There are not many of us who want to see the abortion rate continue to go up as it has under President Bush.

It never occured to me before, but both us Pro-Choicers and the Pro lifers do have simular goals. No one like abortions, so why can't we work together to stem the tide?