Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Bush/Harper!!....Bush/Harper!!...and the Usual Moonbattery.

This week's series of defense spending announcements by the Harper government has elicited the first of undoubtedly many more brilliant responses from the left. On point is Jim Travers of the Toronto Star.

One of life's vexing dilemmas is deciding the right price for something that's wanted more than it's needed. For Stephen Harper the answer is, give or take a few millions, $3 billion.

That's about what Ottawa will spend on giant strategic lift aircraft that Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor is buying and both Boeing and the Bush administration worked so hard to sell. Once the C-17 Globemasters arrive, Canada will be delivering troops, equipment and relief supplies to domestic and international emergencies in planes that, truth be told, can be rented as effectively — and more cheaply.

Is that so Jim? Please elucidate.

Is $3 billion too much to pay for waving the Maple Leaf flag? Are cargo planes a pressing priority for a country with so many other costly problems on its plate?
Those are self-evidently dumb questions with deceptively difficult answers. What makes them so difficult is that the federal government has reasons to want heavy-lift capacity even if it's relying on myth and misunderstanding to convince taxpayers the military is desperate for the Boeings.

Hmmmm......self evidently dumb questions........should I expect self evidently dumb answers? Let's see.

The myth is that the planes are essential to airlift the military where it's needed, when it's needed. Former defence minister John McCallum challenged that notion three years ago and now says the high command couldn't site a single example where the forces were immobilized because they couldn't arrange timely rentals.

Jim, I must respectfully call Bullshit! It seems to me we had a little problem inserting the DART team in response to the boxing day tsunami. What was the problem there?? This from CTV.

Who decides when DART will be deployed?

The United Nations or an individual country may request the services of DART but the final decision is in the hands of the Canadian government, which confers with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the Department of National Defence, and the
Canadian International Development Agency.

The final decision is based on funding, higher priority commitments, airlift availability, weather, geography and accessibility.

Before the Canadian government can deploy the team, the host country must agree to or request its assistance.

So when did we get the DART team on the ground?

The first of five planes carrying DART cargo and personnel left Canada for Sri Lanka on Jan. 6. The fifth and final flight is scheduled to arrive in Colombo on Jan. 16 and will also carry humanitarian aid arranged by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA).The personnel will also help build sanitation facilities and toilets.

So the first of our rapid response disaster team arrived on the 7th of January and the entire unit on the 16th. Hmmmm..... 21 days to get the whole crew in country. Well, maybe it took them some time to spool up their gear. I wonder when they were ready to go?

The deployment of what is supposed to be a rapid-response unit to the tsunami disaster was held up by political haggling even though the team was on high alert within 24 hours of the disaster.

Reports alleged that the debate centred on the high cost of the $20-million mission.

Naysayers have also criticized the logistical problems. DART has dispatched five planeloads of cargo and personnel just to set up camp in Sri Lanka. After a long plane ride, the team faces another 12-hour road trip.

So how did we get the DART team to Sri Lanka? Oh yea, the same way we moved DART into Pakistan in response to the earthquake disaster. Once again I cite CTV.

A giant transport plane loaded with equipment and supplies for Canada's disaster relief team is winging its way to Islamabad.

The six-engine, Ukrainian Antonov AN-225 lifted off from CFB Trenton in eastern Ontario at 10 a.m. EDT, loaded with about 75 tonnes of supplies.

The Antonov, considered the world's largest aircraft, must make about three or four more trips to move all of the Disaster Assistance Response Team's gear.

BTW the AN-225 is only slightly larger than a C-17 Globemaster.

So I'm thinking that's enough facts. Back to Jim.

Among those Harper is pleasing are O'Connor, the arms industry that until recently paid his lobbying fees, Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier, George W. Bush and, of course, Boeing. In buying everything from the Globemasters to helicopters, ships and trucks, Harper ends a nasty dispute between O'Connor and Hillier and sends another strong signal south that, more than a friend, Canada is an ally.

That's important to an increasingly isolated Bush administration. And it's a help to both the Pentagon and Boeing as they try to extend the slowing Globemaster production run as far as possible.

Lump those considerations together and suddenly adding heavy strategic lift to this country's military capabilities isn't quite so puzzling. A defence minister and his top general must make peace to wage war and perhaps $3 billion isn't excessive if it helps Canada continue reaping the much larger benefits of living under the U.S. security umbrella.

Well Jim, I have to agree with you on one point. There is in fact a price to be paid for national security and I might point out for timely humanitarian aid. Unfortunately you lost me with this specious statement.

It's easy to argue that those billions could be better spent on, say, health, education, the environment or finally doing something about squalid aboriginal life.

Mr. Travers you are a shameless hack.But I will leave you with the last word.

Compromise is part of politics and in bridging the difference between wants and needs the Prime Minister is putting wide smiles on many faces. And that's worth every cent of every billion, isn't it?


Friday, June 16, 2006

More Inconvienent Truth.

Another day and another example of blatant hypocrisy by the LPC and the MSM. The most recent example is rooted in that darling of the Left, the Kyoto Accord. Having failed miserably for 12 years to enact any meaningful plan to meet the greenhouse gas emissions reductions they signed up for, the LPC now looks south for inspiration to an even bigger failure......Al Gore.

Mr. Gore was in Canada to pimp his appropriately named junk science "documentary", An Inconvienent Truth. Of course Gore carefully selected a receptive group to tout his Kyoto message. Not suprisingly, Jane Taber has exclusive insight to the closed door meeting of selected lefties, many of whom are LPC MP's.

Gore preaches green gospel to Canadians

Liberals tell former U.S. vice-president that they're upset by Harper's stand on climate change


MONT-TREMBLANT, QUE. -- Al Gore heard yesterday from current and former Liberal MPs about the direction the Harper government is taking on the issue of climate change.

So the Libs are upset with Harper's position. I assume they believe that their record of platitudes followed by inaction is/was the preferable strategy. Given that, it makes sense that they would seek solace and inspiration from a failed American Democrat. As VP to Bill Clinton, Al Gore was part of an administration that opted out of Kyoto. But hey, that's an inconvienent truth. What is more important is that Al has hope:

"I hope that both the United States and Canada will become officially part of the solution," he told reporters after attending a cocktail reception with a select few of the 160 conference participants, many of whom are Liberals, including former and current MPs and ministers. Reporters were not allowed to hear his speech.

Reporters were not allowed into this lefty love-in. I guess that explains Jane Taber's exclusive in as much as referring to her as a reporter amounts to an oxymoron. I suggest Propogandist is a more appropriate description for Jane. Another inconvienent truth, but don't take my word for it, lets just take a look at Jane's brand of "reporting".

Liberal Leader Bill Graham said that Mr. Gore "was very good on his view that we need a progressive agenda in the world and . . . there is a threat by various conservative regimes."

Liberal leadership candidate St├ęphane Dion, a former environment minister, said he also talked to Mr. Gore about the environment.

"I spoke to him about the fact that we brought the world together in Montreal [at the UN Climate Change conference last December] and he told me some people are working to bring the world apart," Mr. Dion said.

"He did not mention the government and I didn't. I never, never will speak against my government when I am with international personalities," he said, noting that in opposition Stephen Harper appeared on American television to criticize the Liberal government for not going into Iraq.

I wonder which "conservative regimes" Bill Graham is referring to? But you have to admit Jane managed to set the context quite nicely for Stephan Dion to offer his charming bit of double speak. Which leads me to the next" inconvienent truth", Dion claims that he never mentioned the Canadian government nor did Gore. A quick examination of this article appearing on the LPC website would appear to indicate that either Dion is lying, Jane Taber is guilty of sloppy reporting or the LPC website is attributing false statements to Al Gore.

Mr. Gore urged Canadians to demand that the Conservative government take action to combat global warming.

"I hope you will ensure Canada restores its tradition and moral authority to help us save this," he said. “I hope what has happened in the US won't repeat itself here. I don't think it will. I don't think the Bush-Cheney-Harper administration will last."

Hmmmm..... I guess technically Dion is right, there is no Bush-Cheney-Harper administration except in the minds of the paranoid left. So if I add this all up correctly liberals are moral, conservatives are amoral, canadian Liberals are patriotic, canadian Conservatives are....er Americans? But even worse is this "inconvienent truth" from the may issue of Discover magazine.

German researchers have identified a previously unknown emitter of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. The culprit: ordinary plants.

The first hints arrived last year when the European Space Agency's ENVISAT satellite detected huge clouds of methane above forested areas. Scientists could not understand where the gas came from, because they thought methane was produced only in oxygen-poor environments like swamps and rice paddies, where decomposition occurs. To investigate, geochemist Frank Keppler and his colleagues at the Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics placed a variety of plants in test chambers and filled the rooms with methane-free air. He was amazed to see chemical sensors in the room quickly begin detecting methane. "At the moment, it is a mystery," he says. "If you look at the textbooks, you will see that it was not envisioned that this could happen."

So it appears that the process of photosynthesis and its impact on greenhouse gas levels is not completely understood.

How Inconvienent.


Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Where For Art Thou Brother??

The Liberals have never been a party to let the facts stand in the way of a press release. Today is no different. This latest dispatch from the LPC braintrust is true to form in as much as it is completely devoid of facts.

OTTAWA Liberal Environment Critic John Godfrey today criticized NDP leader Jack Layton for his party's hypocritical climate change plan.

"Last fall Jack Layton decided he wanted an election and the result was a Conservative government that gutted the federal government's climate change programs. Now he has put forward a plan that would simply re-create only a few of those programs , this is the height of hypocrisy," said Mr. Godfrey.

Now I suppose being a member of the vast right wing conspiracy, I shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth. Afterall the gist of this piece of LPC garbage is an attack on their lefty little brothers in the NDP, but I just can't resist pointing out the hypocrisy squared.

"By conspiring with the Conservatives and Bloc Quebecois to force an early election, the NDP is responsible for the demise of the Liberal climate change plan, which was designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 270 megatonnes. Their recently announced 30-megatonne plan is too little, too late."

Bwwaaahaahahhahaa!!!!! The Libs signKyoto but fail to implement any measures to achieve emissions reduction other than hiring a smarmy prick to front "The One Tonne Challenge". In fact Canadian greenhouse gas emissions under 12 years of Lib rule rise at a rate exceeding the USA who chose not to sign on to Kyoto. Too little too late indeed!

By my math, were the NDP in a position to implement their greenhouse gas emissions program as effectively as the Libs they would be flogging 1/9th of the bullshit the Libs have sold us. Now that's the kind of improvement on the left that I can get behind!!

But hey, John Godfrey isn't quite done yet. His oratory becomes positively fervent!

"The NDP needs to atone for putting political expediency ahead of Canadians priorities. The election of Prime Minister Harper's government may have resulted in ten more seats for their party, but it also paved the way for the Conservatives abandonment of Canada's environment, Aboriginal people and families.

I said yeess!!! Preach it brother Godfrey!!!! Yea though I walk through the valley of conservatism, alone and abandoned, we have faith in Liberalism!!!

Well, you better have faith because pointing to tangible results from the LPC environment policy, aboriginal policy or universal childcare file (I assume this is what the coded reference to families is about) is going to present a problem. But that's not the kicker, this is:

"Canadians deserve an opposition that will truly fight for their priorities , not one that sacrifices principle for partisan profit."

Bwaahaaahaaaahaha!!! Brother Godfrey seems to have a short memory!! From Shawinigate to HRDC from Adscam to Joe Volpe's Kiddiegate and a myriad of scandals inbetween, the LPC has epitomized sacrificing principle for partisan profit. But as many of us know the truth has no place in the church of Liberalism.

I realize that for the most part these daily dispatches from the LPC are directed at the party faithfull. It speaks volumes about how the executive views the collective intelligence of their core supporters.

I suspect brother Godfrey and others will continue to tend the "flock".

Cheers Sheeple!!


Friday, June 09, 2006

Librano Business as Usual --Part 2

Just when I thought the LPC couldn't get any more shifty in their leadership campaign, National Director Steven MacKinnon goes and proves me wrong. On the heels of Joe Volpe's campaign financing fiasco comes this.

OTTAWA (CP) - A number of Liberals are using taxpayer-funded parliamentary offices to promote party leadership bids and would be breaking federal election laws if they fail to refund the public purse.

Supporters of at least eight of the 11 leadership candidates have used MPs' offices on Parliament Hill to distribute partisan campaign material, according to e-mails obtained by The Canadian Press.

During parliamentary business hours, offices have churned out invitations on campaign letterhead to meet candidates, attend leadership launches, or get together with campaign staff.

One Liberal MP called the practice unethical and said it runs deeper than just e-mails.
"This is the tip of the iceberg," he said. "There are interns being used to do (campaign) work, there's the odd phone call to twist a colleague's arm.

Well at least one of the 105 Liberal MP's sees some ethical problems with these practices. On the other hand, leadership candidates have until six months after the convention to file campaign expenses. If they claim the time spent by parliamentary staffers as campaign income and reimburse the public purse for this time all is in compliance.

LPC National Director Steven MacKinnon weighs in on this very point.

We expect that all leadership campaign activities be fully disclosed and the expenses incurred to undertake those activities be fully disclosed," said Steven MacKinnon, the party's national director.

"Once (candidates) do that . . . they've complied with the law and the rules."

MacKinnon also pointed out that the Liberals have an internal complaints mechanism to deal with alleged transgressions. The party can impose fines of up to $100,000 or disqualify leadership candidates who break the rules.

Wait a second! Did I hear that right? The LPC has mechanisms to deal with alleged transgressions? Is this a recent development?

Steven MacKinnon was claiming something completely different a mere eight days ago. In response to the breaking of Joe Volpe's kiddiegate scandal Steven MacKinnon is quoted here as saying:

"Elections Canada regulates contributions to leadership candidates. The Liberal Party does not," Mr. MacKinnon said.

So the National Director of the LPC, the Grand Poo Bah, Numero Uno, the gate keeper of this asylum claims to be powerless when Joe Volpe bends campaign finance laws to the tune of $54,000.00 hard cash but asserts the LPC has "internal mechanisms to deal with alleged transgressionsns" when Liberal leadership candidates are dipping into the public purse.

Why the contradiction Steven??? Could it be that cash is king?? Is it possible that campaign reporting requirements that allow for disclosure six months after the leadership convention make this a moot point. Is this one of those ethically fuzzy areas that makes it "legal" for the LPC to utilize public resources at their will and any "illegal" activity can be later taken care of with "creative accounting" practices. You know, like the ones used to hide the true cost of the long gun registry.

But that wasn't all Mr. MacKinnon had to say on the subject. Apparentlyly the LPC MP who found all this to be lacking ethics did not go unnoticeded by the National Director.

The internal leaks, and the complaints about Volpe, suggest the party has slipped back into full-on, back-stabbing mode.

"I take a very dim view (of that)," MacKinnon said.

"Ronald Reagan's first commandment was, 'Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican.' Certainly the leadership candidates themselves have spoken of the need for a civil, open contest.

"I would urge anyone who may not have heard that to listen to what their own candidates are saying."

Wow!!!! You know things are tough at LPC headquarters when the National Director is looking to Ronald Reaganan for inspiration. Does this suggest the LPC is advocating "American Style" politics?

On second thought I'm sure his message could be summed up in one word that encapsulates the true spirit of Canadian Style Librano politics.


And finally this from the linked article.

One memorable e-mail invitation to join Hedy Fry this week for a campaign event in Ottawa promised an evening of "dancing with drag queens."

That pretty much sums up the LPC. They can put on all the lipstick and rouge they want and dance into the night, enchanting the public with their feminine wiles. But you best be carefull who you take home or you may end up with a handfull of something you never bargained for.