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?

Syncro

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

JANE TABER

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 Stéphane 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.

Syncro

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!!

Syncro

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.

Omerta.

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.

Syncro

Librano Business as Usual

The re-birth of the LPC appears to be taking a tried and true course, one which follows a path on the very fringe of the law and resides in the shadows of ethical conduct.

CTV news has all the details here. It seems that Mr. Volpe and his handlers have no problem skirting leadership financing laws to replenish the coffers of the ailing LPC. Mr. Volpe would have us believe that a half a dozen children of two drug company executives each donated the maximum amount ($5400.00) to his leadership campaign.

A spokesman for the drug company in question, Apotex Inc., noted that four of the six children of Apotex executives Jack Kay and Barry Sherman are teenagers. One is left to wonder if the other two children are adults or are in fact pre-teens. Regardless of the relative age of the Apotex offspring, one is left to wonder in amazement at the collective political involvement and financial liquidity of this group of teens.

In true LPC form the executive of the party see nothing unusual about these donations and offer these observations.

Volpe campaign spokesman Corey Hobbs said "all donations are in full compliance with the Canada Elections Act and with Liberal party guidelines."

Similarly, Steven MacKinnon, the Liberal party's national director, said he saw "nothing particularly untoward" about the donations.

"On the surface, there's certainly nothing illegal at all."

So to summarize the LPC executive see "nothing untoward", "nothing illegal" and find these donations to be "in full compliance with the Canada Elections Act and with Liberal Party Guidelines".

Business as usual eh!!

On the other hand, I may have this all wrong. As a supporter of the CPC and the father of two teenagers I may have failed miserably in fostering a sense of civics in my children. My two oldest work with me from time to time, weekends, spring break and portions of their summer holidays. Payday is greeted with much enthusiasm and is promptly followed by trips to the nearest mall to purchase an X-Box 360, games for the same, a new mountain bike, guitar strings, hoodies emblazoned with their favorite bands, a new I-pod and any other number of teen consumer goods.

To the best of my knowledge they have not donated $5 to a political party let alone $5400. I guess in the eyes of the LPC executive this would seem to indicate an abject failure on my part to properly develop a sense of "Canadian Values"TM in my children.

Ahhh to hell with it!!! Pass the Game Boy!!

Syncro

Update:

I've been following the MSM coverage of this story. As it stands CTV ran the story on the second tier of their website but nothing on the national telecast, as of Sunday a.m. the story is off the news cycle.

Global ran the story on the scrolling banner of their website but once again nothing on the national telecast.

The CBC. What story??

But hey...... Harper really is being paranoid about this perceived media bias. How do I know?? I went for a walk this morning and ran into my homeless Liberal friend (I'll call him Jean). Jean is a former Liberal insider who has been down on his luck for the last few years. We had a chat about the Liberal leadership race and he offered me this insight into the revitalization plans of the LPC.

Said Jean;

"The LPC guidelines include a brilliant strategy to invigorate the party by recruiting hundreds of thousands of teens with $5400 each thereby wiping out the party debt and bringing a youthful exuberance to policy discussions!!"

I stand corrected. No wonder the CBC didn't pick this story up as Jean assured me they are working on a "feel good" documentary about the myriad of politically astute teens lining up to donate $5400 each to the LPC. The real story here is the youthful renaissance of the LPC and apparently Joe Volpe is winning the hearts and wallets of the nations teens. I feel so much better.

Please disregard my previous paranoid conservative comments.

Syncro

Professionalism, Punditry or PMS?

Well it was quite a day for Jane Taber on the latest installment of Question Period.
While the spectacle was interesting it left me scratching my head. I'm not sure what to make of "Jungle Jane's" performance in guerilla journalism . Was that supposed to be a professional journalist in action? Has Jane given up journalism to join the ranks of political pundits? Or was Jane desperately in need of a handfull of Midol?

Understandably, the last question may get me into some trouble, being as how it may imply a certain bias on my part. But then again I'm not a professional journalist and I don't think it's any more personal than the gem Jane fired off at recently rejected Appointments Commissioner Gwynn Morgan. Jane opened her interview/interrogation/inquisition of Mr. Morgan with:

Mr Morgan are you a bigot?

Ouch!!! I'm not sure, but I don't think holocaust denier Jim Keegstra has ever been asked that question directly. To Mr. Morgans credit he laughed off the question and gave a direct answer. No. Brilliant work Jane. I mean really, how to pose a probing question designed to root out some kernel of information to enlighten the viewing public. Just a thought Jane, but you might want to start an interview with an open ended question. You know, ones that start with What or How and allow the guest to expand on their thoughts and feelings regarding the issue of the day. On the other hand maybe Jane expected the answer to be yes. I suppose that would have made for a short interview.

On this one I have to rule out professionalism for obvious reasons. That leaves me with punditry or pms and I'm leaning towards the latter.

Jane then went on to editoralize on Mr. Morgan's statement that cronyism and patronage have been an ongoing problem in the appointment process.

"You were considered a patronage appointment Mr. Morgan.....you're the bagman for the Tories....You helped set up the Alliance."

Once again Mr Morgan acquitted himself well and pointed out that 1$/yr. Was hardly a patronage payoff. But what the hell, Jane managed to get "bagman" into the sentence and invoke the specter of the Canadian Alliance. The only thing Jane could have done better would have been if she could have tied Mr. Morgan to the Canadian Reform Alliance Party. You know the spiffy acronym and all. Clearly I have to come down with a conclusion of punditry on this one.

Ahhh, but Jungle Jane wasn't done yet. As any good guerilla journalist knows it isn't really a party until you're throwing around balls of your own shit. Hence her next question.

Are you still in favor of the process? It's something the Tories seem to like... this transparent or congressional (emphasis Jane's, complete with a quotation gesture) type of process. So are you still in favor of this process??

Way to go Jane!!! Imply Mr Morgan has an "American Style Hidden Agenda". So to recap, Jane hit the smear trifecta. Implications of racism, corruption and American style politics. I gotta go with punditry once again.

One would figure that Jane had done enough for one day, but this was just a warm up for her interview/interrogation/inquisition of Environment Minister Rona Ambrose. I sensed that there may be fireworks when they appeared on the split screen wearing the same outfit. The topic of the day was Canadian participation as the chair of climate change talks underway in Bonn, Germany. So what is Jane's opening question?

"Is it not hypocritical and dishonest of you to continue as chair of these talks in Bonn when your strategy is to basically kill Kyoto.?"

Hmmm. I sense a pattern emerging here. Could it be Jane is attempting to set a comfortable tone for her interviews by asking a closed question that the guest will find easy to answer?? Naw. PMS.

Minister Ambrose remained professional, pointing out that the previous government had signed on to commitments and then failed to follow through with any strategy to implement the same. Essentially wasting ten years on this file. The Minister went on to say that Canada, under the current government, was prepared to earn our 'Boy Scout badges" on the world stage. Jane damn near leaped through the screen and shrilly interjected with the following:

You talk about a made in Canada solution, you know earning badges....It means nothing because you haven't put anything in the window for Canada on an environmental strategy!!

Quite an observation Jane. The previous Liberal government commits Canada to unattainable reduction targets and then sits on it's ass for ten years and you righteously come down on the current Environment Minister of four months for not putting forth clear policy!!! Punditry and PMS.

Minister Ambrose went on to explain that Canada would be open to taking on new commitments under Kyoto if an international consensus was found. This caused Jungle Jane to hurl this final ball of shit:

"What do you mean new commitments? I don't understand all this jargon!!

Jargon?? What the hell Jane? Wasn't the object of this interview to explore the options for Canada to meet our Kyoto commitments?? You know Jane.... Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels......The one ton challenge and all that. I have to call punditry and PMS once again because it sure as hell wasn't professional.

Fer Christ sake Jane please look up objectivity and professionalism in the dictionary and get some Midol!!!

I know, I know, I'm a chauvinist pig. Better that than a pre-menstrual monkey hurling balls of rhetorical shit.

Syncro

The 2006 Liberal Leadership Award for Excellence in Hysterical Hyperbole

It seems the Lib friendly MSM refuses to take any of the LPC leadership contenders to task for their ridiculous remarks, or for that matter to even report these remarks.

In light of this gap in media coverage I am proposing nominations to recognize the LPC leadership candidate's efforts in sublime stupidity.Therefore I have instituted The 2006 Liberal Leadership Award for Excellence in Hysterical Hyperbole.

Carolyn Bennett is the first nominee for her brilliant assertation that a lack of universal daycare will ultimately equate to a burgeoning prison population in the future. Well done Carolyn.

Of course Bob Rae now qualifies with his unique and highly creative analogy equating Neville Chamberlain's Munich Pact agreement with Hitler to the recent resolution of the softwood lumber dispute. Kudos Bob on being the first candidate to make a Nazi reference regarding PM Harper!!! I'm sure the other candidates are envious!!

As the LPC leadership race heats up I look forward to numerous other contenders emerging to stake their claim to this coveted honour.

I'm sure you all have your favorites as do I. Go Heddy!!!!!

Please feel free to nominate any deserving comments from the field of eleven as they will undoubtedly be providing many worthy quotes!!

Enjoy.

Syncro