Archive for December, 2008

2009 is almost here. Less than eight hours if you live on the West Coast, Five if you are out there in the East.

So do you wonder what the New Year will bring?

Will we solve the economic chaos created by the Conservatives & their Greedy Backers, or will we just muddle on through for another year, existing, but not gaining any ground?

Maybe we worry about how the world will look at the end of 2009, with all the environmental headaches we are facing, not to mention the human headaches, we create all on our own. You know, wars and sniping at each other, because we simply can’t leave well enough alone.

Do we have hope that Barack Obama will drastically change the shape of America, so we can continue to be at peace? Can he end the Iraqi Occuppation with honor and with success? How about Afghanistan, will more Canadian treasures be lost in that pit of American failure?

How about our Political issues, will Stephen Harper finally be turfed, or will enough Canadians buy into his lies and gimmicks to give him what he desperately wants, a mandate to destroy Canada?

Or do we shrug our shoulders, start thinking of how cold the champagne is in the fridge, and just huddle together, ignoring the world, and just worrying about our own little piece of the planet? Are we worrying about how we can afford a new car this year, or if we can still make the payments on the house?

It is a reflective time, and yet, I don’t know if we really mark the time anymore. Is it just another holiday, another excuse to drown our sorrows in booze, or to celebrate our successes?

Either way, 2009 will be interesting. America gets a new President, and George Bush will finally be gone, to tend to the cows on his ranch, and be out of everyone’s hair. Hopefully other’s that mimic him, that worship him like our Stevie Boy will suffer that same fate, sooner than later, but either way the coming year looks like it will be interesting.

A new election more than likely, unless the coalition happens, but that will have to wait till the end of January. For now, I think I’ll check on the wine, and just enjoy reaching another year.

HAPPY NEW YEARS TO EVERYONE, YES EVEN STEVIE BOY.

Harper’s Anti Abortion Caucus

Mr. Harper’s office says NO, there is no plan for the Conservative Government to revisit the laws regarding Abortion. Course that isn’t quite what the Chairmen of the Anti Abortion Caucus says, nor is it what the Conservative Party itself recently said in its platform convention. The one attended by Mr. Harper.

The Prime Minister’s Office has reaffirmed its position that the government has no intention of reopening the abortion debate following a Conservative MP’s comments that the issue needs to be addressed.

“Throughout his political career, the prime minister has been clear on this issue,” Dimitri Soudas, a spokesman for the prime minister, told the National Post. “We will not introduce or support legislation on abortion.” ( source – CBC News )

SO WHO DO YOU BELIEVE?

Stephen Harper who constantly mis represents the truth, who hides as much as he can from public scrutiny, such as the details of the Maple Leaf Food recall, the whole Cadman affair. Never mind his stonewalling of the entire Schreiber affair with Mulroney, that he deliberately kept sidestepping, so who do you believe?

I mean his own party overwhelmingly voted for measures to strip the Human Right’s Commission of its power, and of its authority to fight Hate Crimes. They also voted strongly to force changes in our Abortion Laws, and now there is a Member of Parliament claiming it will happen, but Stevie Boy’s office says No.

It is just like how he says he never had any idea of what Schreiber had to say about Mulroney, despite three letters to his office from the guy. Like that was a good fib, that it seems people believed. Or then there is the one where some overzealous artists put a bird pooping on Dion’s shoulder in their website during the last election.

Just as he also told us how our economy would avoid the global melt down, and now he is thinking of having a 30 Billion Dollar deficit over the next few years. Even when days earlier his finance minister said we could expect a modest surplus for the next few years.

CAN YOU AFFORD TO BELIEVE STEPHEN HARPER ANY MORE?

What Tax Cut?

Stephen Harper & Flaherty make quite a deal about how they are reducing taxes for the average and low income earner. They make it a plank in their platform, harp on it even, and make it sound like they are the only party that cares about low wage earners.

BOLLOCKS

This is the largest single hike in payroll taxes since 2002. It will be only slightly offset by decreases in income tax exemptions. These decreases will save most taxpayers roughly $39 in 2009.

“How can the government justify increasing EI premiums with the massive, multi-year, multibillion-dollar surpluses in the EI fund?” asked director Scott Hennig. “EI premiums should be falling, not rising.” ( source – CBC News )

This seems to be the typical Harper plan. Make a big deal out of some miniscule savings but quietly raise the cost elsewhere that basically wipes out the meager cut, least as it applies to average people. Naturally the one’s getting the real breaks is Mr. Harper’s big business supporters. The ones who really don’t need it, or who can at least do without it.

Yet people continue to believe this man, that he has our best interests at heart. I do not understand how anyone can support a man & party who has the sole goal of destroying this country. They value our ethics less than they do their own campaign promises. The are artful in deceit and in making people believe that everyone else is at fault, for their own ineptness.

HOW CAN WE AFFORD STEPHEN HARPER & HIS FAKE CONSERVATIVE PARTY?

Excessive Use of Force

Day Two of Israeli Air Strikes on Gaza but it didn’t take long for the Debate Society’s chief to label the use of air strikes as excessive, and for world leaders in the Western World to condemn the attacks, and demand both sides stop the wanton violence.

So where were they when the rockets were being launched into Israel? When Hamas arrogantly said it would end the ceasefire and resume its attacks? Well in the case of Stevie Boy he was on holiday, will be till January 26th.

The secretary general condemned Israel’s air strikes, which were launched at various targets in Gaza just before noon, as an “excessive use of force.” Hamas officials have said all of its security compounds were destroyed in the blasts, while Israel Army Radio reported 40 targets hit.

Ki-moon also implored Gaza militants to end several days of rocket attacks on Israeli towns and communities. ( source – CBC News )

Nice that he added a sort of condemnation afterwards, but where was his outrage when the Rockets started falling days ago? See, that is what makes me wonder if anti sematism isn’t alive and well in the world. As long as Israel shows restraint, no one bothers to say much. So what if a few Jews get killed in a rocket attack, it is after all the fault of the Jews, right?

Course, as soon as Israel retaliates, well the world community gets into a big huff, and starts moralizing and urging Israel to stop. Oh they throw a bone in, and ask the other side to stop as well, but only AFTER Israel retaliates.  Seems a bit lop sided don’t you think?

Many will say, like our Stevie Boy, will say that Israel needs to address the issue of a Palestinan State, that they deserve their own country, which frankly, is true. Surprised? Shouldn’t be, but the issue really isn’t that, it is that even with statehood, will the violence against Israel end?

I mean who wants to see a state formed, that has legitiamte claims to being a member of the world, with all that goes with statehood? I refer of course to being able to openly buy weapons, to pursue military purchases legally, without some guarantees in place? That is one of the major stumbling blocks for Palestinians getting their own state. The other is the stated claims of their Hamas leaders to eradicate Israel.

Now would you grant someone who publicly claims their goal is to kill you, statehood?

Then there is the boundaries. One day they set the borders at one point, it is agreed to, then they change it to another point. I mean either you agree or you don’t, and you can’t keep changing the rules after both agree to it. Yet that is exactly what Arafat did, what Hamas does, so really, how does that become Israel’s fault?

The real problem is the region’s poverty. If there were less poor people fighting to just get enough to eat, they wouldn’t be so quick to jump on the terrorist’s bandwagon. It is always easier to point a finger at someone else, to say they are the reason that they are poor, than to pour the billions into educating and feeing them. It also makes it easier to make them take up arms, to fight, but then the world knows that, yet ignores the poverty of the region.

Britain’s Culture Minister believes that there should be an International Effort to rate the Internet, so that objectionable material won’t be viewed by children. An interesting notion, where websites would be rated, like movies shown in theaters. How he expects that to make any real impact is beyond me, but then he is also advocating where ISPs (Internet Servic Providers) provide a ‘child friendly’ option, where objectionable material isn’t accessed.

The minister, who called the internet a “dangerous place,” said age-appropriate ratings may be the way to go.

He would also like to see internet-service providers (ISPs) offer parents “child-safe” web services where the only websites accessible are those stamped suitable for children.

Burnham also suggested the internet follow television’s example, which often doesn’t broadcast violent material prior to 9 p.m. There should also be a set time in which sites such as YouTube or Facebook would have to remove offensive or harmful content, he said. ( source – CBC News )

Obviously Mr. Burnham doesn’t go online very much, or he would know that it is impossible to have an ‘adult time’ as they do on Television. I mean let us be serious here. When it is 8pm London time, it is just Noon my time, and gee, I speak English, so how does he plan to get that working?

Don’t get me wrong either, I believe kids should not see adult rated material, but I also firmly believe that the solution is more of Parents stepping up and monitoring what their offspring view online. I don’t just mean that they sit in the living room, having a drink or watching some assinine program like Surviver, while the kids are off in their bedroom talking on facebook or surfing Youtube.

While Mr. Burnham believes he isn’t attacking Free Speech, he is simply being a typical Bush/Harper Conservative. If they had things their way, only information approved by them and their masters, would ever be put out for the public to read, view.  The simple truth is, the obligation of what a child views, is not mine, or anyone else, but the parents of that child. It is their sole obligation to insure that their child isn’t viewing or engaging in objectionable behavior.

A parent needs to be looking over their kids shoulders, as they surf, and yes, it might be construed as invading their privacy, but come on, that is just a bunch of nonsense. It is the job of any parent, to protect their child. There is already sufficient warning labels out there, to insure that parents are informed of the content of a site. I use ICRA, Safesurf, and their are others, such as RTA.

The problem isn’t in labels, it is in the Parents not activating their parental filters on their computers. It is their obligation to activate them, not mine nor any ISP. The concept of insuring a child safe internet, means segregation, and censorship. Who is Mr. Burnham or anyone, to decide for you or me, what is and what isn’t appropriate for a child?

Do we restrict access to the Dictioary, or Wikpedia type sites, because they contain valid information regarding topics that some religious zealot finds objectionable, or some Parliamentarian? That is the end result, when you go down the road of censorship, and like all the attempts so far, it won’t work. It will fail, to protect children, but it will limit information, that could save their lives, could help eradicate racism, and hate.

Mr. Burnham, and other Conservative Wankers, need to realize, that the internet already has a working labelling system, and that they should look for other ways to boost their faltering public opinion stats, and find other ways to get re-elected. Perhaps if they spent more time dealing with the reality of today’s world, dealing with corporate greed, with political ambition over pulic safety, they might find more success in their re-election bid.