Monthly Archives: October 2012

You’ve Got to Be F**king Kidding

So the news today, which really shouldn’t be news to us because we don’t generally see ourselves as naive, is that McGuinty and his crew that are voluntarily leaving provincial politics are “entitled” to severance pay.  McGuinty is eligible for $313k, some of his cabinet ministers a little less.

The inference in the article, which we hadn’t thought of before we’d written about the traitor Elizabeth Witmer, is that she also was eligible for severance pay when she left her position as MPP for Kitchener-Waterloo and accepted a $250k a year position at the WCB – an appointed position.

Two years ago when David Miller left as mayor of Toronto, he also got a severance package – $166,000 in addition to $3,500 of counseling to help him find a new job.  This, for a man who is a Harvard educated lawyer and served 7 years as mayor of North America’s fifth largest city… wouldn’t it be expected that his experience and connections might land him a very lucrative job post-mayoralty?  And the councilors who lost two years ago – guess what.  They also got “severance”.  They lost an election… does that equate to being fired or laid-off?

If Mac or I, being private sector workers, quit or resigned from our jobs, we are entitled to… NOTHING.  NADA.  ZERO.  ZILCH.  It is a chosen action.  We would make the choice to leave our current job with presumably time to prepare ourselves financially and from an employment perspective.  If we quit because of a rash decision – that is our consequence to live with.

Severance implies you were terminated.  Severance pay (within reason) is justifiable in these circumstances to provide the terminated employee with some cushion while he/she looks for new work.  That isn’t the case here… these politicians are leaving their jobs of their own free will.

The worst thing about this is the complete lack of transparency – we don’t even know for sure who has been taking severance and how much.  Going back to Witmer, she served longer than McGuinty, so presumably she was probably eligible for more of a payout… when you consider it could be $350k plus her new $250k/year job, that is approaching more than a half-million dollar enticement to drop her seat.

Politicians should be paid less – a lot less.  We don’t buy this bunk that you need to pay them wonderful salaries and perks and pensions to attract the best and brightest to run for office.  The best and brightest should be in the private sector creating wealth.  We should aim to make politics less of a career path and more of a calling, with the average age of your typical politician rising as a result of more established people entering it as a form of public service after they’ve done their thing in other sectors of life, bringing wisdom, perspective and arguably less partisanship to our political arena. 

You start down that road by putting an end to this outright theivery, politicians sticking their hands in the cookie jar that they’ve stocked with our tax money.

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Ciao Dalton

We’ve noticed that since Dalton McGuinty’s announcement, traffic to our blog has picked up quite a bit, since if you Google search “Dalton McGuinty douche” or “McGuinty Ontario Sucks” lo and behold our humble little website pops up since writing about Premier Dad has been one of our favourite things to do since we started up last January.

What can be said that we haven’t said already?  He was crap.  We could care less if he was a “good” man, a “family” man, if he never lost his temper with staffers, if he was genuine in his beliefs.  His beliefs sucked.  He was a quintessential statist.  McGuinty never came across a problem that he didn’t think couldn’t be solved with yet another law, yet another government bureau.  And he never seemed to be able to rebuff all the friends and family of the Ontario Liberals who pulled up the public trough to feed.

Some time when you have time on your hands, Google the names of the top ORNGE executives, and then add their names to a search with “liberal party” attached.  We need say no more.  The current Liberal Party of Canada president?  Before he had that gig he was a “business owner” building wind farms for the Ontario government.  Before he did that he worked for McGuinty.  Funny how that works.  McGuinty brings in the Green Energy Act, then one of his key staff leave to dip into the pot that was just created.  We could go on.  The media seems to never want to chase these threads.

Anyway McGuinty benefitted from having three pathetic Progressive Conservative leaders in succession. 

First you had Ernie Eves who decided to pull the PC’s to the centre and piss away all of the hard work done by the Harris government.  Ontario was fatigued with the PC’s after 8 years of Harris, but he might have still won had he painted a convincing vision of where he was going to take Ontario post-Harris.  He couldn’t. He deserved to lose because if people are going to vote Liberal-lite, why not just vote for the real thing?

Then you had John Tory.  A big lead in the polls going into the election.  But then he tripped up on the religious school funding.  Really he didn’t make a mistake on that issue, but that’s not the point.  What happened is that Tory had so few policy platforms that differed from the Liberals, everyone focused on just the one campaign pledge, and it happened to be the type of pledge that the blue-haired folks who would normally vote PC went “tsk tsk” and there was such a lack of other energizing platforms that the PC vote said “meh”, stayed home and McGuinty got another election majority.

Then this last time, Hudak has a 20 point lead two months before the election and he blows it.  We’ve discussed this before.  Brutal.

Now he’s leaving.  And of course there’s all sorts of accolades being tossed around, and the worst of them all is this notion that he’s being encouraged to run for the federal Liberal leadership.  Crap.  McGuinty knows he’s about to be taken to the wood shed over all of these scandals, and having “betrayed” the public sector unions.  So he’s running away.

Normally, this would be good.  Conservatives are usually called in to clean up the messes other governments create; Harris called in to clean up Bob Rae’s mess, Rob Ford called in to clean up David Miller’s mess in Toronto etc.  But in this case we have good cause to worry.  The Liberals are history, and Hudak is less than inspiring.  We may wake up a year from now and have Premier Horvath. 

God help us.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Abort Female Fetuses Because Life is Rough for Women

Heather Mallick is really unhinged.  But in a way there is some benefit to her having a platform (free speech!) to advocate for radical feminism.  Granted we have to plow through 600-700 words of pure slop and bad writing to get her viewpoint.

Take her latest and greatest.

She writes;

It never occurs to Warawa that parents might prefer boys because the lives of girls are so awful. But it’s people like him who make girls’ lives awful, only partly by refusing to give women dominion over their own pregnancies.

She’s actually consistent, having made the same point months ago in another column about abortion and sex selection.  So she feels it’s justifiable to want to abort a female fetus because parents might not want to bring a female child into such a harsh anti-woman world.   How far would Heather like to take that rationale?  If a test were ever devised to determine a fetus stood an increased likelihood of being gay, should it be aborted by the parents because we all know that it’s difficult to be gay in our society?  How about short people?  How about blacks?  Is Heather in favour of eugenics, aborting “undesirables” before they’re even born?

Well, in fact, she is.  Responding to British MP Jeremy Hunt’s proposal to have the time limit on abortion reduced from 24 weeks to 12 weeks, she writes:

The tests for conditions like Down syndrome cannot be done before 12 weeks. Women will be rushed into abortions, or miss the deadline, or get a back-street abortion or give birth to a severely damaged child neither they nor their partner were warned about.

So are we to infer from that paragraph that Heather Mallick sees no issues with aborting a fetus simply because it’s diagnosed with the potential to being born with Down’s Syndrome?  And let’s be clear – these tests only provide women with the facts that based on test results and other factors, the statistical odds may be leaning towards a Down’s Syndrome child, but there are no guarantees.

And of course she is equating Down’s Syndrome with being “severely damaged”.  This is so obviously repugnant, we don’t even know where to begin.

But for the Heather Mallicks and Emma Teitels of the world the whole abortion debate is very stark question of absolutes – either a woman has total control of her body, up to the very point of delivery of the baby, or she does not.  Any reason she may have for aborting a fetus is between the woman and her God/conscious/whatever, but not for us to interfere.

Funny then how these two women dismiss the other question of absolutes – is a fetus a distinct human being or not?  They never want to engage in attempting to answer that question because they cannot.  And if you cannot be sure if a fetus is a human being or not, but you believe that murder is wrong, then the logical conclusion is to err on the side of the argument that the fetus is a human.

But then again, we’re not convinced that they believe all murder is wrong.  Radical leftists throughout history have shown a propensity for murdering people in the name of advancing ideologies.  As a matter of fact, leftist regimes have murdered more people throughout history than any other system of goverment. 

So what’s the murder of a few undesirable fetuses to these people?  All in a day’s work.

Tagged , , , , ,

Miscellania

On the eve of one of the most important political debates in many many years, and because so much is riding on the direction the US takes this election(more statism vs. reemphasis on individualism), here is an awesome discussion on free speech, to keep in mind when listening to both parties tonight.

There is no doubt, as is said in the interview, that these days what is considered “facts” are more or less feelings.  If you don’t feel good about something, if a hard truth doesn’t sit well with you, just act as though your sensibilities have been offended and all the bad reality will be vanquished, argument won.

Dalton McGuinty’s best line yesterday in provincial parliament, defending his Minister Bentley from pending contempt charges was that the opposition should lay off, because “he is a father and a husband.”  He repeated it twice.  He also mentioned that he is a “member of the bar”, like no lawyers have ever done anything corrupt or illegal, heavens no.

The Ontario Liberals are corrupt to the core, and it’s getting found out finally.  They are scrapping so hard to stay in power because they have so many friends with their faces in the trough gorging themselves, that they fear the pigs will turn on the farmer if the trough is taken away – case in point the public sector unions abandoning the Liberals at the first sign of resistance to their demands.

Our theory- when the federal Liberal trough ran dry, all the little sucklings dropped down to start shaking down the provincial Liberals.  Good riddance Premier Dad.

 

 

 

So Baby JT kicked off his Liberal Party leadership campaign yesterday.  Are we the only ones who laughs when he says he’s going to champion the middle-class?  What the f*ck does Justin Trudeau know about the middle class?  His father didn’t know anything having inherited money, and no doubt Justin knows even less than his father being removed a couple of generations now from the “working class”.  Remember when the two used to be synonomous, “working class” and “middle class”?  Now middle class must be code for “well paid government employee”.

 

 

 

 

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Entertaiment Elites and Status

We have a theory. 

The following is all copyrighted, just in case anyone was thinking of stealing or plagiarizing it (we’re looking at you Margaret Wente).

So we came across this Globe and Mail interview with the Royal Air Farce’s Jessica Holmes (who?  Exactly…) and it comes across as so typically vacuous for show-business/artsy types.  David Suzuki would make a great Prime Minister?  Justin Trudeau gets credit for complaining about labeling female circumcision as barbaric?  It’s all so stereotypical.

Which leads us of course to ruminate on the bigger question; why are so many in Hollywood, and entertainment in general, such douche bags when it comes to politics?  Why does, say, Bette Midler give money to Occupods when she’s clearly part of the “1%”, or George Clooney and Bruce Springsteen stump for Barack Obama, or Sean Penn visiting his good pal Hugo Chavez or going on “fact finding missions” to Iran etc?

There seem to be a disproportionate number of assholes in Hollywood who predictably glom onto you-name-the-progressive-cause.

Sure, you might say they are all attracted to left-wing causes, left-wing sensibilities and world-views because that world view, that morality is more licentious.  So, the argument would go, these celebrities who are exposed to more opportunities for sex with multiple partners, recreational drug use, deviant lifestyles etc. find solace in a world view that is more permissive of these behaviors, more accepting.  But that would only explain it in part.

Here’s our theory to try and explain at least another part of it.

Status.

Humans are concerned with the five s’s; Sex, Status, Science, Security and Serenity.    This is the copyrighted theory part of our post by the way.

(You could argue that, Status, which entails power, prestige, wealth etc. leads to sexual attractiveness, hence either Sex or Status are redundant , take your pick.  Except we’d argue that even bums in the street with no status whatsoever are still interested in, and capable of, getting laid.)

Status is currency with the progressive left, even though they’ve vehemently deny it if you accuse them of having any regard for status at all.  However, let’s say you troll any newspaper comments section, or leftie blog, website or listen to them on TV, progressives say the most ridiculous shit, but when you stop and think about what is being said or bandied about, and you think the only people with whom what they are saying has any traction would be other progressives – that would be the point exactly.  Progressives, way more so than conservatives, say things just to impress other lefties, just to impress their friends.  They preach to the choir – all the friggin’ time.  The more in tune with leftist sentiments you can appear to be, the more status you have with other lefties.

And who is concerned with status more than any other segment of our population?  Entertainment elites.

So next time you read something ridiculous like Jessica Holmes saying how wonderful Justin Trudeau is, or Alec Baldwin crying that he’s going to leave the US if GWB is elected president, just weigh what they are saying by assessing how is that being viewed by their entertainment buddies?  Is it gaining them more status amongst their peers?  And then consider that it becomes a non-ending spiral of rhetoric, to see who can out leftie the other person.

See?  It’s all so explainable.  You’re welcome.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday Quickie

Just a quick posting for this Monday.

Here is the Catholic Church’s official position on abortion.

Here is Maclean’s flattering article on Thomas Mulcair, leader of our federal NDP.

From the article we quote the following;

Mulcair was a stellar student and a tough athlete. Religion figured prominently in his upbringing. “As kids, we would often go to church before breakfast on weekdays,” he says. He eventually attended the local Catholic high school…

and;

Julius Grey, a Montreal lawyer who has known Mulcair well since the late 1970s, sees his friend as an example of Quebec’s distinctive sub-species of Catholic “centre-left progressive.” Many in the CCF and then the NDP were inspired, like Grey himself, by socialist ideas close to those at the heart of the British Labour Party. But in Quebec, Grey says, Catholic progressives—like Trudeau, his friend Gérard Pelletier, the journalist and politician, and Claude Ryan, whom Mulcair would come to revere—blazed another trail. They were a varied group, but a common denominator was the influence of “personalism,” a French intellectual movement that spread among liberal Catholics in the middle of the last century. It emphasized individual responsibilty—rather than, say, class conflict—as the moral underpinning for Catholics seeking reforms such as greater economic equality.

With his religious upbringing and formative high school experiences, Mulcair naturally leaned toward this progressive stream. He bonded with others of the same bent at McGill. Among them was his law school pal Steve Foster, who went on to become an Ontario judge before resigning from the bench in 2011 to work on Mulcair’s leadership campaign, and then join his staff as a policy adviser. Mulcair says Foster is “a guy out of the Catholic left, and a lot of the people he brought on board are out of the Catholic left.” In fact, Foster’s network was extensive enough to give Mulcair a ready-made support base in Toronto, where his leadership rivals had expected the Quebec-rooted candidate to be weak. “That was really stealth,” Mulcair says with palpable satisfaction. “They didn’t see that one coming.”

So, in a fawning article, clearly meant to bolster Mr. Mulcair’s credentials as the credible option to Stephen Harper, we are beaten over the head again and again with references to his Catholicism, and how that background has provided him with moral underpinnings to seek economic justice and equanimity.

Super.  So why then did he betray his “Catholic” upbringing by whipping his party’s vote last week on Stephen Woodworth’s motion?

Why then does he stand idly by while his NDP co-horts try to drum up support for removing Rona Ambrose as Minister, when she voted for something Mr. Mulcair should have supported as well, in keeping with his alleged “Catholic” values.  Contrast that with Jason Kenney, a renowned Catholic, who voted based on his convictions, against the wishes of his leadership.  Yet Mr. Kenney’s Catholicism is regularly trotted out to beat him on the head as being anti-gay, anti-women, anti-choice.

Yet again, the left shows that the only true convictions they have are to morality of convenience; avoid hard truths, say what needs to be said to avoid conflict and offending anyone, put your “true” beliefs away when asked to take a stand.  Issue after issue you can see this is the pattern of the NDP and leftist wing of the Liberal party.

So, besides being yet another lawyer, a career bureacrat and politician who has never created a dime of wealth in his lifetime, another wanna-be Prime Minister who won’t give up his foreign citizenship (France), add hypocrite and political opportunist to Thomas Mulcair’s resume.

 

Tagged , , , , ,
%d bloggers like this: