Reader Tips

Headline in the Rumford Meteor:

"Protesters Who Attended Second-Rate College Would Like People Who Only Finished Second-Rate High School To Pay Their Loans"

Calling the urban enviornmentalists bluff;

http://quixoteslaststand.com/2012/04/26/solution-to-the-great-wind-debate/

Time for the citiots to put their money where their mouths are.

In another era, in another century, there was a bad guy. He had a following. They called it Hitler's youth.

Then there was another guy, he had a following, they called themselves Communist Youth, they demolished anyone that did not agree.

And then there was another guy in the morning of a new century, he thought to himself, why the hell not.

Exclusive - Indoctrination 101: Teaching Chicago Students to Protest

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/24/Indoctrination-101-Teaching-Chicago-Students-to-Protest

......“Social Justice Week” in March, a collection of events geared towards turning students into activists......

From Sultan Knish's (Daniel Greenfield's) "Builders and Destroyers":

"(George) Zimmerman quoted Burke. (Trayvon) Martin quoted hip hop. That was the fundamental difference between the two men, not race, but culture. Zimmerman aspired to be a good human being. Martin aspired to be street trash.

"In a society under siege, there are builders and there are destroyers. Zimmerman was a builder, we will never know what Martin might have become, but he was on a path to becoming a destroyer."

[…]

"We live in a culture that punishes builders and rewards destroyers. That treats the destroyer as innocent and moral, because he is untainted by knowledge and experience, because he resists the builders and spreads anarchy and chaos."

The whole thing here.

Live performance music video with choreography by Vancouver band Coldwater Road: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2Z0nZb0T9A

The government is lying about F-35s. Why hasn't this been posted.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/04/28/tories-looked-like-they-were-keeping-different-books-on-f-35s-one-internal-one-for-public-kevin-page/

LAS, so you figure the government is trying to hide the extra 208,000 jobs that the additional $10 billion F-35 money will create?

Las; I will type this slowly so you can understand. There is two different costs. 1. the costs to buy them 2.the costs to buy them and run them for the next 30 years. Is that clear now?

@LAS - Page is an idiot who has an agenda. That goes double for the the MSM as well.

If Page, the AG and DND all sat down and came to an agreement on what standard to use to calculate the cost this would all cease.

Fact - The cost to purchase a piece of military equipment is more complex than going to a dealership and buying a car.

Fact - When you buy a piece of military equipment that you are going to own and maintain you have to factor in the cost of replacement parts, training for the technicians who will fix the equipment (called initial cadre training). Also, you have to train the users of the equipment, be they pilots or drivers. (Usually done as initial cadre training as well) You do know what initial cadre training is, right?

Fact - No one, not Page, not the AG, not DND, knows how much it will cost to operate the aircraft over the lifetime of the aircraft because: a. No one knows how long we will operate them for! (pick a number of years, DND used 20, Page used 36, AG used 30 (or vice versa for Page and AG)) b. How much will aviation fuel cost next year? Should we actually use the cost of aviation fuel in the calculation? How much will aviation fuel cost in 10 years? How much will we use ever year (that one is easy, YFR * lbs burned per hour * cost per lb (YFR=Yearly Flying Rate)) but is that a valid thing to count in a procurement? c. What other variable costs should be included in the calculation? Should the cost of military personnel be included, I mean, we are paying all those CF-18 techs right now, and I don't think we are going to fire them when we bring in a new airplane... do you? I think that Page and the AG are idiots for calling that a part of the cost of the aircraft, but hey, that't just me.

a@c, it will go right over.

I had the privilege this evening of listening to Mosab Hassan Yousef, the son of a Hamas founder and leader Sheikh Hassan Yousef, and the author of the book "Son of Hamas". He has been interviewed on FoxNews, as well as on other media. Needless to say there was a police presence, both in uniform and out.

Google is your friend.

Jim Flaherty uses the "n-word".

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2012/04/28/19691321.html

And with good reason.

Since this has almost turned into an F-35 thread, here's my $.02. I don't like the F-35 because it doesn't supercruise and isn't long range.

The F-22 would have been better, but even if Obama hadn't halted production, we wouldn't have gotten them because they're not for export. Rather.. any chance of us getting them was likely dashed when the last Liberast government tore up our NORAD air defense agreement. So in a way, we can thank Paul Martin for the F-35.

Dwayne; sounds like you were in Maintenance. The CF-18 operational spending will revert to the F-35 program when the switch is made. The CF-18 is not cheep to maintain. Old parts to repair old out of date engines, etc.. I hear the 18 leaks as much fuel as it burns, but that's just rumor.
The BS about one engine verses 2 is just that. When an engine fails it usually takes out it's sidekick with it.
With a conventional aircraft, we would loose all of our compliment in the first minutes of a skirmish with the Ruskies over the Arctic, unless we used tactics similar to those the RAF used in the opening days of the Battle of Britain.

Jimmy Kimmel is being investigated by the IRS, shares cell with Ted Nugent.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/04/jimmy-kimmel-skewers-obama-at-2012-white-house-correspondents-dinner-video/

Globe-Mail of the MSM has broken its silence taboo & has this to say:

>>> "protesters reportedly marched in Caledonia".

Please verify whether this story is correct. Anyone?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/peace-prevails-in-caledonia-as-hundreds-march-to-press-for-land-claim-talks/article2417032/

A conservative says No!.

"He just said `no.’"

...-

"IMF denied bailout funds by Canada"

"TORONTO - Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty dropped the n-word last week and taxpayers across Canada should be glad he did.

The forum was an International Monetary Fund (IMF) meeting in New York. Its members had just tried, for the second time in eight weeks, to hit up Canada for a loan of, well, let's just say it was something in the order of a lazy $7 billion or so.

True to his conservative financial instincts, Flaherty wasn't having any of it. So he leaned forward and uttered a word now so rarely heard in global financial circles that many wondered if they'd heard him correctly the first time.

They had. He just said `no.'"

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2012/04/28/19691321.html

"Muhammad Manipulated The Koran

From the desk of Geert Wilders on Sun, 2012-04-29 09:35

My book about Islam (Marked for Death: Islam’s War Against the West and Me) is being launched in New York on Tuesday. It posits that the Koran is not a book that was written by Allah, but on the contrary, one that was written by Muhammad. That is the truth, but to Islam that is outright blasphemy.

Islam claims that the Koran was written down by Allah in person before the beginning of time. It was written in Arabic, says verse 20:113. The original copy of the book – the Umm al-Kitab, the “Mother of the Book”- lies on a golden table in heaven. Consequently the Koran is of a totally different order than the Jewish or Christian bibles, which were written down by prophets or apostles. The Koran was written directly by Allah himself.

According to Islam, Muhammad simply noted down what the archangel Gabriel read to him from Allah’s book. Whoever doubts that must fear for his life. That is why historic and linguistic research into the origin of the Koran are taboo.

In 1991, Suliman Bashear, a professor at the Palestinian university in Nablus, was thrown out of a second storey window by his students because he questioned the historic truth of the Koran."

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4933

...and broken links

LAS, so you figure the government is trying to hide the extra 208,000 jobs that the additional $10 billion F-35 money will create?

AHAHA oh thanks Dr. Keynes that was good for a laugh. If the spending is good for us why not buy over 9000 F-35s? We'll practically have infinity jobs!

The earlier comments are interesting in that they kind of jibe with my point. The government was picking cherries as to what costs to include. Whatever agenda Page has, he's right. And he's a superior forecaster to Failherty.

I'm not an aircraft expert, but from what I've heard the F-35 would require a secondary fuel tank over the Arctic, which would ablate the stealth ability which is overrated anyway. Grossly expensive.

@LAS - And CF-18s don't fly with 3 external fuel tanks when they are over the Arctic? You're right on one point, you are not an aircraft expert.

Page is wrong, he has an agenda in that if he didn't he would have used the same timeline DND used to do his calculation, and he would have consulted first. Instead he ran off in a different direction, and now accuses the government of having 2 sets of books, therefore calling them liars. He is the one obscuring the facts here, and the media is giving him is extra 15 min because they need to keep up the crap against the CPC at any cost. Even at the cost of their objectivity.

Are you suggesting we spend billions to replace an aircraft that needs external fuel tanks with another aircraft requiring external fuel tanks? I may not be an aircraft expert but I am a better thinker.

Page used a different ie better timeline than the one the government did or rather the one the government showed us. And the Auditor General agrees with Page's analysis so it's pretty much an open 'n shut case.

A great speech on the world's economies by a Canadian Conservative.
http://bit.ly/IppotB

Yesterday I met an older fellow visiting from Ontario. He's a very successful businessman and lives in an enormous home north of Toronto.

He got talking about the proposed changes in Toronto concerning drug & alcohol addiction, to make them similar to what exists in Vancouver. I politely mentioned the views of a friend of mine who, for over four decades now, has been helping drug addicts rehabilitate themselves. My friend adamantly disagrees with Vancouver's policies.

This Ontario fellow considered what I had to say for about 0.00001 seconds and then said, "Too many people in Toronto don't like change. But change is a good thing."

Proof positive that successful business people don't always have much intelligence in other areas of their lives.

Where is Liberal Ad$Cam MartinJr*?

Here is *: "Of course, Martin was also there representing Canadian interests in the region. SNC Lavalin".

...-

"Former SNC exec. Riadh Ben Aissa arrested in Switzerland"

"Riadh Ben Aissa, the former head of global construction for Canadian firm SNC-Lavalin, is in police custody in Switzerland, reports say."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/former-snc-exec-riadh-ben-aissa-arrested-in-switzerland/article2417233/?from=sec431

...-

Here is *:

"My moment with Moammar"

"As we sprinted across Moammar Gadhafi's front lawn, we had to swerve to avoid the camels.

It was a bizarre obstacle course: dozens of the ungainly creatures, sitting, standing, and yes, fornicating."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2011/02/my-moment-with-moammar.html

Well, speaking as a former F-18 technician, what a lot of people are forgetting in the F-35 vs F-18 (or to be more accurate, CF-188) debate is that the 18's were bought in the early 80's and are early 1970's technology at best since they were designed then.

Yes there were upgrades, DLIR programmes, mods and enhancements, but the airframes still have a lot of high-G hours on them and you can't unstress the stringers, period, they have to be replaced because they're at the end of their planned life cycle and also because they can't adapt to the evolved battlefield threat anymore. Man-portable missile systems and AD vehicles have gone far beyond the old 'stinger' and you need all the stealth you can get, especially at low levels....Try looking at this and remember the USSR sold them to everyone...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DWWdX7bCAw

People keep forgetting that the liebrals were the ones that signed us onto the consortium that co-operatively designed a 5th generation A/C...one that can do the job it's intended for in the most effective manner and now see it was a way to wedge themselves back into power by playing on the average civilian's complete lack of knowledge in how the military works and what it needs.

People keep screaming for a 'fly-off'..against what ? a MiG ? try and buy spare parts when putin decides he isn't our buddy anymore...same for the chinese.

And please, drop the discussion over the drop tanks and stealth, it's a red herring and a bad one...that's why they call them 'drop' tanks...they can be jettisoned at will and SOP is to punch tanks before entering combat and since they'll be empty long before reaching the engagement area it's a moot point at best...the only reason they aren't routinely jettisoned now is because they cost money, are reuseable and civilians don't like them in their backyards...there are 'stealth' tanks and in any event, on an insertion mission against AA defences the tanks would be long gone before entering the threat detection area.

The F-35, from what I've seen of it is a very well designed A/C for the role it's intended for...it's a compromise just like the F-18 was, which in my opinion was the wrong A/C when we bought it...a mix of F-15's or F-14's for NORAD operations and A-10's or maybe Harriers for the European bases we still had would have been ideal but unworkable for the limited logistical capability the liebrals left our gutted military with.

The 18's are good at what they do, expecially with our pilots behind the stick, but a purpose built A/C will always trump one that's 'adapting' to the role...unless they're going up against Canadian pilots, of course.

The F-35 is a compromise, but it's the best one there is and the cost reductions over using one set of tools, spares, techs and pilots makes it pretty much the only choice for us.

Using two different sets of numbers, as the AG mysteriously seems to have decided to do, is highly suspect and I wonder what the reason is...the cost per airframe is one thing and is really the only yardstick that should be used...the fixed costs of techs and pilot's salaries, spares, ordnance, maintenance equipment, hangars, bases, towing vehicles, paint for the runway markings, etc. will be virtually the same no matter which aircraft is bought or even if the existing fleet is somehow miraculously life extended as the Sea Kings are...awaiting a replacement that had only existed on a computer screen when the liebrals picked it and somehow won a 'fly-off'.

Face it folks, we need new A/C and there's nothing to choose from that does what the F-35 does. Any change in 'costs' is pure accounting gimmickry that serves no purpose other than to create something that only exists for political purposes...by the 'new' standards, your car didn't cost $25,000 it cost $100,000 by the time you add up fuel, insurance, parts, tires, labour, gas, windshield washer fluid, the cost of the roads, paint for your garage, salaries for the salesmen, the plant workers, everyone that builds roads or pumps gas, etc....but it still lists at $25,000 and that's the only number that should be used.

Las

Defense contacts always get parcelled out, and can be awarded as fixed or cost plus.
Seeing as you want everyone to believe the govt is hiding figures for how much they are paying for the planes they bought, care to divulge if this is cost plus or a fixed cost?

A very good indictment of the abuses at CAUT:

Featured
ABUSE OF POWER

The Canadian Association of University Teachers has presented an entirely one-sided and self-serving narrative regarding Jim Balsillie’s alleged interference in academic affairs. Read the other side of the story here. http://www.homerdixon.com/

Post-Zionism is so 1990s

When last year a group of performers announced they would boycott the Ariel Center for Performing Arts, the public reacted with anger and disgust, not understanding. Fearing a loss of state funding, their theater bosses quickly sought to distance themselves from the performers.

http://carolineglick.com/

ummmm 'LAS'...they call them 'drop' tanks for a reason...they're jettisoned before entering combat or before entering a high-stealth environment.

virtually ALL fighters carry external fuel, they have to, there isn't enough room inside the airframe for engines, equipment, weapons bays, the pilot and all the restof the parts holding the A/C together and making it work.

The alternative is continual tanking and Canada doesn't have enough of a tanker fleet to make that viable.

There is such as thing as a 'stealthy' external tank and something like the F-15's 'FAST' packs springs to mind, some are jettisonable and some aren't but in any case, your argument is nonsensical to anyone who's ever worked around military A/C.

As for the costs, you can use whatever accounting method you want, but to choose a totally different and previously unused one and then call the government 'liars' because they didn't use the same one, or claim to, isn't the sort of thing I want to see from a professional accountant/auditor. If you get different numbers out using the same numbers in, then yes, there might be questions, but suddenly and arbitrarily adding a ton of fixed expenses into the equation that would be there regardless if we bought F-35's or Cessnas doesn't make a lot of sense.

We'd have to pay for hangars, salaries, spares and upkeep of bases no matter what we bought and there's no reason to add that into the per airframe cost....period.

I thought they were caled "drop tanks" because they were good to the last drop?