May 7, 2006

Jack "Cindy" Layton

Long time SDA readers may have noticed that I seldom mention Jack "Cindy" Layton. There's a reason for that (beyond the NDP's fourth party status). I've concluded that there are only a few explanations for why Layton says the things he does, and none of them are curable. He's not worth the time and effort. For example:

Layton urged the Conservative government to grant sanctuary to young soldiers, noting Canada became a safe haven for Americans seeking to avoid the Vietnam draft more than 30 years ago.

"We should be looking at it," he said. "These young people are courageous individuals. They've made a decision of conscience."

However, there are others willing to waste electrons on him - including Damian Brooks;
What did you say? "Conscience?" You're a little late to the party there, aren't you?

I mean, ask Bev Desjarlais what following your conscience gets you in the Jack Layton NDP.


And sticking with that theme: the Globe and Mail's latest "news story created by a poll commissioned to create a news story" provides the pretext for pollster Allan Gregg to openly long for the day when Canadian Forces leave Afghanistan and return to helping little old ladies cross streets. No, really!

Mark Collins, guest blogging at Daimnation is onto them. Check it out.

Monday morning update - As if on cue, more Laytonesque Logic on display. He wants Canadian troops pulled from the battle against a fundamentalist Islamic government in exile and redeployed to battle a fundamentalist Islamic government in power. His military strategy is impeccable - because the polls tell him so!

Flashback - Back in 2004, the National Post's Robert Fulford fixed on one of those incurable traits I alluded to.

He's not quite up to the job. Layton in print differs from Layton on TV. The guy with the moustache, impressively confident if too glib to be quite plausible, can't be found in this book. In his place we meet a good-hearted, simple-minded chap, a writer without skill and a man without humour.

Emphasis mine.

Posted by Kate at May 7, 2006 5:56 PM

Yeah, comments are back. Now I can read every one elses opinion in order to form my own. (kidding). I did miss every one elses insights, though.

Posted by: georgev at May 8, 2006 3:35 AM

The simplest riposte to the absurd Jack Layton is this:

Jack, suppose you were PM (shudder!) and you deployed the Canadian Forces (CF) to, oh, I don't know, Bolivia, to help the government guard newly nationalized gas companies. If members of the CF deserted rather than be deployed, would that be OK then?

Posted by: JJM at May 8, 2006 4:34 AM

According to Daimnation the poll was conducted by the Globe and CTV.
On the CTV website their own poll seems to have a different result.

Have your feelings about the Afghanistan mission changed over time?

Yes, I'm less supportive 1751 votes (13 %)

No, I still support it 4684 votes (34 %)

Yes, I support it even more 3619 votes (27 %)

No, I never supported it 3532 votes (26 %)

Total Votes: 13586

Posted by: Largs at May 8, 2006 5:09 AM

I doubt if most Canadians would want Canada to be known internationally as a haven for deserters and AWOLS.

It's bad enough we're known as a haven for jihadists and their supporters, thanks to the dumb-assed and deleterious policies of the reviled "Liberal" Party of Canada.

BTW, I like the new look of the comments section! :-)

Posted by: Canadian Sentinel at May 8, 2006 5:26 AM

1. Jack Layton is an idiot.

2. I too like the new "comments" format. Easier to read.

Thank you, Kate.

Posted by: mike in white Rock at May 8, 2006 7:26 AM

1. Jack Layton is an idiot.

2. I too like the new "comments" format. Easier to read.

Thank you, Kate.

Posted by: mike in white Rock at May 8, 2006 7:26 AM

Jack Layton has once again shown himself to be the myopic fool he is. The implications of his assinine statements about deserters, aka, traitors--"These young people are courageous individuals. They've made a decision of conscience."--are mind boggling. Of course, they've made a "decision of conscience": robbing a bank or murdering someone falls under the same category. By Layton's stunted thinking, I guess these actions must be "courageous". Does it occur to him--obviously not--that some consciences are poorly formed, self-referential, and selfish? People with this kind of conscience don't tend to make wise or generous choices.

If he really believes his immature babblings, Layton's also a total hypocrite: Why doesn't he respect the "decisions of conscience" when the issues are abortion, same-sex marriage, or choice about child care, to name only a few NDP orthodoxies? It seems that Jack only repects "conscience" when it leads to conclusions he supports. What a self-centred idiot he is!

If one carries his mind numbing mumbo-jumbo to its logical conclusion, "anarchy" is the word that comes to mind. I'm not sure that even Mr. Layton wants that. But, as I said, he's myopic: This insures that he's not able to see far enough ahead--or think clearly enough--to assess the results of his muddled thinking.

Thank goodness there's no chance he'll ever be PM.

Posted by: lookout at May 8, 2006 7:39 AM

Jack Who?

Posted by: new kid on the block at May 8, 2006 8:01 AM

Jack's conscience or Jack's politics?

He booted Bev Desjarlais out of the party because she was opposed to SSM. Jack was in favour of it, because he wanted the latte-crowd vote.

He's now in favour of US military deserters - for the same reason. Jack's politics; he's after the latte-crowd vote.

The fact that, in both situations, Jack's politics are unethical and undemocratic - is a mere pebble in his agenda.

Posted by: ET at May 8, 2006 8:12 AM

Jacks Wacky
Great to see comments back THANKS

Posted by: brett at May 8, 2006 8:46 AM

More on the devious distortions of the Globe and "Cindy" Jack in a guest-post at "Daimnation!":

"Afstan: Now we really, really know what the Globe's Editor-in-chief thinks"


Posted by: Mark Collins at May 8, 2006 8:51 AM

and I wonder what ol' Wacky-Jacky would think of the Macs & Paps who went oversees to fight Fascism in the 1930's in Spain - not peacekeep, fight & die for their consciences.

Maybe bleeding and dying for socialism is OK.

Laydown is an idiot, but a useful one because he sounds so pretentious and narow minded.

Posted by: Fred at May 8, 2006 8:55 AM

There is a story this morning in the Saskatoon Star Phoenix in which Jack Layton states that he feels the Canadian Military should be run according to opinion polls. What an idiot.

I never went to university, but I always believed it to be a place where a person went to study and learn more; to try and become a quicker, better thinker. Jack Layton not only went to university, he TAUGHT at the University of Toronto! I certainly hope that Jack and his backwards logic are not representative of what is taught in a Canadian university.

Of course, Stephen Harper also went to university, and he is the smartest PM this country has had in over a hundred years.

Posted by: Trent at May 8, 2006 9:02 AM

Draft dodgers are to Deserters as Relevance is to Jack.

Good to see the comments back!!!


Posted by: Syncrodox at May 8, 2006 9:05 AM

Jack Layton is promoting Darfur and opposing Afghanistan all for political mileage.
And comments are back on.

The Universe has righted itself again.

Posted by: MolarMauler at May 8, 2006 9:06 AM

Layton's "out of Afghanistan and into
Sudan" stance is rediculously unrealistic.

First, it appears that it is not OK for Canadian
soldiers to fight for the national interest
but it is for them to fight for some complete
strangers interest.

Second, does he really believe Darfur would be
a peace keeping mission? What peace? Those
shooting the innocent will not stand by while
we stand in between them and their targets.

Oh, and by the way, these are the same
expanisionist islamo-fascist, and racist in
this case, forces that we are fighting in

The impertous for this appears to be
moral righteousness. This man, and the
left in general, want to have sex and
be virgins at the same time.

Posted by: Wimpy Canadian at May 8, 2006 9:11 AM

I wonder if Layton's self destructive pacifism would have encouraged desertion/deserters during WWII?

For a so-called professor of left bent politics he certainly has 2 blind eyes towards the inherent hypocrisy in his idealism.

Posted by: W L Mackenzie at May 8, 2006 9:17 AM

I'm betting missions where our soldiers have to stand by and not fire a shot while women are raped, are right up Jacks alley. Don't make waves and if something stinks close your eyes and plug your nose, and it will all go away.
Nice to see the comments back on, thanks Kate.

Posted by: Mugs at May 8, 2006 9:17 AM

Have Canadians really become so feeble minded that the resolve to see our mission through in Afghanistan is waining after only a few months?

Good thing past generations have the resolve to stick it out in WWII.

For all the Liberals and "progressives" out there please remember it was the Liberals who saw fit to send us there. I know in your mind the Conservatives = BAD eqaution usually trumps all common sense but just try to think of it as one of the few things the previous gov't did right.

Posted by: Ryan at May 8, 2006 9:22 AM

The only thing that keeps Jack relevant is that we give him any time or comment. Other than that he is completely irrelevant. This brings me to the conclusion that when it comes to the train of Canadian Politics - we should just throw Jack off.

Posted by: Bob at May 8, 2006 9:46 AM

Well, ya, bob. Hate to lose the entertainment value tho. Hes always good for a laugh.

Posted by: Lee at May 8, 2006 9:53 AM

Jack the flower child Layton still cannot grasp the difference between CONSCRIPTION & VOLUNTEERING, why should we be a haven for deserter's? Then again he & other's on the left think that we are not home to TERRORIST'S either, & these clowns still get elected.

Posted by: bryanr at May 8, 2006 10:05 AM

How ironic that the remarks of Jack and Dawn are printed on VE Day--now there's a real tradition.


Posted by: Mark Collins at May 8, 2006 10:09 AM

It seems there's a race on to see who is furthest left. You''ve got the wacademic Jack and his barking mao chow competing with a slew of fetid liberals. I just hope they continue to marginalize themselves into oblivion.

Posted by: Irwin Daisy at May 8, 2006 10:46 AM

If one considers that Jack is gay would it explain his over the topness? Would it explain his support of SSM? If so which sex is he and which sex is Olivia? Everything about him tells me he is gay. Am I wrong?

Posted by: truthsayer at May 8, 2006 10:55 AM

Bev Desjarlais? Come on, now.

She voted against a key party plank. Was she removed from caucus? No. Was she merely stripped of her critic's portfolio? Yes.

Then her riding association (remember them? They actually get to vote on who will represent their party in elections) gave her the heave for being the bigot she is.

I fail to see where her "conscience" was affronted, unless you mean by that that any MP should be able to vote any way they want, regardless of party platform, all the time, and continue to have official positions within their parties regardless, and keep their riding nominee status in spite of what their riding associations think.

God, I'm glad the combox is open again! :)

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at May 8, 2006 11:05 AM

What do you get when you cross a Communist and a 60's Hippie flower child?

Jack Layton.

Posted by: Dave at May 8, 2006 11:11 AM

Ps:12:8: The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.

Posted by: Timothy Coderre at May 8, 2006 11:16 AM

Dr. Dawg:
To follow through with those thoughts, why do we even have elections? It is the people who have the final say at election time, not the riding associations.

Posted by: Lee at May 8, 2006 11:17 AM

"cannot grasp the difference between CONSCRIPTION & VOLUNTEERING"

It never ceases to amaze me how the media and others seem to eqate this current circumstance with draft dodgers.

With one, you are being called to make an oath to serve your country and with the other, you are renegging on an oath you already made.

In my mind, once you have made that oath, you should be tried for treason if you don't stand by your word.

I feel that if the Government of Canada allows this, they are doing a great disservice to the rest of the US forces, and our own forces, that are standing by their own oath and putting themselves in harms way.

These deserters should be sent back to the US to stand trial and I would hope the US would do the same if one of our troops fled to them.


Posted by: Trevor at May 8, 2006 11:25 AM

A few more wasted electrons.

The National Dipstick Party.

Let*s hope the Greens surge ahead to become the vote splitting foil for the Liberals. TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at May 8, 2006 11:26 AM

Layton as a leftist socialist, is ignoring the difference between conscription and a volunteer army. He can't tell the difference between a state-order and an individual contract agreement.

That's because, first, for the left, any state-run system is necessarily universal, is state-ordered and without options. So, health care must be universal/public. Never private. Daycare must be universal/public. And second, for the left, the US military is bad, bad, bad. That's what the latte crowd thinks - and Layton wants votes.

The left in Canada defines itself by stating that We Are Whatever the Americans are Not. So, we first define the Americans - quite arbitrarily. And then, we define ourselves as Not.
They have an army? Not us.
They engage in war? Not us; we only do peacekeeping and heaven forbid anyone gets hurt.
They engage in capital entrepreneurship? Not us; we just set up franchises of their companies, or copy their drugs to sell them cheaply.
They have an elected Senate? Heaven forbid that we should abandon patronage and crony appointments!
And so on.

As for Bev Desjarlais - the fact that Layton can reject her rejection of a 'key party plank' - and yet encourage US military deserters who also reject a 'key party plank' of their country, as well as violating their contract - is hypocritical Jack.

Bev Desjarlais is not a bigot. Are you seriously suggesting, Dr. Dawg, that someone who rejects SSM is a bigot? That means that, according to you, there is only ONE view about SSM. Acceptance of it. Anything else, is 'bigoted'. That's a typical leftist tactic - to say that a dissenting opinion is not just dissent, and possibly based on valid reasons - but is -'bigotry'.

If this issue has only ONE answer, then, there can't be any debate. It isn't a social decision; it isn't even a topic for discussion, because, in your view, there is only one valid answer.
Then - why did the Supreme Court refuse to consider the case - and throw it back to the debating system - the House of Commons? It did that because SSM does not have 'one answer'; because SSM IS debatable. There is no 'one valid answer' - it is a social decision, and open to dissent and debate. And - to a decision by the society.

MPs should not be robots of either their ridings or their party. If we wanted a robotic government, then, we should simply, instead of individuals, assign robots to each party, by the percentage of the popular vote. These robots would be programmed by the party leader - to vote as he wishes. That's the type of party Layton and Martin prefer. Robots. No dissent. No analysis.

Posted by: ET at May 8, 2006 11:26 AM

Folks, there is no draft in the U.S. Thus, these are NOT consciencious objectors, but simply losers unwilling to face what they promised to do when they signed a contract to enter the U.S. Armed Forces.

What do you suppose ol' Bolshevik Jack would do to someone who reneged on a contract to provide him services? Hmmm? Call them corageous?

This Castro ass-sniffing pampered communist needs to be run out of the country on a rail. I hear Hugo Chavez needs a new pool boy.

Over at Drudge, he's reporting that Mother Moonbat is vomiting more garbage on this very topic.

Posted by: Doug at May 8, 2006 11:39 AM

To follow through with those thoughts, why do we even have elections? It is the people who have the final say at election time, not the riding associations.

So, then, how do you propose candidates of a political party get nominated?

Bev Desjarlais is not a bigot. Are you seriously suggesting, Dr. Dawg, that someone who rejects SSM is a bigot? That means that, according to you, there is only ONE view about SSM. Acceptance of it. Anything else, is 'bigoted'. That's a typical leftist tactic - to say that a dissenting opinion is not just dissent, and possibly based on valid reasons - but is -'bigotry'.

There are no valid reasons for making certain people second-class citizens because of their sexual orientation.

Not to open up that old debate again, but, for the record, I favoured privatizing marriage and having state-recongized civil unions for everyone.

But it doesn't really matter what I think at this point. I would just ask people here to consider what might befall a Conservative MP in his or her riding association if the MP in question rose to denounce key party platform planks. I don't have that much of a problem acting on "conscience," but there is such a thing as party policy. If you're out of synch with it, join some other party.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at May 8, 2006 12:06 PM

Not being able to marry someone of the same sex does not make one a "second class citizen", any more than it does a brother and sister.

Posted by: Kate at May 8, 2006 12:14 PM

Sigh. I am so tired of the Mop and Pail writing headlines based on polls.

I am also tired of being called a bigot and a racist by left-wingers. Just kidding! I hope the lefties do keep calling people who disagree bigots and racists and we can just keep watching their numbers fall as they continue to alienate right thinking people.

Thanks for the forum Kate.

Your blog writing is grrrrrrrreat even with the comments down.

Did Jack Layton meet with Cindy Sheehan? I hope so but I doubt he is that dumb or even that "committed" to the cause of the USA deserters.

Posted by: no dippers allowed at May 8, 2006 12:14 PM

Dr. Dawg - YOU are the one defining someone as a 'second-class citizen' if same-sex marriage is forbidden.
That is only your opinion; it is not a fact. There are dissenting reasons to reject SSM, which are quite valid, and dissenting conclusions, which are equally valid. You cannot introduce universal ethics into a situation which is social and political and not a matter of human right.

An individual may not always be 'in sync' with all party policy. They may agree with some of it, but not all of it. Such variation is healthy; otherwise, the party moves into an intellectually sterile nest of sycophants or mindless Stepford Wives.
Are you suggesting that if an MP does not agree with ALL key party policies, that they should join another party? That removes debate and dissent from within the party. And - with regard to your suggestion to joining another party - what if you agree with some, but not all, of their platform?

We must remember, that the Liberals do not have any policies; they have only one agenda. Power. And they will ride pop opinion and cater to it, to get that vote.
The NDP does have policies - big centralist top down gov't, enormous bureaucracies and unions, no differentiation of people, no evaluation, no appointments by merit; instead, appointments by skin colour, gender etc. Make-work employment, rather than entrepreneurial economy. etc..

What if Ms Desjarlais agreed with all of the above NDP basic axioms - but disagreed with SSM? Should she leave for another party - eg the CPC - if she rejects most of its axioms?
Is there no room for dissent, for questions and analysis in your style of Political Party?

Posted by: ET at May 8, 2006 12:21 PM

Jerk "My-Head-Exploded" Layton does not rate a mention in Gob piece.

Bloc & NDP are both socialist/communist parties: Duceppe and Layton are natural allies. This is rarely mentioned.

Bloc/Duceppe's socialism is as Stalin's was: one-party/one state vs Trotsky's communist international (Comintern). Layton is a Trotskyite.

Both the NDP/Bloc are masters of disguise/deception along with the Red-Green Party. +

The Bloc's worst nightmare
Sad times for sovereigntists

Lysiane Gagnon
Globe and Mail
May 8, 2006

The reason why the Bloc Québécois supports the Harper government's budget was clearly spelled out in a CROP poll that appeared in La Presse on the very day of the presentation of the budget. The Conservatives are making huge inroads in Quebec and are now virtually neck and neck with the Bloquistes -- an astonishing turn of events, considering the near-monopoly that the Bloc has had for 13 years in Quebec federal politics.

If there had been an election last week, the Conservatives would have won 34 per cent of the vote, against 31 per cent for the Bloc, a sharp drop from the 42 per cent Gilles Duceppe's party received on Jan. 23. More important, among the francophones who hold the key to the vast pool of ridings outside Montreal, the Conservatives (at 35 per cent) are about as popular as the Bloc (37 per cent).

So, of course, the last thing the Bloc wants now is for the government to be toppled. "The big, bad Bloc has turned into a de-clawed and neutered opposition that will purr its way into not provoking an election for fear of losing more seats to the Tories," wrote Gazette columnist Josée Legault.

There's another reason why the Bloc had no choice but to support the budget. + more...

Posted by: maz2 at May 8, 2006 12:28 PM

Not being able to marry someone of the same sex does not make one a "second class citizen", any more than it does a brother and sister.

In the one case, you have to be heterosexual to get your relationship recognized. That's discrimination, and there's no good reason for it--just religious dogma and homophobia, neither of which should generate public policy.

In the other case, there are good reasons for discriminating against brother-sister marriages, primarily genetic. That doesn't stigmatize anyone for being who they are.

I mean, the same argument (brother-sister)could be used to defend opposition to interracial marriage. It's simply bad logic.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at May 8, 2006 12:33 PM

Strange. I must have missed something. My comments are being "held for approval." Is this new?

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at May 8, 2006 12:34 PM

As Kate said - not being able to marry someone of the same sex doesn't make one a second class citizen.

The view that it DOES create second class citizens, is your opinion, Dr. Dawg, not a fact.

Furthermore - it is unhealthy to set up a political party and reject debate and analysis about key party platforms. It is equally objectionable to insist that a party member must accept all axioms of the party. What if Desjarlais accepted all axioms of the NDP - its centralist gov't, its unions, its pro-bureaucracy, its rejection of individualism, etc, etc...but rejected SSM? Should she go to the CPC - which rejects SSM, but also rejects all the other axioms to which she agrees/

Posted by: ET at May 8, 2006 12:39 PM

Fool Jack
Idiot Jack
Myopic Jack
Wacky Jack
Latte Jack
Bolshevik Jack
Yep, the comments are back up.

Posted by: steve d. at May 8, 2006 12:40 PM

Do you know the scariest thing about Jack Layton?.He knows he will NEVER be in power,so he can say WHATEVER he wants without the bother of having to back it up.
He has proven himself to be dishonest,opportunistic and hypocritical.In other words,he should be running for the LIBERANO leadership!
So inattentive Canadians can best see the real man,first,the NDP should adopt the much more accurate name of Communist Party of Canada.Oops,too late you say....Maybe they should merge then,it worked for the right.
I have rarely been one to succumb to hatred,life's far too short for that waste of emotion.I did however learn to hate Paul Martin for the "indecent" man he became.I find these same feelings rising whenever I hear JL spew his bullshit now.
Jack can't even make headway in Quebec,the one province you would think would eat up his nonsense.Nope,the only use he has currently is his endless anti-conservative rants the MSM just cannot get enough of.

Posted by: Canadian Observer at May 8, 2006 12:43 PM

BTW,thanks Kate,I feel my blood pressure dropping already with this chance to get things off my chest again.

Posted by: Canadian Observer at May 8, 2006 12:47 PM

So...I guess my response to the "brother-sister" analogy has not been approved. No prob, Kate. The issue's dead anyway, unless Harpo tries to give it mouth-to-mouth.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at May 8, 2006 12:49 PM

I think we agree (well, sort of). To my mind the whole issue of party politics is a dilemma with no easy answers. On one hand, some MPs are elected based on party or leader popularity, and i hope that other elections results are based on the voters determination of the best person for the job. I sometimes wonder at the huge expenditure of having a parliament when (if) its members are all following the various party lines.
In that vein,and for example, i had no problem with the Emerson issue, since i felt he was a very capable man, and Canada would be well served by having him in a position where his expertise could be put to use. I have had no reason to change my mind on that issue.
As with all issues, there are pros and cons. I would like to see more free votes, then the voting records could be examined by constituents in determining if their values coincide.

Posted by: Lee at May 8, 2006 12:51 PM

"In the one case, you have to be heterosexual to get your relationship recognized"

I have too many gay friends who are divorced, with children, to entertain that canard. Homosexuals have always been permitted to marry a member of the opposite sex, whioe heterosexuals have been equally prohibited from marrying one of the same sex.

This is not an issue of right to marry. It is an issue that involves the redefinition of marriage itself.

Posted by: Kate at May 8, 2006 1:31 PM

Jack the hypocrite who went to a private clinic and said he didn't know it was private. Liar!
We need more Shouldice clinics who peform the best hernia surgeries in the world with efficiencies unknown to government unionized wastebaskets.

Jack and Olivia who lived in subsidized housing but moved out when learning it was subsidized,{Bull} and then accused the Liberals of killing homeless people in Toronto because of a lzck of social housing.
He must have loved the million dollars the city of Toronto wasted on hotel rooms for the homeless which were not used.
He reminds me of a used car salesman with acting lessons

Posted by: scott at May 8, 2006 1:31 PM

Socialized housing. Isn't that what Harper lives in? Acting? How about watching an accountant act. Now that is real pain!

Posted by: steve d. at May 8, 2006 1:39 PM

Jack and Olivia who lived in subsidized housing but moved out when learning it was subsidized,{Bull} and then accused the Liberals of killing homeless people in Toronto because of a lzck of social housing.

I assume you are either ignorant or a liar.

Jack and Olivia were paying market rates all along, and did not move out.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at May 8, 2006 1:51 PM

Kate: I have no idea what is happening with the comments, but I see mine in the list now. Sorry if I missed something.

I see that you moved off the "brother-sister" thing. Good. As to your new argument, until recently heterosexuals were privileged over homosexuals when it came to state recognition of their relationships.

Why not accept my proposed solution (well, not just mine)--everybody gets access to civil unions, the state gets out of the marriage business altogether, and people can celebrate marriages wherever they are welcome?

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at May 8, 2006 1:57 PM

Some of the comments are being caught in the spam filter and require approval. I've got a bit of a learning curve here, so just be patient.

Posted by: Kate at May 8, 2006 2:12 PM


The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.
Edmund Burke

Posted by: maz2 at May 8, 2006 2:37 PM

The one man - one woman marriage unit has been a fundamental building block of the Judeo-Christian west for thousands of years. Changing it could have many unforseen ramifications and we should proceed slowly.

Some reasons not to have SSM (some of which you or I may think are valid or not)
1. It is not endorsed by the Christian God.
2. It is a fruitless union and cannot in and of itself help propagate our society.
3. Promiscuous homosexual lifestyles are a major reservoir of HIV/AIDS and other STDs, and should be discouraged.
4. How do you determine a committed homosexual relationship between two loving individuals from a non-sexual relationship of two heterosexuals who are using the SSM law to advantage (tax, inheritance or whatever).

Now tell me why they should have it? What does it give to homosexuals that they can't already do through legal means?

As for Layton, why waste the time!

Posted by: DKJONES at May 8, 2006 2:49 PM

The same but different.

How is it that homosexuals and Lesbians having chosen to promote and celebrate their own different status - that being gay - want the same word for marriage? And as much as one might want to belabour the point, redefinition of a word is not a 'human right.' Furthermore, the word marriage when applied against anything else, such as fasteners, electrical, etc. only works male to female.

General Lewis MacKenzie on Haroon Siddique (letter to the Star):

"Finally, what upset me enough to pen this letter was the comment that our involvement in Darfur "would help us return to our historic (peacekeeping) role." A myth and one the media and successive governments have perpetuated, presumably because the majority of Canadians like the idea of letting others do the heavy lifting...Peacekeeping was always a sideline activity for the Canadian Armed Forces...we had at any one time around 1,500 soldiers deployed under the UN flag. At the same time, we had up to 10,000 troops, some armed with nuclear weapons, stationed with NATO on the central front in Germany and France prepared to take on any aggression by the Soviet Union. Peacekeepers? Not!"

How is it that we allow foreigners, with no Canadian roots, like Haroon Siddique, to inform us as to who we are? How is it that we allow delusional leftists to define us based only on their party's crank ideology?

It's gotta end.

Posted by: Irwin Daisy at May 8, 2006 3:17 PM

I guess jack is the liar again as he said he moved out when learning the housing was susidized!
In susidized housing everyone pays rates according to their income but when a sudden increase in income like becoming Toronto city councillor happens the contract written with low income still exists until renewal.
Those rates are not Market rates as then it would be free enterprise housing charging what the market dictates not income!

Posted by: scott at May 8, 2006 3:21 PM

African Union Official Is Hacked to Death in Darfur
Sign In to E-Mail This Print Single Page Reprints Save

So Commie Jack wants to drop us into this pile of shite instead of Afghanistan. I say we send the Jackster on a fact-finding mission here first.

Published: May 8, 2006

KALMA CAMP, Sudan, May 8 — An African Union official was hacked to death in this vast, squalid camp today after his post, manned by an unarmed team of eight civilian police officers, was overrun and looted by a mob of angry demonstrators.

Posted by: neo at May 8, 2006 3:22 PM

Great to see your comment back up!!

As for the gays getting married, why not go to Iran and get married there. And take Jack with you.

Posted by: FREE at May 8, 2006 3:44 PM

Dr.Dawg has almost subverted this thread into a discussion on homosexual marriage.

To return to the original intent of NDP-bashing, may I suggest this post at "The Torch"?

'The NDP's failure to understand Darfur and "peacekeeping"'


Posted by: Mark Collins at May 8, 2006 4:02 PM

Layton: What is a Muslim? Why are the "Arabs muslims looting raping and killing black muslims in Darfur ..." +

Arabs muslims looting raping and killing black muslims in Darfur ...
Arabs muslims looting raping and killing black muslims in Darfur (Sudan) Reader comment on article: If the King of Pop[, Michael Jackson,] Converts to Islam ... - 96k

Posted by: maz2 at May 8, 2006 5:08 PM

Getting back to the G&M poll: there seems to be a huge disconnect between Canadians and Canadian bloggers. Example: check out the level of support among Conservative voters

March 06 72% 24% 4%
May 06 57% 38% 5%

Just over half of them support the mission.

I don't know how many Blogging Tories there are (150 active?) but I doubt you could find five BTs who have voiced opposition to the Afghanistan mission, let alone 38%. And I doubt even 38% of Liberal and NDP bloggers are publicly opposed to Afghanistan.

On the whole 54% of Canadians are now opposed to Afghanistan, yet I'd ballpark fewer than 15% of Canadian blogs that are against it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but prior to recent events in the NDP few if any Canadian parliamentarians spoke out against the mission. On a related note: are there any Canadian mainstream newspapers on record as opposing the Afghanistan mission? Not even in Quebec, where 75% are opposed to the mission? All very strange.

Posted by: Bob at May 8, 2006 5:23 PM

The Arab word for black and slave is the same - Abed.

Given that and the fact that they invented African slavery and still maintain it, makes me wonder why any black would ever become a Muslim of all things.

Posted by: Irwin Daisy at May 8, 2006 5:25 PM

"Given that and the fact that they invented African slavery and still maintain it, makes me wonder why any black would ever become a Muslim of all things."

If you dont convert to islam you lose your head.


Posted by: FREE at May 8, 2006 5:42 PM

Deepest-Throat Jerk Layton said: "next major step in deep integration with the United States military."

Jack-the-socialist-red-assed warbler; genus, socialismus/russki-stalinist. Da. +

The New Democrats, however, objected to provisions in the treaty that they say could compromise Canadian sovereignty, especially in the Arctic. They also fear the deal will tie Canada too closely to the controversial anti-missile defence shield favoured by the Bush administration in Washington.

"This agreement contains many problems, and that is why we will not be able to support it," NDP Leader Jack Layton told reporters before the debate began.

"Thi is not the NORAD agreement of old . . . It's the next major step in deep integration with the United States military."

A vote on the treaty is expected next Monday, but with the Liberals onside the result is a foregone conclusion. The current NORAD agreement expires May 12. +

MPs set to renew Norad defence deal
OTTAWA (CP) - The House of Commons was set to vote late Monday to renew and expand the Norad pact, a keystone of Canada's defence for half a century. +
cnews 08 April 2006

Posted by: maz2 at May 8, 2006 6:37 PM

Dr Dawg, State out of the marraige business?

Yes, I would like to see that also, however the hitching tradition carries a whole slew of windfall profits to the state, so no potential change there.

A couple enjoys extra freedoms and benefits when a mutual understanding is all that is required for their loyal bond.

Living in separate homes not far apart has additional advantage as well, but may be far too modern a concept for the more traditional. TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at May 8, 2006 7:03 PM

Well, enough on SSM, and back to NDP-bashing. Here's what Wikipedia has to say about the subsidized housing lie:

Layton and Chow were also the subject of some dispute when a June 14, 1990 Toronto Star article by Tom Kerr accused them of unfairly living in a housing cooperative subsidized by the federal government, despite their high income. Layton and Chow had both lived in the Hazelburn Co-op since 1985, and lived together in an $800 per month three-bedroom apartment after their marriage in 1988. By 1990, their combined annual income was $120,000, and in March of that year they began voluntarily paying an additional $325 per month to offset their share of the co-op's Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation subsidy, the only members of the co-op to do so. Average Toronto market rent in 1989 was $782 per month, although the Vancouver Province newspaper claimed a comparable dwelling would have been worth $1,500.

In response to the article, the co-op's board argued that having mixed-income tenants was crucial to the success of co-ops, and that the laws deliberately set aside apartments for those willing to pay market rates, such as Layton and Chow. During the late 1980s and early 1990s they maintained approximately 30% of their units as low income units and provided the rest at what they considered market rent. In June 1990, the city's solicitor cleared the couple of any wrong-doing, and later that month, Layton and Chow left the co-op and bought a house in Toronto's Chinatown together with Chow's mother, a move they said had been planned for some time. Former Toronto mayor John Sewell later wrote in NOW Magazine that rival Toronto city councillor Tom Jakobek had given the story to Tom Kerr.

I won't go into the sordid details surrounding that fine Conservative gentleman, Tom Jakobek.

On the military thing, I love the cheering squad here for all things and all people martial--except themselves, of course. "Get in there," as the promoter told the weary boxer, "the bum can't hurt us."

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at May 8, 2006 7:39 PM

Posted by: georgev at May 8, 2006 03:35 AM
Now I can read every one else*s opinion in order to form my own. (kidding). I did miss every one else*s insights, though.**

Kidding or not, there is certainly some validity to what you say.

Not such a bad idea, to follow the progress of debate and then add to it with a possible forcast or to carry it forward.

When I first discovered the blog debate, about a year ago, [yeah, I'm a plodder], the question then was how to focus on an agreed priority one, and then bring real weight and pressure to bear.

Not an easy question when vested interests can use $millions of our money to tell us what *we* want.

The priority did seem to focus around ethics in government, [Gomery Inquiry], and a viable whistle blower protection bill, [bill C-11].

These things did form a leading part in a winning campaign, although the Liberal*s *Fear Harper* ploy was a near leathal low blow.

Fortunately an offensive liberal leaning broadcaster so offended voters along the St Lawrence corridor in Quebec, that there was enough offset to win a minority at least.

We notice an ongoing trend of loyalty swinging away from printed media to electronic media.

Our assignment, should we choose to muse about it, is how to gather the full weight of our more conservative views, to counter the left, without diluting the unique quality of each individual website like this one. TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at May 8, 2006 7:53 PM

Back to Mr. Layton and his re-assignment of our troops.This is not only foolish and impratical,it is extremely dangerous. Does he not realize that the terrorists actually pay attention to the political climate of thier enemies? This only sends the message that we are waffling on our commitment. They may very well specifically target the Canadian troops,assuming that maybe a quick ten or twenty kills will result in the pulling out of 2,200 troops.If this happens,Jack should be shipped out with the next assignment of peacekeepers. I'm sure the boys would love to have some fun with him.

Posted by: wallyj at May 8, 2006 8:16 PM

I am reminded of the philosophy question, if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around does it make a sound?

If the Hollywood intellegensia (sp?) doesn't make it an issue, does one exist? While Kilgour was making Darfur his hill to die on, where was Jack then? Having Buzz rewrite the budget.

Now we have G. Clooney, his former show ER, followed by MSM and their lemming mentality of reporting the news, making this the issue du-jour and Jack is all high and mighty.

As I have said many times, those on the far right are the fanatics, while those on the far left are the hypocrites. The left never misses an opportunity to prove me correct.

Posted by: Ken in Cgy at May 8, 2006 8:41 PM

Hot dog; "Darfur Jack" & his tovarisch/comrades vote: Nyet. +

New Norad deal approved in House of Commons

Updated Mon. May. 8 2006 7:55 PM ET

Canadian Press

OTTAWA -- The House of Commons has voted to renew and expand the Norad pact, a keystone of Canada's defence for half a century. ...

The latest version of the Canada-U.S. treaty, which expands its watch over sea approaches as well as air and space, passed tonight 257 to 30. +

Posted by: maz2 at May 8, 2006 9:41 PM

"Now tell me why they should have it? What does it(SSM) give to homosexuals that they can't already do through legal means?"Posted by: DKJONES at May 8, 2006 02:49 PM

DK,,,,I usually avoid this topic but I could not resist your question.....By calling their coupling a marriage they are normalizing it.
Sorry to be the first to tell you this,but it's much too late be concerned now,it has already happened.Like it or hate it,that particular genie will not be jumping back in it's bottle.

Posted by: Canadian Observer at May 9, 2006 1:51 AM

We should cram it back in the bottle with pointy sticks and toss it into Iran at the same tine as we turn it into the world biggest glass ashtray.

Posted by: FREE at May 9, 2006 1:58 AM

Steyn and Wretchard on Free Tibet and more.

Muslims killing Muslims in Darfur: UN says fugedaboutit. ...

"Because any effective change in Darfur means altering the politics within the Sudan which is precisely what the UN will prevent at all costs. Mark Steyn describes the deadly gap between the wish and the deed that haunts international politics.

What's the quintessential leftist cause? It's the one you see on a gazillion bumper stickers: Free Tibet. Every college in the US has a Free Tibet society: There's the Indiana University Students for a Free Tibet, and the University of Wisconsin-Madison Students for a Free Tibet, and the Students for a Free Tibet University of Michigan Chapter. Everyone's for a free Tibet, but no one's for freeing Tibet.

No one is willing to do what is necessary, not when they realize what it would take. more...

Posted by: maz2 at May 9, 2006 3:57 PM

Someday down the road in a parliament close to you
we will talk about what a shame it was to let young Cnadians die in the Middle East. The Tories are going to get in up their necks in so much KaKa they'll wish they never increased our involvment in Afghanistan. The army is trying to recruit more soldiers than ever. I call it a make work project for young Canadians. Our Prime minister is George Bush's monkey and that's all he'll be remembered as. These kids going to war have no idea what they're getting into. They are pawns in the politicians war games. But this is no game. This is Candians dying for America. The Americans like war.They don't care if their kids die. I do.
The Afghanis don't want us there. They don't trust us, they have been dicked around by America for years.

Posted by: ok4ua at May 11, 2006 2:13 AM

"They don't care if their kids die"?!!

Not a knee-jerk anti-American bone in your body, right?

Posted by: Kevin at May 14, 2006 4:50 PM