I’ve been listening for weeks now as Liberals defend their party as though theft was simply a policy issue to debate on its merits – a small part of a larger, more important national picture, sometimes marketed as the Greater Good[tm].
These Liberals seem to genuinely believe that systematic dishonesty is just a point of disagreement for which a sensible compromise could be found, if only both sides would be civil.
“Compromise” is defined by Websters in this way:
“An amicable agreement between parties in controversy, to settle their differences by mutual concessions. “
Well, therein lies the rub. Conservatives aren’t wired the same way as you Liberals. As we are so often reminded, we tend to view the world in terms of “black and white”.
This Ayn Rand quote is illustrative of this uniquely conservative character flaw, the unreasonably rigid fixation on notions of right and wrong as though they are, you know – meaningful.
“In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube.”
Stupid woman. Rand should have known that so-called “poison” can be ingested safely if dosage remains within limits of toxicity. Lives are saved through chemotherapy every day by the very pharmaceuticals that would kill you instantly if administered in overdose. The grey area between safety and toxicity is scientific fact – a property of every chemical substance on earth, with the exception of agricultural pesticides, growth hormones and fertilizers.
Still, hard wired as the conservative that I am, I can’t help myself. I can’t quite resolve a middle ground between good and evil. While on some intellectual level I’m sure I know better – I cannot shake the belief that beaurocratic corruption is an institutional character fault so grave that it should disqualify those afflicted from any position of power. In the case of the Liberal Party of Canada, I believe the party should be deregistered. I know this is harsh, but that’s how I think. Black. White. Crime. Punishment.
It’s not as though the question of corruption remains in dispute. An announced $750,000 trust fund indicates that Mr. Martin’s Liberals have moved past denial and presumption of innocence, and have entered the plea bargain phase.
While I acknowledge this is progress of a sort, in the greater scope of events, it’s pretty clear that my outdated “conservative” definition of justice, a justice that includes punishment, will not be realized. Having admitted guilt, there will be no penalty outside of “community service”.
The Liberal Party will not only continue to exist, they shall continue to govern and enjoy the privilage of stealing from me for the greater good.
So, to my fellow moderate, mainstream, compromising Liberal Canadian citizens so tolerant of the mischievious ways of our political masters – today I concede.
You win. I lose. You are right. I was wrong. You were always right, and I was always wrong.
Having broken the shackles of black and white, I’m ready to venture into this brave new ethical world of “Grey” and work with you. I can’t say I understand it, but nonetheless – it’s time to adapt.
As my first step, as a show of good faith, I’ve arranged a compromise with you. We will find a middle ground between “honesty” and “dishonesty”, a happy litlle grey parking spot between “respect for property” and “systematic theft”.
In my previous life in the world of black and white, “fairness” would demand participation of two consenting negotiators to arrive at “mutual concession’. I’m glad we can dispense with that outdated notion.
I’m going to play by your rules. Just as I had no place at the table when you were conceding the fundamental honour and integrity of the political system I must live under, you’ll surely understand this compromise that I have chosen for you.
You get to keep your Liberal Party and then some – you may also keep your Liberal government in perpetuity.
Easy? Easy.
In exchange I am going to impose a similar system of institutionalized theft on you, but in a more streamlined version. (Some conservative habits die hard) .
While your political party is stealing my money to fund their own election campaigns and in turn, reward their supporters (which would be you and the others who vote for them), in my parallel system, we’ve cut out the middleman.
I’ve made a deal with your bank. They have agreed to allow me, at the time of my choosing, to dip into your personal account and take a few dollars when I need them. Or alternately, when I want them. It’s nothing to get worried about, because the amounts I take will be such a tiny percentage of the bank’s overall holdings.
I won’t be telling you when I’ll be accessing your account, how much I’m going to take or how I will spend it. (I negotiated that, too.)
Because this is a democracy, you will have the right to complain just as much as you wish – so long as you remain civil. No anger allowed, because I really am uncomfortable – distrustful really – of angry people. They scare me.
If the tone of your complaint meets with my approval, I will go back to the bank and we shall sit down and discuss your grievance. The process will be completely democratic. You may watch and you can comment, and you will even cast a vote. You, me and the banker all cast votes.
Majority rules.
Then, after the majority has ruled, I’ll admit that maybe I took some of your money, look you straight in the eye and tell you I’m very, very sorry about the mess and give you my solemn pledge – let me be very, very clear about this – not to steal from your personal account until next time.
Then, I’ll instruct your banker to increase your account fees. We shall then distribute the extra revenues to the bank accounts of your like-minded mainstream Liberal Canadian friends.
They, in turn, will remind you that we do not live in a world of black and white.
whoever gave the link to Ted Morton, thanks.
Lots of interesting discussion in here today. We need to attack from both angles, provincially and federally (as someone in here said, Plan B needs to be in place).
We need to email our MLAs about what we want to see put in place, i.e. firewalls. In Alberta, we need Ralph to resign. He’s too tired & jaded to do what needs to be done.
Rob,
I don’t think that if some poor sucker stood up to Tony and said ” Tony I ain’t paying you anymore.” that Tony would put his hands in his pockets, shrug and say “Ok then.” and just trudge off.
Neither would the Libranos. They rob Peter to buy off Paul, while keeping a nice slice for themselves.
This is all far too complicated for me. I’m going to sit down, crack open a Classic Coke and watch the Memorial Cup. I love Junior Hockey. Anyone remember the NHL? Go Kelowna. Oh ya’, they don’t olay till tomorrow.
Very very good.
I want ask a question though and don’t know exactly how these Blogs work. So at the risk of getting hammered for bringing it up in the wrong place here I go. And just for the record these CRIMINALS that are in power now should be in JAIL.
Now for the question:
If the Tory’s (which I feel is the only alternative) are really interested in change, why aren’t they putting forward (or trying to put forward) laws NOW that would CHANGE the system. If the Lib’s didn’t support them they (the Lib’s) would surely have to expose thier TRUE Colors. Regardless if the Tory’s do this or not, the CRIMINALS have to go and the Tory’s will get my support to do that. The support that I would give to a Party that was willing to DEFINE “acountable” (would need to inclued words like “independent”, “jail time” and so on) and promise some sort of transparancy would be a 1000 FOLD!!!
Anyone else feel this way?
Oh ya, where should I have asked this question?
Sean,
Whether or not you are for or against SSM/gun registry/kyoto is not the point. The point is that these are instances where the creeping spread of Liberal Party policy could have been successfully opposed on the provincial level, but was not.
Cal,
Not if you have everyone in the province doing it, another words, who’s to say that we no longer wish to be part of equalization. We’ve paid way more then our share anyway. If they send in the military etc. etc, then they would have a real problem on there hands, and how do you put 3 mil. people in jail, not to mention the world wide attention.
it’s relatively the same thing that’s going to happen in quebec, if they have the desire and will to exercise provincial power, there is not to much the feds can do about it if the people of the province are behind it.
Maybe Later, They can’t really because there to small at the present time, and the Bloc and NDP won’t team up and support conservative issues.
“Alberta, we love you. Join us. We need you to help us deal with the dark forces around the world.”
I’m interested, Greg. 🙂
Rob as someone already mentioned above, here in Alberta we have to get Ralph Klein out first. The second thing we have to do is keep Jim Dinning out and try to get Ted Morton in as leader. Reasons: Dinning is a fiscal conservative but he supported Nancy Betkowski during the last leadership campaign which tells me his conservatism is soft.
The reason we need Ted Morton is because he is so well versed on the Canadian Constitution and knows all the loopholes. He should have been the Justice minister now but Klein always puts in a Red Tory in that portfolio. Secondly he will not take any shit from Ottawa and he is all for the firewall, which also tells me he wont mind playing tough against the Feds. So in my humble opinion when the leadership comes up we have to get out and support Morton.
“Maybe Later, They can’t really because there to small at the present time, and the Bloc and NDP won’t team up and support conservative issues.”
O.K. You may be right. And likely I’m crazy but, I can’t imagine the whole country not jumping on board with just about any Party (Name of Party doesn’t matter) that had a simple stratagy (others could do better but something like this).
If given a majority government all will be the same at first but ONE item at a time we WILL:
1) Do a complete audit of the current finances of Canada with the help of an independent auditor (will target 9 months to complete).
2) Will define ethics (would be something that would make us Proud). Stuff like if you are un happy with the party that you belong you could sit as an independent but could not switch parties (ie pretend that your ideals changed overnight). Held at a higher standard then the general public (Need work, I know) (will target 5 months to complete).
3) Define accountability. This would be very clear and inclued criminal proceedings that would be done within 6 months…….
4)5)6)….You know fundamental stuff / structural stuff.
If only given a Minority Government we would do:
………..
Anyway, you see what I’m getting at. That Party would suggest that all things would would remain the same untill one be one these are implemented.
After even begining to read what I’ve written (which I know is not anywhere complete), I think I see the problem with my approach. I make this huge assumption that ALL will have the same vision of what I would like to see in the mandate (and although we all have different ideas I still think they will, you know basic honesty and transparancy). That’s because I’m only really talking about the SET-UP of the way government works. This Party would promise that after 18 months (once the government was restructured) they would have a referendum asking if Canadians wanted to have an election so that they could then pick a New Government (to be run under the new system) and that election would be more about Political Ideals.
Hey MikeP,
That’s assuming he’s going to run. He should take the time now to get better known.
Wow I was just over at
http://separationalberta.com
and although I don’t have time to read all thier stuff right now, none that I did scared me. It looks good!! Even to someone that lives in Ottawa.
Maybe,
Maybe a little bit ambitious at this point. More focus has to be put on getting the current gov out, and what to do if it fails. Yes, there is a possibility of failure, because central and eastern Canada may not want change. That’s were all the statements above come from.
“”Alberta, we love you. Join us. We need you to help us deal with the dark forces around the world.”
I’m interested, Greg. :-)”
Sean, yes. In the US we are for ourselves, just as I am for Texas. However, if you are a politically aware American you realize that you are also called to serve an Ideal. You’ve heard Bush say time and time again that we are trying to spread liberty around the world. It’s messy and full of contradictions, but in the end, that’s exactly what we’re trying to do.
We know that free people in democracies don’t make war on each other. And in the world, the US has a lot of heavy lifting to do. You can see the thanks we receive from the opinions of Europeans.
I think Alberta has more in common with us than Ottawa. I think Alberta would prefer being part of the vast attempt to pursue freedom and peace.
If you become a state in the US, Alberta has a big chip at the table. You’ll have to help make the judgements about action or inaction. If you decide to send troops, you will watch them in firefights. Your elected senators and congressmen will vote on it. And you will have put them in office. If you decide to help in a disaster, you’ll watch your sons and daughters on the aircraft carriers. You will have helped to put them there.
We need your help. We thought we had Canada’s help and found out we were wrong. If you become a state, it means that we trust you with our children. It means that we trust you to make the right decisions about freedom. It’s tough, but it’s what we’re about. I think it’s what Alberta’s about too.
Gee, that was a good game. I’ve missed some things here but I’d like to toss out a couple observations.
I think it may be a lot easier than most of us think.
First: I do not think the Liberals will elect a majority government for a long, long time. So, we need to think about what can be accomplished between the Bloc and the Conservatives. They both need to set out their platform SOON so we can see exactly what they stand for, not what they say they stand for. Then we can put some heat on the Conservatives to start making deals with the Bloc. And that can be done, mark my words.
Second: Alberta has to elect a strong provincial government and let the rest of Canada know where we stand. The best way to do this is for Ted Morton (if he’s the one) to set out a very specific and strong platform going into the election. Then the election can be looked at as a referendum almost. No smoke and mirrors, just straight talk.
Third: Alberta has to let Ottawa know, regardless of whether it’s a Liberal or Conservative minority, that they need to immediately move to address Alberta’s concerns. Those mostly include equalization payments, representation, freedom to deal with foreign trade directly (no middle men), get rid of the Gun Law and kill Kyoto for starters. Once this is done Alberta and Ottawa can sit down and discuss what needs to be done to keep Canada together. But, just to put the pressure on, Alberta needs to let Ottawa know that they are beginning discussions about their own police force and medical plan.
If it’s a Liberal minority these demands will finally put them on notice that things need to change and quick. If it’s a Conservative minority then these demands will give them a lot more clout in making deals with the Bloc to accomplish some of these objectives.
Forget any deals with the NDP.
All Alberta needs to do is stop the flow of money for awhile and Ottawa has two choices, go to court or sit down and work out a deal. For the life of me I don’t understand why we haven’t done that before. I’m sick of getting mad and I’m sick of putting up with things like the Gun Law and Kyoto (there are more). Whether it’s a Liberal or Conservative government our demands should be the same.
If Alberta wants to they can bring this country to its knees.
Greg. Just to let you know, there are a lot of Canadians who supported your war in Iraq. I just wish Bush had given the real reason rather than WMD. I support Bush and I support America. But I am and want to remain a Canadian. It should make no difference to you either way if we become what we were during the two world wars. We were allies. When Ottawa turned her back on Great Britain and America after 9-11 she was not speaking for all of us. There were many of us who were ashamed and still are.
I hope Bush finishes the job he started before leaving office. It was a noble one but there are two more big steps he needs to take.
I won’t even get into multiculturalism. That’s another disaster that has to change for both of us. But for some reason most everyone who goes the America becomes Americans first and hyphenated second. Up here in Canada it’s the other way around, to our detriment.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
Edmond Burke
John C.,
The war in Iraq (about which, I admit, I had some reservations) was not about oil … at least not on the part of the USA. It appears that it was about Saddam’s oil on the part of those who tried to stop it (including the Desmarais Power Corp mob).
And, sadly, hyphenization disease is more and more a part of US life. It frustrates the hell out of me. The USA liberals condescend to the current immigrants, who are mostly Spanish-speaking. Nobody did that for my great-great-grandparents who came over from Germany; nobody did that for my wife’s grandparents, who came from Poland and Ukraine; I could go on and on and on ad nauseam.
It’s why most of the posts on my blog (stop by sometime) tend to focus north of the border. I would go too nuclear focusing on the USA left’s idiocies.
Free Canada!
The resolution the Senate signed off on had something like 64 reasons for approving the war. Thanks to the lawyer influence, there was a lot of blathering and repetition. Boiled down, there were about 7 reasons. WMD’s were number 3. And that one wasn’t just to get the WMD’s, but also to prevent future development.
So why all the talk about WMD’s when it was only one part of the issue? Because every time Bush spoke, all he got were “How many WMD’s does Saddam have?”, “What kind of WMD’s does Saddam have” etc questions. If Bush was ever given the opportunity to give all the reasons for going in, they never showed it on TV.
If he had no WMD’s, how did he gas all those Kurds? How did the Polish Army manage to come across over a dozen artillery shells containing nerve gas? Saddam had plenty of time to evacuate that stuff to Syria, he apparently missed a few. Why did Iraq try to bribe Blix with $2 million if they had nothing to hide?
Iraq is a big place. We’d been there in the neighborhood of a year before we ran across those MIGs buried in the desert (and if I recall correctly, that was within a mile of one of our headquarters over there – the wind blew away enough sand for a tail to stick out).
“Maybe,
Maybe a little bit ambitious at this point. More focus has to be put on getting the current gov out, and what to do if it fails.
Posted by rob at May 21, 2005 10:41 PM”
I absolutely DISAGREE !!
We MUST change the system !!
All, even the ones that start out pure are eventually corrupt by power, so lead us not into temptation.
We must CHANGE THE RULES or nothing will change regardless of the parties name !!!
It’s soooo simple.
If I am elected with a majority government I WILL (see link below).
http://www.dwatch.ca/camp/RelsApr2805.html
Maybe,
Ok, so we agree to disagree, but based on your second last post, wouldn’t the CPC adopting the recommendations in your link as carved in stone be a step in removing the current gov.?
If the CPC were to take the high road, less on the past, more on policies and changes to combat the past, wouldn’t it give them the attention needed to succeed.
Now if they run that kind of platform and fail, what then. There still has to be planning for multiple outcomes, as know one knows how deep the nanny state is entrenched. The east seems willing to accept what they call “A little bit of corruption” as a trade off to maintain the current situation.
I obviously don’t feel that way, and don’t think corruption is acceptable, and am also willing to go to extremes, if it’s necessary and would make a difference, to change it, but there has to be a sensible logical approach.
The Debut
What is the Cotillion?
First and foremost, it is a celebration of the diverse voice that is the conservative woman. Not just one person can speak for us, and no one person should have that obligation. There are so many of us here and willing to sh…
Continuing the Dance
What is the Cotillion? First and foremost, it is a celebration of the diverse voice that is the conservative woman. Not just one person can speak for us, and no one person should have that obligation. There are so many of us here and willing to share…
Cotillion
Welcome to Cotillion
The Debut by Jody
What is the Cotillion? First and foremost, it is a celebration of the diverse voice that is the conservative woman. Not just one person can speak for us, and no one person should have that obligation. There are so many
The Presentation by Beth
Welcome, Ladies and Gentlemen, to the Inaugural of the Cotillion! Please allow me to introduce myself I’m a woman of wealth and taste I’ve been around for a long, long year Stole many a man’s soul and faith And I
What is the Cotillion?
What is the Cotillion? First and foremost, it is a celebration of the diverse voice that is the conservative woman. Not just one person can speak for us, and no one person should have that obligation. There are so…
What is the Cotillion?
What is the Cotillion? First and foremost, it is a celebration of the diverse voice that is the conservative woman. Not just one person can speak for us, and no one person should have that obligation. There are so…