Going where no calculator has gone before – correcting the Globe and Mail’s math.
Inspired by Hamas, Reuters best headline ever.
Remember – it’s not anti-Semitic to criticize Israel.
C-10, censorship, Liberal outrage and double standards.
Oh, and by the way? Removing government funding for “provocative” films is not “censorship”. It’s called “grow up and make movies people will pay money to see.”
Add yours in the comments.
The government should not be funding ‘movies’ with tax dollars. Period. Let them set up foundations and get private support. If they can’t find private money to film it, it isn’t going to be missed by any taxpayer.
Obama’s politics of hope is actually nothing more than a politics of oversimplification. By capitalizing purely on the positive connotations of certain words skillfully pulled from the “pool of stock expressions”, he has firmly driven sober thinking from the political process, and has introduced a politics of emotion at which he excels more than any other candidate. For this reason, Obama is the most dangerous candidate seeking the presidency.
Rest here
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/mar/08030507.html
Stephane Dion Just Became More Unpopular
Which is a pretty difficult thing to do. But if anyone can do it, Mr.Dion can. His progressive comrades are a little ticked off that he didn’t bother to show up today for a crucial vote on a bill which they believe creates a slippery slope for abortion rights. The bill has some notable supporters in the Conservative blogging community. In short, the bill would protect a woman’s right to choose, in both senses of the term, by protecting unborn children from criminal acts which would harm it. So if a person maliciously stabs a woman in the stomach and kills a fetus, depriving the choice of that woman, that criminal is going to be charged with more than just a crime against the mother. It’s something which many Conservatives, myself included, have supported in the past. Unfortunately, there’s a fear of an erosion of abortion rights. To which I would say: what rights? There are no abortion laws in Canada. As the progressives are well aware of. So what were the reactions to the bill making it past the second reading by a vote of 147-133? First, Stephane Dion was eulogized in the progressive feminist community:
Monsieur Stephane Dion
Sir, while you were absent from the House of Commons today, a vote was held. The vote in question allowed Bill C-484 to pass into committee. Because you saw fit not to whip your party’s vote, because it did not interest you sufficiently to attend, your leadership will now come under harsh scrutiny. This Bill is an insult to the intelligence of Canadians and a blatant attempt to undermine the ability of women to maintain the right to bodily self determination and personal autonomy. This Bill is a bald faced attempt to enshrine in law a definition of life that precedes birth and creates criminal precedent for ending that newly defined life. Mr. Dion, while I sincerely hope this Bill is killed in committee, your inaction and abandonment of Canadian women’s rights has defeated any faith I might have had for your growth as a leader. You are clearly unfit for the job[…]
[Read the whole thing. Pretty Shaved Ape does an excellent “dressing down” of Stephane Dion. First class stuff.] …-
http://unambig.blogspot.com/2008/03/stephane-dion-just-became-more.html
Heh – Jack Layton was just on CNN’s Lou Dobb’s show. Dobbs is quite ‘left’, against NAFTA, quite protectionist of US manufacturing etc.
Remember, most Canadians don’t know or understand the US governmental system, and certainly, most Americans don’t know or understand the Canadian parliamentary system.
So, Layton is presented as the ‘leader of the Canadian New Democratic Party’. Right there, I’ll bet most Americans will view him as the leader of the Democratic Party. They won’t know that he’s actually the leader of a two-bit party in the House, is not the Official Opposition..
But, Layton, quite understandably, wants to be the Official Opposition. I don’t blame him; anyone would do the same. After all, the Liberals, who are nominally our Official Opposition, don’t take the job seriously and are instead, active in defamation and smear partisan politics.
So, Layton was presented as, effectively, a VIP in Canada. And he played it to the hilt. Leaning back with Pompous Assurance of His Wisdom, and informing us that jobs have been lost in Canada, and the US…to China. Why?
Because of the Evil Multinationals and Globalization. Heh.
Layton doesn’t inform us that the real reason is because his dearly loved unionists have focused, with their tunnel vision, on wages, wages, wages and benefits – driving up the costs so high that manufacturers and businesses can’t afford to operate in Canada. That’s why they’ve left.
I know that Layton and company feel that the function of industries is Jobs. Not production of goods and services. Nope; that’s irrelevant. The only function of an industry is: Jobs.
And if that industry can’t sell its products; if people don’t want to buy its products – heck, then, the Function of Government is to use taxpayer dollars to subsidize those industries. Because, the purpose of an industry is not to manufacture goods and services that people want and will buy. No. The purpose is: jobs. And the duty of a govt is to keep those jobs. Even if it does take billions from the taxpayer…
It was a fun interview. Not for what Layton said, but for the fun of the fake image that he was presenting. Heh – the leader of the [new] Democratic Party (does he have the majority in the Senate?..er…House?)..Jack even told us that he had one of his people down in New York at a meeting about…; And that he was insisting that the PM Harper apologize to Americans for ‘Obamagate’…and so on.
It was Pomposity Popeye. It was for Canadians; he’s after votes in Canada.
ET; Layton so looked like a used car salesman. What I thought was funny is Dobbs and Layton acted like they were on the same side, just plain weird.
Chretien dips his toe into the U.S. election choices for Dems….
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080306.wchretblack0306/BNStory/National/home
” Mr. Chrétien responded to a question about the U.S. Democratic Party’s leadership race and said he didn’t want to pick a favourite — although he knows one candidate personally and thinks she’d be a good president.
“Hillary Clinton was the first lady and on many occasions sat next to me at meetings and she’s very well read, very knowledgeable and a very capable lady no doubt in my mind,” he said.
“So I’d feel good if she were to win, but perhaps the other guy is better, but I don’t know. So why’d you (ask me that),” he responded to the questioner, drawing laughs from the audience.”
http://tinyurl.com/3a8ck2
Former PM doesn’t speak, doesn’t vote….
While the libs,cbc, and dippers are wallowing in the mud of ‘naftagate’ I wonder if they will stumble upon the story of the 2000 U.S. election. I doubt it,but way back then the ambassador to the U.S. came out and declared that Canada would be better off with Gore as president. I forget the chap’s name,something like Raymond Martin,or maybe Pearson.
Iberia — I don’t know of any government programs anywhere that do not have some criteria by which those receiving funding have to qualify — usually they are called program guidelines. Can you think of any other program where everyone who applies gets money? — A while ago I was at a writer’s conference where someone was explaining that one reason a lot of Canadian garbage is published is because small publishers can get money out of government just for publishing a new Canadian author — so they try to round up anyone who qualifies (often very bad writers) and collect government money without worrying about whether or not the stuff is salable. This is what happens when anyone who applies gets funded and it is not a good use of taxpayer’s money.
http://www.dominionpaper.ca/features/2003/10/20/anybody_bu.html
From 2003, regarding Canadian ambassador to the U.S., Raymond Chretien, and his interference in the 2000 U.S. election…
“Bush finally declared victory in the last Presidential election, the Prime Minister’s nephew, Raymond Chretien, stirred up controversy by making a speech that implied Democratic candidate Al Gore would be easier for Canada to work with. Historically, of course, Democratic US administrations generally are easier for Canadian governments to work with than Republican administrations. Lawrence Martin, Globe and Mail columnist and author of several books on Canada-US relations, puts it this way: “This is a problem that runs through our history with the US–whenever there’s a Republican administration in power it is more difficult for Canadian governments, [and] particularly Liberal governments which are usually in power here, to have good relations because of the ideological divide–they’re more right-wing and we don’t tend to agree with them.”
So the MSM’s message is clear: Canadians should blame the Harper gov’t for a chill in relations if Obama assumes the presidency. If Dion were to become PM before then however, and McCain assumes the presidency and relations sour over the LPC’s recent history of playing on anti-American, anti-Republican sentiment in the Canadian election, blame the Dion Liber ……. the McCain administration because it’s Republican in stripe.
JM:”First job fair for gays – Mainstream employers seek `the best talent'” — isn’t this discriminatory? I don’t think you can favour gays over heterosexuals for job placements. The Charter forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Also posted in March 7 Reader Tips:
I’m a little late getting here, but did anyone else catch The Agenda last night on the CPC’s supposed “censorship” of Canadian films?
What a whitewash. I tried to comment on their site but had to go through the rigmarole of registering, so I said the heck with it.
Of four panelists, one being Jonathan Kay of the National Post, Charles McVety, an evangelical Christian pastor, gave the most spirited (no pun intended), informed, and informative opinion on why the bill being proposed isn’t censorship. Kay started out well but petered out in the end.
The Agenda obviously wanted to frame the CPC’s support of this bill–first proposed by the Liberals years ago, as McVety pointed out, at which time there was no hue and cry from the MSM–as a response to the “far right Christian” voice in Canada.
Just a load of hogwash and such a devious ploy to make it seem as though PMSH has “a hidden, far-right agenda.” I’m weary of this game.
It seemed that Jonathan Kay might have liked to back up some of what Pastor McVety was saying, as opposed to the other two panelists who were out-and-out “this is censorship” cheerleaders, but he left the poor pastor hanging out to dry.
‘Intersting how The Agenda put Pastor McVety “against” three other panel members, the usual tactic on this program and so many others: one lone, small-c conservative voice crying in the wilderness with the majority of the panel on the opposite side of the issue, or sitting on the fence.
Given the stacking of this particular deck, McVety did an admirable job, and each time the “moderator,” Steve Pakin, smugly tried to put words into McVety’s mouth, I wanted to wring his neck.
You know I don’t mean that. 😉