Forget Danny, we’ve got Wall.

So the other day
the Premier
released figures
stating that the Liberal Green Shaft
would cost users of SaskPower (everyone) an extra $230 a
year.

Goodale questioned the figures. Fortunately for Ralph, Bob
Rae was in town and he took the role of attack dog calling
out the Premier.

“Premier Wall better just be ready for it. If he’s going
to get in as a leader of the Sask. Party and get into a
partisan debate, then he can expect the same in return. If
he wants to get into the ring, he should get into the
ring, and we’ll take him on,” Rae added.

And there ladies and gentlemen is the difference between the
Liberals and the CPC. Prime Minister Harper in Newfoundland and
Labrador limited his comments about Danny to, “He’s only
one vote.”

It would appear that Premier Wall is quite fine with being
called out.
Premier
Equates Green Shift To NEP
.

I guess Bob Rae is too busy trying to keep his leader from
putting both feet in to come
to Ralph’s
aid today.

Update: The Star Phoenix story:

“If we could build a time machine and go back in time before the National Energy Program . . . if you asked Mr. (Peter) Lougheed this question or others involved in politics at the time, maybe Mr. (Allan) Blakeney, if they could go back and try to draw attention to the fact that this particular policy would not just harm the West but harm the country’s economy, people would take that chance, people would want to be proactive with respect to that policy. I think we ought to be on this.
“We ought to be saying very clearly to the people of Saskatchewan, here are the impacts of all of these initiatives,” he told reporters outside his legislature office.

Cheers,
lance

Y2Kyoto: I Miss The Arctic Ice Cap

Lead story on the CBC National tonight!

We have news from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). They say: The melt is over. And we’ve added 9.4% ice coverage from this time last year. Though it appears NSIDC is attempting to downplay this in their web page announcement today, one can safely say that despite irrational predictions seen earlier this year, we didn’t reach an “ice free north pole” nor a new record low for sea ice extent.

Oh, wait….
But do be sure to send the item to every warmist-mongering journo you can think of, just to twist the ice pick a little.

Blog Notes

As you may have noticed, I’ve been occupied elsewhere the past few days. I’m in Atlanta, where I just finished giving a three day seminar that allowed for only a few minutes of email in the evenings. I have today off and then we’re off to four days of dog shows, before I begin the process anew in Toronto.
I’ll try to get some blogging in when I can, but I see I’ve left you in very capable hands. Thanks to everyone who has taken the time to post and to those of you minding your manners in the comments.

An Essay on the Matter of “Least Bad” Democracy

Government is, generally speaking, the political system by which a body of people are administered and regulated. As George Washington noted, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence ~ it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearsome master”. Barry Goldwater said that “government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away”. Ronald Reagan said that “the most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help”.

Democracy, as George Bernard Shaw noted, “is a form of government that substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few”. Oscar Wilde said that “democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people”. More exactly, perhaps, Thomas Jefferson said that “democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine”.

Perhaps we shouldn’t be too harsh, though; Winston Churchill did say that “democracy is the worst form of government we know of except for all the others“. (Still, Sir Winston also said that “the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter”.) Perhaps Voltaire was closest when he said that “an ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination” (probably not 😉

H. L. Mencken said, “Democracy is also a form of worship. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses.” Voltaire said that “in general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to another”. George Bernard Shaw said that “government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul”.

But H. L. Mencken said it best when he said, about democracy, that:

“Government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can’t get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods.”

Thomas Jefferson noted the biggest problems with all this, as follows:

  • “Most bad government has grown out of too much government.”
  • “I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.”
  • “Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”

Simply put: there is too much state redistribution and regulation auctioneering going on. Our government steals too much freedom and pillage to reward panting and pining parasites who are unwilling to be responsible and work, at the expense of the labor of the responsible industrious. That will eventually kill democracy. Is that what we want?

So, as it is not likely that arguing against government or democracy per se are viable political alternatives in Canada for the foreseeable future, and that’s probably a good thing, the best available solution to our problems with government in Canada for the foreseeable future can be found by combining Mencken’s and Jefferson’s results into the following prescription:

In every election, each citizen should vote for the party or candidate that they think will be the least bad auctioneer, in the sense that they will do the least amount of auctioneering.

Unfortunately, too many citizens feel that because they must vote for the least bad alternative, because there is never a most good alternative, they should just skip the whole exercise, or to be extra dashing, make the extra useless effort to spoil their ballot.

Some liberals might say, for example: I’m not going to vote for the liberals because they want to lower income tax and raise consumption tax, and that is not liberal. Or some conservatives might say, for example: I’m not going to vote for the conservatives because they want to raise income tax and lower consumption tax, and that is not conservative. (As were the cases in the last election.)

And for bonus points, nowadays some of those people will run around in blog comments and stamp their little feet and insist that because the party they want to vote for didn’t do some particular thing they want or wanted, not only are they not going to vote, but that you are not a valid supporter of that party if you disagree with the little-foot stamper.

People who think like that are being irresponsible citizens; childish at best, evil at worst. In a well-functioning society, and Canada is a well-functioning society, changes happen at the margins. Under these circumstances, the responsible thing to do is to study the data, think carefully, decide who you think is the least bad selection (at the margin), and vote it.

Sure, if you care enough about it, go ahead, form a new party, get on the ballot, win a plurality in the auctioneer contest, and then you can be auctioneer. But you had better be ready to give the people what they want, not what you want, or you won’t win a plurality.

Until then, though, it is what it is. Plato said that “the price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men”. Until your personal political party is in power, it is your civic duty to study the alternatives and to vote for the one you think will do the least amount of auctioneering.

It’s the least you can do.

Turning The Lights On

The recent shameful treatment of Sarah Palin and her family by the American media and by our own CBC’s Neil McDonald put on open display a disturbing sense of entitlement on the part of some progressives to use questionable tactics, including that of attacking politicians’ family members, without compunction, when the target holds conservative views. It may be the case that the apparent lack of shame in such ongoing, open, unashamed
displays is just the cultural fallout of a received wisdom that holds conservatism as a force for bad in the world and the left a force for good. No matter what the cause, though, something has clearly gone wrong when it gets to the point where the political views of, say, a thoroughly decent, hardworking conservative/right voter who loves his family, gives to charity — maybe goes to church –and who participates in community events and treats everyone he encounters with respect are presented as clear evidence of a bigoted, warlike, racist and misogynist world view, while the political views of any self-identifying leftist, no matter how ridiculous or unrealistic those views, are always presented as being somehow thoroughly grounded in high-minded ideals like peace, justice and fairness.
The idea that the left is nothing but pure, sweet goodness is increasingly being challenged by the more morally-consistent, clear-headed members of the progressive left, some of whom have found themselves, especially after 9-11, unable to abide by the sort of moral blackout wrought by such unexamined self-righteousness. No group of people is immune to ignorance or inconsistency, but one of the differences between the prog/left and conservatives is that, in the Canadian context, Conservatives who espouse openly racist views simply do not rise within their political parties, nor thrive for long in the official grass roots of their party, unless they cease making such utterances. Unfortunately, this is not so much the case on the left, where relatively hateful and even fascistic views thrive comfortably at the official edges.
Progressive Canadian blogger Terry Glavin is among those who are turning the proverbial klieg lights on the darker forces on the left. He does not oppose anyone’s right to express or hold controversial views, but he continues to duly note, with some concern, the ease with which such views may be shrugged off within the progressive political sphere. In this
post he looks at a few Canadian examples, including that of a young New Democrat, later a Liberal, who found a comfortable home in the grass roots of these parties despite his arguably anti-Semitic views.
Glavin doesn’t demonize the young man for his views; he simply notes, with concern, the “utter ordinariness” of such views within certain milieus on the left.
Check out the whole site, including this positive development.

“Behind the Housing Crash – Confessions from an Insider”

Timing is everything…
book%20release%20image.JPG
“Behind the Housing Crash – Confessions from an Insider”

Full of stories guaranteed to make your blood boil, bring shame to the banking industry, and packed full of charty-goodness (35 charts no less!) this has been the single largest project I’ve ever embarked on. I did my best to write a clear, concise, but above all, entertaining book that I hope achieves its aim of explaining what happened, how the housing crash came to be, and why your house is all of the sudden worth $150,000 less than what it used to be.

By our own Captain Capitalism! His goal is to outsell Nancy Pelosi – we have enough hourly readers to accomplish that!
You can check out more, including how to order at Amazon.

Have you asked your Candidate about the HRC’s?

Stageleft comments on Joesph Brean’s article on the HRC’s definition of their purview.

There are a lot of unpopular thoughts out there folks, a lot of narrow mindedness, a lot of bigotry, and a lot of racism, and it needs to be confronted head-on using facts, reality, mockery, and ridicule – not by authoritarian commissions that are already allowing themselves to be willingly misused telling us what we can and cannot say, and decided what is, or is not, in or out of bounds.

Cheers,
lance

The Bulldog Become a Mouse

While UK soldiers in Afghanistan fight and die keeping the barbarians at bay, the socialists at home give away the farm. Wherever this is going, it’s got an ugly end:

It is almost unbelievable that this should occur in a modern, democratic, Western country, and, moreover, under a government that claims to be liberal, and to care about the right of women and homosexuals among others. But, tracing the actions of the pro-Islamic Labour Party, and of modern liberalism more generally, it should have been predictable. Modern liberalism is not a force for human rights and equality (though it still uses these terms where they can be of use in breaking down British tradition); it is a selfish urge for freedom for one’s own self – others be damned. Multiculturalism frees the liberal from the demands of ‘culture.’ Mass immigration frees him from the need to know his history. Invoking the Inquisition of three hundred years ago frees him from having to confront the reality of Islamic fundamentalism. The establishment of sharia law no doubt frees him from holding any position whatsoever.

More @ American Diplomacy:

But many in the west do deny it. They ignore the clear evidence of the goal of Islamising the west. They choose to believe instead that the reason for Islamist terror lies in the wrongs the west has done to the Islamic world —Iraq or Palestine, discrimination or Islamophobia. Indeed, even to speak in this way is to invite the deadly label of Islamophobia — a term invented to shut down legitimate and vital debate about Islamism. Far from defending core liberal values that are thus singled out for destruction, such people thus side with or appease those who attack them. So Europe — bastion of free speech — attacked those newspapers that published and re-published the Mohammed cartoons. And liberals committed to human rights march on the streets of London, behind banners saying Free Iraq and Free Palestine, shoulder to shoulder with Islamists who believe in death to gays.

ht: Sounder

Navigation