Sunday, April 24, 2011

Daily Digest April 23, 2011



Hitting a sour note
Tories need to listen to B.C. on tankers

>>>>>>>>>>INFOS <<<<<<<<<<


From: Rebecca Gingrich

Happy Easter everyone

JUST BEAUTIFUL....Happy Easter.

This came around just in time for Easter.....keep it moving so that many may enjoy it! 

Click here: YouTube - On My Father's Side by The Barn Again Gang  

Yours to pass on, if'n your of a mind so to do
From: "Paul Arnold"
Subject: Prime Minister

No matter which party you support, this is well worth 20 minutes of your time at this
particularly critical point in our country’s history - to hear your Prime
Minister saying something that you will not see on television.
I know not all of you are political junkies, like me.  Most of us just
want to get on with our lives. I am reaching out to family and friends and
asking you to check out the link below. This is the most important election in
our lifetime.

It's hard to sift through all the rhetoric that is going on and will
continue until May 2, but I hope this helps to at least present
clearly, our current government's vision for the future.

Whatever your choice, please VOTE on May 2nd. It is your right and duty to
do so. Your voice matters!

Please forward this link to those who you feel need to hear this message.


From:Joerge Dyrkton
Subject: Brian Lee Crowley's "Fearful Symmetry" - A Commentary

Hello, Joe;

My review of Brian Lee Crowley's "Fearful Symmetry: The Fall and Rise of Canada's Founding Values" is now available. 

Some of your readers might want to check it out.  Thanks.

You can find it at the following link:

All the best,
Joerge Dyrkton, D.Phil.

From: Robert Ede
Subject: "Logjam" and waiting a la Joe Clark
To:, hill times <>
Tradition vs Rules of Order vs Constitution
Re: Constitutional 'logjam' could ensue if Harper wins minority and acts like majority government, say experts Hill Times Apr20/11
Great piece summarizing speculative positions on the varied hypothetical outcomes of the May 2/11 election and subsequent Pawn, Rook, Knight, King & Queen tactics.
(Dear Tim -Me thinks your biases might have peeked out Machiavellian-like - even you may not have been aware of the subtle fear-stoking that was inherent in the column.)
We must always remember that hypotheticals offer great exercise but we must be careful to base our Constitutional conclusions in Canada, upon our as-written BNA/Constitution and our rules of order and our traditions - i.e. traditions from the UK's system are not 100% transferable to our "similar in principle" system.
1) UK Constitution is not written - it's all tradition & precedent.
2) They have no GG, no Disallowance, no reservation, no withholding of Royal Assent.
Section 12 vs s.13 clearly states that the GG can decide "as an individual" a freedom/power that the Monarch has not enjoyed since 1688 and the introduction of Ministerial Responsibility.
3) In Great Britain, no one but an expert would ever know if the UK governors were following their 'constitution' on a particularly obscure point simply because it's unwritten. Worse over here, no one seems to care (even the experts that you quote) that since the passage of one simple Order in Council in 1940, the PM has usurped the GG's Privy Council  and therefore that WE are not following our as-written BNA/Constitution Acts fundamental hierarchy of checks and balances (see attached PC 1940-1121 - an emergency wartime measure that's temporary-ness seems to have been (in)conveniently forgotten).
4) As far as the possible outcome of the Conservatives returning with a minority and then actually presenting the SAME budget (never mind what they SAY during the writ period) AND THEN being defeated by the opposition parties that have just used it's ridiculous projections (40+% revenue increases over 5yr (from 2009-10) while Programs only increase 9% over same time) as the foundation of THEIR election fiscal wizardry (aka fool enough of the people .... just this once), I say the chances are slim of us ever reaching the hypothetical stage that your learned folk opined upon.
5) Always remembering that that in the King-Byng-thing of 1926, the PM (Rt Hon Mr King -Liberal) was denied a dissolution because another party (Conservatives) actually had obtained MORE seats in the 1925 elections albeit not a 50%+1 majority either.
Mr King had been propped up for some time by the western Progressive Party and when they voted against the Liberals in King's Hung Parliament, PM King lost power as a result of his reluctance to accept the outcome of the 1925 election & not simply because the GG refused a dissolution.
6) Further on point 3 - The experts you cite all have a vested interest in NOT discussing the implications of the "permanence" of PC1940-1121 because it undercuts all their life's work - why didn't they notice this anomoly OR why did they ignore it?
 Letter to editors on PC1940-1121 and the 2011 election
Robert Ede,

From: Brian Graff

For the DD:
Hello Joe
One article in today's Star paper has me very upset about the election - the ndp surge in quebec in particular. i had forgotten how bad the ndpers really are. see

In Quebec, NDP goes from invisible to in vogue
Showing your sovereignist or federalist colours, he (Mulclair) explains, invites derision from ideological opposites.
"But they're willing to put up an NDP sign," he insists, "because we're seen as neutral."
The party has also actively sought to court francophone voters ­ including nationalists.
In 2006, the party adopted its so-called "Sherbrooke Declaration," which recognized the specific case of Quebec and promoted asymmetrical federalism.
Though the party backed the controversial Clarity Act, which would give Ottawa a say in any future referendum question, Layton later came out against it and now says it would accept a 50 per cent-plus-one vote.
It backs forcing all Supreme Court justices to be bilingual. It backs applying Quebec's language law, Bill 101, to federally regulated businesses, like banks, in Quebec. It backs maintaining Quebec's proportion of seats in the House of Commons regardless of population changes.
Mulcair calls it "nation building."

So put all this together:
you have a national party that is happy to be seen as being "neutral" on keeping the country unified. wonderful.
you have a national party which accepts that 49.9999% of voters can have their rights as citizens of canada stripped away by 50.0001% of voters (yet alone people eleigible to vote) in a skewed vote on a skewed question.
you have a national party that rejects the democratic ideal of "one person one vote"
you have a national party which is also willing to give Quebecers special rights (through asymmetrical federalism) to affect the lives of other canadians while its citizens will not be affected, or reciprocally subject to the will of people in the rest of canada.

the combination of over-representation AND asymmetry is particularly problematic - it is like a kind of reverse colonialism.
i don't agree, but some canadians might accept that it might be reasonable to guarrantee a minority people disproportionate representation (if all else were equal), in order to protect their rights. OR it might be reasonable to allow a minority group some sovereignty or control or powers in some limited areas to protect themselves from being crushed by the majority in those areas - but doing both at the same time?
taking this combination to its extreme shows the problem more clearly: the policy means that quebecers would not be subject to few (or no) laws passed in parliament, while being able to dictate laws (and spending) to the rest of the country while being completely unaffected themselves! independence/separation when it comes to themselves, but still having control over the lives of others.

yes, in small part we already have this with CPP/QPP, and unfortunately Paul Martin agreed to asymmetry when he tried to get a deal with he provinces over healthcare. but the ndp seem to have no concept of democracy, or are willing to throw it away - all in order to win votes and to be politcally correct/cater to identity politics (towards quebec nationalism).
unfortunately, Ignatieff won't make much hay of this himself - he bought into the whole idea of "Quebec as a nation" that was pushed by so-called federalists within the Quebec wing of the federal Liberal Party - the idea was then grabbed onto by the Bloc and eventually all parties had to support it or risk losing seats in Quebec.

I had sort of seen the idea of a Liberal/NDP merger as being the only way to end having successive Conservative governments for the next decade - but my fear now is that should this merger ever happen, the Quebec wing of the NDP will be too strong to accept such a merger without the Liberals abandoning the legacy of Trudeau that the federal government have equal power in every province and that the democratic and civil rights of individuals be paramount over "Group rights"

And of course Harper would prefer to decentralise powers equally to all provinces, which certainly is not better than the NDP's position.
I am thoroughly depressed! I fear that this country is doomed.

brian graff

From: Larry Kazdan
Subject: Letter to Editor re:  McGill business 'guru'  Mintzberg fears a Harper majority,   Jay Bryan, Montreal Gazette April 22,  2011

Re: McGill business 'guru' Mintzberg fears a Harper majority,    Jay Bryan, Montreal Gazette April 22, 2011

Those who support corporate tax cuts argue that reduced profits will scare away investors and capital.  But then the argument is also made that costs will simply be passed on to consumers.  So which is it - will profits be reduced or will costs be passed on?  If the costs are simply passed on, then why are corporations so concerned?  And if they're not, then perhaps instead of fleeing the country, big businesses in energy and finance might just decide Canada is a good place to do business, and instead cut back on excessive corporate bonuses to top management.
Subject: Letter to Editor re:  Editorial: Ignatieff is legally right, but morally wrong,   Calgary Herald April 21, 2011

Re:  Editorial: Ignatieff is legally right, but morally wrong,   Calgary Herald April 21, 2011

The Harper Conservatives have depended on votes of the Bloc many times so the Calgary Herald should get off its high moral horse.  And if other parties do co-operate to defeat the Tory agenda of corporate tax cuts, untendered jets and expensive jails, the public wrath predicted by your editorial writers could well be dwarfed by the joy expressed by a majority of Canadians who support opposition parties.
Subject: Letter to Editor re:  Won't try to form  government from second place: Harper,   Althia Raj, Postmedia News April 2 1, 2011  

Re:  Won't try to form government from second place: Harper,    Althia Raj, Postmedia News April 21, 2011

Stephen Harper says he won't try to form government from second place.  But in a 1997 interview, Harper said, "I think you're going to face, someday, a minority Parliament, with the Liberals maybe having the largest number of seats.  But what will be the test is whether there is then any party in opposition that's able to form a coalition or working alliance with the others."  And of course, as Leader of the Opposition in 2004, he signed that letter with Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton, pointing out there were options other than calling an election if the Liberals lost a vote of confidence.  If there is any consistency in Harper's changing political principles, it is certainly the principle of expediency.

Subject: Letter to Editor re: Tax hikes unlikely to fund Dix's spending, Maureen Bader, The Province April 20, 2011

Re:  Tax hikes unlikely to fund Dix's spending,    Maureen Bader, The Province April 20, 2011

In a growing economy, corporations will prosper and tax revenues will rise whether tax rates are high or low.  There is no compelling reason for tax rates to be exceptionally low, unless one believes more funds should be available for chief executive bonuses.

From: Rebecca Gingrich
Subject: DD

Joe--I have a question for Marie Hooey.  Who does she suggest we vote for?  The Liberals instigated the SPP and of course Harper embraced it totally.  Lying to the people is a time honoured tradition in Canadian politics.  How can you tell a politician is lying?  Their lips are moving!!!
The hard fact is is that we have NO ONE to vote for because they all follow the dictates of the same masters.  Our vote is just a move to keep the masses placated and to give us the sense that we do have a say in the governance of this country.  Look behind the curtain--we have NO say.  We are nothing but puppets obeying the puppeteers.  We are supposed to believe that our young men and women are fighting for our country and our 'freedom' around the world while they are demeaned and starved when they come back.  No one since 1812 has attacked Canada but we are killing and being killed around the world to protect Canada?  While at the same time we are giving our country away to the only invaders we have ever had?
The most frightening part of the G20 was not what happened but that the law was on the books to allow it to happen.  The fact that the controllers didn't have a problem with this distinclty undemocratic and unCanadian action is fear inspiring.  How many other laws are on the books that we don't know about?  Now they can prevent us from growing our own food and seize our property without a warrant.  And we are still supposed to believe we are a democracy?  And don't forget all Parties voted for this. 
When was the last time a politician didn't lie to us???  As for civil liberties--we have not had them for many many years.  A stroke of a pen can remove them.  We are a feudal state--we are the serfs.  And electing one over the other will solve nothing.  Until we stand up for ourselves nothing will change. 

From: Lorimer Rutty
Subject: Marie Hooey

When Marie Hooey's ship dropped anchor at Port Hope, she wondered why the list was so pronounced.
Heavy with sound bytes, angered by hyperbole that smothered hers, confused and very tired she began to
question the ballast.
Those nasty politicians who tell lies; all lies! Those thieves! The mealy-mouthed media!
And the dysfunction at the blood-sport Ottawa colosseum!   Adjuva nos Deus!
The harbormaster suggested to Marie Hooey that she take a tall draft of bilge, pull down the blinds
and try to sleep it off.
Her day and night jitters will eventually simmer down, her boat will stay tied to the slip.
The blinds will filter the nasties.

From: Rebecca Gingrich
Subject: this is what is being shown on israeli TV--and yet our politicians
 all defend israel???
Mocking Jesus on Israeli TV - ????? ??? - The Crucifixion of "Yeshu"

From: Larry Kazdan
Subject: Letter to Editor re:  John Ivison: NDP surge is bad for the Bloc, and economic coherence, John Ivison  Apr 21, 2011 

John Ivison: NDP surge is bad for the Bloc, and economic coherence, John Ivison  Apr 21, 2011

The NDP program under Jack Layton will be good for democracy, good for the health and welfare of Canadians, and good for the economy.  And I have just given as much evidence as John Ivison has in the last line of his column, where he can't resist tacking on his contrary and gratuitous opinion.

From: "eehollingsworth"
Subject: Re: [ Daily Digest April 21-22, 2011

The best thing I've ever seen    Not enough people will see it what a shame

From: "Anthony
These sights below (emails above) are some of my favourites for letters, free speech… They don't sensor and are not politically correct. You will enjoy them and I am sure they will try to print what you have to say as you are a very good writer.

From: GLMcdowell

I just learned about strategic voting options in my area at STRATEGIC VOTING is absolutely essential if Canada is going to be a dynamic progressive country. We must vote for the party that has progressive policies and respects democracy. A party that has its head buried in the 19th century and following USA policy will not cut it for Canada in the 21st century. STRATEGIC VOTING - FOR A BETTER CANADA FOR ALL CANADIANS. (PASS THIS ON YOU YOUR SOCIAL NETWORK FRIENDS AND CONTACTS.) I just learned about strategic voting options in my area at STRATEGIC VOTING is absolutely essential if Canada is going to be a dynamic progressive country. We must vote for the party that has progressive policies and respects democracy. A party that has its head buried in the 19th century and following USA policy will not cut it for Canada in the 21st century. STRATEGIC VOTING - FOR A BETTER CANADA FOR ALL CANADIANS. (PASS THIS ON YOU YOUR SOCIAL NETWORK FRIENDS AND CONTACTS.)

link - Cheers

From: "Slavko"
Subject: RE: Mea culpa . .

Hi Joe,
I thank you for sending me the PC Party info.
I am not supporting Harper.
Let face it, Mr. Harper is fighting for his political life. If he does not get the majority he will be out.
Remember the last election, he was almost pushed out  after the election.
I honestly hope, we Canadians will elect a minority government and, as a consequence all the present leaders will be gone.

From: "Tommy"
Subject: RE: Agree or disagree with Marie

Rarely have I read such an angry and distorted diatribe hurled at any political party, politician or citizen of Canada. "Greedy, distracted, apathetic Canadians need to smarten up", writes this hysterical leftist propagandist with reference to farm subsidies, prisons of gay men and women, abortionists, pot smokers and Veterans [thank you Ms Hooey for the capitalized veteran; I feel so privileged]. And oh those awful Americans, terrible banks and greedy corporations. Surely the post-World War I conditions of the Weimar Republic are not in the cards for the most successful economy in the G20 group of nations. Yet I wonder to which country Ms Hooey would move if the Conservatives returned to power either as a minority or especially with a majority or will she take up a role as a brave dissident advocating what?. Has any Canadian politician ever campaigned to join the United States? And I do hope she understands that Harper government did not squander the surplus left by the Liberals. The whole amount was applied to reducing the national debt; why does she call that "squandering"?
Enough! I will not even try to debate her on drilling for oil in Canada's North [already being done by Canadian companies], buying fighter aircraft without motors [another producer], our loss of civil liberties [which ones have I lost without knowing about it], police officers making scads of money on overtime, and lastly  "King Steve" must really be pissing her off for some reason. May I respectively suggest that Ms Hooey get a life. Writing her distorted thinking is not her forte.
Tommy Thomas

From: "Paul Arnold"
Subject: The Great Debate
Check this out. It is a hoot.