Which right wing Canadian party would you rather vote for?

Monday, December 26, 2016

Recycling is a communist plot to give jobs to the lower classes

Recycling is a communist plot to give jobs to the lower classes.

It is so obviously a lefty conspiracy by environmentalists in an attempt to give high paying jobs to the lower classes for sifting through our garbage and "recycling" it in to products that they just sell right back to us.

What we really should be doing...

Start throwing all your garbage in the same basket. Don't bother to recycle at all.

If your local city decides they want to run recycling programs, fine, let them pay for it, but you should demand a tax rebate since you don't want your garbage recycled and kindly tell them that not everyone believes in that environmental nonsense about recycling.

Long live Donald Trump.

Wednesday, November 9, 2016

Donald Trump wins the US Presidency

Last year I predicted Donald Trump will win the US Presidency.

And I was right.

I even made money off of it, because I made a wager online with a gambling website from the UK that allows people to bet on who will win elections. Got pretty good odds too because everyone thought Hillary was going to win.

I was worried too. In the weeks leading up to Donald Trump's victory there was some nasty stuff in the media.

First there was all those rape allegations from women who say they were underage when Donald Trump raped them at sex parties. I am calling BS on that. They might have been underage, but if they lied about their age to go to a sex party with Donald Trump then I am guessing they were getting paid for it. Which means they must be prostitutes and you cannot trust the word of a prostitute.

Then there was those comments Donald Trump said on a bus with a hot mic...

And honestly, I couldn't care less.

So what if he was bragging. Women love it when rich men fondle them and then give them diamonds and stuff. Gold Diggers love free stuff and they put out like any other prostitute to get it. Women are just like that. And if Donald Trump is fondling you, guaranteed you are thinking about money at the time.

And Hillary Clinton really is a nasty woman.

Nobody likes her. Not even her husband, hence why he slept with so many other women. Now that her political career is down the drain, I bet Bill will divorce her so he can marry a younger woman.

However I should note Trump isn't much better. Divorced multiple times. Lots of kids that we know about, more probably that are kept quiet due to lawsuits.

I bet Trump will snorting cocaine off of the breasts of so many prostitutes it will make JFK jealous.

The whole thing about Trump is that he is exactly what America needs.

A quick kick in the butt.

Too many Americans are lazy do nothings, craving after cozy union jobs.

Trump is going to scrap unions. Make people work for their money without all the delays from unions striking. Teachers, road workers, postal employees. Scrap all the unions. Bunch of lazy buggers who don't deserve the higher pay they are getting.

Get rid of NAFTA.

Get rid of all the trade deals that America has with China, India, Taiwan, Japan, Korea, whatever. Just get rid of all the cheap junk that we are letting into the USA.

Then you know what will happen?

Americans who want buy furniture will need to buy stuff MADE IN THE USA.

None of this cheap junk from IKEA or built in China.

Americans who want to buy food will have to buy food GROWN IN THE USA.

None of these weird vegetables from overseas. Freaking vegans are hurting American farmers. It is time for them to grow up and eat meat too.

Americans who want to buy a car will have to buy vehicles BUILT IN THE USA.

None of these cheap imports from Asia or Europe. Time for American cars for Americans!

Now I admit, pulling out of NAFTA will be bad for Canada. At least initially, but when Canadians start doing the same things: Buying food, cars, furniture, etc all made in Canada, then we will benefit from our economy being boosted. Canadian money STAYING in Canada.

At which point America and Canada will be doing so well, people will be demanding Trump become President for Life.

Long Live Trump. President for Life!

Saturday, October 31, 2015

I cannot believe Canadians elected Trudeau

While I have never been a fan of Stephen Harper, I never thought Justin Trudeau would win a majority government.

I do however suspect that Stephen Harper deliberately lost the election.

I think he wanted to retire. Get out of politics. Relax.

And who can blame him? Scandal after scandal, Mike Duffy trying to implicate Harper in an illegal bribery scandal.

Time to retire and get out of politics. Never be seen again.

All that stuff about "barbaric practices" and creating a hotline? I think that was jumping the shark right there. It was too much. Allowing that nonsense cost Harper the election and I think he allowed it on purpose because he WANTED TO LOSE.

A whole bunch of stuff happened during this election that makes me suspicious that Harper wanted to lose on purpose. I am not going to list them all, but that barbaric practices hotline was certainly the biggest hint that Harper lost on purpose.

Which makes me wonder if Trudeau is being set up to fail.

Let the Liberals govern for a little while, fail completely, and then 4 years from now it will time for change again and Canadians will be ready for the Conservatives again.

Oh and Mulcair? Puhlease. That guy didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell. Freaking communist bearded hippy who should go back to the 1960s and just stay there.

Monday, October 26, 2015

I predict Donald Trump will win next year

So I have been watching the Republican primaries in the USA and there are ridiculous number of candidates and the only one who even stands out from the rest of them and is recognizable is Donald Trump.

He is also the only one who speaks his mind.

Everyone else is basically a nobody next to him. Most of them I look at their name and then go "Who?" and forget their name 5 minutes later.

But Donald has staying power.

He might say some controversial things sometimes, and I am pretty sure he has been on cocaine since the 1980s, but he is the only one who even remotely stands out.

I predict Donald win will. Easily.

Hillary will get trounced by him.

And Bernie Sanders? Ha. That guy, even if he managed to beat Hillary in the primaries has zero chance of winning. He is too much of an elitist / college degree type person. He might be popular with young people who went to college, but against Donald Trump he would be painted as a communist sympathizer and communists will never ever win in the USA.

So it is Trump all the way. Trump guaranteed. I would put money on it.

Friday, January 31, 2014

Canadian AK-47

I just love this picture.

Real Men use Guns and Crossbows

I find all the fuss about the Hunger Games and archery recently is rather funny.

In my opinion real men use guns - and sometimes crossbows, because crossbows are really badass.

And okay, maybe compound bows. Compound bows are pretty great for hunting.

But wimpy recurve bows like Katniss Everdeen? Or longbows? I am sorry. They look pretty lame.

From what I can tell most of the fuss is from teenage girls and young women who have probably never even held either a bow or a gun in their lives.

You want to see a real weapon? Look at Daryl Dixon's crossbow in The Walking Dead. Effing awesome.

Now I want to point out something wonderful.

I live in Canada. I am proud to be a Canadian. But I am also proud of Canada's laws concerning crossbows.


Because you don't need a license to buy a crossbow. Nada. Just go into any hunting store that has crossbows, plunk down $800 to $1200 and you can get yourself a crossbow. No license whatsoever.

Same goes with compound bows. No license needed to buy one. Costs about $500 to $1000 for everything you need.

Now if you want to hunt with it, that is a different story. You need a hunting license and hunting tags, which is really easy to get. And then it is just a matter of waiting until hunting season.

Or depending on what you are hunting for, eg. hunting grouse, wild turkey, waterfowl, then there is less restrictive hunting seasons.




The end is near for Stephen Harper's political career

I have not wrote on this blog for awhile but I think I will start doing so again.

The reason is because the end is near for Stephen Harper's political career and it is time for new leadership for the Conservative Party.

With all the scandals Stephen Harper is now the butt of jokes in much the same way Rob Ford is. For the first time in years it has become clear that it is time for change.

Unfortunately that change is likely to be the Liberal party. A bunch of middle-of-the-road socialists who like to sit on the fence most of the time.

Or worse, the lefty NDP nutjobs with their bleeding hearts which would spend everything on health care, the environment, education, etc.

It makes me realize that the Green Party (which is fiscally conservative but environmentally friendly) actually sounds like a realistic option now.

I am okay with the Green Party being tough on the oil and coal industries. Totally fine with it. Better than the laissez faire write-me-a-cheque approach that Stephen Harper has been taking. Everyone knows Stephen Harper has been on the payroll of the Alberta oil industry since the Reform Party years.

And then there is the Keystone oil pipeline - which the Conservative Party is desperate to get built so they can get millions of dollars in kickback money. If they don't get that oil pipeline built with the cooperation of the Americans then the Conservative Party may indeed run out of money when their sponsors in the Alberta oil industry decide maybe it is time for change.

Which makes you realize what Canadians vote for doesn't really matter. What matters is what the Alberta oil tycoons think and do.

Friday, April 30, 2010

Harper flip flops on Abortion

CANADA - For the first time since taking office Prime Minister Stephen Harper embraced a solid, social-conservative policy of the right — refusing to have Canada support abortion in foreign-aid projects.

This was a bit stunning to political observers because it meant Harper was flip flopping on his own agenda. For four years now he has avoided any controversial issues that scares off many women, urban and centrist voters... but he managed to do all three when Harper branded his government as anti-abortion.

Harper, according to Conservative-caucus sources, was not leaning this way two months ago, and made that clear to his MPs in March. What is even weirder is that Stephen Harper rarely flip flops on an issue. He usually sticks with it no matter how stupid the idea is.

Its a divisive issue even within the Conservative Party. Some of us are pro-choice and others are anti-abortion. Since abortion is legal in Canada and a whopping 70% of Canadians support the right to abortion and since the Conservative Party only has a minority government its really political suicide to portray your political party as anti-abortion.

Hence why Stephen Harper has avoided the issue for so long.

Here's what happened:

The Liberals made a motion that called on Canada to support the “full range” of family planning initiatives in foreign aid. The motion, sponsored by Liberal MP Bob Rae, also read in part: “the Canadian government should refrain from advancing the failed right-wing ideologies previously imposed by the George W. Bush administration in the United States which made humanitarian assistance conditional upon a ‘global gag rule’ that required all non-governmental organizations receiving federal funding to refrain from promoting medically sound family planning.”

Stephen Harper initially argued at a special caucus meeting on the day of the vote for his party to avoid the ideological trap, and to quietly vote in favour of the motion.

But the Conservative caucus, which accoridng to insiders is roughly evenly divided between pro-choice and anti-abortion sentiments, had another idea.

They believed that the mention of George W. Bush gave Conservatives a way to oppose the motion — Canada’s Parliament shouldn’t be voting on policies of another government.

Harper then allowed himself to be persuaded because too many of the caucus members were in favour of opposing the motion on the technicality. When he closed the caucus meeting, he cited some Mahatma Gandhi wisdom about a leader needing to heed his followers, and agreed the Conservatives, against his initial instincts, should oppose the motion, thus flip flopping on the issue.

When the Commons voted on the motion, the motion failed to pass. Thus Canada would be the only G8 country which would be spending money on abstinence groups overseas (which we all know from experience, abstinence doesn't work) which the other 7 members of the G8 support foreign aid that includes abortion clinics.

In the late 1980s, in a memo to then Reform Party leader Preston Manning, Harper laid out the need for the fledgling party to build coalitions with the Christian right wing, which he described as key to the Conservative base. “I believe that the Reform Party cannot afford to lose moderate pro-life voters,” said the memo, which was revealed in William Johnson’s biography of Harper a few years ago.

So from Harper's perspective this is just an ideological hat tipping to his right wing Christian supporters. Guaranteed votes from people who were already voting for him anyway. Plus it made his caucus happy.

But what about the next election? This controversy, that and the ongoing torture/war crimes issue, could stay with the Conservatives until the next election... The last thing the Conservatives need is to be seen as anti-abortionist, corrupt war criminals who are hiding something.

Oh and if our unemployment rate remains high and national debt growing, economically inept too.

Sunday, December 7, 2008

Stephen Harper goes AWOL

CANADA - Somehow the urgency of the recession has eluded Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who needlessly provoked a constitutional crisis in the midst of global economic peril unmatched since the Great Depression, and a governor general who last week abetted the PM's recklessness by overturning precedent in granting him the parliamentary adjournment he sought in order to save his skin.

So now he, and his government, are effectively on vacation until January 2009, while the country slides deeper into recession. A recession that some forecasters expect will claim 600,000 jobs, in addition to the hundreds of thousands of Canadians thrown out of work in the manufacturing, auto, forestry and other sectors in the last two years.

Relief will have to wait at least the better part of two months, until late January, when Stephen Harper's government finally tables a stimulus budget, which must then be debated and might well be defeated if the opposition parties conclude it lacks sufficient economic stimulus.

That's seven lost weeks, at a minimum, when Stephen Harper's political career will assume primacy over the economy.

A lot can happen, we've learned this year, in seven weeks. Entire national banking systems have been exposed as insolvent and in need of a state-financed bailout lest the global system collapse. Oil, wheat and other commodities have rapidly plunged in value, taking oil patch and farm incomes down with them. Everyday Canadians have endured huge losses on their retirement nest eggs invested in the stock market. The North American auto industry teeters on the brink of extinction. Iceland has declared bankruptcy. Hungary and Pakistan are hooked up to fiscal IVs provided by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

That's seven weeks of neglected measures to curb further job loss. To soften the blow for those who have been put on the street. And to create new jobs by investing in a sustainably prosperous 21st century economy. One based on knowledge rather than brawn industries. That develops and exploits alternative energy sources.

The contrast with our fellow industrialized nations could not be more stark. Collectively, the U.S., Europe and Asia have committed $2.6 trillion (U.S.) to jump-start economic growth, in addition to more than $2.7 trillion so far to bail out a crippled global banking system. The pump priming and financial-system bailouts are huge, in part to inspire consumer and business confidence – equal to 7 per cent of GDP in Germany, 16 per cent in China, 21 per cent in Britain.

The figure is 6 per cent for the U.S., where president-elect Barack Obama says: "We are facing an economic crisis of historic proportions ... The truth is we do not have a minute to waste" in restoring economic health. Obama pledges federal spending aimed at saving and creating more than seven million jobs.

Ottawa boasts it has put stimuli in place equal to 2 per cent of GDP. It is referring to $2.5 billion (Canadian) in tax cuts implemented last year before the world economy went haywire, and that were accompanied by $4.3 billion in spending cuts, for a net stimulus that is in fact negative.

Rather than jolt new life into an economy slipping into what Ottawa acknowledges will be a recessionary period over the six months, ending next March 31 – itself an overly optimistic forecast in the opinion of most economists – Ottawa's economic statement, or fiscal update, of Nov. 27 actually called for $2 billion in reduced spending. Advertised as a document to reassure Canadians, the statement recalled Abraham Lincoln's dismissal of a debating rival's argument: "As thin as the homeopathic soup that was made by boiling the shadow of a pigeon that had starved to death."

Robert Fairholm, director of economic forecasting at the Centre for Spatial Economics, one of the four companies the federal finance ministry relies on for its economic forecasts, calls Ottawa's rosy projections a "fantasy." He says in the absence of substantial new federal stimulus, the Canadian economy will shrink 0.1 per cent next year, in contrast to Ottawa's stated expectation of 0.3 per cent growth. By contrast, boosting the economy by even $15 billion worth of federal investment would likely yield 1.6 per cent growth next year.

The IMF, an agency traditionally averse to deficit spending, last month exhorted affluent nations to invest in their economies by an amount equal to 2 per cent of GDP – about $30 billion in Canada's case.

Canada joined the consensus of Group of 20 summiteers in Washington in November that signed on to that target. Yet a day after delivering his Nov. 27 stand-pat economic statement, the strongest tonic federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty chose to offer was, to paraphrase William Lyon Mackenzie King on conscription, stimulus if necessary, but not necessarily stimulus.

Flaherty's response Nov. 28 was: "I hope the economy will be strong and we won't need to have any additional stimulus in the Canadian economy, but if it's necessary to do so, we will do so." Hope? That doesn't sound very optimistic, and it also sounds like he doesn't plan to do anything about it but sit back and "hope" things change.

What parts of a global economy in turmoil is the minister unable to see when he draws back the blackout curtains at the Ministry of Finance? Not his Oshawa riding, apparently, where year-over-year Employment Insurance claims have shot up by 96 per cent.

Reflecting widespread U.S. sentiment that the lame-duck Bush administration has been preoccupied with bailing out Wall Street and ignoring Main Street, David Miller said of Flaherty's fiscal update: "I'm very concerned the statement does not show the urgency needed to address the economic challenges Canada is facing."

The Toronto mayor added: "It's important that as the government addresses the credit crisis (it) ensures that our manufacturing industries, our construction industries and other places that are being affected have relief, and not just the banking sector."

Pump priming doesn't agree with everyone, of course. Short-term stimulus packages, says Don Drummond, chief economist at TD Bank, "don't really generate very much short-term stimulus and they very quickly become long-term structural problems."

Drummond, a former official in the federal finance ministry, adds that "Canada is not the problem – we're the only developed economy in which employment and consumption are still rising. Our economy's been hit by international events, not by domestic events."

Like many economists, Drummond also casts a baleful eye on infrastructure spending, since putting a spade in the ground usually comes only after a long stretch of planning, by which time the economy has recovered – but the spending, and its potential inflationary impact, remains.

That was a widely held view at the outset of the Great Depression, when Washington remained obsessed with balanced budgets, which even Franklin D. Roosevelt felt the need to promise in his successful campaign for office in 1932.

It does seem a bit odd to dwell on the possibility of mismanaged government spending in the immediate aftermath of one of the global private sector's most colossal blunders of all time – a U.S. housing boom spawned by often predatory marketing of subprime, or junk mortgages that Wall Street bundled and distributed until the toxic waste, as it's now known on the Street, had contaminated the balance sheets of almost every major bank on the planet.

While government doesn't have a monopoly on misallocating capital, it is the spender of last resort when consumers and businesses are too fearful or impoverished to spend. And only government can spend truly big – to build a transcontinental railway, wage a war, finance the early cyberspace network that became the Internet.

Drummond's argument aside, Canada is hardly isolated from external shocks, though it's true the impact here has always tended to lag the onset of disturbances in the U.S. and elsewhere. The recent announcement of the closures of two Magna parts plants north of the GTA, with a loss of 850 jobs, came six months after the first credible rumours that Magna customer General Motors Corp. might actually be close to bankruptcy.

Liberal economist Robert Reich, labour secretary in the Clinton administration and an economic adviser to the Obama transition team, makes a persuasive argument in his blog that "government spending that puts people back to work and invests in the future productivity of the nation is exactly what the economy needs right now. When there's lots of idle capacity, deficit spending is entirely appropriate, as John Maynard Keynes taught us. Moving the economy to fuller capacity will of itself shrink future deficits" – the long-term structural problems to which Drummond refers.

The challenge is to spend carefully. And after the improvisations of FDR's New Deal and Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty, and our own experiments with regional economic development and subsidies to hydroponic cucumber growers in Newfoundland, we have by now accumulated sufficient knowledge, one would hope, to invest public funds at least as wisely as the vaunted capital allocators in the private sector for whom we have the collateralized debt obligation (CDO) to thank.

Where to invest?

1. Social capital

In other words, people. Immediate relief is required for people whom our market economy has failed. Employment Insurance eligibility and duration of benefits need to be expanded. Enhanced child care and worker retraining tuition grants are imperative. Workers who have lost health and pension benefits need at least temporary pharmacare and dentistry coverage to carry them over to their next job.

Paying for such essentials out of pocket crimps spending on consumer goods, which in turn triggers layoffs at everything from car and lawn mower dealerships to construction firms. The downward spiral has to be reversed, keeping in mind that even in the prosperous times of a year ago, approximately 900,000 Canadian children were living below the poverty line.

For social advocates, the needs are obvious and pressing. "Boosting three geared-to-income programs – the Canada Child Tax Benefit, the refundable GST credit and the Working Income Tax Benefit – would put additional money into the hands of lower-income households who are most likely to spend it immediately," the Caledon Institute of Social Policy notes in a recent paper, The Forgotten Fundamentals.

Employment Insurance, which now serves only four in 10 unemployed Canadians, must be restored and strengthened.

It's time to stand on its head the mythology around burdening future generations with our big-spending ways of the moment. The future generations are with us now, living in squalid quarters for lack of decent public housing, with street gangs for role models, college out of reach. The money we invest today to lift these young people out of wretched living conditions is our best assurance of lower dropout rates, teen pregnancies, violence and crime when it's their turn to run the country.

2. Infrastructure

Much of our "built environment," as architects and urban planners call anything made of concrete, glass and steel, is a good deal older than you are. Canadian municipalities alone are struggling with an estimated $143 billion "infrastructure deficit" of 50- to 100-year-old schools, hospitals, elevated highways (the Gardiner Expressway was completed before the Beatles broke up in 1970. Despite being only 42 years old, it has been under constant repair for the past decade) and water and sewage systems (the latter culpable in Toronto's waterfront beaches being closed to swimming).

With $1 billion worth of goods crossing the border to the U.S. each day, it similarly is incomprehensible that the Ambassador Bridge at Detroit and the Peace Bridge at Buffalo have not been replaced or twinned, putting an end to the daily caravan of idling transport trucks backed up to Queenston. The fragility of the North American power grid was demonstrated in the great blackout of the eastern half of the continent not long ago, at about the same time levees patched up countless times rather than replaced with state-of-the-art ones pioneered in Holland cost America one of its great cities.

Infrastructure projects have a multiplier effect, Reich argues. "They create lots of jobs, and they make the economy work better in the future. Governments should also spend on health care and child care. The expenditures are also double whammies: they, too, create lots of jobs, and they fulfill vital public needs."

And the timing couldn't be better. Robert MacIsaac, chair of Metrolinx Regional Transportation Plan, oversees a proposed $50 billion, 25-year plan of new GTA light-rail lines, expanded GO service and Viva bus rapid transit in York Region. That's a quadruple whammy: job creation, getting commuters out of their polluting vehicles, attracting more commerce to less accessible parts of the GTA, and thus expanding the tax base in North America's fourth-largest and fastest-growing city.

"It's a brilliant time to move forward with infrastructure because you'll never get a better price on contracts than you're going to in an economic downturn," MacIsaac pointed out in the Star last month. "We need to position the province to be competitive when we come out the other side of this rough patch."

Look around and you'll see plenty that needs fixing.

3. Green stimulus

There's a compelling argument to be made that developing alternatives to fossil fuels – essential to the quest to curb global warming – is a superior form of economic stimulus than reducing taxes or issuing government-rebate cheques. Development of wind farms, solar panels, more energy-efficient small vehicles and rapid transit creates high-paying jobs in R&D, enhances Canada's competitiveness as an exporter of alternative-energy technology, cuts energy costs (another competitive advantage), and reduces our expenditure on imported oil and natural gas.

Green infrastructure tends to keep jobs at home. The liberal Center for American Progress Action Fund estimates that traditional fossil fuels, on average, see about 22 per cent of the American household's energy expenditures leaving the country. A home or office equipped with solar panels, by contrast, ships just 9 per cent of its energy expenditures abroad.

That's because much of the R&D in alternative energy is North America-based. And the construction workers and many raw materials – notably concrete – must be sourced locally.

In this relatively nascent field – at least compared with a fossil fuel addiction traced to the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution – there is still vast opportunity to achieve Silicon Valley-like leadership in R&D, as successive generations of wind turbines, for instance, become more efficient. There are hundreds of small firms, many still in start-up phase, working on innovative improvements.

Here again is an opportunity for government to play a role where, at least for now, the private sector is hoarding rather than spending cash.

Along with Canada's dubious distinction as an energy glutton, with our above-average per capita energy consumption, our vast physical size exposes us to most types of energy applications and the expertise that goes with them.

By the reckoning of some, not just Obama and former U.S. vice-president Al Gore, the most dynamic industry of this new century will be energy, whether in the form of developing new energy sources; devising new applications for solar, wind and other alternatives; retrofitting homes, offices and vehicles to use innovative forms of energy; or the construction job of building wind farms and installing solar panels.


When it comes to providing more adequately for our people – whether it's the creation or rehabilitation of public housing, or income supports that lift folks from subsistence level, or playing midwife to a new job-creating centre of excellence for Canada in green-energy technologies – we tend, in flush times, to ignore these pursuits, which are so much less glamorous than, say, investment banking. And in tough times we declare that as a community we haven't the money for such things. It's this mentality that gave us a reactionary Nov. 27 fiscal statement rather than a visionary one that embraced the future.

So for now we remain bystanders, waiting for the private sector to recover and take up the mantle of progress in a manner suited to its own narrowly defined goals.

Just as government and the private sector long ago learned the benefits of endless collaboration, we don't have to accept a cramped role for government in times of economic failure.

What boggles the mind is why Govenor General Michaëlle Jean agreed to prorogue parliament in the first place... she has not released any statement for her reasoning.

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

Michaëlle Jean isn't Stupid

CANADA - I received a form letter today from the Conservative party which included the following statement:
"I know some of you have criticized us for having misjudged the opposition’s response to our efforts to remove taxpayer support for political parties. Although I fully support the notion that, in the long run, political parties should be responsible for raising their own funds, I accept that our timing and the manner in which we approached the issue may have been wrong-headed. We have withdrawn those contentious items from our agenda."


Say what you mean man. Stephen Harper made a really a stupid mistake.

He's made stupid mistakes before too, but this one just handed the government over to the Liberals.

The petition is a waste of time! Now is not the time to be using petitions. It is only there to make the public feel like they're involved and since the leftwing outnumbers us two to one, they're likely to get far more petitions signed than we are. Frankly petitions don't matter anyway.

If you don't recall Govenor General Michaëlle Jean was recommended by Paul Martin (a Liberal!) and she's pro-separatist!

That means she will be more interested in the welfare of Quebec than of the rest of Canada. She will look at your anti-coalition petition, look at the pro-coalition petition... and then she will go with the coalition because it IS constitutional. Its even in her job description.

What we are seeing is a fail-safe mechanism of democracy, entirely democratic and constitutional, employed to protect the system from being hijacked by a bully. Harper can be proud he won his minority government, but he lacked the leadership skills to compromise and keep it afloat.

Also, this idea that what they're doing isn't democratic or constitutional is going to fail. Michaëlle Jean is too smart to fall for that obvious lie. She can do math. She will look at the 53% of Canadian voters that voted Liberal/Green/NDP, the 10% that voted Bloc and the mere 37% who voted Conservative and she will recognize that while the Conservatives did win a minority... they did not win the will of Canadians.

Now is the time to start choosing a new leader so that when the next election does happen (likely around September or October 2010) that we have a strong progressive leader who can defeat the leftwing coalition, win the hearts of middle-class Canadians and finally win a majority.

Now would be a good time to call Mike Harris out of retirement and ask him to lead the party. Or someone else equally competent who could actually win a majority instead of these half-ass minority governments.