A fair Alberta?

Well if you’re an angry roughneck (soon to be an objective roughneck) you must have an opinion on Alberta’s seven billion dollar surplus and the recent proposals to redistribute that wealth “for the good of the people”. A Quebecois leftwing academic (as if there were any other kind of academic) proposes massive redistribution under the pretence “why should Albertans be the only ones benefit from Canada’s oil?”, or Jack Layton calling for equalization programs that are “fair” for all the province, with his speeches making constant references to the “luckiness” of having oil riches.

I want to address three points; luck, fairness and the term Albertan.

1) “Alberta is lucky to have oil.” This is my favorite cliché, which implies Alberta’s high wealth is solely because of its oil; an arbitrary condition at best.

The implication being that oil guarantees wealth. This is a lie or else Nigeria would be one of the richest centuries in the world followed by socialist powerhouses like Venezuela, Iran and the Soviet Union and the poorest countries on the earth would be the free; Switzerland, the United States, Hong Kong, and Japan. Wealth has much more to do with freedom and limited government than it does natural resources.

Extracting oil from 3000 meters deep is the exact opposite of luck. It’s as if lefties have an image of oil just sitting in giant barrels on the prairies waiting for someone to turn them on. Developing oil reserves is hard, challenging, intellectual, grueling, demanding, comprehensive and dynamic work especially in a severe climate with many environmental inhibitors. Alberta is the most efficient and productive oil patch workforce on the planet, owing to it worker's dedication, intelligence and drive. Three thing which have nothing to do with luck.

2) What it means to be a lucky “Albertan”. Today, the rig where I was working, the driller was an Indian from Codotte Lake, the derrickman was from Newfoundland, and one of the roughnecks was from South Africa. The oil patch has a long running joke; if someone is lazy or a welfare recipient, they say “he must be a native Albertan" (meaning born here, not aboriginal, for all of you sic lefties out there waiting to crucify me)” The point of the anecdote being; people choose to come here and now they are being called “lucky” by the people who chose not to come here. The choice was, and still is open to all Canadian citizens.

It is no coincidence Alberta’s population has increased 10 fold since Leduc blew in ’47. Nobody’s born in Alberta; just go to a football game when the Roughriders are in town or stroll through downtown FT. Mac. And they didn’t show up just to cash in their lottery checks either. Instead migrants came risking failure (During the NEP it was common to see people walking away from their mortgages), losing their families (distance is hard on relationships, be it friends, children, wives, or extended family), health (oil work is dangerous – last week the industry lost two more men, a derrickman and N2 operator) and they were rewarded with the chance to work back breaking labor, exhaustive hours in a severe climate. Migrants chose to come to the province. Migrants chose to contribute, to be productive, self betterment, and independence. Luck would be to lazily sit at home while a monthly royalty cheque was mailed to you. Alberta’s profits are not locked away in a vault and arbitrarily handed out based on age, gender or race. They are dispersed based on productiveness; an objective scale available to anybody.

3) Lastly I want to deal with arbitrary claim of fairness. Layton and looting cronies appeal to pea brains with “It isn’t fair that only Alberta profits.” To Jack fair would be stealing from one man for the purpose of arbitrarily financing another. Who would do the choosing? The fair and benevolent Jack of course. That type of fairness paradigm is concocted in some ivory tower and manifests itself in the form of famines, war, and the Communist gulag. But in reality fairness has simple and understandable definition; fairness is when compensation matches the work performed. Fairness is equal opportunity. Fairness is open boarders and consequently Alberta is fair.

-Angry roughneck

So Now I'm a nutter!

Now I admit that when bored I like drifting from leftist blof to leftist blog drumming up debate and eventually exposing their empty ideologies. But leftist hate debate, to them debate is synonymous with attack (this is why all conservatives are typified as hate filled racists). But I'll say it again; people determine their own values so they should be held accountable for them. In responce to his emotive censorship of my "hate filled" ideology I thought I would respond with a letter, that was also was sent to the www.liberalcalgary.blogspot.com . My Comment compaered his anti-americanism to other forms of populist Fascism that have existed throughout history. His responce was to censor the comment and then rebuke it. So I want to post the letter I sent him responding to his form of cowardly debate. The original debate was about Softwood and both blogs demonstrating our cases may still be seen.

First the definition of fascism: Fascists seeks to control the intellectual and spiritual climate of a group of people. The irony is that censoring my comments is fascist! How can you not understand this? You seem to think you are doing your minions “the people” a favor by censoring the post and then recounting your interpretation of it and then rebuking it. This is how Kim Jong 2 debates. If you believe in the competition of ideas post them and let the people judge what is true and what is not true. You think an individualist can't handle some guilt ridden, anti-intellectual, emotive, liberal’s subjective attacks. I welcome debate and you do not.

Now to what I said in my comment; using individuals as a means to the country’s, the ruling demagogues, yours, the majorities end is Fascist. You are trying to impose your intellectual Utopia or abstract ideology onto Canadians. How could this be achieved if people did not want to comply? You would force them to not trade their goods with Americans. How would this be achieved? Force, the whip! IE the Wheat board putting farmers in prison for violating the liberal ideology of Statism.

Trivially calling for a trade war with the United, without even discussing the facts of the softwood contention, but instead relying on populist reasons... "they are bad and hurting us for arbitrary reasons, so we need to assert our sovereignty" is such a blatant form of populism that it resonated with Hitler’s' fascist democratic populism (the Jews stole our businesses, they have no right to the profits of the motherland). You don't understand that all of the evil in the world has been committed under these pretenses. Hitler was asserting the democratic whims of his people( creating straw men to deflect anger and extol his or your vision of Utopia).

You are one of these people. You want to assert Canadianna at the expense of Canadians. You arbitrarily call out for a trade policy that would doom millions of citizens. Citizens with families. Citizens trying to build better lives for themselves and yet you would enact policy dooming these very citizens for the pride of Canada... install your own populist cliché here! And if anyone disagrees with you they are a racists or greed ridden and eventually censored. Call me whatever you like because I will still hold you accountable for your views.

Because your intentions are good you expect to exempt from being judged, but I refuse to let you get away with this nonsense. One person determining what is best for the people has been the route of all war, divide, famine, oppression, and evil throughout history.
I should also remind you that going through your posts, you consistently call conservatives: racist, bigots, and rednecks, and now nutters…ha ha
-Angry Roughneck

Way to go Tommy Douglas??????

Now there's something I never thought I'd here myself say, that is untill I read a comment he left at www.saskprogressive.blogspot.com Mike Stefaniuk puts up a typically leftist blog declaring trade a zero sum game (one person wins and one person always loses when a transaction occurs... an absolute lie; factually, evidentially, historically) Anyway this guy calling himself Tommy Douglas sets him straight, like all lefties need to be set straight. So out of respect I wanted to spread his eloquent message

Tommy Douglas said...
You boiled it right down there mike. That is the essence of it. Not only is your philosophy tricky, it's also destined for failure.That's what "progressives" don't get -- human nature. To coerce wealth from one group of people to give to a less-wealthy group is neither desirable nor effective. Never has been, never will. That is why Saskatchewan is failing. That is why Cuba has failed. That is why europe is failing.What makes people tick is advancement, self preservation. Take away that most primal motivation and you take away our ability to succeed. That most basic instinct is the same that makes us want to fix our houses or apartments up. It's the one that makes you want a better job, the one that makes you want that X-box. It's the one that makes us explore.

There is inequality of condition in the world. But the answer isn't taking from those who have it all figured out and giving to those who don't. The goal should never be to create equality of condition. Instead we should strive to achieve equality of opportunity. THAT is the tricky part. You want to move the developing world into the present? Provide them with civil liberties. Create an international market place that allows them to participate on a level playing field.

That means getting rid of European farm subsidies. The leftist vision of a "living wage" for innefficient farm producers in europe has done more to create global inequality than anything the "great satan" has ever done. Provide the developing world with democracy and equality of opportunity and we'll move toward equality of condition.That's where "progressives" have it all wrong. That is what it is all about. But yet I will never hear you talk about european and american farm subsidies, even though they are killing our own farmers right here in Saskatchewan.

Progressives haven't cared much for the plight of the farmer since they stopped voting for you. They were once your bread and butter, but now you look at them with contempt. Your wealth redistribution scheme is so deeply flawed, as is your political philosophy. Hobbling those who "get it" and artificially propping up those who don't, will only create more people who don't "get it", and fewer people who do. Do you get it?This is what Marx couldn't understand, and why he has been proven to be so wrong. This is what Castro and China don't get. This is what the NDP don't get. The idea that a person's success is at the expense of another is a cancer that needs to be cut out of the Saskatchewan psyche. Otherwise we'll sit around here spinning our wheels until the only person left to turn the lights out is Mike Stefaniuk.
-Tommy Douglas

I'm from Saskatchewan, but my family left to come to Alberta; the land of opportunity, home of the free man, the last frontier, and it abhors me to see people spreading this evil socialist reasoning... or I suppose unreasoning. Saskatchewan has as much energy as Alberta, and even started to develop its resources earlier than Alberta, but excessive taxation and regulation drove the industry westward. As a reult, it's Alberta that has an extensive oil production infrastructure, thus making it more cost effective to produce its energy... and once they hit leduc it was all over for Saskatchewan. Add this added production cost to Saskatchewan's tax burden and you have the difference between Saskatchewan and Alberta.
God Bless you Tommy Douglas
-Angry Roughneck

Softwood Lumber

The headlines haven’t changed. The United States still refuses to abide by the NAFTA ruling that states tariffs on Canadian softwood are illegal. Emotive liberals will tell you that we should respond with a trade war forgetting that we have annual trade surplus of 100 billion dollars with the states, and that a trade war would not only erase that surplus but would destroy our economy.

NAFTA may have ruled against the States but that’s only because the States couldn’t sufficiently prove their case (picture Law and order here). Make no bones about it though Canada does subsidize its Softwood industry, but the United States failed to prove the effect of these subsidies on their domestic industry. It is disingenuous to claim that they are arbitrarily hurting Canada for their own gain. Canada subsidizes the softwood industry by charging artificially low, regulated “harvesting fees”. In free countries harvest fees are determined on the open market and consequently are much higher. The regulated fees are thus a direct subsidy to the Canadian industry.
Which makes me wonder…

1) Why does our Canadian government subsidize the highly successful softwood industry? Should the highly paid timber industry need subsidizing by taxpayers?

Now to all the liberals and socialists out there, right now decreeing from the rooftops that “Canada’s a sovereign country, and allowed to run its timber industry however it sees fit“, well now I have one question for you...

2) Doesn’t subsidizing the forest industry only promote excessive destruction of our forests? Isn’t this a conflict for all of the socialists/environmental activist out there? Shouldn’t we be charging market value for our resources in order to prevent excessive destruction?

3) And one more for all the Americans out there; What’s wrong with cheap lumber. In effect Canada is also subsidizing the American construction market by saturating their market with cheap subsidized building supplies. Do cheaper houses sound like a bad thing? Americans shouldn’t care if we subsidize our lumber. It only benefits them. Hell I'd like it if they responded by subsidizing their automotive industry. Cheap American cars being sold in Canada would teach us a lesson.

In closing, the Americans should abide by the ruling until something can be negotiated, but Canada should agree to reform it subsidizing practices, something which only helps Canada, Canadians, and the industry itself.
-Angry Roughneck

equality

"From the fact that people are very different it follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position and that the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently. Equality before the law, and material equality are therefore not only different, but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either the one or the other, but not both at the same time." - Friedrich A. Hayek

"What is now called the middle class was not and is not a class; it is a different form of society, a classessless society, the free society, the society of contract."
- Isabel Paterson

Intellectual dishonesty

So the Canadian people want the right to choose private healthcare, along with our Supreme court declaring that prohibiting this choice to suffering Canadians is immoral. Add to this hundreds of years of historical evidence of socialist aims, their documented cultural stagnations, their predictable shortages, endless famines, wars and misery. And now the latest body to speak out against socialized medicine; the general council of the Canadian Medical Association voted to approved private healthcare. Decreeing that doctors are unable to give proper attention to their patients, in the under funded, mismanaged, bureaucrat ridden public system. Doctors are now telling us that the Canadian system is failing Canadians, that Canadians are needlessly suffering for a collapsing ideology.

And what are the leftist retorts that I’m reading
“Well this just shows that doctors are greedy” and
“It makes sense, of course doctors just want more money too” and
“of course doctors want a private system they stand to make the biggest gains”

Enough. I won’t tolerate these arbitrary statements. If you want to have intellectual arguments, ideas must evaluated on their merit, which means their logical premises, and then the drawn conclusions from those premises. It is the mark of a cowardly intellectual who in defense of an idea attack s the opponent who presents the idea; instead of the "idea".

Example:
Man 1: Price controls cause shortages.
Man 2: You are greedy and stupid!
(and then the left turns to the polls to see won the argument… where‘s the logic “well more people think that the earth is round, so that make me right“… ahh moral relativism)

Anyway, this quote from Dr. Leonard Peikoff regarding intellectual dishonesty should sum up what I think about the left in general. www.http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_fv&printer_friendly=1

"Now we must note that falsehood does not necessarily imply vice; honest errors of knowledge are possible. But such errors are not nearly so common as some people wish to think, especially in the field of philosophy. In our century, there have been countless mass movements dedicated to inherently dishonest ideas—e.g., Nazism, Communism, non-objective art, non-Aristotelian logic, egalitarianism, nihilism, the pragmatist cult of compromise, the Shirley MacLaine types, who "channel" with ghosts and recount their previous lives; etc. In all such cases, the ideas are not merely false; in one form or another, they represent an explicit rebellion against reason and reality (and, therefore, against man and values). If the conscientious attempt to perceive reality by the use of one's mind is the essence of honesty, no such rebellion can qualify as "honest."
The originators, leaders and intellectual spokesmen of all such movements are necessarily evaders on a major scale; they are not merely mistaken, but are crusading irrationalists. The mass base of such movements are not evaders of the same kind; but most of the followers are dishonest in their own passive way. They are unthinking, intellectually irresponsible ballast, unconcerned with logic or truth. They go along with corrupt trend-setters because their neighbors demand it, and/or because a given notion satisfies some out-of-context desire they happen to feel. People of this kind are not the helplessly ignorant, but the willfully self-deluded."
Yours tryly,
Angry roughneck

The CBC

The other day I was having a beer with an old friend, who’s now close to earning his PHD, and sadly yet predictably enough, a lifelong card carrying member of moral relativist academic crow. We were debating the worth of the CBC. My point was predictable enough. There's no reason to subsidize a overtly federalist, biased, state controlled television station to the tune of a billion dollars per year. He predictably explained the need for a television station that could be free from myopic corporate interests. And then used the famous “the Corporation” example (for the people lucky enough to be ignorant of this Chomsky-esque cinematic perceptually based propaganda… fox was reluctant to run a story that was incriminating to milk for advertising reasons). I replied that Fox’s decisions affect their credibility, which is affects their long term survival, and besides other stations were free to run the story which only increases their credibility with viewers at Fox‘s detriment. Along with the fact that there isn't a lack of funding to support neo-left projects ala George Soros, Maurice Strong, Bono… He still didn’t trust the free market approach and lamented the inevitable pull of corporate interests. Anyway round and round, until I got to one question. Well if you think the CBC is morally needed then logically you must be in favor semi regulating the newspaper business? Do you want a state run newspaper?

Doesn't anyone that supports the CBC; also logically support a federal newspaper?

Leftwing censorship

So after taking www.liberalcalgary.blogspot.com to task for two straight days he responded, as all lefties do by blocking me from posting comments on his site (Collective ideology invented Censorship... see Nazi Germany, Stalin, China, Michael Moore... leftist blogs). This is typical of the left. They love to debate politics as long as the room's filled with disengneious hippies. This is why they only discuss serious intellectual topics like affirmative action by reffering to their oppositsion as rich, white, greedy, capitalists as if that has anything to do with an arguments merit.

Conservatives rely on logic (see Rand, Hayek, Friedman, Aristotle, and Aquinis) which makes them friendly to ideas, and willing to challenge their misconceptions with oppposing apologists. As opposed to socialists whose ideas are rooted in irrational, subective, mystic babble.

P.S Prior to being blocked I always found the Calgarian liberal reasonable. But once again he proves Lefties want to be right instead of obtaining the truth. They are more interested in creating a noble identity (I fight for the poor, the minorities, the helpless... blah blah) for themselves, rather than solving problems.

A Socialist Misconception

I found this statement at www.liberalcalgary.blogspot.com “Without government involvement, we would live in a "jungle" where only the powerful survive. The right's opposition to "big government must therefore be rejected" More socialist tripe...

This is one of the biggest and most common misconceptions about capitalism. You hear it in one form or another all the time. “A jungle where only the strong survive” or the tenant “what about the losers?” As if the successful people are immorally sucking the blood from less successful humans. The myth goes back to the emergence of Darwinism (survival of the fittest), Nietzsche’s nilhism (will to power) and early capitalist theorem (Ricardo? and Malthus.) For 200 years socialists everywhere have linked the capitalist credo of competition to the biological theory of evolution which is also dependent on competition. Leftists link the extinction of species to the inevitable demise of economic losers. But this entirely manipulative and false.

In a free society survival of the fittest doesn’t exist. Losers aren’t ostracized from society, condemned to poverty. In fact it’s the exact opposite. In a free society losers adapt the virtues and techniques of the winners to eventually become successful themselves. If tire company A discovers that transporting tires by air as compared to rail is cheaper thus lowering transportation costs to a third of any rival, then tire company B will lose their market in the beginning, but eventually tire company B will transport their tires by air (thus eventually lowering the cost of tires to consumers across the board).

Leftist cry for regulators because they want to do the regulating. So create vulgar images of fat rich white capitalists drinking wine with pig snouts dancing on the back of well meaning peasants. Capitalism is the mechanism for innovation and innovation comes in the form of new knowledge and new knowledge is available to anyone that seeks it.

Need another example... The first Neanderthal? (I don’t know a damn thing about anthropology) that discovered fire soon started cooking his food. Cooked food was safer, tastier and could be preserved longer. It was an advantage over tribes that still ate food raw. But knowledge isn’t exclusionary. Soon word of cooked food traveled to other tribes. And then what happened? Did these tribes die out. Did they claim cooking food was futile. No they simply chose to cook their food as well thus adapting the virtues of the other tribe’s innovation.

Capitalism is not survival of the fittest, but instead it “adapt the strategies of the fittest.

Jean and the race card?

I am going to repost an old blog that has recieved considerable attentuion from a particular socialist and I am going to reprint excerpts from our discussion surrounding Mrs. Jean and I will let you the reader decide who's right.

I pulled this excerpt from a decent enough lefty in calgary www.calgaryobserver.blogs.com or www.liberalcalgary.blogspot.com "I think Paul Martin picked the ideal candidate, especially at this time when Canada is beginning to see more racism and discrimination against people not born in Canada. Michaëlle Jean should serve as a role model and reminder to everyone across this wide land of ours that Canada truly is the land of golden opportunities (and not our neighbour to the south) and that anyone - from the East or West, from Canada or overseas, can make it big here."

Me: Once again the left assumes Jean's only attribute is the fact she is black. Race is a superficial trait and is of no importance to progressive thinkers. What makes her an ideal candidate to be a governer general, or at least should, is that she represents Canadian values (i.e independence and productivity. And once again you are not born into your values. Human beings choose their own values.Leftist never realize this. For the left value choices are always the result of external factos. I.E race, community, class, maybe height or eye color, but never the person who's doing the choosing. Race is non issue in any progressive society.

He responded by pointing out
"A country or society is only truly free if everyone in it is given an equal opportunity to compete. If a hospital bill results in your condo or house being foreclosed, we cannot really speak of a free society, or can we?"

Implying either that minorities are not free to pursue their own lives in Canada or that they are less able to due to some inherent reason.

I responded by pointing out that people are not ascribed values and that they CHOOSE values...
There is nothing racist about choosing values. The definition of value is “something which someone works to achieve and maintain”. Alberta values independence, productivity, honesty, integrity and liberty, and these in no way are tied skin color or religion. Values are chosen and people should be accountable for the choices they make. The left assumes skin color is a person’s only identity as if there is no difference between a black communist and a black man that believes in freedom. You display a lot of ignorance in assuming that values are inherent and based on race, because what you are saying in effect that she is at some disadvantage because she's black, so we should reward her acheivments, because they were acheived inspite of her blackness... and this progressive? No. Leftism is a racist pardigm. Once race has been written into law, government can use the law to discriminate.

Alberta healthcare... liberal style

In retaliation to Alberta beginning its foray into private healthcare for the first time on the proud prairies, Kevin Taft, liberal savant came out with his “five spoke healthcare strategy”. The plan (link to Taft’s plan coming soon) seeks to infuse the public system with more innovation and accountability. Two virtues consistently associated with public endeavors from Air Canada to Ontario Hydro.
1) Increase capacity.
This means more funding, more boards, more studies, more strategic plans, and more hospital building. This strategy ignores the key problem associated with long lines and wait lists, which is of course a doctor shortage. A very fixable problem in an open market approach (it’s not like there is a shortage of lawyers or engineers). Alberta has plenty of new hospitals and all with staffing problems (High level, Peace River and Rainbow Lake… also see all of Saskatchewan) Strike one.
2) Innovate.
He says “develop mechanisms to encourage and test innovation within the public system. When the right people are in the right place good ideas will follow.” The left is always vague, but seriously. Better bureaucrats? Of course why didn’t I think of this? This sounds like the Communist claim that the only reason Russia failed was because it was a dictatorship (Interesting). But what about Taft’s ideas to “develop mechanism to encourage innovation”? Isn’t this one of the age old dilemmas for all pinkos. What’s the mechanism that keeps people motivated in an autocratic public system where there’s no chance of reward, recognition or advancement? Oh yeah the whip! Amazing the first public mandate that solves the problem innovation. Strike two.
3)Manage.
More bureaucrats, starting with a regional health authority board. I think we’ve tried this approach before. I hate to be cynical but I no longer believe in the hands off approach of all knowing boards.
4) Budget.
“Overhaul the provincial so that the numbers are realistic”. More money! Haven’t we learned by now through countless historical examples that social planning is always a disastrous failure? That social planning leads to shortages and misery. There has never been a famine in free market system throughout history. Wasn’t this debate decided for the final time between Russia and America?
5) Build a healthier population.
This essentially means regulating what we eat, implying the reason healthcare dollars are so far stretched is because we are out of shape slobs. Oh sorry benevolent Taft. Sorry benevolent master Taft.
This plan is a regurgitation of all socialist paradigms and we as citizens should have the ability to see through it by now so please don’t send me letters labeling me as “un-Canadian”. Un-socialist is OK but un-Canadian is not! Can I say strike three now?

Progressive?

When did liberals/socialists/ and moral relativists hijack the term “progressive”? Was it progressive when anti-capitalist feudal Spain expelled half a million Jews? Was it progressive when Robespierre seized power and murdered French thinkers, business men, journalists, professors, Generals and average dissenters under the idiom of “progressive”? Was it progressive when the National socialists murdered 5 Jews and seized property for the good of the country? Was it progressive when Stalin murdered 30 million to modernize the economy? Was it considered progressive when the heavily regulated feudal south fought the free capitalist north over the abolition of slavery? Was it progressive when the heavily fundamentalist and socialist Iranian government seized power and instantly nationalized oil, making it 8 cents a liter, and thus creating unemployment levels of 20 per cent. Progressive isn’t a term they shouldn’t be able to use based on its logical inconsistency. Leftism has been the source of every war, the source of all human suffering and misery to this point, and yet they are allowed to use a term like “progressive” and we only reprimand them for nativity. Leftism should be exposed fore the evil that it is.
I find it ironic that most leftists think progress is a social creation yet they are adamant that they are so (maybe that works in a sci-fi way). Politically we have advanced and here’s how
1) The Greek creation of democracy was far from perfect, but it was the first time in history the citizen was allowed a voting share. Citizen was still an exclusive term but the idea in of itself was fundamentally new and completely opposed the Spartan royal dynasty. The creation of democracy freed citizens from some of the more arbitrary aims of the ruling families, but democracy didn’t guarantees individual rights and democratic majority can be just as arbitrary as a king.
2) Rule of law. Romans created the foundation for objective law. Why did everyone want to be a Roman? Because to be a Roman citizen was to be equal before the law. To be equal before the law guaranteed a citizen’s ability to determine his own fate in life. A man can learn the law, but it is next to impossible to predict the moods and bias of a constantly changing ruling elite. For the first time in history man was free from the arbitrary aims and whims of an unpredictable despot or local regulator.
3) The American Constitution was a declaration of individual rights. It was a ruling charter that made man completely free from the arbitrary aims of government and democratic mob. It was a document that guaranteed for the first time the citizens freedom to seek his or her happiness.
The left has never been progressive and is in fact regressive. Any amendment to restrict freedoms is return to more primitive and it is the right’s responsibility to point it out.

Proportional Representation

It was Direct Democracy that Forced Socrates to Eat the Hemlock.
What’s interesting about the proportional representation debate is the fact that it is equally supported by both sides of the political spectrum. In Alberta nobody pushes harder for electoral reform in Alberta than the NDP and Alberta Alliance. The Alliance refers to the Swiss model, championing direct democracy as the individual’s way to ward off the inevitable bureaucratic aims of the state through the legal right of referendum. The NDP, always vague, wants a complex system of run off votes, a systgem that terrified the BC public so much, the left coast voted against it. I bet the NDP would be in favor of an electoral system where we simply drew names (Yay! A 1 in 4 chance) or worse, a mandatory rotation to ward off corruption (Yay power is inevitable… and as soon as we are in we will veto the rotation to protect the public interest. Look at all the inefficiency of the warring Liberals and Tories. We are the common man’s only friend!). In truth though all fringe parties see it as prudent to bring in proportional representation, as it’s easier to obtain a small percentage off the over all vote rather than a single majority in an ascribed area. They defend their views on the basis of them being a purer form of democracy. In truth it is an unprincipled approach which they seek only for the benfit of themselves. And here is why Proportional Representation is bad for Canada
1) A proportional system fails to give voters a clear ideological choice when voting.
Some countries have over a hundred parties running in federal elections, turning politics into an absurdity of overlapping policy and special interest aims. We would have to endure endless debates between members of the Black feminist Socialism party, the Black Socialist party, and the dogmatic Socialist Party. (Race is the only difference between parties in many European counties—See Schroder vs. Kohl)
2) Minority party votes are constantly sold for funding towards whatever special interest the selling party represents.
The proportional representation methodology increases voter apathy as it quickly becomes a system where votes must be bought in order to form a coalition government which has consequences.
a) It validates the public’s sense of government corruption as it’s an electoral system that favors and demands political deals.
b) The ridiculous amount of compromise eradicates ideology and makes long term vision impossible
c) Logically concluding with the move from an electoral system where the majority party determines policy into one in which the party with the fewest votes does.
(Studies confirm increased gov. spending and proportional government are inexplicably linked – Israel and Belgium)
3) The proportional system is in fact less proportional as it has the uncanny ability to lock old political hacks into their position.
I.E Italy.
When a party receives 10 percent of the vote they allowed to choose which members of their party will represent their party in legislature, which is good for longtime serving senior party faithful, but is counterproductive to getting new blood and ideas into government.
4) Proportional representation is inherently against principles making it range of the moment pragmatic whim worship.
Long range vision requires principle
5) Once Proportional Representation has been legislated further electoral form becomes next to impossible. Picture Canada’s attempt at negotiating a charter between three regionalized interests, and the endless amounts of stalling, compromise and redundancy, and ultimately futility involved that process. Imagine trying to agree on similar monumental reform with over 100 special interest groups being represented. Change would only happen through revolution. Reason would be invalidated as a political tool and thus parties world switch to force when trying to mandate change.
6) A proportional representation obliterates all regional accountability. Suddenly all policy is biased towards urban voters as there is no incentive to create policy affecting rural or more remote location do to the few number of voters.

Michaelle Jean

Doesn't anyone think it's ironic that the only term limit we have in this glorious country belongs to royal appointee? Members of parliament? No. Senators? Don't make me laugh. Prime Minister? Well that would be counterproductive to governement efficiency? Riiiight. Royal appointee? Now we're talking. Wouldn't this have been a perfect moment to tell Britain that we will no longer be appointing Governer Generals. Instead make miss Jean an in-house ambassador of Canada. Enough bowing to backwards Britain. Assert Canadiana!

I pulled this excerpt from a decent enough lefty in calgary www.calgaryobserver.blogs.com

I think Paul Martin picked the ideal candidate, especially at this time when Canada is beginning to see more racism and discrimination against people not born in Canada. Michaëlle Jean should serve as a role model and reminder to everyone across this wide land of ours that Canada truly is the land of golden opportunities (and not our neighbour to the south) and that anyone - from the East or West, from Canada or overseas, can make it big here.

Once again the left assumes Jean's only attribute is the fact she is black. Race is a superficial trait and is of no importance to progressive thinkers. What makes her an ideal candidate to be a governer general, or at least should, is that she represents Canadian values (i.e independence and productivity. And once again you are not born into your values. Human beings choose their own values.

My last rant deals with the Calgary Observer's point that it's important that she's black to counteract the rising ammount of "racism and discrimination" in Canada. Compared to when? More racism. What a joke. More racism than 50 nyears ago. More racism than 100 years ago. No, neither. Racism is continually declining. Do you think being overtly racist is a quality employers look for in perspective employees? Does anyone think racists are on the fast path to success? No. They are continually restricted in their opportuniuties and ostracised in their communities, because we as a society condemn racist values.

Telus

It’s my right to not work hard and be compensated according to the “law of Fairness”
So Telus workers in Alberta have been convinced to follow a BC union into the abyss. What’s at the end of the tunnel? Higher wages and more relaxed work schedules. Yay! Who’s paying? The taxpayers as usual.
At the Telus call center which is severely understaffed, workers are paid $16/hour, which is 3 to 4 dollars higher than any un-unionized call center. This relationship between overpaid union workers and understaffing follows the economic law of supply and demand; meaning that if a company has to pay exaggerated wages then it compensates by hiring fewer workers.
This has consequences;
Hiring fewer workers to fill the appropriate number of positions creates an exaggerated number of call center workers to compete for jobs in the private sector. Once again following the law of supply and demand, this excess supply of unemployed call center workers drives down the demand in the private sector thus driving down wages in the private sector. Union worker;s gains always come at the expense of private workers.
“WORKER SOLIDARITY!”
The true definition of fairness is when compensation matches work
For more see article on Unions.