|
simoncat1010
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Name: simoncat1010
Country: Canada
State: Ontario
Metro: Oshawa
Gender: Female
Interests: music,play keyboards and guitar, jazz, blues and alternative (Radiohead rocks!); pen and ink, reading and blogging, aerobics, weight lifting and MTBing
Expertise: ranting :))
Message: message meEmail: email me
Website: visit my website
Member Since:
9/13/2004
 Premium
|
|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
| MERRY CHRISTMAS!I've been AWOL again for a little while, but I wanted to pop in and wish all my Xanga friends a very merry Christmas and a wonderful New Year. You are all in my heart and prayers in this most blesssed of seasons. 
| | |
| Mess in CanadaWhat a free for all. I don't know if any of my American friends have been following the news in Canada, but we just narrowly escaped a coup d'etat..at least for now.. by the three Opposition parties against the newly elected minority Conservative government. The CP issued a Financial Statement last week that promised cutbacks in government, including MP's perks and budgets, and also this explosive clause: the elimination of tax funding to all federal parties. Currently, each federal party receives $1.95 per vote from tax money, virtually eliminating their need to fund raise. The CP is the only party who works heavily for voluntary grassroots contributions, so the three Opposition Parties - the Liberals, the NDP (socialists) and the Bloc Quebecois (a party committed to the separation of Quebec from Canada) - went ballistic. They formed a Coalition to replace the current Government, promising to spend billions on...hmmm...whatever...with a large payoff to Quebec in order to retain the support of the Bloc, who cares about nothing except Quebec. In fact, Duceppe, the leader of the Bloc,and one of his colleagues, that old separatiste bigot, Jacques Parizeau , gloated that this was indeed a moment to celebrate, as this Coalition would weaken Canada, and benefit the separatist movement in Quebec. Shaking your head yet? Canadian politics...thanks to the Liberals and Trudeau, this country has devolved into a bad French joke. Where is Jerry Lewis when you need him? Lessons to be learned: Never officially or legally recognize any language other than the one spoken by the majority of people Never assign territory for a special linguistic/cultural group Never allow that group to form a federal party representing solely their interests at the expense of the rest of the country Never, ever, allow liberals to rule your country for longer than..oh...10 seconds | | |
| A baby by any other name...I know, abortion has been discussed and discussed ..but I have personally found most people invest too much of their own agenda into the discussion, so an honest and thoughtful debate is rarely to be found and usually disintegrates into name calling and finger pointing. In my last post, the "rights" of a fetus were briefly discussed between Lowkey and I. And I am posting it as a new topic, because I would dearly like to expand the discussion. And I do not want the discussion to be merely about entrenched religious viewpoints, or entrenched socially engineered quiplets about women's rights. What started this was a discussion about a Private Member's bill put forward to Parliament by Conservative MP Ken Epp before the Canadian election was called and one that was debated in the CP Policy Convention this past weekend.. It received much notoriety in the press, and by the opposing parties, as a "dangerous " bill that would threaten women's rights to abortion on demand, because it would invest "human rights" to an unborn fetus in the case where the woman wanted her baby, and her baby was harmed in a violent act toward herself. My question is this: Do we invest legal "rights" to a wanted unborn baby, introducing legislation that charges someone who kills a pregnant woman, with not one, but two homicides? While investing zero rights to a fetus that a woman does not want. This is the condundrum, amongst many others, that "progressive liberalism" has created. An existential question as it were: can a fetus be defined objectively and in reality as a human being, only by the opinion of the woman who carries it? | | |
| The Extreme Right?The Conservative Parrty of Canada is wrapping up its Policy Convention on Winnipeg this weekend, and the Ottawa Citizen reports that "grassroots Conservatives approved resolutions that would push the party further to the right". You have to wonder how the liberal press defines "the right". These are the thorny resolutions: " The rank-and-file urged the party to press ahead with its tough-on-crime agenda, and support some long-held causes of rock-ribbed conservatives, such as curbing the powers of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. In the most contested vote of the day, party delegates narrowly passed a resolution supporting legislation that would impose additional charges on individuals who commit violence against pregnant women." So let me see, strengthening our lax liberal criminal justice system that allows thugs convicted for armed robbery to go free so they can kill people, is "right wing". Reducing the power of the CHRC to conduct witch hunts against those who dare criticize Islamofacists is right wing. Protecting our freedom of speech is "right wing". The CHRC has engaged itself lately in prosecuting all manner of people for daring to criticize anything near and dear to the liberal heart, and calling it "hate crime". The best known of these "trials" are those of the Western Standard's Ezra Levant, and Mark Steyn and Macleans magazine, for having the cheek to point out some of the more obvious facts about extreme Islamism. The CHRC has become a very dangerous entity, and yes, it needs its powers reduced. Big time. Protecting pregant women against violence is "right wing". Because God forbid! trying to attach some importance to the life of an unborn wanted baby might lead to restrictions on abortion! You have to laugh how the press defines conservatives and liberals: "right wing agendas", "rock-ribbed " conservatives" as opposed to "progressive" liberals. Progressive? PROGRESSIVE?? Well, call me a rock-ribbed right wing conservative. 
| | |
| Bailing out the Big Three?From the WSJ: "Democratic leaders in Congress said Tuesday they will push legislation next week to use the $700 billion Wall Street rescue fund to bail out Detroit auto makers, and President-elect Barack Obama ordered his transition team to look at ways to aid the car industry even before his inauguration. For Mr. Obama, the crisis in Detroit is turning into an early test of his leadership. Organized labor, including the United Auto Workers, invested heavily in Mr. Obama's campaign." hmmm .. This past June, Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty promised to invest some 250 million into GM's ailing plant in Oshawa, Ontario. This after a 175 million dollar bailout by the Provincial government, and signing of a collective agreement with CAW in which GM promised to postpone the layoff of some 900 people at the Oshawa Truck Plant. GM promptly announced the closure of the Truck plant, resulting in the loss of some 2600 jobs. Now that's called bargaining in good faith. What doesn't get reported is that the CAW refused to accept any significant cuts in wages and benefits for its workers. GM assembly workers currently earn in excess of $60 an hour in wages and benefits. Compared to approximately $30 an hour in comparable Toyota and Honda non unionized plants in Ontario. Compared to more like 30 cents an hour in countries like China. The failure of GM and the concomitant job losses are attributable to several things: union greed, management complacency and the company's failure to foresee the hike in gas prices and the shift to green, the handwriting of which was on the wall many years ago. The writing was certainly big enough for Toyota to see it. So now our governments want to bail out the "ailing domestic auto industry"? Good luck. Firstly, the UAW and CAW will never agree to the dramatic wage and benefits cuts that would restore the competitiveness of the domestic auto makers, and secondly, these companies have proven their mismanagement and shortsightedness by initially agreeing to the ridiculous wages and legacy costs demanded by the unions, and by continuing to churn out gas guzzling trucks and SUV's long after their obsolescence was clearly evident. Obscenely high paying auto jobs are gone. Forever. So unless the Big Three can prove to our governments that they have a plan and a schedule for success, and, more importantly, the unions agree to come to the table and accept competitive market wages, I am totally in disagreement with handing them our tax money . | | |
|
