Page 1 of 37 »
It's The American Way
December 15, 2012 @ 09:46
I hate guns; I can't stand to be around them. They make me nervous and I'd love every gun on earth to be gathered up, melted down and turned into something useful.
I'm totally in favour of strict gun control and I shake my head at those who argue against it because they like to hunt. Shooting an animal in the head, any animal has never been my idea of a good time.
I think anyone who can put a deer in their crosshairs and pull the trigger shouldn't be arguing against stricter gun control, they should be arguing for better health care, like psychological analysis.
Which leads me to my point.
Yesterday's tragedy in Connecticut had very little to with gun control and very much to do with a nutball. There are nutballs all over the world but there seems to be a higher concentration violent nutballs in the United States.
It's a by-product of their culture. Their violent, ignorant and politically polarized culture. I truly believe nutballs of equal nuttiness would react in much different ways north and south of the border.
I think the Canadian nutball would be less inclined to go for a gun, not because they aren't as readily available, which they are, but because they've grown up in a different culture.
The American has grown up in a much more violent society with a completely different attitude towards guns than a Canadian. For an American, reaching for a gun is more of an option.
I know what you're thinking. I'm actually arguing for more gun control. But I said that off the top, I'm in favour. I just don't think it would make much of a difference in a situation like we had yesterday, because the culture is never going to change in the States and there will always be guns available - regardless of their legality.
To me, it's like trying to get rid of mosquitos. You can spray for a while, but they'll always be there.
Guns are in their blood, guns are part of who Americans are, and no matter how big the lobby against guns becomes, the lobby for guns will always be there pushing back and pointing to their constitution.
Idiots like Ted Nugent and Rush Limbaugh will fire up the right and inspire the imbeciles within the NRA and it will be decades before anything will change, and even if it does change, all it takes is one new government to reverse everything, which has happened in the past.
Less guns on the street in the United States is a pipe dream because there are already enough illegal and un-registered guns to supply those who want them for years and years to come.
Hard drugs are illegal in the United States, but they're still there for anyone who wants them. Just like drugs, make guns completely illegal but it won't stop a nutball from getting one.
How successful has the so-called war on drugs been?
Adam Lanza used his mother's guns yesterday, but if this master plan was in his head, I don't think the ready availability would have necessarily stopped him, it would have made him go to other sources - of which there are plenty.
To think that stricter gun laws would have prevented what happened yesterday is terribly simplistic and naïve. It's much deeper than that in the United States but unfortunately that country doesn't have the moral integrity to deal with it.
The culture is too ingrained and the polarization of the two sides is so deep that a consensus is completely out of reach.
Do I have a solution? No, and the reason for that is maybe there is no solution. The situation in the United States is so far gone that the best solution might be concentrating more on mental health than gun control - because as much as some hate to hear this, it still takes a finger to pull a trigger.
Unfortunately, psychological assessment often comes too late.
Comments We Like - Joe Warmington
September 19, 2011 @ 07:25
Jack Is Gone, But The Questions Aren't
August 28, 2011 @ 06:59
Now that the funeral's over I guess its OK to get into this a bit. Then again, when it comes to the hypocritical left, I guess the timing will never be right, but I have to ask some questions.
Like - why has nobody given the Prime Minister for literally breaking the rules and allowing Jack Layton to have a state funeral? It was unprecedented in Canadian history, never before has an opposition leader, who's never even been a cabinet minister been given a state funeral.
This did not have to happen, but the Prime Minister took the pulse of the country and decided it was deserved.
A cynic might say he's was afraid "not" to. Can you imagine the reaction from the usual suspects? The PM would have been crucified.
And what about the cost? The very people who would have driven a spike through the PM's nuts if he hadn't thrown yesterday's love-in are the same people who criticize every penny he spends.
Here's another question. Can you imagine the other scenario? If Jack Layton had been a Conservative and he'd been given a state funeral? Yikes, the league of entitlement would have thrown one of their classic tantrums.
They definitely would have brought up the money aspect.
Here's another thing I don't understand. What's all this "Jack Layton was a man of hope" nonsense? What does that mean exactly? What kind of special "hope" is this?
Does Stephen Harper not have "hope" for the country? Bob Rae, Michael Ignatieff or any other politician who runs for office? Are they all "hope-less"?
That's all I kept hearing yesterday. Jack Layton was a man of "hope". Well I hope so, because I think we're all pretty much the same. Every day we hope for a better tomorrow, or, at the very least, an equal tomorrow if you've just had a pretty good today.
This "man of hope" bullshit nauseates me. I had my fill of it during the Obama circle jerk and we can all see where "hope" got the Americans.
One man's hope could be another man's anguish.
Let's not forget, Jack Layton was in a pretty good position. He could make all kinds of pie in the sky statements and promises knowing full well he'd never had to act on them, even after all those Quebecers "parked" their votes with the NDP making his numbers look a lot more impressive than they are.
And that raises another question. Does anybody really think what happened in Quebec had anything to do with Jack Layton, bringing the country together or giving Quebecers a valid alternative?
It was a flukey farce, plain and simple. I bet you half the people who voted for him don't even know he's dead. And I'm not kidding.
I've written on these very pages that part of me, the part that would have left the country, hoped Jack had won the spring election so we could see how he would deliver on those promises. It would have been disastrous, much like the brutal Bob Rae years of the early 90's in Ontario.
Nobody is disputing that Jack Layton was a nice guy with good intentions, and he wanted what he thought was best for the country.
But that doesn't mean we should ignore the realities the hypocrisies or the obvious questions, even if it means being labled a heartless prick.
Sorry people, but Jack Layton's legacy did not equal the reaction. Far from it.
One more question - is the NDP going to keep the seperatist as leader?
I certainly "hope" not!
Comments We Like - Christie Blatchford
August 26, 2011 @ 20:38
I got home from Chicago this afternoon and could barely believe what I was seeing take place at Nathan Phillips Square.
The over-the-top out pouring of whatever you want to call it for Jack Layton turned my stomach.
Phoniness might be a good word.
Yea, he was a decent man, and yea he worked hard for his "funny little pretend party", but the absolutely outrageous performances that have followed his death are bordering on creepy.
After watching some of it on the news tonight, my attention was brought to the controversial article that Christie Blatchford wrote earlier this week, and I loved it.
Blatchford points out that Jack was an opportunist who really did enjoy himself while grossly over-estimating his contribution to this country.
Bingo! And a whole pile have fallen for it.
Let's face it folks, Jack Layton was a silly socialist with whacky ideas and his promises were empty based on the fact he'd never have to act on them.
I guess I really shouldn't be surprised by what I saw today. I would assume that the vast majority who walked past Jack's casket are terrified that their mouth piece for entitlement has been silenced.
Their hands have slipped from our pockets.
I'm sure even Jack would have been embarrassed by the forced wailers who sobbed for the cameras today.
I meant what I wrote on Monday. And I was actually impressed with some of the stuff Layton wrote on his death bed. But I'm way more impressed with what Blatchford wrote on Tuesday.
I think it proves what I've always thought. She really does have balls.
Layton's death turns into a thoroughly public spectacle
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
February 5, 1976
Good Job Jack
August 22, 2011 @ 14:58
I'm not going to get too slobbery over this thing because after the fact, and given what I've written and said about Jack Layton in the past, it wouldn't hold much water.
But I will repeat what I said about Jack when he held that press conference a few weeks to ago to talk about his latest bout with cancer; he was a unique man.
I didn't like or agree with his politics, but I truly admired his tenacity and commitment to his cause.
No doubt, cancer is a prick and can be ugly monster. Whatever got a hold of Jack must have been a special kind of ugly, because it beat one hell of a fighter.
"My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world."
Jack Layton Aug 20, 2011
Fuckin' With The Fat Guy
August 4, 2011 @ 09:52
Why is there a debate where there is no debate?
I'm referring to the aggravating back and forth between those rational people who know its time to shut-down several Toronto libraries and those who are opposed.
The numbers say it all. Toronto has 93 public libraries and 700 schools with each containing their own separate library.
You may have noticed that technology has changed our researching habits quite a bit over the past few years, so the need for going to the local library has diminished somewhat.
It's a given. A no brainer. A slam dunk. Libraries are going the way of the typewriter so its time to update.
In this case update means taking a whole whack of them and shutting them down. It makes complete sense.
But ah, there-in lies the reason for this non-debate. The anti-Ford regime in Toronto has decided to latch onto this issue as a way of getting at the Mayor in their favourite way.
They like to paint him as a fat, stupid, ignorant boor who has no class and very little appreciation for the arts and personal expression. Painting the Mayor anti-library helps the cause.
The amazing thing is, shutting down a bunch of libraries may actually help those who still choose a library for their research and development. They may have to travel a little farther, but if say one/third of Toronto's public libraries are shut-down, it will make the remaining two/thirds that much better.
Having school libraries remain open beyond school hours is another option that is being ignored. To eliminate a lot of the duplication is some areas seems sensible, but it's not a good play for the anti-Ford forces who choose to over-look the sensible if it means attacking the man.
Make no mistake about it, that's what this is about.
And I don't even want to talk about Margaret Atwood. Here blabberings do nothing more than show how out of touch she is.
She claims the Mayor is attacking the arts and literature, when it reality she and the lefty brigade in Toronto are whoring this issue to attack the Mayor.
This issue has nothing to do with kids being able to read books. That will not change with fewer libraries in Toronto. If you really want a book, they'll still be there, you might have to drag your ass a little further, or instead of going to a public library you might find yourself in a school, but rest assured, books will not disappear.
But here's the bottom line, whether we like it or not, books with covers and pages don't play the part in our lives that they used to. Kids get their info and pleasure from different places now and that's made many libraries empty if not obsolete.
Why keep payin' for it?
Category: Politics | Stuff
Thinking Of Jack
August 3, 2011 @ 13:48
Like most people I was absolutely floored when I saw Jack Layton's news conference last week.
The image of this man literally having his body eaten by cancer was tough to look at, so we can only imagine what his friends and family are going through.
Talk about a time for reflection. As you know, I'm not a big fan of his politics but I sure as hell have always admired his conviction.
Say what you want about the guy, and I've said a lot, but he certainly has left his mark on Canadian politics and he's to be admired for his tenacity - and it's that tenacity that will help him beat cancer if it's at all possible.
And that's the problem. Jack seems to be in a worrisome state. When the weight is gone and the voice becomes raspy rarely are the prospects for recovery good.
When Jack stepped up to the podium last week he very much reminded me of Pat Burns when he was in the late stages of his noble battle with that son of a bitchin' disease.
I can't believe there will be a good ending to this story.
I've said it all before. I don't like Jack Layton's politics. I don't like his socialist views and I don't like his attitude towards the military. I think his fiscal policies stink and I'm not fooled by all the Quebecers who "parked" their votes in the last election.
But none of that has to do with Jack Layton the man. A man who has given himself to public life for the better part of 30 years and regardless of how misguided thought he could make a difference.
He deserves everyone's prayers - or if you're like me, and you're not into that stuff, he deserves good thoughts.
E-Mail - The Auditor General's Report
June 11, 2011 @ 10:12
"Freddie, I can't wait to hear your take on the Auditor General's report. Please don't pass up the opportunity to tell us how Harper and Clement are so squeaky clean and that somehow the looney liberals have influenced the AG's findings.. Please hurry!"
It was inevitable. Since the Auditor General's report was released on Thursday I've received a flood of e-mails asking for my reaction.
This is tied to my obvious support of Stephen Harper and his Conservative government.
It's one of those partisan things, if you don't like the Conservatives and there's a bad report, you jump all over it, just like it worked the other way when the Liberals were continuously thrashed by the AG.
And that's something we should all think about. Really, when has there been an Auditor General's report that doesn't criticize a government? That's why, if you go back through this blog, I haven't written much about AG reports over the years because they're always the same.
They pick at the sitting government because it's easy. Governing isn't easy and when you're trying to run the business of Canada and you attempt to look after as many as you can, you're left wide open for criticism.
This is not to say the Conservatives are innocent or blameless, on the contrary. There are several things in the latest report that all Canadians should be concerned with. Harper's boys did cut some corners and probably didn't necessarily report things the way they should have. Like that's anything new.
The pressing question is - did they break the law - and how does it affect the big picture?
I realize that pointing to previous governments becomes a tiring habit, so I won't do any more of that. I won't even mention Ad Scam other than to mention I won't mention it.
I'll only look forward and offer this. Read the report, take from it what you will and then store it for future reference.
And when the next election rolls around, assess all your information and make an intelligent decision.
What else can you do?
It was that process that made it so easy for me to become a Conservative.
Harper Flyin' High
June 9, 2011 @ 08:45
Man oh man can this country ever look Mickey Mouse sometimes.
The Prime Minister of our country, the leader of our nation takes a government jet to Boston to watch the hockey game and there's an army of idiots who want to piss all over him.
Outside of a solid majority, Stephen Harper just can't win the eyes of the loony left. Are the critics really serious, or is it just part of the ongoing campaign to discredit Harper at every turn?
First of all, the Prime Minster isn't allowed to fly on commercial flights for security reasons, so he's got to take a Canadian Forces plane. Secondly, so what if it cost tens of thousands of dollars, he's the goddamn Prime Minister and there's a Canadian team in Stanley Cup final.
You can bet your ass if he didn't go, the same people would be asking why?
It leaves me shaking my odd little head. Name me another country where the leader doesn't have full access to any bloody transportation he needs or wants.
Stephen Harper didn't use the jet for a holiday in the Bahamas. He didn't use it for a shopping spree in New York City; he used it to attend a hockey game, our national sport, in Boston, to see a Canadian team attempt to win the Cup for the first time in 20 years.
I thought it was pretty cool to see him there. I thought it displayed the "every day guy" part of the man that so many claim isn't there.
And further to the "Dopey and the Dustball" posting - the childish rogue page who pulled the stunt was given the chance to explain herself by "surprise" the Toronto Star, and as expected it was nothing but a bunch of naive bullshit.
Especially the part where she claims 60 percent of the country "voted against" the Conservatives, another indication that she's ignorant when it comes to Canadian politics.
With no less than five parties, it's almost impossible to get 50 percent of the popular vote but she's too bloody clueless to figure it out. Actually, the 40 percent Harper got, was pretty impressive.
Anyway, there's my rant for today. And please don't accuse me of blindly supporting the Prime Minister and his Boston excursion because I have supported all party leaders, both nationally and provincially when it comes to using government transportation.
It's what you do when you're the leader. It's what you have to do.
By the way, the Prime Minister paid for the hockey tickets himself and will re-imburse for the flights at charter rates. What a guy!
Dopey And The Dustball
June 6, 2011 @ 12:31
I spent the weekend at the tin palace this weekend and really wasn't plugged in to the world around me, so the story about the "rogue page" in Ottawa escaped me until today.
And there's another dimension to it today.
Now it turns out that the world's public enemy number one against personal hygiene thinks what that spoiled little ignoramus did in the House of Commons on Friday was cool.
That disgusting dust ball who lurks under the greasy ball cap, Michael Moore thinks that Brigette DePape deserves credit for holding up that stupid sign that said "Stop Harper".
The whole exercise showed nothing but a lack of knowledge, first by the kid, and now by the king of gut cheese.
"Stop Harper?" I mean really, how is that going to happen when the man has a majority?
Did Ms DePage not witness the election a few weeks ago. Did she not notice that the Prime Minister got enough to seat to become unstoppable? She obviously doesn't know how our government works, which is enough on its own for her to lose her job.
What a snotty little brat. She takes the job knowing full well that Parliamentary pages are supposed to be non-partisan, yet she turns around a pulls an embarrassing stunt that doesn't even make sense.
Why wouldn't she lose her job? Forget that she's stupid, she did enough to lose her job before exposing her ignorance of our system.
And don't get me goin' on Moore. Admittedly, I enjoyed some of his early work, but the later stuff has been your typical left leaning bullshit. Sensationalized crap.
For him to support DePage explains some of his recent work - he obviously doesn't do his homework. If he did, he'd realize that her goofy little stunt was pointless because the guy we're supposed to stop just got a majority that lasts four years.
The whole thing nauseates me. I don't need to have a chat with DePage to know what she's all about. One of those mouthy little creeps who spends a lot of time preaching about things she doesn't know about, spouting advice when she doesn't have enough life experience to fill a thimble.
And Moore - long before he opens his mouth again, he should have a shower.