The Scott Ross

How Do The Tories Control The Message? Leak It To Taber

noreply@blogger.com (thescottross.blogspot.com) — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 00:07:00 +0000

The Tory Senate always has room for one more.

After Mike Duffy lied and aired damning private footage of Stephane Dion, the CTV host was appointed to the Senate by our Conservative government. As it is the olympic season, his former co-host Jane Taber is now picking up the torch. For how else can one explain the latest post in the Globe and Mail that instead of offering news or even an opinion about news, puts Tory attacks in print.

The headline, "PMO mocks Ignatieff in internal email," is meant to convey that here in the pages of the Globe and Mail lies a news story, that something has happened that Canadians should be made aware of. However one just needs an elementry understanding of Canadian federalism to understand this is not news, this is political partisanship in the third estate.

The Office of the Prime Minister is a partisan entity, there is no surprise therefore that such an email from the PMO attacking Michael Ignatieff exists; it would be newsworthy if there wasn't.

Jane Taber in writing this piece made clear her political affiliation. For it is not news that the PMO is partisan; it was created for that purpose, it has functioned for that purpose, and it will continue to fulfill that purpose until Canada no longer stands.

Jane Taber's article gives the Conservative email a far wider audience then it could have obtained otherwise; and where before it was just among other Tory partisan hacks, the Conservative email attacking Michael Ignatieff is now before the Canadian public, contributing to the mass and pervasive attack ads already in currency.

Where the Conservatives have varied their attacks in the past and paid handsomely, none have been so cost effective as this done by the hands of one Jane Taber.

And one can only imagine, in what dark and pallid office or corridor did Jane nod in understanding when she heard the echoeing of one familiar phrase, 'The Tory Senate always has room for one more.'

A Religious Argument In Support of Abortion

noreply@blogger.com (thescottross.blogspot.com) — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:29:00 +0000

If there are those who oppose abortion based on theological foundations drawn from western religions, this holiday season perhaps offers an argument to the contrary.

For where abortion is seen as the killing or cessation of life of an unborn person, it must then be understood then that life enters the womb at some early stage of pregnancy, if not at conception. Indeed the Catholic Church holds this position that life begins at that moment where the sperm fuses with the ovum. And though such a position is widely held among strong adherents of western religions, Christmas and its celebration are central to an argument to counter.

Where if life begins at conception, why is the largest Christian festival in December and not March? Why is it that we celebrate Jesus entering the world on December 25th when he had by the previous assumption been here for 9 months? One must ask, ‘where is the large Christian festival for the messiah's conception?’

And this is the religious argument in support of abortion, or in the very least a religious argument against the belief that life begins at conception. Jesus’ birth is perhaps the most pivotal date in Christianity and perhaps to mankind; so much so that history is divided into all that came before and all that came after. It is the day of Christ's birth that signals his arrival on earth, not his conception; Christmas is the celebration of that fact.

It should be well regarded however that there is a Christian celebration on the 25th of March, the Feast of Annunciation. The day marks Gabriel's announcement to Mary that she would carry the son of God. And though such an event corresponds to the conception of Jesus, it is not a celebration of his conception but rather his pending arrival; thus the Feast of Annunciation, not the Feast of Arrival, nor the Feast of Conception, nor the Feast of Jesus on Earth.

Christmas is the celebration of Jesus being born, of arriving, of entering the world; the day of his conception does not offer any of the same notice. This Noel and all the importance placed upon it, undermines that assumption held by those who are against abortion, the assumption that life begins at conception; for if life truly does begin at conception, millions upon millions of Christians are 9 months late every year in their observance.

Either Christmas is the day Jesus entered the world or it was March 25th, the approximate day he was conceived. If it's Christmas, then life does not begin at conception, and if it's March 25th, I guess having turkey dinners will be more evenly distributed throughout the year.

Tory Environmental Report Has Obvious Mistakes And Conclusions That Should Be Questioned

noreply@blogger.com (thescottross.blogspot.com) — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0000

A month ago, in reviewing numerous papers on carbon pricing, I read a report that was done by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE) that attempted to offer some justification for the Conservative government's position in favour of cap-and-trade. In reading Achieving 2050 however I was stunned to find that this government-published report, that was supposed to be reviewed by the round table's members, researchers, analysts, etc., contained obvious and critical errors; errors that possibly undermine the reports conclusion that a continental cap-and-trade system is to be preferred over a carbon tax.

On page 38 (PDF page 52), the second paragraph from the bottom, the report references Figure 7 on page 39 (PDF page 53) and claims that as Canada moves from a 45% reduction to a 65% reduction of 2006 emissions, the cost of reducing emissions per tonne increases from $200 to $300. However as one can see in Figure 7 (right) the cost increase is actually from $100 to $200, not the stated $200 to $300.

The report states:

Our research indicates that there is a point at which additional domestic action does not deliver on our cost-effectiveness goal. The rationale for this is straightforward: the costs of abatement rise rapidly as deeper reductions are sought.

Figure 7 illustrates this point. As reductions are sought above 45% below 2006 levels by 2050, the incremental cost to move to our target of 65% increases from $200 per tonne to over $300 per tonne, and even higher to reach an 80% target.

As noted above, this observation is wrong as a quick examination of Figure 7 clearly illustrates. And one can also note another obvious mistake, and that is the report cites the figure as being based on 2006 emissions, yet when one reviews the graph it is clearly in terms of 2005 emissions.

These mistakes call into question the conclusion of the report, that a continental cap-and-trade system is to be preferred over a carbon tax. The report claims that carbon must be priced at $300 per tonne to a reach 65% reduction by 2050, however Figure 7 clearly shows that such a target can be reached at a price of $200. In fact Achieving 2050 claims that all the costs of abatement are higher than displayed in the graph. The report puts the point where costs dramatically escalate at a target of a 45% reduction, and as the government target is 65%, it is concluded that it only makes sense to offset those higher costs outside of Canada. On page 38, in reference to this situation, the report states:

Given the rapidly increasing carbon prices required to attain domestic reductions consistent with our long-term targets, a strategy that balances domestic action with real and verifiable reductions from outside Canada makes sense.

However when one looks at Figure 7, the point in which the graph steeply increases is at the government's target of 65% and not 45%; therefore to reach the 2050 target, no external solution is actually needed and a continental cap-and-trade system may not be the preferred option.

I have had a professor on environmental economics review this paper and he concurs that these are mistakes. It should also be mentioned that for over a month numerous emails have been sent to the NRTEE seeking explanation without any response.

It should be noted that it could be that only Figure 7 is in error and the rest of the report is the correct portion. Though that may be true, it would at the very least leave the entire report's credibility in question as acknowledged mistakes had hitherto gone unnoticed, so why couldn't others.

It is more likely however that NRTEE researchers compiled the graph for the round table, and it was the NRTEE members that were mistaken in their interpretation of that data and perpetuated that misinterpretation in their finessing of the political document. This more probable alternative is furthered by the fact that NRTEE members lack any research or analytical backgrounds and, as previously written, have strong ties to the Conservative Party. It is from this that is likely the Conservative NRTEE members wrote the body of Achieving 2050, misinterpreting the data collected and generated by the staff of researchers and analysts.

The mistakes within the report Achieving 2050 at the very least show a lack of competency in the NTREE and question the conclusion that a continental cap-and-trade system is to be preferred over a carbon tax.

A DC Snowball fight, A Gun, And FOX News

noreply@blogger.com (thescottross.blogspot.com) — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 20:27:00 +0000

Yesterday in Washington DC a twitter organized snowball fight broke out, and in the mayham, snow was hurled and yes, police guns were drawn. And though every other news source has reported these snowballers to be young revelers just attempting to have fun, a video on FOX news claims these young people were in actuality anti-war protesters. However in comparison to the FOX news updated story on its website which makes no mention of that fact and in comparison to every other report the attribution of an anti-war position to the snowballers was wrong, and one must wonder why FOX ever made it in the first place.

The DC snowball fight was captured fruitously on multiple hand held video cameras, (H/T to Red Tory), and the recorded video shows the aftermath of snowballs hitting a marone Hummer occupied by an off-duty police detective.

The video continues with detective Baylor upon getting out of his vehicle is hit with a snowball and then without identifying himself pulls out his gun. The crowd becomes vocal to this disproportionate response and a worried citizen calls the police, not aware that the man with a gun was actually a detective. Other policemen arrive and eventually any hostilities are quieted; however the shock that a member of the police force would draw his weapon in response to a snowball is continuing to draw much unwanted attention to the DC police department.

In the early hours after this story went viral, many news outlets reported the story as an innocent snowball fight that went wrong, however FOX news added a previously unmentioned aspect, that these weren't just any snowballers, they were anti-war protesters who got out of hand.

It is hard to say defintively whether FOX news made up this fact or a source was wrong, but when considering FOX's updated news page reports otherwise it is clear FOX news' initial story involving anti-protesters was wrong. FOX news on its updated page states:

But what started as a good-natured romp in the snow soon took a turn toward the unexpected — and potentially dangerous — when an undercover D.C. police officer became involved in a verbal altercation with members of the crowd and allegedly pulled out his gun.

With FOX news now omitting the anti-war protest aspect of its earlier version, I am left wondering why was it included in the first place? Was it because an original source was in error? Or was it something more? Where prior to the full footage being released (as FOX's video using differnt footage, it's clear this wasn't available at the time), was the original story an attempt to make anti-war protesters appear so unruly and hostile, police action was needed to break up the protest?

-------------------------------------

Other video demonstrating the snowball fight was not a protest of any kind and was intended to be all in good fun:

Conservatives on Afghan Detainee Abuse: Justice Is On Holidays

noreply@blogger.com (thescottross.blogspot.com) — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 18:04:00 +0000

Allegations of war crimes deserve to be investigated whether its December or July. Conservatives must recognize that doing what’s right should not depend on a calendar.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Crime doesn't take a break over the holidays, so why should the enforcement of laws?

That is a rhetorical question of course because it's obvious to any person that due to the world we live in our justice system must not and cannot take a holiday. Yet it is from that blatantly obvious fact that the Conservative Party has committed one of the grossest abuses of logic to date.

Laurie Hawn, the parliamentary secretary for the Defence Minister, on Tuesday in explaining why Conservative MPs boycotted a meeting of the Commons committee investigating Afghan detainee abuse, quipped this statement on CTV's PowerPlay:

“It's not the time to be having meetings that are implying, intentioned or not, that Canadians are somehow guilty of war crimes.”

If you weren't sure what that sound was, it was rationality having a seizure. Apparently that happens when a taxpayer-funded employee demonstrates a third grade comprehension of reasoning.

The illogical implication of course from Hawn's statement is that no matter the evidence against Canadians, be they cabinet ministers, bureaucrats, generals, or soldiers; and no matter the scope, whether the matter concerns detainee abuse, genocide, or an illegal war, when December rolls around our Conservative government believes it isn't the time to have justice done.

And this sentiment is not just held by Laurie Hawn, as this Globe and Mail article attests:

The Tories defended their decision by saying there's no urgency to hold more hearings in the holiday period.

How can Conservatives believe Christmas of all times deems that there is no urgency to pursue justice, no urgency to do what is right?

And there again is a rhetorical question, because even the reporter of that Globe article bares witness that the Conservatives motives aren’t concerned with justice, but instead are steeped in politics. Steven Chase writes:

The move ensures for the time being that there are no more hearings to enflame a controversy that's set the government back on its heels and begun to cost it support.

So it is from Conservative partisanship that allegations of war crimes go un-investigated and justice deferred. That out of the sake of their own political livelihoods, the Tories have contorted logic to justify the boycotting of the Commons committee and the pre-emption of any investigation into any wrong doing.

With the potential Conservative cover up of the abuse of detainees at the hands of the Afghan military, now in addition goes the real abuse of logic by the hands of our government.

Allegations of war crimes deserve to be investigated whether its December or July. Conservatives must recognize that doing what’s right should not depend on a calendar.

NRTEE: Conservative Partisanship

noreply@blogger.com (thescottross.blogspot.com) — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 03:24:00 +0000

The supposed independent National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy is filled with partisan appointments. Of the current 19 members, 11 have strong associations with the Conservative Party, being members, donors, candidates, former MPs, while another 2 have demonstrated they are aligned ideologically.

In doing an assignment for a class on environmental economics at the University of British Columbia Okanagan I was reviewing articles on BC's carbon tax and this article got my attention. The CBC piece cites this report done by the National Round Table on the Environment and Economy that concludes a cap and trade system is to be preferred over a carbon tax. What is of interest is that the independent Round Table comes to a conclusion that just so happens to coincide with the Conservative government's preference of a Cap-and-Trade system instead of the more academically acclaimed carbon tax.

This coincidence motivated a review of the Round Table's members, and what was quickly evident was that a clear majority were intimately associated with the Conservative Party, either being contributers, members, candidates, and even former MPs.

Of the 19 members who contributed to the report, eleven were found to hold strong associations with the Conservative Party: Eight being previous conservative candidates, MPs, or conservative advisors and three that have made donations to conservative parties). Two of the other members have weaker asociations with the Conservative Party: Robert Slater, a civil servant, worked under Trudeau, Mulroney, and Chretien, but had a larger role under Mulroney, while Brubaker has written a substantial amount on conservative environmentalism.

NRTEE Members With A Strong Conservative Association:

President and CEO David McLaughlin - Chief of staff to Brian Mulroney, as well as up until most recently, to Jim Flaherty, (see sixth paragraph from bottom).

Chair Robert Page - Contributed 500 dollars to Conservatives in the last election, just a month after getting his patronage appointment (see picture right).

Anthony Dale - Advisor to the Ontario Conservative government from 1995-2001

Pauline Browes - Former Progressive Conservative MP

Timothy R. Haig - As President and CEO of Biox, his company donated $2000 to Conservative candidates in 2006, just months before getting the patronage appointment (See picture right)

Christopher Hilkene - Served as advisor to Federal Conservative Minister of the Environment and the Progressive Conservative provincial counterpart in Ontario.

Ken McKinnon - Leadership candidate for the Yukon conservative party.

Robert (Bob) Mills - Reform Party, Canadian Alliance and Conservative Party MP from 1993-2008.

Richard Prokopanko - Tory insider and political assistant to Mulroney.

Robert Sopuck - Currently seeking to be a Conservative Party candidate.

Donald MacKinnon - In 2007 contributed $200 to the Ontario Progressive Conservatives.

Members With Some Conservative Alignment:

Elizabeth Brubaker - Writer who has contributed to growing conservative environmental literature, from electronic sources; to books, such as this one published by the conservative-minded Fraser Institute; to magazines, such as "The Next City Magazine" which has gone as far as to advocate for the privatization of forests, sewage and water treatment facilities, and medicare, among other things.

Robert Slater - Public servant who worked with Liberal and Conservative governments but had a close relationship with Brian Mulroney. Slater headed many of Mulroney's environmental programs and was personally thanked by the former Progressive Conservative Prime Minister.

Members With No Conservative Alignment:

Janet L.R. Benjamin - President of Vireo Technologies, a company in the plug-in hybrid car industry, and Past President of Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of BC.

Angus Bruneau - Former Petro Canada director, former professor, and a member of many sustainable energy groups.

Francine Dorion - Completed a 27 year career at Abitibi-Consolidated, a pulp and paper company, and Dorion has also been a member of various forestry management groups.

Wishart Robson - Previously worked for Nexens, a large oil company in Alberta.

Mark Jaccard - Professor at Simon Fraser University.

David Chernushenko - Former deputy leader of the Green Party of Canada.

(And since the report, the partisan appointments have continued.)

Recently added members:

Leah Lawrence - Progressive Conservative Alberta Candidate 2008 , see this article also.

John V. Hachey - Ran as a Progressive Conservative in 1997 and contributed 138 dollars to the Ontario Progressive Conservatives in 1998, see here.

Diane Cunningham - Progressive Conservative MPP (Ontario).

Franklin Holtforster - President and CEO of MHPM Project Managers Inc., a properties company dealing in construction.

--------------------------------------------------------

It must be noted that it is not just with this Conservative government that the NRTEE has become nothing more than a partisan entity. Under previous Liberal governments the Round Table had its share of political appointments such as with Liberals David McGuinty and Glen Murray; however there is an important difference, the Liberals did not come close to the number of political appointments that the Conservatives have made to this body.

Scrutinize Government, Who Else Will?

noreply@blogger.com (thescottross.blogspot.com) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 02:47:00 +0000

Canadians And Media Ignore Those With Power, Criticize Those Without

noreply@blogger.com (thescottross.blogspot.com) — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 05:34:00 +0000

what world is this where citizens and media think it beneficial to ignore those with power and criticize those without?

-------------------------------------

In the Canadian democracy, lest Canadians and our media forget, it is our duty as citizens and members of the fourth estate to question our government, to hold our representatives accountable. The question that then must be asked by all is with the Conservative government determining the shape and substance of our executive and legislative bodies, when people criticize politics, when they question our country's affairs, should not the bulk of criticism be laid upon our Conservative government?

Yet as discussions and articles develop, as Canadians talk and reporters write, this is seen to not be the case. Liberals on their knees are bastardized while throned Conservatives are ignored.

What world is this where citizens and the media find it more valuable to our country to criticize those not in power? Facing an extensive recession that will last for years, should Canadians criticize postal workers? With a bleak future in Afghanistan, should the media criticize doctors? It is not the postal service nor healthcare professionals that deserve our attention; no, it is those in power who must be judged.

To dishearten many partisan Liberals and as many partisan Conservatives, it must be admitted Michael Ignatieff is of no authority. He is but the leader of a party not in power; he is a mere man whose job is to serve as a check to the vast powers held by the Prime Minister. Liberals don't want to face this fact, for in doing so they lay witness to their challenge. Conservatives too ignore this, for if they make such an admission, they are the ones that must be then held accountable, that must be reformed.

On the other side of the floor is Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, not Prime Minister of all Conservatives, but of all Canadians. He is the leader of our government, where the ultimate responsiblity of our country rests. And even as this is so, in reading news stories, in debating politics, it is not his actions that are seen with the most critical eye. It is the Liberal leader, the man with no power that draws the most scrutiny.

I ask again, what world is this where citizens and media think it beneficial to ignore those with power and criticize those without? With any response, the depth democacy falls is far enough to change any mind. To will any Canadian, any reporter, to look at those they have elected, at those they gave their government to, and judge.

Criticize Liberals

noreply@blogger.com (thescottross.blogspot.com) — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 04:45:00 +0000

I’ve had the occasion recently to run in with a kid of an old friend of mine, he’s just a young student at university who I haven’t seen in ages. We got to talking and he brought up how much he was dismayed that the media and even ordinary Canadians were becoming increasingly critical, not of their government, not of the party in power but instead critical of the Liberal Party that’s in opposition. He just didn’t get why people weren’t more concerned with the Conservative politicians who are actually running the government than with the opposition politicians who are holding them accountable.

When I heard this I immediately smiled at his naivety, recalling back to when I was his age and was ignorant of how politics worked. I had a few minutes before Oprah so I sat him down. I told him that in a democracy all governments have to be scrutinized, that’s true, otherwise you get a government allocating most of its funds to their MPs ridings and using Canadian taxpayer money like their own party’s chequing account.

I saw his questioning glance and said, “Now in Canada it is the job of Canadians and journalists to hold their government accountable, it just happens that in criticizing the Liberals, we’re making sure we have the best way of doing that. “

“You see,” I told him, “in spending all of our time not focused on what our Conservative government is doing and instead talking about and writing articles about what’s happening with Denis Coderre in the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party and Liberal polling numbers, we’re really holding the Liberals’ feet to the fire. With the media and Canadians watching the Liberals so closely, it only stands to reason they will provide a more effective opposition. They’re sure to do a better job making sure our Conservative government doesn’t screw up like causing a recession or worsening some international military quagmire in a small Middle Eastern country.”

At this point I could tell that this young man just wasn’t getting it at all. So I said, “Look we need to scrutinize the Liberals so they will do a better job holding our government accountable; if we don’t make sure the Liberals are constantly criticized, how else can we be sure they’ll do our job?” When I asked this I knew I had wasted my time and that he was a lost cause, because he just looked at me and said, “Because we’ll do our job for them.”

Conservative Immigration Minister And His Asylum

noreply@blogger.com (thescottross.blogspot.com) — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 23:25:00 +0000

"And this, this is the Conservative Asylum of Canada; from wall to wall to wall."

--------------------------------------------------

Asylum, it's a word that conjures up images of a destitute dilapidated building on the outskirts of town, perched on some barren rigid hill face, housing those who are no longer sane, housing those who can no longer look after themselves. The old vine covered walls protecting society from the institution's inhabitants.

Recently with the arrival of 76 Sri Lankans on the coast of BC Canada, asylum has been used in its broadest meaning; asylum as sanctuary. Canada for decades has had the honourable tradition and duty of protecting those who are in danger from unjust foreign threats, like genocide and discrimination. Our lady Red and White has granted asylum to those who in danger flee to her; providing safety in an unsafe world.

However, as of late this ideal has been banded; arms restrained by her side, our country is being led to treat those who seek our help, our aid, our safety, as criminals. The lady Red and White, made blue by the flagrant abuse of our Conservative government.

Jason Kenney the Minister of Immigration instead of offering sanctuary to these men in danger, has instead labelled them as illegal immigrants and is treating them as such. His actions are done with the full knowledge that there's nothing illegal about them, for under Canadian and international law asylum seekers can arrive without notice and ask for our help. They are not criminals, nor have they done anything wrong. Our Conservative government has closed our country's arms to these men, but it has opened its own arms to the American pejorative ideal of anti-immigration.

Nowhere is the term illegal immigrant more prevalent then in the country of the stars and stripes. The Conservatives in importing the term are changing our country, altering it to be more like the red, white, and blue, even if they have to abuse it to add a shade.

In the antiquated image of a worn down mental institution, the asylum's forbearing walls protect society from those who can't look after themselves. This understanding of the term asylum might yet be relevant in this most recent context. For as we are Canadians, for as we are people, we are members of humanity, by our Conservative government rejecting to provide aid to fellow men, it’s clear we can't look after ourselves. And this, this is the Conservative Asylum of Canada; from wall to wall to wall.

Cheques & Balances: Video

noreply@blogger.com (thescottross.blogspot.com) — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 12:31:00 +0000

A video response to Conservatives who believe government money is Conservative Party funds.

To Gerald Keddy and other Conservative MPs, this is not your money, this is my money.

noreply@blogger.com (thescottross.blogspot.com) — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 20:41:00 +0000

To Gerald Keddy and other Conservative MPs, this is not your money, this is my money. This is my money that I worked at my job for, that I laboured for. This is my money that I paid to my government. I paid this money in order for my government to provide essential services for myself and other Canadians. I did not work to fund some political party, or to give old white men an opportunity for a photo-op. I worked to fund my country, I worked to fund Canada.

How is it that I need to remind Conservatives that is bad enough for the government to take my money, let alone for others to claim it’s theirs? When did the Conservative Party become so indulged in entitlement to believe they comprise the totality of government and its services?

It's not the Conservative Party that supplies Canadians with education. It is not the Conservative Party that will die for Canada in wars. It is not the Conservative Party that saves the dying in hospitals. Canadians are the teachers, Canadians are the soldiers, Canadians are the doctors, and Canadians are the taxpayers that fund them all.

The Conservative Party is not the Canadian government. For Conservatives to claim that some identity exists between them and our government is to suggest every government service and employee is a partisan instrument at their disposal; to use every power we as citizens have surrendered to further their narrow and limited political agenda. There can be no greater violation to the spirit of democracy then one party claiming it and the government are synonymous.

For Gerald Keddy and other Conservative MPs to suggest that Canadian taxpayer money is Conservative money is an absolute violation of the trust Canadians put in our government.

The Conservative Flag

noreply@blogger.com (thescottross.blogspot.com) — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 05:22:00 +0000

Where once conservatism was the banner of the Conservative Party, their flag is now white; where once they stood, they now surrender.
------------------------------------

Our Canadian flag hangs overhead, donned in the most beautiful red. It is the symbol of our country, of what identifies us as Canadians. And much like our flag to our country and people, ideologies are what distinguish our political parties and their members.

The Liberal Party and liberalism are closely identified just as is the NDP and socialism, however where once the Conservative Party and conservatism were like so united, they are now divergent. Where once conservatism was the banner of the Conservative Party, their flag is now white; where once they stood for something, they now surrender.

The Conservative Party has divorced itself from its principles; it has divorced itself from its identity. From creating a record breaking deficit, increasing government spending, appointing 27 senators, to endorsing same-sex marriage, this Conservative Party has not just abandoned its ideology, it has fled from it.

But the most flagrant Conservative retreat is both metaphorical and real. Where the party's ideology once led them into Afghanistan, the Conservative Party now retreats from both.

For a strong military and an importance on foreign affairs are hallmarks of conservatism, they are the characteristics of that ideology that rally so many to its pride and to its power; but as the Conservative government announced a 2011 withdrawal date from Afghanistan, the party withdrew its most patriotic ideological claim.

The situation in Afganistan is only getting worse and there is no reconciliation between excuses for retreating and conservatism. In regards to the ideology, there is no honour in losing a battle, in losing a country.

No longer are Conservatives the proud keepers of the Canadian military, no longer are they the strong. No longer are they the adherents of power internationally, no longer are they the world actors.

Conservatives have done away with what identifies them as conservative; they have done away with their ideology. Where the Liberals and New Democrats advocate the withdrawal from Afghanistan they do so representing their ideologies, the Conservative Party in advocating withdrawal represents nothing.

Conservative Credit, To Where The Blame Is Due

noreply@blogger.com (thescottross.blogspot.com) — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 06:05:00 +0000

If the 56 Billion dollar deficit in Canada can't be attributed to anything the Conservative government did but rather to the global economic crisis, how can any possible recovery be attributed to anything the Conservative government does?

If one cites the few months of action taken by the government since the recession as proof they must have done something to help the economy, why can't one cite the two years of action/inaction prior to the economic recession in Canada as proof they caused it?

Either the government has a role to play in its own economy or it doesn't. Conservatives can't have it both ways.

The Conservatives must be responsible for both the failure and any possible recovery or responsible for neither.

Responsibility, Conservatives. It involves taking credit AND blame or going home.

EI: Harper's Partisan Piggy Bank

noreply@blogger.com (thescottross.blogspot.com) — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 02:07:00 +0000

Just like the sky, the Conservative Party isn't blue, it just looks that way.

From 1993 to 2006 the Federal Liberal government collected a cumulative 51 Billion dollars more than it spent on employment insurance; the surplus each year going to the government's general revenue. Though such money was being used to pay down the debt, many economists and organizations saw this as bad, as it was ultimately an additional tax on workers.

In those years a younger and thinner Stephen Harper stood up in the House of Commons, denouncing such a policy. He led the charge against this EI abuse, rattling that the Liberals were using the EI fund as "a partisan piggy bank." This not just being about the excesses of government, but of the abuse of the tax system, something inherently opposed to by the conservative ideology.

In 2006 the Conservative Party took office, and now in power, no longer protected from being the powerless opposition, is forced to confront the reality that speech must match actions. Unfortunately where once there were conservative words, there are now only deceptions.

Yesterday Jim Flaherty the Conservative Finance Minister announced that EI premiums will increase in the years of 2012-2014. The Globe and Mail reports that such a hike will mean that the government will collect 12.9 Billion dollars more than it spends on the program. The article states:

Using information released in Thursday's fiscal update, economist Dale Orr calculates that Ottawa will collect $12.9-billion more in EI premiums from employers and workers than it pays out in benefits or administrative costs between 2012-13 and 2014-15.

The Conservative government is doing the very thing it fought against while its party was in opposition. It is imposing an additional tax on the most productive component of society, the workers.

The Conservative Party has now adopted a position it once fought against; a position that is inherently opposed to by the conservative ideology. And in reality where actions display a person's beliefs, not words, this Conservative Party is not a party with an ideology.

Just like the sky, the Conservative Party isn't blue, it just looks that way.

No Conservatives

noreply@blogger.com (thescottross.blogspot.com) — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 03:43:00 +0000

There’s an election on the horizon, and though I’m a Liberal, I’m not worried in the least about the conservatives. Not because of some disconnected sense of confidence, not because of some bloated type of arrogance, the reason why I’m not concerned about the conservatives is because frankly there are none.

The Conservative Party under Stephen Harper has abandoned every position that is intrinsic to conservative ideology. Fiscal responsibility, the most fundamental principle of conservatism has not only been abandoned by the Tories, but has been opposed by them since taking office. Cutting spending was not even attempted; instead it was increased, creating a now projected deficit of $55.9 Billion. Where once conservatives fought wars over taxes, let alone deficit spending and the interest that is sure to accumulate, this party of blue is reveling in being in the red.

Believing that religion and morality have an important role in society is something that conservatism is well known for but this position itself has been made sacrilege by the Tories. Stephen Harper has discarded the belief that the holy union of marriage is only and purely between a man and a woman sanctioned by God and now embraces that which he opposed, same-sex marriage. Where the conservative ideology believes morality should guide society, the posing Party of the same name believes the opposite, making morality nothing more than dictates by popular whim.

Where government was written in small lettering on the stone pillar of conservatism, the word government now expands on the ever growing blue balloon that is this Conservative institution. The federal Conservative cabinet grew from 32 members to 38, giving taxpayers an additional bill of 3.9 million dollars a year. Federal expenditures have increased 30%, currently 40 Billion dollars a year more than the previous Liberal government.

These among other points, such as the still existing gun-registry, the retreat in Afghanistan, the lack of accountability in deficit projections, and the record breaking 27 Senate appointments in one year only further illustrate the Conservatives’ opposition to their very own ideology.

In all likelihood there is an election approaching, and though I am a Liberal, I’m not worried about the conservatives, because there just aren’t any.

The True Cost of the GST-Cut: $15 Billion A Year PLUS Interest

noreply@blogger.com (thescottross.blogspot.com) — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 04:37:00 +0000

In reviewing news stories relating to the deficit, in particular the long list of broken promises from our Conservative government, I came across an interesting statement in a Montreal Gazette story, it reported that cutting the GST reduced government revenue each year by 15 billion dollars.

The story dated July 6 2009 was written by David Akin and reported economic projections by Kevin Page, the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer; but what was of particular interest was what was written in the middle of the article, it stated:

"The Conservatives, since taking office in 2006, have cut the GST by two percentage points, a move that costs the federal treasury about $15 billion a year."

With our finance minister Jim Flaherty today increasing the projected deficit once again, now to $55.9 Billion, the GST-cut's cost must now include the interest accumulating on that lost revenue's contribution to our national debt.

To put it simply the government lost 15 billion dollars in revenue from the GST reduction and in doing so contributed to increasing our deficit this year by the same amount. In addition this means that the GST-cut now is costing Canadians interest on 15 billion dollars of debt this year, and each year hence.

The reduction in the GST was meant to increase Canadians' spending and therefore spur economic growth; even assuming that the consumption tax cut accomplished this, the two percent reduction's benefit does not outweigh the interest accumulating on the $15 Billion principal that is now a part of our deficit.

Whereas if the GST had not been cut, we would of course still be paying 7% for the tax, but we would not be paying future taxes just to cover the accumulating interest from the debt caused by the lost revenue. If the GST had not been cut, we would of course have lost pennies from our pockets, but not future dollars from our wallets.

Chinese Consumerism

noreply@blogger.com (thescottross.blogspot.com) — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 16:37:00 +0000

"The US spends tomorrow's money today...We Chinese spend today's money tomorrow." - Cheng Siwei, Chinese Former Vice chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress

Cheng Siwei spoke in regards to the proclivity of the Chinese people to save rather to spend, he went on to express however, in this recent Telegraph article, the desire to change the country into one more willing to embrace consumerism. That change is an effort to make China less dependent on the whims of American consumers, buyers of Chinese products, and the foreign markets where Chinese dollars are now invested.

Clemancy Commandment: Ronald Allen Smith

noreply@blogger.com (thescottross.blogspot.com) — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 05:53:00 +0000

The Sixth Commandment says, "Thou Shalt Not Kill"; it does not say "Thou Shalt Not Kill Nice People." It does not narrowly stipulate that only killing innocent people is wrong, no, it puts forth that no man shall be considered just if he kills anyone; anyone, whether that person is good or bad, just or unjust. By the most influential moral code in the history of mankind, the ten commandments, it is wrong to kill anyone, whether they be sainted or they be damned, whether they be a Samaritan or they be a murderer.

Ronald Allen Smith is a murderer, but he should not be killed. Our government should ask for clemency, as previous governments have done.

Most Americans Voted For A Public Option In Healthcare

noreply@blogger.com (thescottross.blogspot.com) — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 13:11:00 +0000

In the 2008 election Barack Obama campaigned on Healthcare reform, promising to provide a public option when elected. Barack Obama won the presidency, and though all those promises he made should not be unquestionably accepted, they should at least be regarded as having more democratic legitimacy than those arguments who oppose them.

There may be some Americans who oppose a public healthcare system, but a few loud town hall meetings prove nothing. Americans already had their say during the election, and most Americans said yes to Barack Obama, yes to a public option in Healthcare.

It's time Democrats start using arguments and begin fighting for the public option in Healthcare.

A Cautionary Moral Tale All Citizens Must Read

noreply@blogger.com (thescottross.blogspot.com) — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 03:53:00 +0000

Below is one of my favorite Aesop fables. Though our government is not a tyranny, every government has that potential to become one, and as our government appears to be longlasting, so too must the caution this moral brings.

-------------------------------------

The Wolf and the Lamb

A WOLF, meeting with a lamb astray from the fold, resolved not to lay violent hands on him, but to find some plea, which should justify to the lamb himself, his right to eat him.

He then addressed him: "Sirrah, last year you grossly insulted me."
"Indeed," bleated the lamb in a mournful tone of voice: "I was not then born."

Then said the wolf: "You feed in my pasture."
"No, good sir," replied the lamb: "I have not yet tasted grass."

Again said the wolf: "You drink of my well."
"No," exclaimed the lamb: "I never yet drank water, for as yet my mother's milk is both food and drink to me."

Upon which the wolf seized him and ate him up, saying: "Well! I won't remain supper-less, even though you refute every one of my imputations."

Moral:
The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny, and it is useless for the innocent to try by reasoning to get justice, when the oppressor intends to be unjust.

----------------------------------------------------------

If one is interested in reading more Aesop fables I recommend reading the George Fyler Townsend, 1871 edition. It is the most authentic and complete version I've come across. As for electronic access, this website appears diligent.

Afghanistan: How We Made The World Worse

noreply@blogger.com (thescottross.blogspot.com) — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 02:48:00 +0000

There are some observers who suggest Afghanistan is better off now that Western forces have freed Afghans from Taliban tyrannical rule. I disagree, and now not only do I submit that Afghanistan is far worse than it once was, but the whole world is.

Going beyond the turmoil Pakistan now faces because of the war, what with the external Western pressure and internal Taliban militant conflict, and even beyond the Afghan refugee crisis the war has been brought to Pakistan, Iran, and other neighbouring countries (Over 3 million refugees); this war is generating trained militants for export. Neighbouring countries, especially those in Central Asia with weak post-soviet governments are the most vulnerable, and are seeing increased threats from Islamic radicals from Afghanistan.

The New York Times reports of one such threat to the neighbouring country of Kyrgyzstan:

The three men were locals who were said to have once crossed into nearby Afghanistan to wage war alongside the Taliban. They then returned, militant wayfarers apparently bent on inciting an Afghan-style insurgency in this tinderbox of a valley in Central Asia.

The Kyrgyz government eventually caught and killed the men, but as the NYT goes on to say, the possible threat is not over.

The security operation was one in a recent spate of firefights and attacks in Central Asia that have raised concerns that homegrown militants with experience in Afghanistan and Pakistan may be trying to move north to take on the region’s brittle governments.

Where once Afghanistan was dominated by a strict tyrannical albeit popular Taliban government, its neighbouring countries were stable; it is now a country mired in an endless war, and the threat of Islamic radicalism, the very reason why Western forces invaded the small middle eastern country, is spreading.

We went in to end Islamic radicalism in Afghanistan, we are not only failing that, but are now aiding it around the world.

Advice To Democrats: Attack the 'Elitist' Republicans

noreply@blogger.com (thescottross.blogspot.com) — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 12:49:00 +0000

In light of this health care debate in the US it is interesting to notice the side each American political party falls on; and though it seems obvious, the ramifications of this divide has potential utility for the democrats.

Both parties admit that the American health care system needs reform, with 46 million people in the states who are uninsured, I tend to agree with them.

The Democrats support and are fighting for a government-run option and Republicans are opposing any such plan and instead proposing slight alterations to the system, if any at all.

Now this divide between the two parties is one based on ideology; which is based on a difference of values and not immediate reason. Democrats are for government intervention for they see equality as something that must be achieved through collective action, where Republicans value individualism and actually see collective action as a threat to that type of freedom.

As this is a conflict over values and no debate will easily settle the dispute, each side is attempting to use public sentiment in their favour, the Republicans are doing a far better job. However Democrats have the potential to score a weighty blow against the conservative movement, which though they may lose the health care debate, Democrats could significantly change the foundations of public perception towards the Republican Party.

Election after election, Republicans have attacked Democrats labeling them as elitists, however when one frames this health care debate around helping the uninsured, it is Republicans who will appear elitist.

Conservatives caring only about themselves, ignoring the poor and the working class, is the definition of selfishness. Where the Republicans are fighting for a system that only allows the rich to have health care, elitism, is thy name.

The Democrats need to harness this type of attack, they need to change the terms of discussion, so it's no longer between the Democratic option of more government vs the Republican's individualism, but between the noble ideal of equality vs the base desire of selfishness and elitism.

You're Never Too Young

noreply@blogger.com (thescottross.blogspot.com) — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 02:56:00 +0000

Today I saw the name Matt crudely engraved in the dock at a beach here in Kelowna. It was at the end, between two pilings, the wood wet from the rolling waves splashing over top of it. And as I looked I imagined a young boy with some simple tool, like a key or a knife, making those repeated strokes necessary just to make the M. Removing pieces of wood to leave a memory.

I smiled at the etched letters, thinking about Matt leaving his mark; a mark not just of his name, but a mark of ownership. It's not as though he proclaimed this is my dock, no, in carving his name he declared ownership over this moment. This moment of diving into the cool Okanagan water; of having no worries; of having old friends and making new ones.

This summer was his moment in time, in engraving his name on such a pivotal physical feature he was perhaps making the most powerful display he could have made.

Thinking of such a connection, between a person and their surroundings, I could not help but think that it shouldn't be left to the youth. That owning the moment, that bringing yourself and your surroundings closer together, is something we should all pursue.

You're never too young to carve your name into a dock.

Socrates Might Argue The UN Is Not Legitimate

noreply@blogger.com (thescottross.blogspot.com) — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 03:57:00 +0000

In Crito, Socrates facing execution for allegedly corrupting Athenian youths presents an argument which illustrates a philosophical problem that I feel is quite potent against the United Nations.

The discussion in question occurs after Crito pleads for Socrates to easily escape from prison, Socrates offering what is the real first conception of social contract theory, counters through the voice of Athenian Laws. The Laws personified as a character present an argument for why Socrates cannot escape, for if he did he would be breaking an agreement he made with them. That agreement was instituted on the fact that Socrates chose to stay in Athens and thus obide by them, the Athenian laws. The Laws state:

Any Athenian, on attaining to manhood and seeing for himself the political organization of the state and us its Laws, is permitted, if he is not satisfied with us, to take his property and go away wherever he likes. If any one of you chooses to go to one of our colonies, supposing that he should not be satisfied with us and the State, or to emigrate to any other country, not one of us Laws hinders or prevents him from going away wherever he likes, without any lose of property. On the other hand, if one of you stands his ground when he can see how we administer justice and the rest of our public organization, we hold that by so doing he has in fact undertaken to do anything that we tell him.

Athenian Laws for Socrates were legitimized by citizens consenting to them by choosing to live within their jurisdiction. Difficulty arises in regards to the UN and international law as no one can choose, at least in theory, to live within their jurisdiction as there simply is no alternative. Therefore in line with Socrates argument it is interesting to think of the legitimacy of international laws when we have no choice but to abide by them.

-----------------------------------
A larger excerpt from the Laws dialogue:

'Consider, then, Socrates,' the Laws would probably continue, 'whether it is also true for us to claim that what you are now trying to do to us is not just. Although we have brought you into the world and reared you and educated you, and given you and all your fellow-citizens a share in all the good things at our disposal, nevertheless by the very fact of granting our permission we openly proclaim this principle: that any Athenian, on attaining to manhood and seeing for himself the political organization of the state and us its Laws, is permitted, if he is not satisfied with us, to take his property and go away wherever he likes. If any one of you chooses to go to one of our colonies, supposing that he should not be satisfied with us and the State, or to emigrate to any other country, not one of us Laws hinders or prevents him from going away wherever he likes, without any lose of property. On the other hand, if one of you stands his ground when he can see how we administer justice and the rest of our public organization, we hold that by so doing he has in fact undertaken to do anything that we tell him.... Furthermore, even at the time of your trial you could have proposed the penalty of banishment, if you had chosen to do so; that is, you could have done then with the sanction of the state what you are now trying to do without it. But whereas at that time you made a fine show of your indifference if you had to die, and in fact preferred death to banishment, now you show no respect for your earlier professions, and no regard for us, the Laws, whom you are trying to destroy; you are behaving like the lowest slave, trying to run away in spite of the contracts and undertakings by which you agreed to act as a member of our State.'

Crito, Plato, Pg 92-93. Trans. Tredennick and Tarrant, Penguin Classics, 2003