Lately, there have been a rash of gun related crime in Toronto, most notably in several schools, as well as the high profile murder last Tuesday of a fellow who was shot right on the 401 (a major 8+ lane highway in Toronto) and dumped onto the highway in the middle of the day, in front of shocked drivers. Of course, with it now being election season (again), politicians are positioning themselves as trying vet their own political agendas, under the guise of trying to find solutions to crime. The latest account of this is with Toronto mayor David Miller (NDP) and Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty (Liberal), both of whom have renewed calls for a handgun ban not only in Toronto, but nationally.
On the surface, to those who aren't well read on crime and guns, and who are generally not in favour of firearm possession, it sounds like they are getting tough on crime, right? But let's look at their position a little deeper here.
Let's face it, few want to publicly admit this, so I will be happy to do it. First, let's look at these crimes - make no bones about it, you will see a very clear commonality here, that few are wanting to admit. These crimes, for the most part, are perpetrated by young black men, and the victims are often young black men. The crimes have occurred in relatively heavier-populated black areas. You can't debate this with me - just pull up the news and check out the location of the shootings. Second, there is a gang component tied into a number of these shootings. Third, from the few arrests that have been made, it is discovered that the handguns used are by and large stolen and smuggled from the U.S. David Miller actually has the gonads to flat-face lie to the public and say that 60-70% of guns from crimes are either legally obtained or stolen from legal owners here in Canada. A police officer was interviewed this afternoon, who was on an anti-gang squad in Toronto, and he vehemently maintained that the percentage is more like 3 - 6%, and confirmed what we all know - that guns used in crimes are almost always stolen and smuggled from the U.S.
Why am I mentioning all this? Because of the fact that if the municipal or provincial jurisdiction were able to successfully enact a handgun ban, nothing would change. Crime would not go down. Why? Because the criminals don't give a rat's ass about following the law. Does anyone seriously think that a law outlawing all handgun possession would cause any criminal element to think twice about using handguns and / or register their stolen handguns? Think about this - it is illegal to rape or murder someone. It is illegal to steal someone's car. Yet these things happen every day, because criminals do not observe or respect the laws in place - that is the nature of the criminal mind.
If nothing else, such a handgun ban would target and penalize the law-abiding handgun owner, who took the time and expense to fill out an application for a licence, take the mandatory course, pay the fees, subject themselves to an exhaustive criminal check and waiting period, after providing written approval by one's spouse and several references. And to top it off, in Canada, owning a handgun is very restrictive as is. There are maybe a handful of people in CANADA who have a conceal carry licence. For the average Joe who wants to get a handgun licence (Restricted Possession and Acquisition Licence, or RPAL), they would then need to apply for a Authorization to Transport (ATT) licence, who only allows them to transport the handgun from their residence to an approved shooting range. That's it.
And, if you look at the typical profile of a gun owner, it is not a young black male from a broken home with little to no education. The vast majority of gun owners, whether it be handgun or long gun, are older folks with no criminal records, and who use the guns for sport shooting, hunting, or target shooting. They store their guns responsibly and obey all laws regarding the safe transport and use of their firearms. Those are the people who would be targeted with such a proposed ban, not the criminals.
You can draw a parallel to prohibition in the 1920s. How did that turn out when all alcohol was banned? People still managed to find alcohol illegal and a whole underground criminal element came into being in order to smuggle alcohol.
This is a complex issue, so I don't presume to have all the answers. Some people have said that the answer is for young black men to keep it in their pants and not father child after child with different black women who can't keep their legs shut and subsequently are faced with the daunting task of raising a child without a father present, and in trying to work long hours just to provide for the child, ends up not being able to spend the quality time with him, and as such the child joins a gang, and on and on it goes. This argument is fine, but it's not realistic - you can't change the problematic element in the community by idealistic wishful thinking. Sure, these young men who father these children should take responsibility for their actions, but who among us is going to enforce this or even teach it?
For me, I think that a possible solution is to increase the penalties for gun crimes. Some say that this would flood the system, but better these people in jails than on the street. With the Canadian revolving door justice system, no one spends an inordinate amount of time in the penal system - with good behaviour and a good lawyer, you'd be lucky if you even served half your sentence. By making the laws tougher, it at least removes more criminals off our street. And if they are 15 or 16, treat them as adults - they know what they are doing.
I've always endorsed the death penalty for murder, and for those who talk about crowding in jails with convicted murderers, this is one way you can cost-effectively deal with the situation. Sure, the bleeding hearts will say that it is cruel, but so is the murderous act that they did. Too bad, so sad.
Showing posts with label Dalton McGuinty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dalton McGuinty. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Ontario Election 2007 - The Aftermath
I am on vacation today, which is good, since I need to take my wife to the OB/GYN for the latest ultrasound. Thankfully, all is well. I am also glad to be off today, since it gives me some time to recuperate after a grueling night of watching election coverage. By now, I'm sure everyone knows that the governing Liberals under Dalton McGuinty, won a second majority government. Though I don't have cable TV, I did manage to tune in, using my RCA rabbit ears, to the free CTV broadcast (which was so-so, as they spent more time cutting people off to show the CTV and election logo and summarize the results) where for about the initial ten minutes, it looked like a neck and neck race until the Liberals took off with it, and less than half-an-hour later, it was predicted that they would win. I still stay tuned to watch some of the close riding races (my riding was not close at all, but I didn't expect a different outcome since our local conservative candidate sucked in his campaigning strategy - I still voted for him anyway, since there was not a chance in hell that I was about to vote Liberal or NDP (the Family Coalition party was a distant alternative, but the candidate was still in college, so I didn't think he was very qualified).
I have to say that despite what has been reported in the news and what not, I don't believe John Tory hanged himself in this election, with the school funding issue as his convenient noose . While I may disagree with Tory on that one issue (I not only believe that the government should not fund other faith-based schools, but I am rabidly opposed to the current funding of Roman Catholic schools - it absolutely does not make any sense why RC schools are currently funded by the provincial government). Anyway, I believe what did Tory in is the apathy of the Ontario voters. I don't think the general electorate gave a rat's ass about who they wanted as Premier and who they wanted as the governing party. If you look at the record-low turnout for the election, you can see that people just didn't care. McGuinty will spin it as such that he was the clear choice and people voted for more of the same. But just like the many broken promises McGuinty has delivered, after a while, people seem to see all politicians the same - promise breakers, who may be idealistic before taking power, but are tyrants upon seizing control of the legislature. Perhaps some of this affected Tory as people saw him as flip-flopping on the schools issue, but I think it has more to do with the fact that people voted just to keep things the same. People naturally don't like change, unless there is something that directly impacts them. Also, people view the Liberals as a middle-ground, so while not perfect, the perception is that they are better than the right-of-centre party and the left-of-centre party.
If you also look at the MMP (mixed member proportion) referendum, you can see some parallels. It was widely defeated (and I'm glad it was, since it's not the solution in election reform - I don't like first-past-the-post either, but I dislike MMP even more. It was conceded by many that a big reason why MMP failed is because people were not sure what it was. My wife read all of the literature and still had a hard time with it. I admit, it is confusing for most non-followers of politics. So people just stayed on the safe side and voted for the existing system as it is (which has its own inherent problems).
I really respect the fact that this morning, of all the party leaders, only John Tory was gracious enough to afford TV and radio interviews, probably after a long night with little sleep. That's just how the guy works. He lost the Toronto mayoral election in 2003 or so, and even in losing, he made deliberate efforts to help his oppoents (including the winner) pay off their campaign debts. Some people say that John Tory is not electable because he's too nice of a guy. Others will say that he is too principled and not sleazy enough to schmooze with the political power brokers. Others will also say that he is not as socially conservative to woo the ultra right wingers like me. I don't agree with any of the above points. I think that John Tory did nothing wrong to lose the election last night. Rather, it came down to voters who just didn't care anymore about raising the bar and voting in someone with integrity and character. Complacency is the deal of the day and sadly, that is nothing new in Ontario.
I have to say that despite what has been reported in the news and what not, I don't believe John Tory hanged himself in this election, with the school funding issue as his convenient noose . While I may disagree with Tory on that one issue (I not only believe that the government should not fund other faith-based schools, but I am rabidly opposed to the current funding of Roman Catholic schools - it absolutely does not make any sense why RC schools are currently funded by the provincial government). Anyway, I believe what did Tory in is the apathy of the Ontario voters. I don't think the general electorate gave a rat's ass about who they wanted as Premier and who they wanted as the governing party. If you look at the record-low turnout for the election, you can see that people just didn't care. McGuinty will spin it as such that he was the clear choice and people voted for more of the same. But just like the many broken promises McGuinty has delivered, after a while, people seem to see all politicians the same - promise breakers, who may be idealistic before taking power, but are tyrants upon seizing control of the legislature. Perhaps some of this affected Tory as people saw him as flip-flopping on the schools issue, but I think it has more to do with the fact that people voted just to keep things the same. People naturally don't like change, unless there is something that directly impacts them. Also, people view the Liberals as a middle-ground, so while not perfect, the perception is that they are better than the right-of-centre party and the left-of-centre party.
If you also look at the MMP (mixed member proportion) referendum, you can see some parallels. It was widely defeated (and I'm glad it was, since it's not the solution in election reform - I don't like first-past-the-post either, but I dislike MMP even more. It was conceded by many that a big reason why MMP failed is because people were not sure what it was. My wife read all of the literature and still had a hard time with it. I admit, it is confusing for most non-followers of politics. So people just stayed on the safe side and voted for the existing system as it is (which has its own inherent problems).
I really respect the fact that this morning, of all the party leaders, only John Tory was gracious enough to afford TV and radio interviews, probably after a long night with little sleep. That's just how the guy works. He lost the Toronto mayoral election in 2003 or so, and even in losing, he made deliberate efforts to help his oppoents (including the winner) pay off their campaign debts. Some people say that John Tory is not electable because he's too nice of a guy. Others will say that he is too principled and not sleazy enough to schmooze with the political power brokers. Others will also say that he is not as socially conservative to woo the ultra right wingers like me. I don't agree with any of the above points. I think that John Tory did nothing wrong to lose the election last night. Rather, it came down to voters who just didn't care anymore about raising the bar and voting in someone with integrity and character. Complacency is the deal of the day and sadly, that is nothing new in Ontario.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
The 2007 Ontario Electorate: Lemmings Personnified
What else can I call many of these apathetic voters who, despite a long history of broken promises, fiscal mismanagement, and...well, lies to the public by Dalton McGuinty and the governing provincial Liberals, are planning to vote him back into power in a few weeks time (at least according to recent polls). Do people care about good leadership anymore? Does a person's word count for much anymore? OK, so you may think all politicians are slimy, and I am not going to vigorously debate you on this point, but surely common sense must prevail and you'd have to objectively look at McGuinty's leadership (or lack thereof) record? It is no secret to anyone that I am going to be voting for John Tory and the Progressive Conservatives, but I will be so bold as to say that even the NDP leader, Howard Hampton, a really left-leaning uber-liberal, with whom I disagree on most issues, would be a far suitable Premier than Mr. McGuinty. I've watched Hampton for more than a decade now on debates and interviews, and at the very least, he has sincere passion and truly believes in his principles, despite what others say. That is probably why he has been NDP leader so long, because he will stick to his message and his socialist ideals, and not stoop to vote buying right before an election. Of course, I hope that the NDP does not take power, but I don't think there's ever a chance of that, given the consistently third place ratings of the party in elections. Still, my point stands that ANY of the other leaders (even fringe Green Party candidate Frank De Jong) would be a better Premier than McGuinty.
Due to an event at my son's school (his first school open house since he has been a student - all of two weeks thus far), I was unable to watch the leaders' debate live; however, due to the wonders of modern day technology, I was able to view it in its entirety via video streaming on the internet (I don't have cable, so there was no option to record it on TV) thanks to the good ol' CBC. While it is not my intention to go over the debate, I want to touch on a couple of points, and then expand it to my editorial comments.
Well, what can I say? No surprise that McGuinty was on the attack throughout the debate. Anyone who thinks that McGuinty won the debate was not watching very carefully. McGuinty dodged questions by his usual strategy of providing an answer to a question that not even remotely addresses the topic in the original question. The one point which Tory and Hampton sliced him up quite nicely, was on the issue of is countless broken promises, not the least of which was his bring forth of the health tax, the biggest increase in Ontario's history, when during the last election, he said he wouldn't. Now, in subsequent ads and in print and radio responses and even on this debate, he said he realized after he got into power that he faced a tough choice as he inherited an almost six billion dollar deficit from the previous Conservative government and Mike Harris. However, it is evident that he knew about this months before he took power, since there are reports that were provided to him, even during the election campaign of 2003. So when he made that promise not to raise taxes, he knew that he would be dealing with a deficit that would require money from somewhere.
McGuinty also promised more doctors/nurses available and shorter wait times at the hospital four years ago. Well, I can tell you as a guy who has visited the emergency room multiple times before 2003, and many times after 2003 (due to my having a son now, who gets sick once in a while), the emergency room waits are markedly worse than before. I thought it was just me, so I asked friends and colleagues (a number of which are not conservatives like me) about their experience, and they also indicate that emergency room waits have increased. Also, have you tried to find a family doctor lately? It's pretty difficult. Tory proposes a controversial pay-per-use private clinic, and I support him on such initiatives. True, universal health care is a great thing, and I'm glad that we have it, unlike the U.S. However, with it being a public system, we should expect long waits (it's like free internet - you can't expect the highest quality). Just like anything else, I don't see why it can't be that people who can afford to get faster or better service, simply pays for it. Example: you will see a certain clientele eat at McDonald's, and you will see another certain clientele eat at fancy restaurants. No one is complaining about the disparity between the rich and the poor (or the wealthy and the middle class). Some people can afford to buy Porsche 911s, others put all their life savings toward a 1986 Hyndai Pony. That's just the way it is. Some people can afford to have others cook and clean and tend to their gardens; others can't even afford the cost of potting a simple plant. So if people who have the cash or the means to pay for faster service for their health care needs, why are people so up-in-arms over this? I would say it is better this way, as it will alleviate some of the congestion in the emergency rooms. Some will argue that such private clinics and hospitals will pull talented doctors away, but again, is this so unusual? Within all professions there are value/economy priced companies, and then there are the pay-through-your-nose priced companies. People should have a choice as to how to spend the money that they have or don't have. I'm all for a privatized health care system that works alongside a public universal system.
For education, McGuinty's big feather-in-the-cap (according to him) is that there have been no teacher's strikes for four years. So what? You have a tax-and-spend liberal like McGuinty who will appease most special interest groups, and of course you're not going to get any strikes. Many people in Ontario (especially teachers and nurses) did not like Mike Harris, but at the very least, he was one of those guys who did what he said he would do. He ended up pissing off a lot of people in the process, but if you are talking about making hard decisions to cut
spending and expenses in order to balance the books, that's what he had to do (remember, Harris inherited a massive deficit from the previous NDP - ultra liberal - tax and spend government). During McGuinty's time, class sizes have actually increased and there are more split classes than there were in Harris' time - this can all be independently verified. McGuinty also says he supports a full-fledged public school system, yet he is a staunch supporter of publicly funded Catholic schools (which I am 100% dead-set against) and I believe his own kids went to publicly funded Catholic schools. John Tory supports the public school system too, but as a guy who has considerably more common sense, he has called on McGuinty to either scrap public funding for Catholic schools, or publicly fund ALL faith-based religious schools, not just Catholic ones. From an equal treatment of citizens perspective, this makes lots of sense. But for whatever reason, McGuinty will continue to rally behind a public school system that also makes provision for Catholics for funding, but no one else (of course, this is because he is a Roman Catholic - whatever happened to separation of church and state???). I've never understood, even as a kid, why the province funds Catholic schools, so the sooner that this can go away, the better. I'm with John Tory on this one!
McGuinty also broke promises to shut down coal-fire plants, as well as provide assistance and support for autistic children (he ended up going to court to fight them after he broke his promise to them - once again, at election time- that he would provide support for them). McGuinty, as a feel good measure, attempted to put together a committee (ugh!) to look into support and funding for autistic children, in particular, but last I checked, no report was forthcoming.
John Tory, in his campaign (the website, by the way is http://www.ontariopc.com), as well as on the debate, has consistently focused on the sad fact that Ontario is now lagging badly in many aspects of job creation, economic growth and being viewed as a leader, as compared to other provinces. Much of this can be attributed to McGuinty, as Ontario was not in this position four years ago. As much as I disagree with McGuinty, at least he is not doing the ultimate killer for the economy, which is to be Hampton's single focus: raising the minimum wage. I am not an economist, but you don't need to be one to get at least a sense of why that would be not very good, given the shape of today's economy.
He did Toronto a huge disservice by telling its mayor, David Miller, that he had no money to give the city, and as a result, Toronto had to start cutting services, including public transit, libraries and pools and such (this, of course, was not entirely the province's fault, since Miller has also done a poor job of managing Toronto's books, and has made a point of ridiculous spending patterns, sending councillors, on the public dime, to lavish retreats and training facilities - but this is not about Miller, so I'll stoop here). However, JUST BEFORE AN ELECTION, McGuinty magically announces that he has a 1.2 BILLION dollar surplus for the 2006 year alone, and he will be doing some spending with it. Of course, he pulled the wool over Miller's eyes, but that's another story. He then started to disperse some money, right before the election to several organizations - apparently, these are "gifts" with no strings attached. One million dollars went to some cricket club (McGuinty claims there were no political party attachments here, but if you look at this demographically, cricket is enjoyed by East Indians and Pakistanis and others from that region, and it can be demonstrated that the East Indian/Pakistani community are heavy liberal supporters (don't believe me - look at how heavy-Indian areas like Brampton, and certain parts of British Columbia vote).
McGuinty also says he supports public transit, but he said that last time as well (and right before an election). Interestingly, McGuinty's current campaign platform (if you haven't read it, you can get it on the http://www.onterioliberal.ca website) does have provision for transit funding, but it mentions Toronto exclusively, even though there are transit systems in other centres such as London and Ottawa. McGuinty's plan for funding transit goes up to 2040 before it's actually fully paid for. Sounds like some short term gain (votes) in exchange for some long-term pain (deficit). McGuinty claims that the gas tax that he introduced (another damn tax that consumers have to pay) was purported set up in order to fund public transit. In truth, the gas tax was collected and put in a general revenue bucket, only a fraction of which was used for public transit. So McGuinty isn't really telling the whole truth here - yes, he's collecting the gas tax, but are the proceeds of this tax being used specifically to fund public transit and improve roads? I've noticed the quality of many roads in Ontario to be utterly crap in the past couple of years.
Crime and punishment - here's where McGuinty's true colours of being an observer, not a leader, really stand out. Remember the Belleville Indian blockade earlier this year? The provincial government did nothing about it. In truth McGuinty does not want to look like a non-liberal, by actually enforcing laws to protect citizens. He also doesn't want to be viewed as being unsympathetic to the Indian population, but instead, he let it get out of a hand with the rogue leader of the protestors group looking more like a leader than the Premier of Ontario. Speaking of crime, have you looked at crime statistics lately? At least in Toronto, where crime seems to have risen and has only been kept in check somewhat with the excellent work that past police chief Julian Fantino and current chief Bill Blair have done? I find it amazing to read of so many crimes being committed by those who are either on bail or have had previous criminal records or were on probation. The penalties for those who skip bail are more like a slap on the wrist. And as Tory has stated, McGuinty keeps records on beans harvested and fishing licenses issues, but has no record on how many commit crimes while on bail (the police have this info though), how many deals with criminals are done with the government, etc.
McGuinty loves to blame Mike Harris for any of his shortcomings, but even Howard Hampton and a number of socialist commentators have remarked, he has had four years to do so something about it. What has he done in the past four years?
I remember watching McGuinty when he squared off against Mike Harris and Howard Hampton back in 1999 on a televison debate, but also on the campaign trail. He was very wooden, and just like he is today, has a really annoying way of presenting himself, using dramatic pauses when they are not needed, slowing his speech to try to emphasize points, and looking serious in order to gain him some credibility. Obviously, people saw through all that, and saw that he had no personality and could barely defend his position. In 2003, McGuinty, with an obviously improved team of speech and body language coaches used a bit more humour, etc. This is good to the electorate, but the problem was, he basically wasn't really being himself. Those who watched him in 1999 and before that would know that he's a more introverted, introspective type of person. My brother, whose friend works in the Liberal Party, has told him that McGuinty is actually a pretty nice guy, but he's nothing like his in on TV, where he has to project some sort of politician personality. In order to win votes, he changed his personality like a Dr. Jeckyll / Mr. Hyde type of deal. He's done that with breaking promises. He's done that with funding and giving in to special interest groups. Unlike Tory and Hampton, McGuinty does not possess a genuine passion in his platform, and does not seem sincere when he talks.
He is now proposing around 300 new promises this election campaign. Do you really think this guy deserves a second chance?
Due to an event at my son's school (his first school open house since he has been a student - all of two weeks thus far), I was unable to watch the leaders' debate live; however, due to the wonders of modern day technology, I was able to view it in its entirety via video streaming on the internet (I don't have cable, so there was no option to record it on TV) thanks to the good ol' CBC. While it is not my intention to go over the debate, I want to touch on a couple of points, and then expand it to my editorial comments.
Well, what can I say? No surprise that McGuinty was on the attack throughout the debate. Anyone who thinks that McGuinty won the debate was not watching very carefully. McGuinty dodged questions by his usual strategy of providing an answer to a question that not even remotely addresses the topic in the original question. The one point which Tory and Hampton sliced him up quite nicely, was on the issue of is countless broken promises, not the least of which was his bring forth of the health tax, the biggest increase in Ontario's history, when during the last election, he said he wouldn't. Now, in subsequent ads and in print and radio responses and even on this debate, he said he realized after he got into power that he faced a tough choice as he inherited an almost six billion dollar deficit from the previous Conservative government and Mike Harris. However, it is evident that he knew about this months before he took power, since there are reports that were provided to him, even during the election campaign of 2003. So when he made that promise not to raise taxes, he knew that he would be dealing with a deficit that would require money from somewhere.
McGuinty also promised more doctors/nurses available and shorter wait times at the hospital four years ago. Well, I can tell you as a guy who has visited the emergency room multiple times before 2003, and many times after 2003 (due to my having a son now, who gets sick once in a while), the emergency room waits are markedly worse than before. I thought it was just me, so I asked friends and colleagues (a number of which are not conservatives like me) about their experience, and they also indicate that emergency room waits have increased. Also, have you tried to find a family doctor lately? It's pretty difficult. Tory proposes a controversial pay-per-use private clinic, and I support him on such initiatives. True, universal health care is a great thing, and I'm glad that we have it, unlike the U.S. However, with it being a public system, we should expect long waits (it's like free internet - you can't expect the highest quality). Just like anything else, I don't see why it can't be that people who can afford to get faster or better service, simply pays for it. Example: you will see a certain clientele eat at McDonald's, and you will see another certain clientele eat at fancy restaurants. No one is complaining about the disparity between the rich and the poor (or the wealthy and the middle class). Some people can afford to buy Porsche 911s, others put all their life savings toward a 1986 Hyndai Pony. That's just the way it is. Some people can afford to have others cook and clean and tend to their gardens; others can't even afford the cost of potting a simple plant. So if people who have the cash or the means to pay for faster service for their health care needs, why are people so up-in-arms over this? I would say it is better this way, as it will alleviate some of the congestion in the emergency rooms. Some will argue that such private clinics and hospitals will pull talented doctors away, but again, is this so unusual? Within all professions there are value/economy priced companies, and then there are the pay-through-your-nose priced companies. People should have a choice as to how to spend the money that they have or don't have. I'm all for a privatized health care system that works alongside a public universal system.
For education, McGuinty's big feather-in-the-cap (according to him) is that there have been no teacher's strikes for four years. So what? You have a tax-and-spend liberal like McGuinty who will appease most special interest groups, and of course you're not going to get any strikes. Many people in Ontario (especially teachers and nurses) did not like Mike Harris, but at the very least, he was one of those guys who did what he said he would do. He ended up pissing off a lot of people in the process, but if you are talking about making hard decisions to cut
spending and expenses in order to balance the books, that's what he had to do (remember, Harris inherited a massive deficit from the previous NDP - ultra liberal - tax and spend government). During McGuinty's time, class sizes have actually increased and there are more split classes than there were in Harris' time - this can all be independently verified. McGuinty also says he supports a full-fledged public school system, yet he is a staunch supporter of publicly funded Catholic schools (which I am 100% dead-set against) and I believe his own kids went to publicly funded Catholic schools. John Tory supports the public school system too, but as a guy who has considerably more common sense, he has called on McGuinty to either scrap public funding for Catholic schools, or publicly fund ALL faith-based religious schools, not just Catholic ones. From an equal treatment of citizens perspective, this makes lots of sense. But for whatever reason, McGuinty will continue to rally behind a public school system that also makes provision for Catholics for funding, but no one else (of course, this is because he is a Roman Catholic - whatever happened to separation of church and state???). I've never understood, even as a kid, why the province funds Catholic schools, so the sooner that this can go away, the better. I'm with John Tory on this one!
McGuinty also broke promises to shut down coal-fire plants, as well as provide assistance and support for autistic children (he ended up going to court to fight them after he broke his promise to them - once again, at election time- that he would provide support for them). McGuinty, as a feel good measure, attempted to put together a committee (ugh!) to look into support and funding for autistic children, in particular, but last I checked, no report was forthcoming.
John Tory, in his campaign (the website, by the way is http://www.ontariopc.com), as well as on the debate, has consistently focused on the sad fact that Ontario is now lagging badly in many aspects of job creation, economic growth and being viewed as a leader, as compared to other provinces. Much of this can be attributed to McGuinty, as Ontario was not in this position four years ago. As much as I disagree with McGuinty, at least he is not doing the ultimate killer for the economy, which is to be Hampton's single focus: raising the minimum wage. I am not an economist, but you don't need to be one to get at least a sense of why that would be not very good, given the shape of today's economy.
He did Toronto a huge disservice by telling its mayor, David Miller, that he had no money to give the city, and as a result, Toronto had to start cutting services, including public transit, libraries and pools and such (this, of course, was not entirely the province's fault, since Miller has also done a poor job of managing Toronto's books, and has made a point of ridiculous spending patterns, sending councillors, on the public dime, to lavish retreats and training facilities - but this is not about Miller, so I'll stoop here). However, JUST BEFORE AN ELECTION, McGuinty magically announces that he has a 1.2 BILLION dollar surplus for the 2006 year alone, and he will be doing some spending with it. Of course, he pulled the wool over Miller's eyes, but that's another story. He then started to disperse some money, right before the election to several organizations - apparently, these are "gifts" with no strings attached. One million dollars went to some cricket club (McGuinty claims there were no political party attachments here, but if you look at this demographically, cricket is enjoyed by East Indians and Pakistanis and others from that region, and it can be demonstrated that the East Indian/Pakistani community are heavy liberal supporters (don't believe me - look at how heavy-Indian areas like Brampton, and certain parts of British Columbia vote).
McGuinty also says he supports public transit, but he said that last time as well (and right before an election). Interestingly, McGuinty's current campaign platform (if you haven't read it, you can get it on the http://www.onterioliberal.ca website) does have provision for transit funding, but it mentions Toronto exclusively, even though there are transit systems in other centres such as London and Ottawa. McGuinty's plan for funding transit goes up to 2040 before it's actually fully paid for. Sounds like some short term gain (votes) in exchange for some long-term pain (deficit). McGuinty claims that the gas tax that he introduced (another damn tax that consumers have to pay) was purported set up in order to fund public transit. In truth, the gas tax was collected and put in a general revenue bucket, only a fraction of which was used for public transit. So McGuinty isn't really telling the whole truth here - yes, he's collecting the gas tax, but are the proceeds of this tax being used specifically to fund public transit and improve roads? I've noticed the quality of many roads in Ontario to be utterly crap in the past couple of years.
Crime and punishment - here's where McGuinty's true colours of being an observer, not a leader, really stand out. Remember the Belleville Indian blockade earlier this year? The provincial government did nothing about it. In truth McGuinty does not want to look like a non-liberal, by actually enforcing laws to protect citizens. He also doesn't want to be viewed as being unsympathetic to the Indian population, but instead, he let it get out of a hand with the rogue leader of the protestors group looking more like a leader than the Premier of Ontario. Speaking of crime, have you looked at crime statistics lately? At least in Toronto, where crime seems to have risen and has only been kept in check somewhat with the excellent work that past police chief Julian Fantino and current chief Bill Blair have done? I find it amazing to read of so many crimes being committed by those who are either on bail or have had previous criminal records or were on probation. The penalties for those who skip bail are more like a slap on the wrist. And as Tory has stated, McGuinty keeps records on beans harvested and fishing licenses issues, but has no record on how many commit crimes while on bail (the police have this info though), how many deals with criminals are done with the government, etc.
McGuinty loves to blame Mike Harris for any of his shortcomings, but even Howard Hampton and a number of socialist commentators have remarked, he has had four years to do so something about it. What has he done in the past four years?
I remember watching McGuinty when he squared off against Mike Harris and Howard Hampton back in 1999 on a televison debate, but also on the campaign trail. He was very wooden, and just like he is today, has a really annoying way of presenting himself, using dramatic pauses when they are not needed, slowing his speech to try to emphasize points, and looking serious in order to gain him some credibility. Obviously, people saw through all that, and saw that he had no personality and could barely defend his position. In 2003, McGuinty, with an obviously improved team of speech and body language coaches used a bit more humour, etc. This is good to the electorate, but the problem was, he basically wasn't really being himself. Those who watched him in 1999 and before that would know that he's a more introverted, introspective type of person. My brother, whose friend works in the Liberal Party, has told him that McGuinty is actually a pretty nice guy, but he's nothing like his in on TV, where he has to project some sort of politician personality. In order to win votes, he changed his personality like a Dr. Jeckyll / Mr. Hyde type of deal. He's done that with breaking promises. He's done that with funding and giving in to special interest groups. Unlike Tory and Hampton, McGuinty does not possess a genuine passion in his platform, and does not seem sincere when he talks.
He is now proposing around 300 new promises this election campaign. Do you really think this guy deserves a second chance?
Saturday, July 7, 2007
Protests and Rallies Do Not Work and Are a Waste of Time
So...I have followed the events surrounding the Native blockcade near Belleville a week or so back, where traffic and train tracks were impeded and snarled throughout the day. I just sat listening to the coverage, thinking, what on earth is this going to accomplish? You are impeding people's travel (a lot of it is likely travel for work or livelihood), you are blocking train tracks, denying 100 million dollars worth of cargo from getting through, and right before a long weekend, this has all the earmarks of simply pissing people off. If I was travelling in that area, would I give a rat's arse what they were protesting about? Nope. In fact, I would hope they never get what they were after - teaches them a lesson that you don't inconveience others to try to make a point - and one where they threatened to use not just rifles and handguns, but all-out assault weapons (Against who else? The provincial police that would seek to break this off). Last year/this year, it was the occupation in Caledonia (claims that developers were building houses on their land). I think in the end, it just made people more resentful of them as a minority group.
Now, I know one thing for a fact, and it is only by way of talking with some people I know who are of Native background. This is a rogue band of Aboriginals who are doing this - I had that sense anyway before it was confirmed - in fact, the local Native community groups there strongly condemned the action before it was even taken, yet the small group, led by some ding dong who wanted his 15 minutes of fame, decided to go ahead and challenge the police anyway. Many Native communities are embarrassed by these actions and are worried that it will only fuel the fire towards their group collectively (which, sadly to say, will likely happen).
Of course, in Ontario, we have an extremely weak liberal government led by an extremely weak socialist chameleon individual (Dalton McGuinty), who has been shown to break promises and not take action when needed. About ten years ago, we had a similar protest at Ipperwash (I believe). The Premier at the time (a Conservative) sent in the police, and one of the protesters was regrettably, killed. Since then, the government has shyed away from involvement in these protests and this is sad. If I were to grab some friends and take some MP5s onto the highway and stop traffic, griping about hospital wait times, I guarantee you I would be arrested and charged. Yet, no one wants to touch these guys for fear of another death and stirring up any racial tensions.
But believe it or not, the recent events are not what I want to write about, even though I have already done so. What I want to suggest in this entry of my blog is that protests and rallies have no influence whatsoever and should be ignored by the government.
Now, that being said, I know what you are thinking - "Uh...Jeremy, didn't you just say that in the recent events near Belleville, that the government should have intervened?" Yes, I did say that, and no, I am not being two-faced here. In the recent Native protest situation, it wasn't a protest - it was an illegal action under the guise of a protest. Since they took out assault weapons and blocked consumer and business, they are now impeding on the rights and freedoms of others (and though I am far from a libertarian, I will say that we do have some rights entrenched in our constitution (which is a more left-wing constitution, but one nonetheless), entitling us to not be the victim of threats and having our business interests needlessly shut down by non-government people. There are also laws in the land governing how we live, but unfortunately, with a weak liberal socialist government, they pay little heed to enforcing laws - they are more than happy to make them, though.
What I want to discuss is the idea of protests and rallies proper. That is, peaceful marches and such, which although it may slow traffic down somewhat, they are non-violent. These protests are within the boundaries of what is lawfully permissible and it is definitely people's right to protest. However, here is why I do not believe protests and rallies do not work, and I will cite several examples.
1) Most governments are not easily swayed by the viewpoints of a special interest group or a minority. Yes, I am sure you will take issue with me on this one, but let me explain. There are literally millions of special interest groups out there, each seeming to want the government to throw some money their way or change or create a law in their favour. Many (not all) elected officials are generally thick-skinned and have a wider picture of their budgets and social programs, not simply going for short-term solutions. If they could be swayed left, right and centre (and I'm not talking about the political spectrum here), no constructive action will ever take place. Governments are elected to make tough decisions, and yes, if they are elected, they are to represent their constituents, so if their constituents want such and such, then they are obligated to represent them. Special interest groups different from constituents in that they are not geographically based, and as such, they don't really have an elected official that they put in office (though I know there are always exceptions). By the way, have you ever noticed that when a protest happens at a government building, you almost always never see a government official show up to address the crowd?
2) Some rallies are utterly laughable. My brother, son and I were, unfortunately, caught in the streets of downtown Toronto a couple of months ago during a 10,000 person rally by some Marijauana-advocacy group in Ontario. While it was generally a peaceful protest, let me just say that the language coming out of their mouths were less than civil and proper, and of course, there was the waft of pot smoke everywhere (I had to shut my windows and turn on the AC, recycling the car's already stale air). So as I was driving through the protest (I was strongly tempted to drive through the protest, if you know what I mean), I thought to myself - what are these yahoos trying to prove (and based on the demographics and age constitution in the group, their lack of business acumen and articulation, I couldn't tell what they were rallying for or against - seemed like a good day to go out and smoke some weed), if I were in the government's shoes, I would have just said, "whatever" and go back to saving the whales or whatever they do. As it turns out, this rally was thoroughly ignored and not even acknowledged by the goverment. Of course, some of these rallies may push for a viewpoint, but it's not fleshed out very well in terms of who pays for such and such, what the social implications are (usually the special interest group will not care about how what they are championing will impact others).
3) Christian protests and rallies - sorry to say, and I don't like to slag my own people often, but I have to say, these are also ineffective. Writing a personalized note to your MP or MPP may not make a huge difference, but I think it will have the potential of being slightly more effective than standing at a corner with a sign saying, "Abortion is wrong" or "we need prayer in schools". The first one, I absolutely agree with and fully support, as I find abortion to be completely abhorrent in general. Prayer in schools I don't necessarily agree with, but either way, protesters standing at a corner, trying to convince a secular government to institute an abortion ban - what will that do? I absolutely abhor the Roe vs. Wade verdict in the U.S., and would love to see the U.S. Supreme Court one day overturn it (which may happen seeing here is now a 5-4 ideology split favouring the conservative side (yay for John Roberts and Samuel Alito!!!), I think that in the meantime, the best way to get people to change their minds is to talk with them during your day to day interactions. If you want to try to sway a governement official, write them a letter with what's on your heart (I know, I know, they may not even read it, but it's better than standing at the corner). My wife will take issue with me on this one, as her position is that they are at least doing something, rather than simply talking about it, as I am, and I see her point, but would counter saying "what are they really doing?" Christian rallies generally tend to be peaceful anyway, and when they turn ugly (as some abortions protests have in the U.S., that ceases to be a protest and is now an unlawful act). I think believers can be far more effective in influencing people on a day-to-day basis, and I think that is the Biblical pattern that Jesus set for his followers.
4) Today, I think, that whole "Live Earth" concert, based on ideas from that neo-environmentalist Al Gore will occur. While it is not a protest per se, it is supposed to bring "awareness" to environmental issues (which seem to be on the forefront of political agendas these days). While environmentalism is a subject I plan to discuss in the future, for now I will simply acknowledge that there is a concert taking place. But as with any group gathering for a "cause-based" event, I will be so bold as to say that many people going to this concert will be more interested in the big name bands who play and less on the message. Even Live 8 was like that - in England it was all the hype because of the reuniting of Pink Floyd after 22 years or so (and I must say, as a guy who had a thrown-out back that day and spent the entire day and evening in front of the tube, I saw that Pink Floyd re-united part and it was pretty cool) - but did I think about African relief? Not really. Did I think of African relief when Motley Crue got on and I realized how porky and old these guys have become? And I'm not sure if the artists did either. I remember one of the Canadian bands, A Simple Plan, who played at the Barrie location, the vocalist kept referring to Barrie as Toronto, but moreover, I found it telling that his references to African relief was brief and generalized (I wasn't even sure if he knew why he was there): "We are here today to support a good cause...now, Toronto, are you fucking ready to rock??????!!!" Nice one, buddy. Anyway, I think it will be interesting to see whether the media focuses on what will be a lot of garbage and litter on the grounds of the LiveEarth environmental concert...
I think that, while I believe rallies and protests to be a waste of time, that I have to commend some of the protesters and ralliers who brave weather conditions and crowds (and mocking opinionated blog writers) to try to support something they believe in deeply. In a sense, I think that they mean well, but it may also be that they just want to feel better about themselves, that they are at least voicing their opinion, which is, of course, our democratic right. Or they may just be the product of the 60s hippie generation who seemed to revel in these kinds of things.
Now, I know one thing for a fact, and it is only by way of talking with some people I know who are of Native background. This is a rogue band of Aboriginals who are doing this - I had that sense anyway before it was confirmed - in fact, the local Native community groups there strongly condemned the action before it was even taken, yet the small group, led by some ding dong who wanted his 15 minutes of fame, decided to go ahead and challenge the police anyway. Many Native communities are embarrassed by these actions and are worried that it will only fuel the fire towards their group collectively (which, sadly to say, will likely happen).
Of course, in Ontario, we have an extremely weak liberal government led by an extremely weak socialist chameleon individual (Dalton McGuinty), who has been shown to break promises and not take action when needed. About ten years ago, we had a similar protest at Ipperwash (I believe). The Premier at the time (a Conservative) sent in the police, and one of the protesters was regrettably, killed. Since then, the government has shyed away from involvement in these protests and this is sad. If I were to grab some friends and take some MP5s onto the highway and stop traffic, griping about hospital wait times, I guarantee you I would be arrested and charged. Yet, no one wants to touch these guys for fear of another death and stirring up any racial tensions.
But believe it or not, the recent events are not what I want to write about, even though I have already done so. What I want to suggest in this entry of my blog is that protests and rallies have no influence whatsoever and should be ignored by the government.
Now, that being said, I know what you are thinking - "Uh...Jeremy, didn't you just say that in the recent events near Belleville, that the government should have intervened?" Yes, I did say that, and no, I am not being two-faced here. In the recent Native protest situation, it wasn't a protest - it was an illegal action under the guise of a protest. Since they took out assault weapons and blocked consumer and business, they are now impeding on the rights and freedoms of others (and though I am far from a libertarian, I will say that we do have some rights entrenched in our constitution (which is a more left-wing constitution, but one nonetheless), entitling us to not be the victim of threats and having our business interests needlessly shut down by non-government people. There are also laws in the land governing how we live, but unfortunately, with a weak liberal socialist government, they pay little heed to enforcing laws - they are more than happy to make them, though.
What I want to discuss is the idea of protests and rallies proper. That is, peaceful marches and such, which although it may slow traffic down somewhat, they are non-violent. These protests are within the boundaries of what is lawfully permissible and it is definitely people's right to protest. However, here is why I do not believe protests and rallies do not work, and I will cite several examples.
1) Most governments are not easily swayed by the viewpoints of a special interest group or a minority. Yes, I am sure you will take issue with me on this one, but let me explain. There are literally millions of special interest groups out there, each seeming to want the government to throw some money their way or change or create a law in their favour. Many (not all) elected officials are generally thick-skinned and have a wider picture of their budgets and social programs, not simply going for short-term solutions. If they could be swayed left, right and centre (and I'm not talking about the political spectrum here), no constructive action will ever take place. Governments are elected to make tough decisions, and yes, if they are elected, they are to represent their constituents, so if their constituents want such and such, then they are obligated to represent them. Special interest groups different from constituents in that they are not geographically based, and as such, they don't really have an elected official that they put in office (though I know there are always exceptions). By the way, have you ever noticed that when a protest happens at a government building, you almost always never see a government official show up to address the crowd?
2) Some rallies are utterly laughable. My brother, son and I were, unfortunately, caught in the streets of downtown Toronto a couple of months ago during a 10,000 person rally by some Marijauana-advocacy group in Ontario. While it was generally a peaceful protest, let me just say that the language coming out of their mouths were less than civil and proper, and of course, there was the waft of pot smoke everywhere (I had to shut my windows and turn on the AC, recycling the car's already stale air). So as I was driving through the protest (I was strongly tempted to drive through the protest, if you know what I mean), I thought to myself - what are these yahoos trying to prove (and based on the demographics and age constitution in the group, their lack of business acumen and articulation, I couldn't tell what they were rallying for or against - seemed like a good day to go out and smoke some weed), if I were in the government's shoes, I would have just said, "whatever" and go back to saving the whales or whatever they do. As it turns out, this rally was thoroughly ignored and not even acknowledged by the goverment. Of course, some of these rallies may push for a viewpoint, but it's not fleshed out very well in terms of who pays for such and such, what the social implications are (usually the special interest group will not care about how what they are championing will impact others).
3) Christian protests and rallies - sorry to say, and I don't like to slag my own people often, but I have to say, these are also ineffective. Writing a personalized note to your MP or MPP may not make a huge difference, but I think it will have the potential of being slightly more effective than standing at a corner with a sign saying, "Abortion is wrong" or "we need prayer in schools". The first one, I absolutely agree with and fully support, as I find abortion to be completely abhorrent in general. Prayer in schools I don't necessarily agree with, but either way, protesters standing at a corner, trying to convince a secular government to institute an abortion ban - what will that do? I absolutely abhor the Roe vs. Wade verdict in the U.S., and would love to see the U.S. Supreme Court one day overturn it (which may happen seeing here is now a 5-4 ideology split favouring the conservative side (yay for John Roberts and Samuel Alito!!!), I think that in the meantime, the best way to get people to change their minds is to talk with them during your day to day interactions. If you want to try to sway a governement official, write them a letter with what's on your heart (I know, I know, they may not even read it, but it's better than standing at the corner). My wife will take issue with me on this one, as her position is that they are at least doing something, rather than simply talking about it, as I am, and I see her point, but would counter saying "what are they really doing?" Christian rallies generally tend to be peaceful anyway, and when they turn ugly (as some abortions protests have in the U.S., that ceases to be a protest and is now an unlawful act). I think believers can be far more effective in influencing people on a day-to-day basis, and I think that is the Biblical pattern that Jesus set for his followers.
4) Today, I think, that whole "Live Earth" concert, based on ideas from that neo-environmentalist Al Gore will occur. While it is not a protest per se, it is supposed to bring "awareness" to environmental issues (which seem to be on the forefront of political agendas these days). While environmentalism is a subject I plan to discuss in the future, for now I will simply acknowledge that there is a concert taking place. But as with any group gathering for a "cause-based" event, I will be so bold as to say that many people going to this concert will be more interested in the big name bands who play and less on the message. Even Live 8 was like that - in England it was all the hype because of the reuniting of Pink Floyd after 22 years or so (and I must say, as a guy who had a thrown-out back that day and spent the entire day and evening in front of the tube, I saw that Pink Floyd re-united part and it was pretty cool) - but did I think about African relief? Not really. Did I think of African relief when Motley Crue got on and I realized how porky and old these guys have become? And I'm not sure if the artists did either. I remember one of the Canadian bands, A Simple Plan, who played at the Barrie location, the vocalist kept referring to Barrie as Toronto, but moreover, I found it telling that his references to African relief was brief and generalized (I wasn't even sure if he knew why he was there): "We are here today to support a good cause...now, Toronto, are you fucking ready to rock??????!!!" Nice one, buddy. Anyway, I think it will be interesting to see whether the media focuses on what will be a lot of garbage and litter on the grounds of the LiveEarth environmental concert...
I think that, while I believe rallies and protests to be a waste of time, that I have to commend some of the protesters and ralliers who brave weather conditions and crowds (and mocking opinionated blog writers) to try to support something they believe in deeply. In a sense, I think that they mean well, but it may also be that they just want to feel better about themselves, that they are at least voicing their opinion, which is, of course, our democratic right. Or they may just be the product of the 60s hippie generation who seemed to revel in these kinds of things.
Saturday, May 5, 2007
More Proof that Liberals Like To Waste Taxpayers' Money and Time
Three things this week that floored me...
1) Two Toronto councillors, Rob Ford and Doug Holiday, have consistently shown $0 balances in their expense accounts. They both pay for all of their expenses out of their own pocket, since both of them have said there's no need to spend taxpayer money and they are well enough off that they can afford to do that. They also get re-elected every election, so obviously their constitutents want them there. Yet there are liberal politicians who are calling for a taxpayer funded investigation into why they choose not to expense stuff to the taxpayers. I heard an interview with Ford and he said that he just gets better deals on printing, etc. from companies and finds efficiencies (ie. he will call a constituent by phone rather than send out a letter). He takes advantage of any freebies he gets. Why is it that liberals need to investigate these two smart and cost-conscious politicians? I know why - because the mostly liberal Toronto council like wasting taxpayer money on frivilous expenses and these two folks make them look bad, due to Ford and Holiday's fiscal responsibility. Good for these two, I say! They are two of the good ones!
2) This whole Shane Doan thing - if you don't know what I'm talking about, Doan (captain of Team Canada at the current world hockey championships) was alleged, by a liberal MP, of course, of making an ethnic slur towards French-Canadians. The NHL did its own internal investigation into the matter a year or two ago and found Doan did not say anything negative. Doan's teammates staunchly defend him. A frustrated player in the game in question also backs Doan, that while he made a sarcastic remark, it was not ethnically insensitive or culturally offensive. The NHL officials indicate that the slur was said, but not by Doan. Even Prime Minister Harper has sided with Doan after looking at all the facts. So what's the problem here? Why is the liberal government now involved in calling a parliamentary investigation, and wasting taxpayer money...again? Doan is a born-again Christian, is considered a character player on and off the ice - his fellow hockey players insist that he would never say such a thing. I guess it's a big deal since he's Canada's captain, but my goodness, can the Liberals simply find something else that is a little bit more ridiculous into which they can poke their heads? Such as this...
3) Dalton McGuinty (Premier of Ontario) is backing this new "Flick Off" campaign, to conserve electricity (the whole premise of which totally baffles me, but more on ridiculous energy conservation demands later). If you haven't seen it, the logo for "Flick off has...um...the letter "L" and "I" very close together, and the letter L's font is quite rounded, making the "L" and the "I" look like a "U". And they are pushing this for the kids and younger people to conserve energy. Nice job, Dalton.
1) Two Toronto councillors, Rob Ford and Doug Holiday, have consistently shown $0 balances in their expense accounts. They both pay for all of their expenses out of their own pocket, since both of them have said there's no need to spend taxpayer money and they are well enough off that they can afford to do that. They also get re-elected every election, so obviously their constitutents want them there. Yet there are liberal politicians who are calling for a taxpayer funded investigation into why they choose not to expense stuff to the taxpayers. I heard an interview with Ford and he said that he just gets better deals on printing, etc. from companies and finds efficiencies (ie. he will call a constituent by phone rather than send out a letter). He takes advantage of any freebies he gets. Why is it that liberals need to investigate these two smart and cost-conscious politicians? I know why - because the mostly liberal Toronto council like wasting taxpayer money on frivilous expenses and these two folks make them look bad, due to Ford and Holiday's fiscal responsibility. Good for these two, I say! They are two of the good ones!
2) This whole Shane Doan thing - if you don't know what I'm talking about, Doan (captain of Team Canada at the current world hockey championships) was alleged, by a liberal MP, of course, of making an ethnic slur towards French-Canadians. The NHL did its own internal investigation into the matter a year or two ago and found Doan did not say anything negative. Doan's teammates staunchly defend him. A frustrated player in the game in question also backs Doan, that while he made a sarcastic remark, it was not ethnically insensitive or culturally offensive. The NHL officials indicate that the slur was said, but not by Doan. Even Prime Minister Harper has sided with Doan after looking at all the facts. So what's the problem here? Why is the liberal government now involved in calling a parliamentary investigation, and wasting taxpayer money...again? Doan is a born-again Christian, is considered a character player on and off the ice - his fellow hockey players insist that he would never say such a thing. I guess it's a big deal since he's Canada's captain, but my goodness, can the Liberals simply find something else that is a little bit more ridiculous into which they can poke their heads? Such as this...
3) Dalton McGuinty (Premier of Ontario) is backing this new "Flick Off" campaign, to conserve electricity (the whole premise of which totally baffles me, but more on ridiculous energy conservation demands later). If you haven't seen it, the logo for "Flick off has...um...the letter "L" and "I" very close together, and the letter L's font is quite rounded, making the "L" and the "I" look like a "U". And they are pushing this for the kids and younger people to conserve energy. Nice job, Dalton.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)