More on "A woman's right to choose"

As I have made clear in the past, I'm not pleased with the phrase "A woman's right to choose". It's called abortion. Today I overheard some young adults talking about how the Conservatives want it to be illegal for women to vote. That's how they understood "A woman's right to choose". I'll admit these people were not the brightest lights I've ever met, but there are a lot of dim lights out there. That's one more reason that I hate the phrase "A woman's right to choose".

I'm also unhappy that the phrase is accepted so readily. If a pro-lifer called it "murdering an unborn child", he/she would be label as an extremist in a heartbeat. Yet, "A woman's right to choose" is just as extreme. Calling it "abortion" is the middle ground. In the same light, I don't like how it's becoming acceptable to say that somebody is pro-choice or anti-choice. Think of how extreme it would be if pro-choicers were called "anti-life". The middle ground here is pro-life/pro-choice. But it seems that more and more, anyone who doesn't fully agree with the social-left is an extremist. If I'm in favour of any sort of restriction on abortion at all, I'm an extremist. In fact, those who believe there should be no restrictions are the extremists (and also those who believe that there should be no abortions whatsoever). The middle view is that there should be some limits placed on abortion. The most obvious one is a time limit (before the end of the first or second trimester for example).

Most would agree that abortions should be allowed in cases of rape or a chance of the mother dying from complications. But I'm not big on irresponsible teens getting abortions so that they won't get in trouble from their parents or getting an abortion because the mother will be unable to care for the child. In the words of Jack Layton "There is a third choice": adoption. However, this kind of thing would likely be difficult to legislate and even more difficult to enforce.

If there were any restrictions ever legislated, it should be a time limit on abortions. That's a balanced approach that should be acceptable for most people who hold a moderate view on the subject.

Martin's day of thinking pays off big!

Yesterday, Paul Martin was took a day just to think of a way to win the election. He came up with not one, but two stallar ideas. He acted on those ideas today. First he put a curse on Gilles Duceppe:

Then he did an impression of Stephen Harper: "OOoooOOOOooOOoooo. IIII'm Steeephen Haaarper. I'm veeeery scaaaarey. If you vote foooor meeeee or I will haunt yooooooooou foreeeeeeeeeeeever. Beeee afraaaaaaaid."

Good job Paul. If this doesn't turn things around, I don't know what will.

Martin's Day

Paul Martin has been sitting around all day today, trying to think of a way to win the election.

He's hoping that it'll be easier to come up with an idea if he uses an energy saver bulb.

More of the Sex Club Issue

Layton has attacked Martin's notwithstanding clause, saying that it could be necessary to use it to protect gay marriage and sex club rights.

Last night Paul Martin responded to Layton's attack, reaffirming his support of sex clubs and gay marriage.

In true Paul Martin form, his response didn't actually address the issues raised. You could go on forever with Martin and not get any reasonable answer.

After his announcement and spanking, Martin took some questions:

"If you get rid of the notwithstanding clause, how will you defend our right to go to sex clubs if the courts take it away?"

"Well, first of all, let me say that I believe very much that this is essentially an important problem."

"That's not really an answer to my question, how will you defend our rights to go to sex clubs?"

"We will work very hard to defend the rights of Canadians, whether it's on sex clubs, gay marriage or a woman's right to choose."

"Ok, but HOW will you defend it?"

"We will defend it essentially, by fighting very hard, because this is, in fact, a very very important issue."

"Thanks for clearing that up."

Layton and the Notwithstanding Clause

Layton attacked Paul Martin on the notwithstanding clause again today: "If the supreme court decided to take away the right of Canadians to frequent swinger's clubs, how would a government defend the rights of Canadians with out the notwithstanding clause?"

Layton then entered the Gaslamp Sex Club with these individuals:

Martin and the US

This picture makes me wonder who's really in bed with the Americans:


Look at those puppy dog eyes, gazing lovingly at Bush. Isn't it cute? I heard that after this photo was taken, Martin said "He's so dreamy. He makes me feel like a school-girl again." He kept sighing all the time too.

Liberals release more ads

While watching TV tonight I noticed that the Liberals have some new ads out. Watch the new Liberal ads here. The second one is the best. I don't even like the other two.

On an unrelated note, it seems that 22 Minutes has stopped sucking. I remember watching the end of it sometimes while waiting for Air Farce to come on and thinking "Who in the blue hell thinks that the Quinton Quints is a funny skit?". It appears as though everyone abandoned ship and the new cast isn't doing so bad (at least not this week). Time to watch Mercer now.

Update: Mercer's commercials were WAY better. Unfortunately they are not available on his website.

Layton pushes the NDP drug.

In true drug dealer style, Jack Layton asked disillusioned Liberal voters to "Vote for us just this once in this election". Layton later added that "The NDP just makes you feel good. You can stop voting for us whenever you want. We all do it. Only losers don't vote for the NDP." It's always the same old trick: They find some poor souls who feel like they don't belong, make them feel comfortable with their new friends and them wham! Next thing you know there's money missing off the dresser and your daughter's knocked up. I've seen it a hundred times. Voting NDP is an expensive habit. The only people they help are people who live in a van down by the river. And with the taxes you'll pay, it won't be long before it's you living in a van down by the river. Let me tell you something: Rumpelstiltskin is a good man, and so are you guys. So stay clean, stay focused, stay strong and don't vote for the NDP.

davidjthuss, I welcome all comments more random than this post (especially those containing unrelated Sandler and Farley quotes).

"A woman's right to choose"

I'm getting pretty sick of people accusing Stephen Harper of wanting to take away "a woman's right to choose" and how Jack Layton would defend "a woman's right to choose", as if this is some flowery issue. I'd rather here accusations that Stephen Harper would make abortions illegal and that Jack Layton would not make abortions illegal. Let's call it what it is. Calling it "a woman's right to choose" makes it sound like Harper wants women to be at home, barefoot and pregnant, doing all the housework because she doesn't have the right to make choices in her life, and she's forced to do what her husband tells her. Men and women in Canada will always have the right to make choices. The question is whether or not they should have the choice of aborting a fetus. A question that will not be raised by Stephen Harper in the next parliament. He clearly stated that abortion will not be an issue.

Slippery Slope Proven to be Pure Myth

Remember all those crazy people who said same-sex marriage could put us on a slipperly slope? Those crazy people with their crazy theories.

It appears as though same-sex marriage has opened the door to a possible Charter challenge for polygamy. It seems some religions allow it, so it's a religious right. What's next? Perhaps the once joked about "same-person" marriage. Or more likely same-family marriage. What about bi-sexual marriage to both a man and a woman. Perhaps inter-species matrimony. And what happens when pedophiles get on the bandwagon? Martin will definately be wishing he won the election so that nobody could use the notwithstanding clause to take away our basic human right to marry many blood related children of both genders, along with the family pet.

Those crazy theorists and their slippery slope. What'll they think of next? Inflation?





I'm thinking that maybe this post is a little too sarcastic. I'll try to tone it down a little next time.

New Liberal Ads

I was watching The National last night, where Paul Martin answered questions "town hall" style. When asked about the ads, Martin said "There's no doubt about it, I approved those ads". Less than 2 minutes later, Mansbridge said "You approved those ads", to which Martin replied "No I didn't". Wow. Truly amazing. That's an even quicker flip-flop than on the notwithstanding clause. He's down from 2 weeks to 2 minutes. That's fantastic.

Paul Martin everybody. Give him a hand.

By the way, when Martin would "answer" questions by saying how good a question it was and how important it was and how big a problem it was, I think Peter Mansbridge did a decent job of calling him on it and telling him to answer the question. Mansbridge can get a little bit tougher on politicians than Don Newman. Here's how things go when Don tries to get tough on somebody:

"Aren't the Liberals corrupt, and this is just a way to try to hide it?"
"No, we're not corrupt, we're not trying to hide anything."
"Ok. Let me ask another question: What do you think about being down in the polls?"

That's great Don, just take their word for it immediately. You're doing a great job.

Liberals plan to ban weapons in space.

Liberal Leader Paul Martin has formally unveiled his party's platform, which includes a promise that a re-elected Grit government would lead a worldwide campaign to ban the weaponization of space.
"Liberals are firmly opposed to the weaponization of space and recognize that the best time to prevent an arms race in space is before one begins," reads a passage from the 84-page document, called Securing Canada's Success.
"While an existing international treaty explicitly forbids the stationing of weapons of mass destruction in space, there is currently no multilateral agreement banning the deployment of handguns in space. A Liberal government will put forward an international ban on handguns in space. Most gun crimes in space are commited with stolen guns from collectors. We're only one break-in away from another murder in earth's orbit."

A very funny post.

King's Perspective has a great post on the new Liberal ads.
It's a great idea.
I think you'll like it.
Add your own parodies.
I did several times.
I think there could be many hilarious updates.
I'm not making this up.
Go there.
See for yourself.

Martin Finally Answers Key Questions

Paul Martin finally answered key questions that the media and the opposition leaders have been asking over and over with no reply (until today).

Q: How many criminal investigations of the Liberal Government are currently underway?
A:

Q: Who was really behind the sponsorship scandal?

A:

Q: If you were re-elected as prime minister, how many days would it be before you stole money again?

A:

Q: How many campaign promises are you planning on keeping?

A:

Q: Where's your toupee today?

A: "Oh shit!"

Thank you Mr. Kinsella

This is a rather funny post from Warren Kinsella that nobody should miss out on.

January 6, 2006 -





(CP – Special) Unidentified child (top right) reacts to hearing “come Hell or high water,” “transformative change,” “essentially,” “very, very important,” “fundamentally” and – most recently – a sitting Prime Minister actually commenting on the merits of an ongoing RCMP investigation: “offensive.” Another unidentified toddler (top centre) slips into a self-induced coma after reading all two pages of Liberal campaign platform. Scott Feschuk, bottom right, channels Paul Wells for his next English-only blog entry.

Major platform announcements from Liberals and Conservatives

Today, the Harper and Martin each unveiled the major piece of their respective platforms:

Martin: "If I am elected, I will take over the world, MUHAHAHAHA!"

Harper: "Under a new conservative government, Canadians would be watched by creepy eyes behind paintings, 24 hours a day."

Layton wanted to make a major announcement, but he finally realized that nobody has payed attention to him since the campaign began.

Liberals claim Conservative will create deficit

The Liberals were claiming that Conservative promises will create a $12 billion deficit over the next 5 years. If that's true, then the Liberals will be right behind them. According to the CBC, Liberal promises total $59.4 billion, while Conservatives are promising $65.5 billion. That's without the cost of the 50/50 plan. About half of university students and almost all college students will be in first or last year in any given year. In 03/04 there were 990000 university students and I'll estimate 255000 college students (This is a very conservative estimate, since Red River College in Manitoba as 30000 students). That's 750000 students getting $3000 per year, or $2.25 billion per year. This plan isn't supposed to happen for another few years, but that's still another 4.5-6.75 billion for their 5 year plan. That puts them very close to the conservatives at about 64-66 billion dollars over 5 years.

So, why isn't Martin fessing up to his own deficit creating promises? There are a few possible explanations:

1) While Martin's promises total about $65 billion, he's not planning on keeping most of them anyways, so we'll see even higher surpluses from him.

2) As per usual, Martin is hiding billions of dollars so that when the surplus is suddenly a lot bigger than expected, he can look like a hero. There's actually more than enough surplus funds to cover the promises of both parties.

3) The Liberal version of Tory numbers are incorrect, either on purpose or by accident.

Thank you Funny E-mail. You made my day.

"Girls only want boyfiends with great skills: You know, like nunchuck skills, bowhunting skills, photoshop skills":

I like this article. That is all.

New details for Conservative Child Care Plan

The details announced by Harper today are good for the Conservative campaign and good for Canadians:

Releasing the details of the plan will finally get some attention a much neglected part of the child care strategy. Liberals and the media have both been ignoring the $250 million/year ever since the announcement was made. Liberals will no longer be able to get away with saying that the Conservative plan to give $1200/year to parents won't create new child care spaces because the voters will be more aware of the rest of the plan.

The plan is also a good solution to the problem of waiting lists. I've been saying for months upon months, that the best solution to the lack of child care spaces is to provide funding for non-profit day cares to expand or start new centres. It is very difficult for non-profit centres to raise the funds needed to expand or start a new centre. As the waiting lists get shorter, parents will have a choice of which day care centre to send their kids to, instead of just sending them to any centre where there is a space. Once parents have this choice, centres that provide a quality program will keep expanding and centres with poor quality, "babysitteresque" programs will decline. This could be a lengthy process without the aid of the government though. Ministry officials, which already visit and inspect child care centres routinely, should be able to vito any funding for poor quality centres to expand or open new locations.

Liberal tuition plan is a dud.

While the Liberal's are promising the most money for Post Secondary Education of any major party, I disagree with how the money is spent. For students that cannot afford Post Secondary Education even with the currently available bursaries, grants and loans, Martin's plan will still keep many of the poorest students from entering into post-secondary studies. I would prefer to see grants to be given to students where the size of the grant is based on financial need, as long as a minimum level of achievement in their program is maintained. I should point out that none of the parties are really moving in that direction, but I believe it is a fair solution.

Unfortunately for Martin, no matter what he promises for PSE, he cannot be trusted to follow through on it: In 2004, the Liberals promised billions in funding for PSE. This promise was not kept by the Liberals. It was the NDP that forced the Liberals to include the money in the revised spring budget.

I support reducing interest rates on student loans, which the CPC and the NDP have talked about. However, these two parties are not doing enough to knock down the barriers to post-secondary education for the poorest students.

National Child Care "Plan" short on details

I've been trying to find details on the Liberals' National Child Care Plan and found that there are none. The "plan" is to give the provinces $11 billlion over the next 9 years. The Liberals say this will provide accessable, affordable day care for all. I would like to know the cost per day for the users of this child care and what the structure of the program would be like. A plan consists of more than just setting aside some money.

The Liberals seem to love the Quebec system. They are going to commit $11 billion over 9 years which translates into $1.2 billion per year. However, In Quebec alone, the daycare system costs the government $1.2 billion per year. So basically, each province will get an average of $120 million per year, and end up paying 90% of the cost themselves. Sounds like more "premiums" will be needed in Ontario to pay for all this, since the feds took away so much of the transfer payments to the provinces to create their surpluses. Oh, wait, Ontario won't have to create new premiums to invest more money in the system. In fact, they won't even be forced to use the Liberals' money for child care. Since there will be no legislation involved in this "plan", the provinces could just spend this money on beer and popcorn instead.

Moving on...Let's say that the Liberal idea of "affordable" child care isn't $7/day or $35/week like it is in Quebec. Then let's see how much the plan would save parents. The Liberals say that the $11 billion will create 62500 new day care spaces (and subsidized the cost of using those spaces, apparently). If the money were to go purely to subsidizing the cost of daycare for those 625000 new space, there would be about $1955 per year per space. This makes a discount of about $38 per week to send a kid to daycare. However, that same $11 billion must create the new spaces first, aswell as subsidize current non-profit daycare spaces. So we could be looking at closer to $1 billion per year to subsidize 1 million day care spaces. That means $1000 per space per year, making it about $19.25 cheaper per week to send a kid to day care. Haven't the Liberals been arguing that the Conservatives' $25/week doesn't make day care affordable for Canadians? Seems to me that the National Day Car Program will make about the same difference in the cost to parents.

Either the Liberals don't really have a plan for national day care (beyond giving away money) or they know that the money they are setting aside isn't enough to create truly afordable child care, and they're hiding that fact from voters.