Politicalamity (It's - An - Ar - Chy...)

I'm out of the country for a few days, and Larry, Curly, and Moe stage a coup. Well, that's just perfect. I can't leave you kids alone for a minute, can I? This is why we can't have nice things. Do I even dare look at your rooms?

Make no mistake, this is an attempted coup. These chuckleheads are trying to overturn the results of a democratic election because they didn't get the results they feel they were entitled to. (It's also what my last post was really about, in case my mediocre satirical skills left that unclear.)

Hey, if any of our friends south of the Parallel still have some of those "Sore / Loserman" signs left in the garage from the 2000 tantrum election, send them up. We've got a new use for them.

I hope the Governor General either laughs at them and kicks them to the curb, or tells them to go ahead and force another election. We'll see then what the Canadian voters think of this grandstanding stunt.

The Coalition leaders claim this is all about Harper's failure to provide a plan to rescue the foundering economy. This is a lie on several levels.

First, the Canadian economy isn't in crisis. We didn't have terrible legislation passed in the mid-nineties forcing our banks to issue mortgages to people who clearly weren't capable of making their payments. That legislation is the root cause of the current American economic problems.

Incidentally, it was obvious to anyone with an IQ over room temperature that when the U.S. federal government gave a big bag of money to the banks, who each should have been allowed to stand or fall on their own, that other industries would soon come crying with caps in hand. Sure enough, the big three automakers now "need" a large taxpayer-funded bailout. The only question is who will be next in line, saying that their industry is too important to be allowed to fail and they need to be given enough public money to swim around in like Scrooge McDuck. I'd guess the airlines (again), big steel, or, just for the chutzpah factor, oil companies.

Second, Harper just gave a speech outlining his economic plans. These opposition party leaders all signed off on it with no objections, only to turn around a few days later and claim that our government needs to be overthrown on the basis of its contents.

Third, it's come out that this coup has been in the works since not long after the election, long before Harper ever gave that speech outlining his economic plans. There is nothing he could have said in that speech that would have made a difference.

The opposition putzes - sorry, make that "leaders" - have outlined a $30 billion "economic stimulus" package as part of their coup. This is nothing more than $30 billion of taxpayer money - that's my money, and yours too if you're a Canadian - being given to people who these Coalition boobs think will use it better that you and I would have. This is nothing other than forced redistribution of assets, AKA theft.

This is how I feel about all non-essential publicly funded programs or agencies, by the way. Take one of my favourite whipping boys, the CBC. I have nothing against the existence of a broadcasting network whose programs of are no interest to me. I just don't bother tuning in. If you find their programming worthwhile, then by all means enjoy.

However, where we run into a problem is when I have to pay for those shows, via my tax dollars, that you enjoy but I don't. Any argument in favour of public funding for the CBC boils down to "I like it, so you have to pay for it." This is selfish, unethical and immoral. Argue its educational value, its cultural value, whatever - I don't care. It's all "I like it, so you have to pay for it."

This is why I'll argue against the existence of the CBC, but not, say, MuchMusic (Canada's MTV wannabe), which I find to be a cesspool. As long as I'm not paying for it, and I can just turn it off in my household, then its mere existence is not an affront to me. If you like it, go ahead and pay for it, but leave me out of it. I'll do you the same courtesy by not forcing you to chip in on my NYPD Blue DVD box sets.

But back to this $30 billion. Here's a little tip for the three clowns who signed the coup statement (or people who don't see a problem with the American bailouts): there are private institutional investment bodies run by people who are much, much smarter than you. If pumping money into a sector / corporation / whatever was a worthwhile idea, i.e. if it would generate more revenue than the funds infused, then they would be doing it with their own money. If pumping money in isn't going to be profitable, then there's no "economic stimulus" involved, but just pouring cash into a bottomless pit.

There's a catch-22 here. The only logical conclusion is that the government should not be funding private industry. You can call it a bailout, you can call it "economic stimulus" - put whatever lipstick you want on that particular pig, it won't get any more attractive.

Those institutional investors have registered their opinion of this coup pretty clearly. On the day it was announced, the Canadian stock market plummeted.

Finally, the actual impetus for this coup attempt was nothing whatsoever to do with the Canadian economy at large. Yes, as previously noted, the plans were being drawn up not long after the election. However, the reason that the trigger actually got pulled was Harper's threat to cut off taxpayer funding to political parties. What a radical concept - having political parties funded by people who actually support them, rather than going through my pockets with a vacuum cleaner.

This is obviously the way it should be anyway. Once again, it's immoral and unethical to take my money by force (yes, by force - stop paying your taxes and see what happens) and give it to the separatists in the Bloc or the socialists in the NDP. It's just as wrong to take money from airheaded leftists like Heather Mallick and give it to Harper and company, and for the same reasons. If a political party can't survive by drumming up its own support, then let it die.

These things should not need to be explained to adults. It's wrong to take what doesn't belong to you. It's wrong to force people who don't share your political party's positions to pay for their promotion. It's wrong to force other people to pay for TV and radio shows just because you enjoy them.

On a side note, I'm entertained by the fact that in all this turmoil Jack Layton and the NDP are frequently referred to as "socialists", and nobody bats an eye or raises an objection. That's because they're socialists and everybody knows it. However, John McCain (and many conservatives) have been pilloried for calling Barack Obama a socialist for the same reason. I remember one interviewer asking McCain if he planned to apologize to Obama for using the word. You might as well apologize to a mackerel for calling it a fish.

Once again, Ezra Levant has what's probably the best analysis and commentary on this whole Coalition Coup situation. I am remiss in not having pointed out his return to regular blogging after having taken a short hiatus. He's back in business, and you really should be reading his site long before you read this one.


Time to turn off the joke machine for a second, because what I'm about to write is serious (I know it's hard to tell sometimes). For a long time now I've expected that I'll get a firearms licence and some nice noisy boomsticks somewhere down the line. Partly because the target shooting I did recently was so much fun, but also because I expect the sociopolitical situation in North America to deteriorate to the point where it would be irresponsible to not have some means of protecting one's family on hand.

Watching les Stooges Trois hold their little photo op session the other night, I turned to my wife and said, "I think it might be time for that firearms licence." I had always thought that the threat would come from Muslims, but it's starting to look like the Coalition of the Witless may be able to drum up some communist and / or separatist thugs to send around as cannon fodder.

Talking about firearms gives me a good segue to discussing what's going on down in the U.S. of A. Because I was there to keep an eye on things last week, things aren't quite as crazy there as in Canada, but they're still entertaining.

Firearms sales spiked when Obama was elected. There are only three reasons that I can see for an election triggering a rush on firearms.

First, if people think that the incoming government will move to ban firearms (or certain firearms) and they want to do their shopping while they still can. This is the weakest reason, since it presumes that some sort of grandfathering will be included in the ban to let them keep their new toys. That's not always a given.

Second, if people don't trust the new government to protect them from the bad guys. This is a much better reason, and probably the main reason for the American surge in firearms sales. Crackheads aren't less likely to bash your skull in, nor Muslims less likely to cut your throat, just because the new government is "sensitive to their feelings of cultural disenfranchisement".

Third, if people foresee a need to protect themselves from that new government itself. This probably isn't a huge factor down in the States, but it'll be a big one in Canada if this coup succeeds.


I see that Barack Obama has given the American people their April Fools day present early, by appointing Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State. Didn't the Democratic primaries make it clear that even leftist voters didn't want Hillary having any foreign policy influence?

As Obama correctly pointed out during their primary wars, Hillary is completely unqualified in the area of foreign policy. The closest she ever came to managing a crisis was being in the room when Bill's phone rang in the middle of the night. Maybe. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. For that matter, if having been with Bill Clinton when the phone rang about some midnight crisis was a qualification for a cabinet post, then there are probably a whole bunch of Hooters waitresses who would be eligible.

I have to wonder why, if you've decided to go with a Clinton in your cabinet, you'd take door number two. Bill may not be eligible, though, since he's a former president and Secretary of State is a line-of-succession position for the presidency.

I'm partial to the theory that Hillary herself started the rumours that she would be picked for the post. She had her acolytes bang that drum until it would have been awkward for Obama to not offer her the spot. The woman is, after all, composed of nothing but naked ambition. Sorry for mentioning "naked" in the same context as Hillary.


My apologies if this entry is a little more rambling and disjointed than usual. I'm medicated. I went to the doctor yesterday, and my cold turns out to be pneumonia (probably - we have to wait for lab results to confirm). This is a minor inconvenience. Any respiratory diagnosis that doesn't include the word "metastasis" goes in the win column in my books.


Enough rambling. Here's a picture of an airplane, taken way too early in the morning through a window that reflected a lot more than I expected. That's right, kids, the vacation pictures have begun!