Ignatieff Seeks to Lead Two Nations

The Leader of the Opposition, Michael Ignatieff, made a statement last week that garnered little attention in the media. But it should have.

In complaining about the extra seats Ontario and the West will eventually realize as a result of the last census, he called for the current seat distribution between Quebec and the Rest of Canada to be maintained.

In doing so, Michael Ignatieff opposes one of the prime aspects of a free and democratic society, namely, representation by population.

In fact, I suspect if anyone took the time to do the math, Quebec's representation should decline from its current 75 seats to something in the neighbourhood of 60 seats.

The danger inherent in Ignatieff's position is that it leads to a demand on the part of Quebec that it have equal representation based upon is nation-state status, a status that even our Prime Minister has seen fit to acknowledge.

We are now well down the road in many respects to two separate and distinct nations within Canada and Ignatieff's recently stated position only furthers the divide.

As I see it.

"Galagher"

Negative Ads...Affect Me Negatively

I guess for me it started with Kim Campbell's Campaign portraying Chretien's facial deformity prominently in one of her ads. I, like many Canadians, was shocked. Campbell went on to lose all but 2 seats, including her own, so clearly that was one Ad that did not work out.

Pollsters though will tell you that negative ads do work and they probably do, but not for me. I find them offensive and see them as a ruse to avoid dealing with real issues.

A recent example is Harper's ad that purports to prove that Michael Ignatief cannot be trusted simply because he has lived outside of Canada for a good portion of his life. What precisely does not having lived in Canada to do with whether or not a person can be trusted?

In fact, I do not really care if our politicians comes from Mars - as long as they demonstrate good common sense, values - like honesty and integrity, and promote the private sector over governement - while reducing taxes. You get the idea - a Humane Libertarian.

If I was Ignatief, I would run the Harper ad, in its entirety, changing the ending tag line to say:

'Can you the voter really trust Mr. Harper - as Prime Minister - the author of such a vacuous, negative ad?'

As I see it.

"Galagher"

Afghanistan....Is It Worth The Cost?

Until very recently, I would not have even entertained this question but some sobbering developements have become front page news of late including: that 85% of Afghanistan is now controlled by the Taliban and America's Chief of Operations indicates that an infusion of troops is needed to avoid defeat within the year.

Moreover, the US is going bankrupt and can no longer afford to carry the weight of victory on its shoulders. This while Nato has shown itself to be composed of weekend soldiers with few of its members, other than ourselves and the Brits, having stepped into the breach. Our troops are exhausted and can no longer be expected continuously return to this theatre of war without a decent break.

It makes me reflect upon Vietnam where I too was a hawk and believed that the South deserved freedom in much the same way that South Korea did. But look today and see how Vietnam has prospered under unification. Economically this country is one the success stories of the world. What was gained by those countless deaths over nearly 10 years of war? Nothing.

So we leave.

Or do we?

In fact, Vietnam was different. There the enemy was other Vietnamese who wanted to have one nation and were prepared to pay any price to obtain it. In Afghanistan too, the enemy is other Afghans but these are evil men who want to subjugate their fellow citizens in the name of a religion which has been distorted for their own cruel purposes.

The Taliban wants to keep Afghanistan ignorant, keep it back in the middle ages. Keep its children out of schools and its women subservient to the point of being chattels. The men too live in fear of their vengeance.

But in a very real sense, the struggle in Afghanistan is not about that country. It is just a staging ground. Nor is the enemy the Taliban - it is Al Qaeda or more specifically, it is extreme Islamists wherever they are. They want to destroy our way of life and us in it. And like the North Vietnamese some 45 years earlier, they are prepared to go to any lengths to see it happen.

Accordingly, we are at War; this time a war we cannot afford to lose.

But will likely lose due to America's exhaustion and more importantly, due to the lack of will on the part most of its allies.

Afghanistan will sink from sight: its schools will close, its females will return to slavery and all will live in fear of the Taliban.

For us, we too will live in fear. Fear of being blown up, fear of our food /water being poisoned or our air contaminated or hand-held nuclear devices being used to destroy our cities. We will not escape Afghanistan's fate. Indeed, it will likely be much worse.

I think of Winston Churchill's speech at the time Poland was invaded by the Hun:

"if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory; because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

Churchill's words ring just as true today even though we are not fighting the type of war he envisaged in 1939 - that would be easy for us to win since we (i.e. the Americans have all the latest equipment) and could easily destroy countless hostile armies. Rather we are fighting a war where as few as one or two can inflict mighty destruction upon the many. It is a much harder war to win and one that takes a resolution that I do not see at present.

Even so, count me still at hawk.

"Galgher"

Abbott and Costello Come To Ottawa

My recent post on our Leaders 'telling it like it is', gave me the idea to try it to the tune of Who's on First.




Abbott: Well Lou here we are in Ottawa - Canada's capital.

Costello: So where are the igloos?


Abbott: Out in the suburbs.

Costello: And the Eskimos?


Abbott: In the Igloos.

Costello: Don't they get cold?


Abbott: Of course not, they wear skins.

Costello: Naturally.


Abbott: Naturally what?

Costello: Naturally they wear their skins.


Abbott: Oh never mind.

Costello: So what's Ottawa known for Bud?


Abbott: Elections!
Costello: Elections?


Abbott: Ya, they have one approximately every year.
Costello: Boy they must really like them.


Abbott: No they hate them.
Costello: Hate them?


Abbott: My research shows that Canadians view them as a monumental
waste of time and money.
Costello: So the Politicians do?


Abbott: No they don't want them either.
Costello: So who wants them?


Abbott: No one does.
Costello: So why have them then?


Abbott: To break the monotony.
Costello: Boy they must be really board.


Abbott: With all the snow and cold there is not much else for them to do.
Costello: But have Elections?


Abbott: That's right.
Costello: So no one wants them but everyone gets them?


Abbott: Not a single person.
Costello: But they all get them?


Abbott: Very True.
Costello: To break the boredom?


Abbott: Precisely.
Costello: Precisely what?


Abbott: They have Elections to break the boredom.
Costello: So they do want them?


Abbott: Of course not.
Costello: But I thought you said they want them to break the boredom.


Abbott: That's right.
Costello: But no one wants one.


Abbott: Exactly.
Costello: Exactly What?


Abbott: Canadians do not want Elections.
Costello: But they have one a year.


Abbott: Annually.
Costello: Because they don't want them?


Abbott: Not one.
Costello: So let me get this straight. Canadians do not want Elections nor do their politicians
because Elections are time consuming and expensive. But they have frequent elections
because they are bored. And that's the way they like it.

Abbott: I couldn't have said it better.
Costello: ????

My apologies to those two great comedians.


"Galagher"

Worst President In The Last 100 Years - Proves Again Why

Sorry, I am not referring to Geo. W. Bush...

Rather, to Jimmy Carter.

A guy who has never met a Terrorist he didn't like.

And now, he finds opposition to President Obama to be raced based.

Imagine.

He spoke so convincingly of what a racist was thinking it begged the question of whether he speaking of his own personal belief.

Carter has had his time in the sun. It is long past time for him to ride off into the sunset.

Enough said.

"Galagher"

The 4 Canadian Leaders Finally Tell It Like It Is...

Behind Closed Doors That Is,



We often lament the fact that Politicians have great difficulty saying what they really think - that is to say, - telling the truth.



Let's go behind the scenes and see how they would explain their positions to their confidantes on whether or not they favour an early Election.



First, Mr. Harper:



H - I can just taste it. At long last I am within reach of a majority. Think what I will be able to do. If one of my Members screws this up by mouthing off- he's history.



C - Why Stephen, on T.V. today and you said the worse thing for the country at this time would be to have an Election? What gives?



H - Never mind the country. I want a majority and the polls say the time is now. Those clowns in opposition don't know it but they are just about ready to provide it to me. All I have to do is trick them into voting non-confidence.



C - But why would they be so stupid to vote non-confidence if it means you will win a majority?



H - Because, to a man, they are all prima donnas. I will just continue to humilate each of them and sooner or later they will crack and vote against me.



H - Get my pollster on the line.


Ignatieff



I - For the first time in a long time, I am free of propping up that pompous ass Harper. Do you know how humilating it has been for me this past year?

C- I can only imagine.

I - Now Layton has to eat crow. Did you see him in the House today - I thought he was going to throw-up when he said he wanted to make Parliament work. It was the first for him.

C- Ya, he did look a little green around the gills.

I - I just hope Jack can hold his ground now and ward off the Election. You certainly cannot count on the Bloc.

C - But Michael, you were quoted today as saying you wanted an Election at the earliest possible time. That Harper was destroying the country and time was of the essence.

I - Well that's partly correct - Harper is destroying the country but we are in no shape to have an Election right now. We are still in debt and only a few of our ridings have nominated candidates. Plus don't you follow the polls? We are so far behind the Tories that it will take a miracle to catch up.


C- Ya, I see what you mean. Those are certainly good reasons why not.


I - But that's not even the main reason. So many of our members have not qualified for their life-long pensions. You know the one that takes 6 long years to get.


C - that doesn't seem too long Mike when you see Nortel workers of 30 + years losing their pensions.


I - They could have become MPs like me.



Layton:



J - I can't take it anymore - propping up that pompous ass and his band of knuckle draggers.



C- But Jack, it has only been a day - poor Ignatieff had to put up with it for over a year.


J - Well it just cannot go on. It is so unseemly.


C - Why don't you vote non-confidence then; I would think the Bloc would come along.


J - Of course they would come along; that's the problem.


C - So you really want Parliament to work, just like you said today in the House?

J - Of course I don't, - never have. It's just that we are so low in the polls; we have to look up to tie our shoes. If an Election was to be held, we would not have enough seats left to form party status.


C -So you are worried about no longer being effective?


J - No not that - we are never really all that effective - the problem is we would lose our research money - we'd be broke.


J - I've got to speak with Duceppe himself, - we cannot risk stumbling into voting non-confidence - there is just too much at stake.



Duceppe:



C - Bonjour Gilles, how'd travail go today? I saw you on the television today and heard you say that you would do everything you can for the nation.



D- Oui, Oui - must protect Quebec.



C - does that mean you will vote for an Election?


D - Of course not. I think I can free up billions from the Harperites for our homeland. It is a chance of a lifetime.


C - So Harper really does not want to have an Election?


D - Of course he wants an Election - he just has to pretend he doesn't and through his pretending, we can squeeze more and more out of Canada.


C - Now I am really confused Gilles. Harper really wants an Election but he is prepared for appearances sake to pay - I mean - seek your support of his Government as if he was opposed to an Election.

D - You got it.


C - You're so smart Gilles - you should be Prime Minister.


D- Mon Dieu.

----

On second thought, maybe we are all better off not knowing the truth.

As I see it.

"Galagher"

How to Make Health Care Work - Anywhere - Part II

Health Care, Part II



As I mentioned in Part I, health care proponents for either public or private delivery should first be focusing on what the product is to be delivered. This is the critical missing element and fundamental flaw in the current debate.



There first needs to be a consensus on what is to be delivered.



Currently I estimate that Canada in total spends 40% of every tax dollar on health care. The sum has grown and will continue to grow annually much faster than the cost of living rate. We have been able to get away with that since we do not spend a similar per capita cost on our military as does the United States. But even in Canada we are coming to the breaking point.



How the USA can expect to adopt a system similar to ours with its huge and growing health care costs, in addition to its mammoth military expense, is beyond me. Indeed, from my perspective, with its trillions of dollars in bailout payments, I think our neighbour to the south is teetering on bankruptcy right now. (Something for another Blog)



Here is what I believe needs to be done:

• Develop a list of core services - starting from basics;


• This list needs to focus solely on protecting the citizen from illnesses that have potential to threaten one's life and to protect against economic catastrophe - illnesses such as cancer, heart, alzheimer's, etc., etc;


• Health care in relation to the items on this list would be available to all citizens - i.e. universal coverage, and would be paid for by the government directly to the service provider;


• Everything else would be left to the individual to decide whether to pay for his / her own private coverage - for things such as cosmetic surgery, birth control (abortions), knee / hip replacements, broken bones, day surgery and the like;
• Co-payment for visits to a Doctor (e.g. if a visit cost $50, patient would pay 20% or $10 and the taxpayer would pay the remaining $40).

Many will see this approach as being draconian but the fact is we as a society can no longer afford to pay the cost of entire universal care. In fact, we haven't been, since we have 2-tier health care now in many respects plus more and more items are being dropped from the list of insured care by the financially challenged provincial governments.

And, it will only get worse as our societies continue to age.

Simply stated, there is no other choice.

So we end up now with 2 glasses:

• Glass number one contains water representing the core services paid for by government and from which everyone drinks. Users give it a 10;
• Glass number two contains water representing the extra services paid for by the user him or herself which they too allocate a 10.

Once this is determined, society can get on with deciding how the above services are to be delivered. As you might guess, I believe fervently that they should be delivered by the private sector with government oversight. My main reason for saying this is due to the fact that dispensing Health Care is no different from dispensing Dish Detergent or motor vehicles - only through true competition can the consumer expect to receive a quality product at a reasonable price. Just ask General Motors.

More on the delivery aspect of Health Care later...

"Galagher"