Somebody is trying to start up a viral campaign based on the theme of "PM puts donuts before planet".
There's a Youtube video, a Facebook page, email messaging, etc.
Anyway, the general thrust of the message is that Prime Minister Stephen Harper hates the planet because he opted to pass on a United Nations assembly meeting on "climate change" so he could hold a news conference at a Tim Horton's.
Well if you ask me the Prime Minister made exactly the right choice.
If the choice is between a tasty, sugary, scrumptious donut and an Al Gore-inspired, global socialist scheme to destroy our industrial economy, well the answer is obvious: take me to Tim Horton's.
In fact, Harper should run the next election campaign on this slogan: "Donuts yes; socialism no."
Friday, September 25, 2009
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Politicians and plans
In a recent speech Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff claimed Canada needed a "plan" for growth.
That led me to send the following letter to the editor to the Globe and Mail:
Dear Sir/Madam:
Beware of politicians bearing “plans.”
Take Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff. He says he has a plan for economic growth. ("Ignatieff pushes ‘good government'and growth instead of tax cuts", Sept 22)
Translation: he wants to subsidize industries, regulate trade and generally pick winners and losers in the economy.
We’ve tried this sort of planning before.
It doesn’t work.
Rather than creating economic growth, it creates big, costly and inefficient government.
That’s why the only thing our politicians should be planning is how they can leave the economy alone
That led me to send the following letter to the editor to the Globe and Mail:
Dear Sir/Madam:
Beware of politicians bearing “plans.”
Take Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff. He says he has a plan for economic growth. ("Ignatieff pushes ‘good government'and growth instead of tax cuts", Sept 22)
Translation: he wants to subsidize industries, regulate trade and generally pick winners and losers in the economy.
We’ve tried this sort of planning before.
It doesn’t work.
Rather than creating economic growth, it creates big, costly and inefficient government.
That’s why the only thing our politicians should be planning is how they can leave the economy alone
Taxing propaganda
I got quoted in this Canadian Press story about those partisan ads the Conservative Party … oops I mean the Conservative government is running.
You know the ads I mean; the slick ones with all those chipper actors gushing about how much they love the government’s stimulus package because it’s creating jobs, stopping the recession and putting rainbows in the sky.
When I first saw the ad on TV I fully expected the Tory logo to pop up at the end. Instead, of course, the ad offered viewers a website address so they could access yet more material explaining why a $56 billion deficit is a good thing.
Some argue these ads are merely informational, but let's be serious; they are clearly propaganda, designed to put the government and its policies in a positive light. The government is essentially using tax dollars to brag about how many tax dollars they are spending.
This has always been a pet peeve of mine. Simply put, it’s wrong and undemocratic to force citizens to support a political agenda. I don’t like it when union bosses do it with forced dues; I don’t like it when politicians do it with tax dollars.
And yes – the Liberals were just as bad at this sort of thing when they were in power, if not worse.
The problem is this kind of abuse is hard to control. Governments have an overwhelming temptation to use tax dollars to promote themselves in the guise of “informing Canadians.”
Where do you draw the line between providing information (here’s how to sneeze into your arm) and propaganda (thanks to the great and glorious government I now know how to sneeze into my arm)?
Who decides?
The only answer as far as I can see, is get government to spend less and do less.
Maybe if government was doing less it would have less to brag about.
You know the ads I mean; the slick ones with all those chipper actors gushing about how much they love the government’s stimulus package because it’s creating jobs, stopping the recession and putting rainbows in the sky.
When I first saw the ad on TV I fully expected the Tory logo to pop up at the end. Instead, of course, the ad offered viewers a website address so they could access yet more material explaining why a $56 billion deficit is a good thing.
Some argue these ads are merely informational, but let's be serious; they are clearly propaganda, designed to put the government and its policies in a positive light. The government is essentially using tax dollars to brag about how many tax dollars they are spending.
This has always been a pet peeve of mine. Simply put, it’s wrong and undemocratic to force citizens to support a political agenda. I don’t like it when union bosses do it with forced dues; I don’t like it when politicians do it with tax dollars.
And yes – the Liberals were just as bad at this sort of thing when they were in power, if not worse.
The problem is this kind of abuse is hard to control. Governments have an overwhelming temptation to use tax dollars to promote themselves in the guise of “informing Canadians.”
Where do you draw the line between providing information (here’s how to sneeze into your arm) and propaganda (thanks to the great and glorious government I now know how to sneeze into my arm)?
Who decides?
The only answer as far as I can see, is get government to spend less and do less.
Maybe if government was doing less it would have less to brag about.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Anti-Car bias
Was surprised this afternoon to see Yonge Street in downtown Toronto closed to traffic.
What happened?
Was there some sort of horrible accident? Had a crime occurred? Were the streets being cleared to practice for a Maple Leaf Stanley Cup parade?
Nope. Turns out it's "Car Free Day."
Or perhaps a better name would be "Anti-Car Propaganda Day."
It seems for lefties, bashing cars is trendy.
But I like cars. They enable us to travel great distances, at great speed in comfort.
And if you don't think comfort is important try riding a horse for three weeks.
What's more cars provide us with freedom, making our lives easier.
So let's hear it for cars!
(This does not mean I endorse bailing out auto makers.)
Media Alert
I am scheduled to be a guest on the Gary Doyle Show today at approximately 1:00 PM EST.
Topic: The Conservative government's taxpayer-funded propaganda ... oops I mean informational ad campaign.
Topic: The Conservative government's taxpayer-funded propaganda ... oops I mean informational ad campaign.
We don't need Ignatieff's plan
Yesterday in his speech Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff declared Canada needed a “plan for growth.”
“Plan” --- one of the scariest words in a politician’s vocabulary.
Show me a politician who thinks he can “plan” economic growth and I’ll show you a politician who has not learned the lessons of the Soviet Union.
Rember the Soviets?
Besides being big on conquering Europe, they were all about planning.
They had massive centralized bureaucracies dedicated to allocating resources, creating industries, funding research and drinking vodka.
Yet despite all the planning and despite the fact they could impose these plans at the point of a bayonet, the Soviet economy still ended up wreck.
That’s because the economy is not like a car, it’s not just something you can “steer” in the right direction. It's more like a force of nature---difficult to predict, hard to control and impossible to direct.
Yet, there are always intellectuals like Ignatieff who think they are smart enough to plan for growth -- a tax here, a subsidy there, maybe a tariff or two and voila the country is rich.
What the Ignatieff’s of the world just don’t understand is their intellect is no match for the wisdom displayed every day by the millions of decision-makers in the market. People who are actually working for a living, in the real world.
It’s these people, when allowed to pursue their interests freely, who create wealth and prosperity.
That's why we don’t need fancy government plans for economic growth.
The best government can do is get out of the way.
“Plan” --- one of the scariest words in a politician’s vocabulary.
Show me a politician who thinks he can “plan” economic growth and I’ll show you a politician who has not learned the lessons of the Soviet Union.
Rember the Soviets?
Besides being big on conquering Europe, they were all about planning.
They had massive centralized bureaucracies dedicated to allocating resources, creating industries, funding research and drinking vodka.
Yet despite all the planning and despite the fact they could impose these plans at the point of a bayonet, the Soviet economy still ended up wreck.
That’s because the economy is not like a car, it’s not just something you can “steer” in the right direction. It's more like a force of nature---difficult to predict, hard to control and impossible to direct.
Yet, there are always intellectuals like Ignatieff who think they are smart enough to plan for growth -- a tax here, a subsidy there, maybe a tariff or two and voila the country is rich.
What the Ignatieff’s of the world just don’t understand is their intellect is no match for the wisdom displayed every day by the millions of decision-makers in the market. People who are actually working for a living, in the real world.
It’s these people, when allowed to pursue their interests freely, who create wealth and prosperity.
That's why we don’t need fancy government plans for economic growth.
The best government can do is get out of the way.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Macleans to Harper: Protect Free Speech
Maclean's magazine has a great editorial urging our politicians to scrap the infamous "Section 13" of the Canada Human Rights Act, which is used to squelch free speech.
Writes Macleans:
Stephen Harper used to have very clear—and colourful—ideas on human rights commissions and what should be done about them.
“Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society,” he said in a 1999 interview with Terry O’Neill of BC Report news magazine.“ It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff.” He went on to complain about the “bastardization” of the entire concept of rights in modern society.
Of course, that was back when Harper was president of the National Citizens Coalition. Today he’s Canada’s 22nd Prime Minister. And he appears to have lost his fear of totalitarianism.
Let's hope the Prime Minister regains, if not his fear of totalitarianism, at least his respect for free expression.
Section 13 has got to go.
Writes Macleans:
Stephen Harper used to have very clear—and colourful—ideas on human rights commissions and what should be done about them.
“Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society,” he said in a 1999 interview with Terry O’Neill of BC Report news magazine.“ It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff.” He went on to complain about the “bastardization” of the entire concept of rights in modern society.
Of course, that was back when Harper was president of the National Citizens Coalition. Today he’s Canada’s 22nd Prime Minister. And he appears to have lost his fear of totalitarianism.
Let's hope the Prime Minister regains, if not his fear of totalitarianism, at least his respect for free expression.
Section 13 has got to go.
The language of freedom
I am currently reading The Mother Tongue: English and how it got that way, by Bill Bryson, a book which explores the English language.
It's a fun, interesting read.
Bryson not only looks at the history and evolution of English, but also highlights some of its quirks.
For instance, English has a large number of negative words for which there is no positive counterpart: inept, disheveled, incorrigible, ruthless, unkempt.
When was the last time praised you somebody for being ept or kempt?
One other interesting point Bryson makes is that there is no national academy or official state agency regulating or governing the language.
English simply evolved in its own way.
There was a movement in the 18th century in both the United Kingdom and the United States to create some sort of language regulatory body similar France’s Acadamie Francaise, but it never took off.
And this is for the best.
As Bryson notes the Acadmie Francaise often regulates French with almost “ayatollah-like conservatism” stultifying the language's growth and development.
English, on the other hand, develops freely.
One scholar noted French was similar to the severe and formal gardens of Louis XIV, whereas English was “laid out seemingly without any definite plan, and in which you were allowed to walk everywhere according to your own fancy without having to fear a stern keeper enforcing rigorous regulations.”
Consequently this is why English has one of the richest vocabularies and is the most adaptable language in the world.
It’s too bad we don’t apply this lesson to other aspects of our society.
A lot less regulating and a lot more freedom in both our economic and political spheres would make Canada a richer place in more ways than one.
It's a fun, interesting read.
Bryson not only looks at the history and evolution of English, but also highlights some of its quirks.
For instance, English has a large number of negative words for which there is no positive counterpart: inept, disheveled, incorrigible, ruthless, unkempt.
When was the last time praised you somebody for being ept or kempt?
One other interesting point Bryson makes is that there is no national academy or official state agency regulating or governing the language.
English simply evolved in its own way.
There was a movement in the 18th century in both the United Kingdom and the United States to create some sort of language regulatory body similar France’s Acadamie Francaise, but it never took off.
And this is for the best.
As Bryson notes the Acadmie Francaise often regulates French with almost “ayatollah-like conservatism” stultifying the language's growth and development.
English, on the other hand, develops freely.
One scholar noted French was similar to the severe and formal gardens of Louis XIV, whereas English was “laid out seemingly without any definite plan, and in which you were allowed to walk everywhere according to your own fancy without having to fear a stern keeper enforcing rigorous regulations.”
Consequently this is why English has one of the richest vocabularies and is the most adaptable language in the world.
It’s too bad we don’t apply this lesson to other aspects of our society.
A lot less regulating and a lot more freedom in both our economic and political spheres would make Canada a richer place in more ways than one.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Free Advice for Michael Ignatieff
The National Post, probably realizing I was one of the top 5 political minds in the country, asked me to provide free advice to Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff.
The result is posted here.
The result is posted here.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Cool gimmick
Have you seen the Conservative Party's great new interactive online gimmick?
It's called "Moving Forward: Join the conversation" and features Senator Mike Duffy giving a Tory pitch.
What's cool about it, however, is that you can plug in your name so that Senator Duffy actually sounds like he is talking directly to you.
For instance, for me Duffy says, "Hi Gerry, my man."
Awesome!
And imagine the effort that must have entailed. I mean Senator Duffy must have had to say hundreds of names from Aaron to Zachary.
Who says Senators don't do any real work?
But, of course, he couldn't say every name in existence. When I typed in the name "Hymie", the Senator just looked flustered for a second, then he carried on.
Nevertheless that online appeal is the ultimate in technological outreach.
I just wish the Conservatives spent as much time coming up with ways to reduce the deficit as they do on fancy computer tricks.
It's called "Moving Forward: Join the conversation" and features Senator Mike Duffy giving a Tory pitch.
What's cool about it, however, is that you can plug in your name so that Senator Duffy actually sounds like he is talking directly to you.
For instance, for me Duffy says, "Hi Gerry, my man."
Awesome!
And imagine the effort that must have entailed. I mean Senator Duffy must have had to say hundreds of names from Aaron to Zachary.
Who says Senators don't do any real work?
But, of course, he couldn't say every name in existence. When I typed in the name "Hymie", the Senator just looked flustered for a second, then he carried on.
Nevertheless that online appeal is the ultimate in technological outreach.
I just wish the Conservatives spent as much time coming up with ways to reduce the deficit as they do on fancy computer tricks.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Offending Communists is OK
Yesterday's National Post ran this story about the National Capital Commission's recent decision demanding the word "communism" be removed from a proposed "Tribute to Liberty" monument as this might offend communists.
This led me to write the following letter to the editor which appears in today's paper:
Dear Sir/Madam:
So, the NCC is worried a proposed memorial to the victims of totalitarian communism(Is there any other kind?) might offend communists.
I guess it has not occurred to the NCC that communism itself is offensive.
Recall that communists enslaved nearly half the world, denied basic democratic rights to whole nations and murdered untold millions in cold blood.
That's precisely why we need a memorial. It's important to remind ourselves why our freedoms are worth defending.
And if that offends any crackpot communists still lurking about, we should just consider that a bonus.
This led me to write the following letter to the editor which appears in today's paper:
Dear Sir/Madam:
So, the NCC is worried a proposed memorial to the victims of totalitarian communism(Is there any other kind?) might offend communists.
I guess it has not occurred to the NCC that communism itself is offensive.
Recall that communists enslaved nearly half the world, denied basic democratic rights to whole nations and murdered untold millions in cold blood.
That's precisely why we need a memorial. It's important to remind ourselves why our freedoms are worth defending.
And if that offends any crackpot communists still lurking about, we should just consider that a bonus.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Liberals mock outrage
The Liberals are apparently shocked and aghast because Prime Minister Stephen Harper recently called left-wing fringe groups, “left-wing fringe groups.”
Mind you, the Liberals are not really shocked or aghast, it’s more like fabricated outrage.
They are trying to bend, twist and distort the PM’s comments to make the case that by attacking left wing groups he is also attacking women/gays/minorities.
Well here’s a news flash for Liberals: just because you are a woman/gay/minority doesn’t also mean you automatically support left wing causes.
For instance, I am sure there are many women/gays/minorities who fully support the idea that taxpayers should not be forced to support left wing court challenges.
That’s why the Liberal PR offensive on this issue is going to fall flatter than one of Michael Ignatieff’s TV commercials.
The only people who will truly be offended by the Prime Ministers comment on left wing fringe groups, will be left wing fringe groups --- like the NDP.
Mind you, the Liberals are not really shocked or aghast, it’s more like fabricated outrage.
They are trying to bend, twist and distort the PM’s comments to make the case that by attacking left wing groups he is also attacking women/gays/minorities.
Well here’s a news flash for Liberals: just because you are a woman/gay/minority doesn’t also mean you automatically support left wing causes.
For instance, I am sure there are many women/gays/minorities who fully support the idea that taxpayers should not be forced to support left wing court challenges.
That’s why the Liberal PR offensive on this issue is going to fall flatter than one of Michael Ignatieff’s TV commercials.
The only people who will truly be offended by the Prime Ministers comment on left wing fringe groups, will be left wing fringe groups --- like the NDP.
Talking conservative talk
For years now I have been urging Prime Minister Stephen Harper to sound less like a Red Tory and more like a true conservative.
Whenever I do this, partisan Tories inevitably barrage me with personal slurs and criticisms.
Typical reaction: “Gerry you knucklehead. No one likes your ridiculous radical, right-wing, redneck opinions. You’re too stupid to realize that Harper has to shed his former principles and adopt the guise of a moderate, otherwise we will lose power.”
OK fine.
So you would think these same partisans would have been horrified to hear that famous “behind closed doors speech” where the Prime Minister sounded an awful lot like his old National Citizens Coalition persona blasting as he did “left wing fringe groups”, “socialists” and “separatists.”
Yet such was not the case.
In fact, they heaped praise on the Prime Minister for his right wing sounding rhetoric and even congratulated him for “tricking” the Liberals into leaking a video of the speech to the media as this ensured maximum coverage possible.
So maybe my advice wasn't so bad after all?
Anyway, I just hope the Prime Minister continues to talk like a conservative and that he starts acting more like one too.
That would help the party, the conservative movement and most importantly the country.
Whenever I do this, partisan Tories inevitably barrage me with personal slurs and criticisms.
Typical reaction: “Gerry you knucklehead. No one likes your ridiculous radical, right-wing, redneck opinions. You’re too stupid to realize that Harper has to shed his former principles and adopt the guise of a moderate, otherwise we will lose power.”
OK fine.
So you would think these same partisans would have been horrified to hear that famous “behind closed doors speech” where the Prime Minister sounded an awful lot like his old National Citizens Coalition persona blasting as he did “left wing fringe groups”, “socialists” and “separatists.”
Yet such was not the case.
In fact, they heaped praise on the Prime Minister for his right wing sounding rhetoric and even congratulated him for “tricking” the Liberals into leaking a video of the speech to the media as this ensured maximum coverage possible.
So maybe my advice wasn't so bad after all?
Anyway, I just hope the Prime Minister continues to talk like a conservative and that he starts acting more like one too.
That would help the party, the conservative movement and most importantly the country.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Jack and Stephen sitting in a tree..
So it looks like the embryonic Liberal-Socialist-Separatist Coalition is about to suffer a premature death.
That's because the "Socialist" part of the troika, the NDP, seems ready to support the Conservatives thus ensuring the government survives.
This is quite surprising.
Who would have ever thought NDP leader Jack "Remember Me?" Layton and his gang of progressive, "we would rather bike than drive", oh so politically correct, defenders of the proletariat MPs would prop up the left-wing fringe hating, hidden agenda harbouring, Bush-war-supporting, tar -sands-loving, Stephen Harper.
What a world!
I suppose we can next expect to see Hugo Chavez join the "Sarah Palin for President" Facebook page or perhaps Michael Moore's next documentary will be a homage to Ronald Reagan.
Ideology sure aint what it used to be.
That's because the "Socialist" part of the troika, the NDP, seems ready to support the Conservatives thus ensuring the government survives.
This is quite surprising.
Who would have ever thought NDP leader Jack "Remember Me?" Layton and his gang of progressive, "we would rather bike than drive", oh so politically correct, defenders of the proletariat MPs would prop up the left-wing fringe hating, hidden agenda harbouring, Bush-war-supporting, tar -sands-loving, Stephen Harper.
What a world!
I suppose we can next expect to see Hugo Chavez join the "Sarah Palin for President" Facebook page or perhaps Michael Moore's next documentary will be a homage to Ronald Reagan.
Ideology sure aint what it used to be.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Pork Power
Parliament is back in session today, meaning our hard-working politicians are once again performing the important parliamentary task of hurling insults at each other during Question Period.
But this session will be unlike any other.
Why?
Because I have it on good authority that a new Parliamentary Coalition of 74 MPs is about to be formed, called the “Parliamentary Coalition of 74 MPs.”
This new coalition will be an alliance of MPs representing all ideological stripes, political persuasions, religious beliefs and hair colors.
In fact, the only thing these politicians will have in common is the shared desire to leap into the MP pension trough.
You see there are 74 MPs who have not yet qualified for the “gold-plated” parliamentary pension plan, a pension plan which could only exist in the fantasy world, otherwise known as government.
In the real world, your typical citizen must work 40 or 50 years to qualify for a pension so small it will barely pay for shuffle board lessons.
MPs, on the other hand, qualify for a pension after only six years of “work”. And what’s more, retired MPs can start collecting wheelbarrows full of pension money the day they hit age 55.
It’s a sweet deal.
Unfortunately, however, 74 MPs currently in the House of Commons have not yet served the full six years, meaning if an election is held this fall, and they lose, that’s it, no pension!
They will have to make due with a paltry severance package worth about $35,000.
Faced with this stark reality the “Parliamentary Coalition of 74 MPs” will band together to thwart any attempt to dissolve the House.
“Hey, hey, ho, ho, we won’t go til we get our dough” will likely be the Coalition’s slogan.
But this session will be unlike any other.
Why?
Because I have it on good authority that a new Parliamentary Coalition of 74 MPs is about to be formed, called the “Parliamentary Coalition of 74 MPs.”
This new coalition will be an alliance of MPs representing all ideological stripes, political persuasions, religious beliefs and hair colors.
In fact, the only thing these politicians will have in common is the shared desire to leap into the MP pension trough.
You see there are 74 MPs who have not yet qualified for the “gold-plated” parliamentary pension plan, a pension plan which could only exist in the fantasy world, otherwise known as government.
In the real world, your typical citizen must work 40 or 50 years to qualify for a pension so small it will barely pay for shuffle board lessons.
MPs, on the other hand, qualify for a pension after only six years of “work”. And what’s more, retired MPs can start collecting wheelbarrows full of pension money the day they hit age 55.
It’s a sweet deal.
Unfortunately, however, 74 MPs currently in the House of Commons have not yet served the full six years, meaning if an election is held this fall, and they lose, that’s it, no pension!
They will have to make due with a paltry severance package worth about $35,000.
Faced with this stark reality the “Parliamentary Coalition of 74 MPs” will band together to thwart any attempt to dissolve the House.
“Hey, hey, ho, ho, we won’t go til we get our dough” will likely be the Coalition’s slogan.
Who knows we may never have an election again.
For more on the MP pension payouts check out this Canadian Taxpayers Federation report.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
What's a majority?
According to news reports this is the anniversary of a former prime minister named Brian Mulroney winning something called a "majority government".
What exactly is this strange term "majority government?"
No one really knows for sure as the mysterious phrase's meaning has been lost in the mists of time.
But political historians point to existing archaeological evidence which suggests that at one time these "majority governments" were actually quite common, though certainly one no alive can remember seeing one in action.
Radical theories have emerged of late suggesting the words refer to a government which won a majority of seats in the House of Commons, which meant it could enjoy a lifespan of longer than three months.
Most experts, however, argue it's positively preposterous to suggest any government could possibly survive for such an incredibly long period of time.
A more likely explanation, they say, is that the word "majority" is simply a linguistic corruption of the word "margarita" a cocktail many politicians probably imbibed after an electoral victory.
Anyway, that's enough history.
After all, we have an election this week, which promises to be even more exciting than the one we had last week.
What exactly is this strange term "majority government?"
No one really knows for sure as the mysterious phrase's meaning has been lost in the mists of time.
But political historians point to existing archaeological evidence which suggests that at one time these "majority governments" were actually quite common, though certainly one no alive can remember seeing one in action.
Radical theories have emerged of late suggesting the words refer to a government which won a majority of seats in the House of Commons, which meant it could enjoy a lifespan of longer than three months.
Most experts, however, argue it's positively preposterous to suggest any government could possibly survive for such an incredibly long period of time.
A more likely explanation, they say, is that the word "majority" is simply a linguistic corruption of the word "margarita" a cocktail many politicians probably imbibed after an electoral victory.
Anyway, that's enough history.
After all, we have an election this week, which promises to be even more exciting than the one we had last week.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Media Alert
I am scheduled to be on the Roy Green Show today at 4:00 PM EST to discuss election politics.
King "Deficit" Kong
Remember how we all cringed back in December when the Stephane Dion-led Socialist-Separatist Coalition talked about racking up an insane $30 billion deficit?
Fortunately, of course, the Conservatives managed to maintain their grip on power, meaning the deficit ended up being a more manageable $20 billion ... oops no it was actually $30 billion ... sorry make that $50 billion ....wait, the figure is really $56 billion ...at last count.
And here's more good news.
Canada's Finance Minister, Jim "The Drunken Sailor" Flaherty, has promised to balance the budget "roughly around the time Mankind starts to colonize Mars."
How will the budget get balanced?
Well, both the Liberals and Conservatives agree the deficit will just "magically disappear somehow."
Me I don't believe it.
I think the deficit will keep getting bigger and bigger and stronger and stronger, until one day it will break free of its chains and escape.
Then, after a murderous rampage through city streets, the deficit will climb atop the CN Tower, where it will be shot down by fighter planes.
Hey, if politicians can fantasize about how they will kill the deficit, why can't I?
Fortunately, of course, the Conservatives managed to maintain their grip on power, meaning the deficit ended up being a more manageable $20 billion ... oops no it was actually $30 billion ... sorry make that $50 billion ....wait, the figure is really $56 billion ...at last count.
And here's more good news.
Canada's Finance Minister, Jim "The Drunken Sailor" Flaherty, has promised to balance the budget "roughly around the time Mankind starts to colonize Mars."
How will the budget get balanced?
Well, both the Liberals and Conservatives agree the deficit will just "magically disappear somehow."
Me I don't believe it.
I think the deficit will keep getting bigger and bigger and stronger and stronger, until one day it will break free of its chains and escape.
Then, after a murderous rampage through city streets, the deficit will climb atop the CN Tower, where it will be shot down by fighter planes.
Hey, if politicians can fantasize about how they will kill the deficit, why can't I?
Friday, September 11, 2009
Media Alert II
I am scheduled to be on CBC Newsworld this afternoon at approximately 5:30 PM EST to talk about my c2c Journal column.
Update: make that 5:15 PM EST.
Update: make that 5:15 PM EST.
Media Alert
I am scheduled to appear on the Afternoon News with Tom Young, at approximately 11:10 AM EST to talk about my c2c Journal article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
