Mike Brock: Forward and Onward

This is Probably Bad for Canada

on December 3, 2008 12:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I’ll be the first to admit, and you can read my previous article, that I was ready to send Harper on his merry way and surrender to the inevitability of a coalition that I blamed on the Conservatives.

I have been trying to watch this whole ordeal as neutrally as I possibly can. I am a libertarian, and I don’t hide that bias. Part of being a libertarian means pointing out that the Conservatives have hardly served my interested albeit for a few pittances of agreeable reform.

The problem, of course, is that I’m a civil libertarian and I have a streak of nationalism in me. By that I mean, I view the state as somewhat necessary, and I view Canada as my sandbox to make a better world. Of course, you can extrapolate what that better world (or better Canada) looks like to me; more liberty, more economic freedom, less government intrusion into business and personal affairs.

Activism is a complicated thing for me. By that I mean I’m conflicted in just how I achieve those goals. Do I work within the system, or do I work outside the system? Do I support incrementalism, or do I hold an absolute line on libertarian ethics?

This political crisis in Ottawa presents a serious challenge for me.

On one hand, I don’t feel that the Conservatives have earned my support; I feel patently let down on issues like free speech, fiscal restraint, and regulatory reform/abolition. But on the other hand, I see a group of mouth-frothing leftists at the gates, desperately waiting for their chance to exploit this “economic crisis” as their chance to backend-load leftist initiatives.

Most worryingly, there are eighteen unfilled senate vacancies. Vacancies that would appear this “Coalition for Canada” intends to fill expeditiously with patronage appointments.

Elizabeth May sent signals that Dion intends to appoint her to the senate, and bring her into the cabinet.

If this is true, then we are truly witnessing one of the most crass and undemocratic swipes at power that we have ever seen. And a necessary component to that swipe at power is the support of the separatist Bloc Quebecois, whose leader said that this deal is good for separatism.

Tomorrow Jacques Parizeau is widely expected to applaud this coalition. Which is fine in and of itself, but it’s hard to fathom how Stephane “Captain Canada” Dion and the Liberal Party which campaigned in 2004 against the Conservatives on the basis that Stephen Harper was “prepared to work with the Bloc Quebecois”.

In fact, Stephen Harper made clear he would be willing to work with the Block on a vote-by-vote basis. The Bloc had the same reciprocal policy. But let’s be clear: the Conservatives can honestly stick to a line that they never entered into agreement with the Bloc, giving them any formal process or power.

Yes, they teamed up with the Bloc and NDP to defeat the Liberals with the intention to go to an election. But that’s hardly the same as coalition agreement. There in fact, was no coalition agreement that included the Bloc having any right to consultation. There was no agreement (as there is now) that referred to “Canadians and Quebecers” as this Liberal-NDP coalition agreement does.

In a few words: this Liberal-NDP coalition has sell-out and power-grab written all over it.

A Quebec poll recently showed overwhelming support for a Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition. But a national poll conducted today, should give the Liberal’s and NDP pause.

I am hearing from a lot of Liberal and NDP voters who are not happy with what is happening. They do not accept this deal with the Bloc. And both parties risk substantial backlash.

The allure of separatism is once again on the rise in the West. The separatists in Quebec seem ecstatic.

I would hope the Governor General takes this all into consideration when she makes whatever decision she makes. I am not a constitutional expert, but my hope would be, that she would invite Mr. Harper to meet the house again with a new throne speech and send a message to the coalition that she expects the house to work. If that fails, my preference would now be a general election.

The Party Never Really Started

Mike Brock

on November 30, 2008 11:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBacks (0)

I’m going to be totally honest here. Stephen Harper has dried up pretty much all credibility he had with me.

I still grant Harper his political accolades; bringing ‘the right’ together, defeating the Martin Machine, and shifting the rudder of political direction in this country, albeit it slowly.

On the other hand, Harper has pretty much given up fiscal conservatism.

There is no more talk of shrinking government, increasing provincial autonomy, reforming the Senate. No. The new game boils down to Harper and the Conservatives trying to prove to Canada just how much like the Liberal’s he is—minus the corruption.

That being said, we are now faced with a bunch of frothing mouths on the other side of the aisle that see their chance to take power.

Now they’re all claiming that this is about a “lack of stimulus for the economy” (whatever the hell that means), and politically attuned folks know this really isn’t about the economy: this is about the opposition feeling like cornered rats, armed with the knowledge that Harper wants to take away their parties taxpayer subsidies.

I’ve spoken to a lot of people on this issue—people who vote NDP, Liberal and Conservative. And I’ve got to tell you, when you lay the taxpayer subsidy scheme down in front of them, most people objectively reject this. In fact, most people are flabbergasted to learn that the Conservative Party is the only party that doesn’t receive a majority of it’s funding through taxpayer subsidies. Yes, they actually fundraise. Who would have thought?

So when Harper’s staff told him that he could win an election on this issue, I think they were probably right. The only problem was, they were a little too quick to assume that they would be granted a writ of election by the Governor General—a tactical error to say the least.

Philosophically, I am completely on board with the idea of cutting subsidies to the parties. But that being said, the Conservatives were not taking an ideological stand on fundraising. They were simply trying to bankrupt the opposition.

Had this been an ideological stand, they might have—at the very least—proposed this change as a phased in measure. Or better yet: removed donation limits and once again allow union and corporate donations to parties.

My property is my right. My money is mine to do with as I choose. If I want to fire-sell all my assets and donate it all to the NDP in a giant $700,000 cheque, that should be my bloody right. As it is yours.

Unfortunately, that’s all neither here nor there. If the Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition coalesces, it’s about to get a whole lot worse before it gets better. We can look forward to “economic stimulus” in the form of corporate tax increases (a primary demand of the NDP for this coalition), a carbon tax (the Liberals and NDP have both made clear that the economic crisis is no reason to delay ‘greenshifting’ the economy), increases on social spending (universal child care), etc. Oh and they’ll throw billions of dollars at industry to “stimulate” them. After all, according to Liberal and NDP pundits, we’re the only developed country without a “stimulus package”—as if that some kind of bad thing. You mean, we’re the only country not barrel-rolling into statism, economic interventionism, bank nationalization, and corporate handouts?

Well, soon we’ll have the “Coalition for Canada” to set that straight.

Vive le Liberté

Mike Brock

on November 5, 2008 4:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

There is a lot of anger among the Canadian right-flanks about Barack Obama's victory in the US. I'm not sure why. I mean, it's hard for me to imagine that people on the right don't see a serious problem with the US conservative movement.

I wrote an article over a year ago, where I pretty much called the US conservative movement "insane". And for good reason. While conservative commentators laughed from a hill about Bush derangement syndrome, many of those same people could not contain their hatred for liberalism.

What is liberalism, anyways? I don't think anybody seems to know what it means anymore. Social conservatives have somehow morphed it to be synonymous with socialist, which is patently absurd.

Liberalism and socialism are actually at opposite ends of a politico-economic spectrum. Free market capitalism is a liberal ideology, not a conservative ideology. Even the founding fathers of the US considered themselves liberals not conservatives.

But thats neither here nor there. I understand how people use language to convey a meaning. And when most conservative's say liberal, they mean socialist. But it's really sad that they would do this, as it actually surrenders a perfectly good word to a group that doesn't deserve it.

But the reasons for why liberalism and socialism have been grouped together by social conservatives is easy to understand. Neither liberalism or socialism are ideologies grounded in tradition and religious morality. But I would rather suggest that social conservatives and socialists have a lot in common. More so than liberals have with the other two.

Social conservatives and socialists both believe that the role of government is to regulate morality. For social conservatives, it's Judeo-Christian morality. While for socialists it's the morality of collectivism and altruism. Social conservatives almost never manage to deliver on the promise of small, less intrusive government, because let's face it: they really don't believe in it.

Social conservatives want "creation science" taught in high school science class, and socialists want collectivist ethics rammed down our throats.

Social conservatives want self-immolation to God to be a mandated virtue. Socialists want self-immolation to the collective to be a mandated virtue.

The true liberal believes in the value of self. That one owns oneself. Not a God, not a collective. I own me. If two people defecating in each others mouths in the comfort of their own home gets them off, liberal have no problem with this. Why? Because they both own themselves, and they can do to themselves what they please. This is what drives social conservatives mad about liberals, because social conservatives do see a role for the state in matters of personal morality.

The connection between liberalism and socialism by social conservatives is simply a manifestation of the fact that both liberalism and socialism are viewed as non-theistic systems of ethics. But I would actually argue, that the ethics of socialism and Christianity are more closely linked than many contemporary Christians would admit to themselves.

In the Book of Revelations, Christ spoke lowly of the rich, and saw himself as a spokesman for the poor. Charity is a high moral principle in Christianity.

Charity is not a tenet of liberalism. Liberalism places emphasis on free markets, private property, freedom of thought, speech, etc. There's nothing contradictory about a selfish liberal. But a selfish Christian or selfish socialist? Come now.

We should be clear, though. Barack Obama, is not a liberal. He is a center-left populist. Bush was a centre-right populist. Stephen Harper is a center-right populist. Jean Chrétien was a center-right populist. Paul Martin was a centre-right populist. Jack Layton is a centre-left populist. Bill Clinton was a centre-right populist.

There are no liberals and socialists. Politicians break from their ideology faster than you can scratch your nose, once they reach office. They do something that we often loath. They "moderate".

For true liberals and libertarians, they are pretty much locked out of power. But so are social conservatives. The mushy-middle is as good as it gets.

But all hope is not lost for libertarians. The Libertarian Party will likely never see electoral success, but the ideas and values of liberty are powerful, they have legs, and their influence permeates society. It is a needed fringe, a useful fringe, and an effective fringe.

To accept that we libertarians are on the fringe is sometimes hard to take. But that is where we can be most effective.

Libertarians have lead the charge to protect free speech. We have led the charge to protect property rights. We have led the charge to stand up for basic liberty around the world. And despite setbacks, our voices do have an effect.

It's not about swinging people away from the mushy-middle. It's about changing just where the mush-middle is. Slowly, and over time, it happens.

The adage two steps forward, one step back almost always applies. Be it Reagan and Thatcher, who took two giant steps forward. Or Mike Harris in Ontario in 1995. The change they effected still exists to this day. After these revolutions, there was blowback. There is always blowback. You measure the success of ideas on how far the blowback goes.

Fiscal conservatism, as it's called, has survived as a value. It is a value that even leftist Labour Parties around the world have adopted. It's influence has even reached into the socialists bastions of Scandinavia. Look at Russia and China today.

The road to liberty is a long road. But the idea lives on. It suffers it's setbacks. But those setbacks have proven not insurmountable.

The defeat of the Republicans in the United States is indicative of a long over-due correction. Whether I agree with the Democrats big-government tendencies (and I certainly don't), now is their time. But why any libertarian would lament the defeat of the Republicans is beyond me.

The Republicans have been no friend of liberty. They have, much like Tony Blair and Gordon Brown's government, sought the erosion of constitutional protections of it. They have spent the US treasury into the toilet. Spending levels in the US are beyond sustainable, and the debt burden to the American taxpayer is--dare I say--criminal.

Now is the time for the Republicans to figure who they are and what they stand for. Being not-liberal clearly isn't cutting it for Americans. And it shouldn't.

Why The US is Screwed

Mike Brock

on October 6, 2008 3:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBacks (0)

When I speak to many of my "right-wing" friends, who usually happen to be big Republican Party supporters, I am reminded of why the US is completely screwed. They are screwed because they have too much faith.

Americans have too much faith. Yes faith. Faith in America, faith that everything will just work itself out.

Case-in-point: Republicans subscribe to the theory that by cutting taxes, you stimulate economic growth, and that growth will in-turn make up for budget shortfalls and "grow" the United States out of debt. They still believe this, seriously. It's a theory based in faith. Even Alan Greenspan, the Objectivist-capitalist that he was, did not favor the US tax cut, and felt paying down national debt was far more prudent.

Now, I think taxes are far too high. I am, after-all a laissez-faire capitalist. So to those of you who think I'm being a hypocrite by calling for government to not lower taxes in a time of deficit, I ask you this: by what right does a government have to spend money it doesn't have, and by what right does it have to impose debt on me?

It seems silly to me that one could be a capitalist who favors small governments, but at the same time thinks that it's okay for them to borrow against the future on speculative growth, but it's not okay for them to tax you? What's the bloody difference?

If Canada goes into deficit as a result of this impending economic downturn, I fully expect the government to reign in spending and hold-the-line on taxes to weather out the storm. We can ill-afford to follow the stupid approach of cutting-taxes in a time of recession by borrowing money to do it. We have no right to speculate on whether or not we'll be able to economically compensate for the losses. The economic growth impact of cutting any amount of tax when the government is in deficit is purely speculative and cannot be reliably forecast. If you think otherwise, then look at the United States as it's Debt-to-GDP ratio has spiraled out of control, and has crested 70%.

The Bush Administration's economists would remind us that it was okay that they were increasing the deficit, because the Debt-to-GDP ratio was so low. I'm sure those will come as comforting words to the future generations of Americans who enjoy having the majority of their tax dollars going towards financing the debts of their parents.

I have whined about this before, and I was quite predictably attacked for not understanding economics.

The Debt-to-GDP argument was slammed home repeatedly. But you'll forgive me if I don't look at the government as a giant investment bank with the taxpayer serving as a giant margin account.

That being said, I believe the US bailout will prove to be a dismal failure. Future economists will likely look on it as deepening the crisis. The fact that the US government has no money is a giant elephant in the room that is becoming increasingly hard to ignore.

Mark my words, it is only a matter of time until US government bonds start looking less attractive (as happened to Canada in the late 1980s) and the whole circus will come tumbling to a halt.

Those who think that the US government's finances are not as bad as Canada's were in the 1980's, think again. It is worse. The fact that the US has not suffered a credit downgrade is purely due to the US's brand-image as the economic powerhouse of the world. It's getting of scott-free. In real fundamental terms, it's public finances are in the shitter.

For those who would argue that deficit-based-growth does work, I would ask you, at what point does the cycle end? When does deficit-financing economic growth stop being economic? At some point you need to pay the piper. It's simple math.

True Patriots

Mike Brock

on October 1, 2008 5:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I for one will be sad to see the Liberal Party go. Oh I know... those of you who remember my more partisan days will recollect my old and now defunct Brock: On The Attack blog, where I never showed a smidgeon of mercy for the Grits.

It's a Canadian political cliché now, but it's a cliché that couldn't be more true: the Liberals, during their eleven year reign under Jean Chrétien, started thinking of themselves as a natural extension of Canada, the nation, itself; a codependent relationship.

Even now, in the minds of Liberal Party partisans, Canada is the birthright of the Liberal Party. After all, they made Canada what it is today. At least that's what they tell themselves.

That's what they told and convinced many Canadians: Canada as a nation, for all intents and purposes, came into existence as a country in the 1970's. History prior to the Trudueamania is boilerplate. Sure it's important as far as posterity goes, but nowhere as important as the nation they shaped in their own image.

They redefined Canada as a country of multiculturalism, peacekeeping and compassion. With the arsenal of Trudeau's charisma, we were re-educated with the understanding that these three pillars represent what it means to be Canadian. This also had the fortunate side-effect of making the Liberal Party, the political institution that effectively represented these three pillars and anybody who critiqued the holiness of peacekeeping or multiculturalism was either un-Canadian or racist. In fact, this would become the primary political tact the Liberals would use against conservative forces in Canada, starting with Chrétien all the way up to today.

While holding the Canadian flag close to their chests, they sought to characterize conservatives as being "more American" or seeking to rob Canada of its Canadianism and replace it with Americanism. For a while, it worked.

All the while, as Liberals assailed American-style politics and pigeonholed conservatives in that light, it may be the greatest irony in all this that American-style politics were exactly the game the Liberal Party was playing.

To me, the greatest American-style political attack ads ever thrust on Canada–setting the stage for the very dirty politics that Liberal's openly associated with conservatives–were unleashed by Paul Martin's Liberal Party in the 2004 and 2006 elections.

The ads had a clear, underlying message: Stephen Harper wanted to destroy Canada, wanted to intimidate the hapless Canadian masses with military in the streets, and turn Canada into a fascist right-wing state. And once again, for a while, it worked.

Like American Republicans, the Liberal Party leaned on patriotism as the backbone of gaining voter support; if you look up at the Canadian flag, and a tear comes to your eye... you know who you have to vote for. At the same time the Liberal Party was complaining about the "divisiveness" that Stephen Harper's new Conservative Party was promulgating in Canadian politics. But divisiveness was at the root of Liberal Party political thought; if you are a proud Canadian then you're a Liberal voter, if you're an American sellout you're a Conservative voter, and if you're a left-wing nutjob you're an NDP supporter. This was how Liberals chose to frame the political landscape. This was the house of cards the Liberal Party built for themselves.

They say that you should never put all your eggs in one basket, yet that is exactly what the Liberal Party did. They banked on Canadian patriotism, and viewed themselves as the heir to the mantle of that patriotism. It never occurred to the Liberal Party the risk this would have long term. It never occurred to them, that Canadians might risk the thought that maybe, just maybe, the NDP and Conservatives were just as Canadian as them, that they yearned for Canadian greatness and took pride in styling themselves a citizen of the Great White North.

The sponsorship scandal would be the wind that would come to blow down the house of cards. It made Canadians feel like they had been taken advantage of. It made Canadians realize for the first time that Canadian patriotism and the Liberal Party were not tied at the hip. In fact, it made Canadians think for the first time, how unpatriotic it would be to allow an institution like the Liberal Party to continue to govern with impunity.

Yet the Liberals would only come to view their extradition from the halls of power as a temporary excursion.

Feeling wounded by the defeat of the Martin government, the Liberals still smiled to themselves as they knew in their hearts that Canadians still understood that being Canadian meant voting Liberal. They knew that next time around, Canadians would come to their senses and come home to their natural choice.

The arrogance of this mentality allowed the Liberal Party to embrace one of the most radical policy planks in recent history: the Green Shift. In words of many Liberal Party partisans this election, it was really only the "Liberal brand" that was needed to win anyways, because they knew that Canadian patriotism would return home. Except it didn't.

Canadian patriotism found it's home. It found it's home high above the pettiness of party politics. It found it's home in people's hearts. It found it's home in the achievement that is Canada. The patriot heart is the heart that spoke up and proudly said to the world: these are my thoughts, this is my voice, and this is my vote.

Michael Ignatieff: Worst Performance in G8

Mike Brock

on September 29, 2008 3:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

It seems the newest Liberal talking point is that Canada is apparently the worst performing country in the G8. At least that's what Michael Ignatieff told the Economic Club of Canada this morning.

I thought this was a pretty bold statement. Particularly, because I don't know what numbers he's reading. The numbers I'm reading come from Statistics Canada, the OECD, IMF, and UN Human Development organization.

So here's everything about the performance of the G8 countries that you wanted to know, but were afraid to ask:

It's hard to tell by what measure Liberals are talking about when they say Canada went from best to worst. Simply because, when you say "best economic performance", you can be talking about quite a few different things.

For example, if you consider the country that is "performing best" as the country with the most growth, then your definition of "best" is the country which is relativistically speaking, the country that is changing for the better, at the fastest rate. If that's your measure, then you could say that India and China are the best performing economies in the world, because they both have double digit GDP growth year-over-year.

But few people would consider the quality of life in China or India comparable to the quality of life in any of the G8 countries. So obviously, growth as the primary measure for performance is a bit shortsighted. It's ignorant of the idea that basal economic activity is important to the entire picture.

If Iggy is using GDP growth as the primary measure by which to judge Canada's performance against the rest of the G8, is that even accurate? No. Because Canada had only the third best GDP growth behind the United States and Russia. And we are now the third worst, ahead of the United States and Italy. However, this years GDP growth is within 0.1% of the growth of France and Germany.

Both Germany and France have higher unemployment and less investment in their economy than Canada.

We should also note, that most global economists are projecting that Canada in fact, will be the number two performing economy in terms of growth in 2009 behind Russia. At around 2% real GDP growth.

So when Harper accuses Dion and the Liberals of "talking down the economy" we can actually empirically verify the truthfulness of this. From what I can see, the Liberals are simply grabbing at GDP numbers and using them to make a point. Except any economist will tell you, that you can't look at any economic factor in isolation. And contrary to what the Liberals are saying about how bad Canada's economy is, most Canadian and international economists believe that Canada's economic fundamentals are the best in the G8.

The Left Myth

Mike Brock

on September 26, 2008 2:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Now that it's clear that the Liberal's do not have a chance in hell of overcoming the support deficit between themselves and the Conservatives, Liberals are just throwing in the towel and calling for all-out, strategic voting by the left.

This is particularly interesting for two reasons.

One, it's showing the ultimate breakdown of the Liberal Party's fundamental spine: loyalty to the party. I mean, once a proud party like the Liberal Party of Canada starts begging Canadians to just, well... vote for anyone who can beat Stephen Harper, then you know it's all over. The party is bereft of morale, lacking in ethics, and–as the final nail in the coffin–soon to be bankrupt financially, too. Bye, bye, Liberal Party.

Second, the idea that all Liberal Party voters would break for the NDP is one of the funniest things I've ever heard. I live in Toronto, and one of the biggest Liberal voting blocks, quite honestly, is the Bay Street business crowd, the Rosedale dwellers.

These people vote for the Liberal Party out of tradition, and believe in them as the moderate choice. Do they really think that this block of support is going to break for the social democrats, who demonize how profitable their businesses are as a fundamental plank of their platform?

That being said, I would garner a guess that the Conservatives are the second choice to the Liberals for most Ontarians (and vice-versa), save a few particular working-class rydings that have a traditional allegiance to the NDP.

The Liberal Party is also going out full-tilt, and calling itself a "left-wing" party. It's no longer calling itself a moderate party. And I hate to say it, but they have played right into Stephen Harper's hands here. They've set themselves on a course for the fringes. Now their anger, hatred and resentment of Stephen Harper has them flagellating out of control to the point where there may be no return from the damage that's been done.

I don't think that most Canadians consider themselves left-wing. Most consider themselves moderate. Most Canadians see left and right as two extremes they want no part in. And now, the Liberals have effectively made Stephen Harper the most moderate choice.

If it becomes clear that the NDP and Liberal Party are planning a coalition government to evict Stephen Harper from 24 Sussex, it would not surprise me if the Conservative Party support surged into the mid-to-high forties in the polls, and Harper returned a Mulroney-like majority.

Canadians are neither as left as the political left likes to believe, nor are they as right–as much to my chagrin–some of us on the right want them to be.

What Stephen Harper has effectively done is completely appropriate this cozy middle, and now the Liberal Party is struggling to redefine itself in far off lefty-land. And hey, good luck with that!

Why Canadian Conservatives Don't Irritate Me (as much)

Mike Brock

on September 25, 2008 1:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I have always been what you could call a "progressive, fiscal conservative", although I avoid the progressive moniker now, as it has been appropriated by the broader left to include big-government policy. Over time I came to realize what I really am, is a libertarian.

If I was living in the United States today, my head would have already exploded. And I'd probably be a crazy Ron Paul fan. I'd definitely vote for the Libertarian Party in the US, though.

Here in Canada, there is the Libertarian Party of Canada. Unfortunately, in the last election, they failed to field a candidate in my riding to give me the opportunity to vote for them (I would have).

So the inevitable question would be: why am I a Blogging Tory? Why am I voting Conservative this time around? The answer is simple: I am a two issue voter this election:

Firstly, I am opposed to the continuance of the current Human Rights Commission racket. And in the closing days of the previous government, the Conservative Party promised reform, while the Liberals and NDP have promised the status quo.

Secondly, because I'm not a big believer in mass wealth redistribution. The Liberal Party has designed the "Green Shift", a half-assed version of the Green Party's "Great Tax Shift" and back-end loaded it into our current taxing regime, with focus as much on wealth redistribution as on pollution.

In fact, if the Liberal Party had put forward a more puritan version, which actually involved, removing tax on income and shifting it to consumption and pollution, I might actually take interest in the plan. Having CO2 as the principle basis for pollution tax is also a non-starter for me.

Truth be told, when the Conservatives announced the cut to the GST, I was pissed. In fact, I am all for increasing the GST in tandem with a phase-out of income tax all together. To me, taxing consumption is far fairer than taxing income.

Many economists believe a 18-21% sales tax could more than make up for the revenue of our current income tax regime which often adds up to 50% of income, when payroll taxes, excise taxes, property taxes, etc are all factored in.

Ireland is the currently the only country in the world which has pursued this taxation model, and by all accounts, it has been incredibly successful in terms of building wealth and growing their economy.

But all this is neither here nor there.

Even if the Conservatives really pissed me off to the point that I could not vote for them in good conscience, the only place I'd have to stick my vote would be the NDP. Which to say the least, would be (and was) an extremely painful proposition.

The Liberal Party to me, is the Republican Party in the United States. The political positions are different, but the disease is the same. Large, institutionalized, patronage-awarding, corrupt, power hungry, and flowing with cronyism throughout.

And like the Republican Party, they wrap themselves in the nations flag and pretend to be the only party of the nation. They associate their party with the nation, and vice-versa.

Liberal party supporters view the current situation as nothing more than an exile. They are not in opposition, rather they are the true government in waiting. This is not a defeat, it's an inconvenience. Could arrogance exist on a grander scale?

Take for example this guy, Scott Ross. He is convinced that the Liberals will turn around and win this election. No, really. And here's why:

The polls state the Conservatives are drastically ahead of the Liberals, that doesn't mean that they should be. What should be, is what is right, and what is right is a Liberal government. Stephane Dion will win this election not because of polls or because of graphs, he will win because he should win, he will win because it is right for him to win.

That's right. The only reason in his mind that the Liberal will win this, is because the Liberal Party is naturally endowed through some inherent trait of nature, to lead this country. The Conservatives winning is contrary to nature. If that's not a sign of somebody in need of psychotherapy, I don't know who is.

As for Jason Cherniak, the man who claims to be "as influential as the mainstream media", he is equally confounded by what he perceives as a violation of some fundamental law of nature:

At first glance, I don't understand the polls as they stand. It seems pretty obvious to me that Stephen Harper has had a horrible first two weeks in this election. There are more volunteers than ever in many of the Liberal ridings surrounding Toronto and our party is the only one putting forward a real plan for Canada. What am I missing?

Any objective observer might consider that what he's missing, is contained in the very words he just wrote. That he, like a myriad of other Liberals are incapable of perceiving a world in which the Liberal Party is not perceived as the natural choice for Canadians.

This is the beginning of the end of the Liberal Party, at least in it's current form. As it's adherents slowly jump ship, the party leaks money, and the Jason Cherniak's and Scott Ross' of the world slowly drown in their inability to perceive their own arrogance, life will start to go on for the rest of Canada.

The Arts Community is Filled With Gasbags

Mike Brock

on September 24, 2008 3:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

I hate to put it so bluntly, but I've been listening to these arm flailing, mouth breathing, bunch trying to stir up a panic and it's getting to me.

What bothers me about the group of actors and pro-arts-people, is not so much that they're demanding government funding for the arts, it's that they are misconstruing reality in an ever-so overdramatic way. It seems they are unable to leave their acting on the stage.

Take for example, Wendy Crewson, who recently found herself without work when the Canadian Movie Network, ended it's run of the show ReGenesis.

On Canada AM this morning, Wendy plead to Canadians to understand the importance of funding the arts through taxpayers dollars, pointing to the fact that Canada has gone from twelve original Canadian TV series to two since Harper has been in power.

She even likened this arts collapse to the economic collapse in the US, drawing a comparison between the deregulation of the US financial industry, and the deregulation of the Canadian entertainment industry.

The only problem is that Wendy is a gasbag. And her statistics are a little bit off base.

After her "two original Canadian series" comment was made, and after I heard the same statistic repeated at a protest off Front Street here in downtown Toronto, I decided to do some Googling.

How many "original" Canadian series are there currently running? Nine. With three more new series launching in the next six months, for a total of twelve. If you count Canadian series that are based on an American franchise the number is two higher. And for your own verification, here they are:

1. Corner Gas (CTV Networks)

2. Flashpoint (CTV Network)

3. Odd Job Jack (The Comedy Channel)

4. Degrassi: The Next Generation (CTV Networks)

5. Sophie (CBC)

6. Little Mosque on the Prairie (CBC)

7. The Guard (CanWest Global)

8. Durham County (The Movie Network)

9. The Border (CBC)

Launching Soonn:

10. The Listener (CTV)

11. The Weight (The Movie Network)

12. ZOS: Zone of Seperation (The Movie Network)

Canadian series based on American Franchises (fiction only):

13. Stargate: SG1

14. Stargate: Atlantis

Where did this figure of "two" come from? And considering arts funding has increased by 8% under the Conservative government, where do this "$45 million in cuts" come from?

Pestilent left-wing gasbags who pull numbers out of their lower backside? Yep.

In reality, it's probably because the only two shows that count as Canadian culture to these gasbags is "Little Mosque on the Prairie" and "Sophie" on the CBC. Although the "The Border" is a CBC show, it involves guns and law enforcement, which probably makes it a write off for the Annex crowd.

Where Have I Been?

Mike Brock

on September 23, 2008 11:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Every once in a while people ask me why I haven't been blogging as much. The answer is simple: I have been extremely busy. I also was stricken by a bout of mono.

That isn't to say that I've been completely dead. I have been doing regular appearances on the Michael Coren Show, and the Al & Mike Show is going strong. I also wrote a long piece of freedom of expression for the C2C Journal.

I've also shown up randomly at political events, such as Ezra Levant's talk in Toronto. I crashed in to Peter Jaworski's amazing Liberty Summer Seminar in Orono, Ontario.

So despite my lack of blogginess, I've been ridiculously active on the political side. I think part of the reason that blogging has become such a difficult endeavor for me, is that I have come to associate the computer work work. I am, after all, an engineer. When I'm sitting at my computer (which is most of the day) I tend to focus on my work.

As any blogger knows, serious blogging is very time consuming. It tends to pull you in to the broader debate happening in the blogosphere. That in itself can be deadly to my productivity. I do, after all, owe my employer at least eight hours a day.

That being said, after about three weeks of hard-core work, I am going to plunge in a little bit with a disciplined separation of blog and work.

So look forward to semi-regular posting.