Short Memories:
@Debt is not fiscally conservative:
Fiscal conservatives hate debt. But realistic, fiscal, conservatives recognized that in a time of economic collapse, Canada needed to stimulate the economy. I am puzzled why so many posters forget that it was an all-party motion that made the decision to do deficit spending.
Examine the difference between Canada and the US. Canada's economy is about 1/10, its population 1/10, and until recently, its debt about 1/10th that of the US. The Liberals south of the border turned on the taps. 3.2 trillion dollars in deficit later, their printing presses are still running around the clock. If Canada didn't have conservatives minding the hen house, our deficit wouldn't be 56B, it would be 320B--about 1/2 of Canada's total debt right now.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Thursday, January 27, 2011
More Essays on the F-35 project.
This aircraft is right for Canada for many reasons:
It is gen 5. That is a real designation, not a selling pitch.
It has a flight profile of a speeding soft ball going mach 1.4. The F-22 is better, (a speeding marble) but is unavailable to anyone but the US. Production has ceased.
The Pak-FA, and the Mig 35 are the Russian answer to the threat of gen 5. First test flight was 1 year ago. 3 exist, only 1 flies. We are 5-10 years ahead technologically.
China just unveiled a stealth plane. We have little information on its capabilities. It is probably the true threat. Since China could easily ramp up production and produce these very cheaply. 65 planes would never hold their own against a Chinese Airforce of 1000s of planes. Nato is planning on producing 3300. Will it be enough?
I don't know. It would take a vivid imagination to see Canada buying a Russian or Chinese plane. Impossible so long as we are part of NATO.
The Lockheed F-35 was chosen in a competition that ended in 1996. Everyone is not happy with the price increases. However, the F-22, that the allies drool over, costs twice as much as the now inflated price of the F-35.
In a recent war game all our F18s were wiped out facing F35s and 22s. We didn't get a shot off. We never saw them. We lost 100%. That's what stealth does. Technically our 30 year old F-18s fly faster, higher, further (only in cruise mode--tactically, it is less that the F-35 in terms of range)
But that is not what will win the next war.
To buy the newer F-18s would be stop-gap at best if you stretch it, because they will just as easily be shot down as our current ones. That would be the real waste of taxpayer money. This is the same with the Eurofighter and Gripen. These planes are 4-4.5 gen at best at costs close to what we are paying for the F-35.
To make a modern fighter takes decades and hundreds of billions of dollars. We have (and the Liberals first signed us on to this) agreed to cooperate on the design and building of this plane with our allies. The costs are to be borne by all of us. There is no way Canada would have a chance at this plane otherwise.
To think about anything else is akin to strapping your seat to a Sopwith--a no worse option than driving our existing planes into the ground. They already are starting to fall from the sky.
When you want to go buy a Chev, or a Dodge you go down to the dealer, shop around a few dealerships to get the best price. But if you want a Lamborghini, they tell you what it will cost, and after you pay for most of it you are on a 6 month waiting list for your car to be built.
Canadians have been led by the Liberals and NDP to think Chev, when we have been going after Lamborghini.
These are the reasons I am convinced we are making the right move.
It is gen 5. That is a real designation, not a selling pitch.
It has a flight profile of a speeding soft ball going mach 1.4. The F-22 is better, (a speeding marble) but is unavailable to anyone but the US. Production has ceased.
The Pak-FA, and the Mig 35 are the Russian answer to the threat of gen 5. First test flight was 1 year ago. 3 exist, only 1 flies. We are 5-10 years ahead technologically.
China just unveiled a stealth plane. We have little information on its capabilities. It is probably the true threat. Since China could easily ramp up production and produce these very cheaply. 65 planes would never hold their own against a Chinese Airforce of 1000s of planes. Nato is planning on producing 3300. Will it be enough?
I don't know. It would take a vivid imagination to see Canada buying a Russian or Chinese plane. Impossible so long as we are part of NATO.
The Lockheed F-35 was chosen in a competition that ended in 1996. Everyone is not happy with the price increases. However, the F-22, that the allies drool over, costs twice as much as the now inflated price of the F-35.
In a recent war game all our F18s were wiped out facing F35s and 22s. We didn't get a shot off. We never saw them. We lost 100%. That's what stealth does. Technically our 30 year old F-18s fly faster, higher, further (only in cruise mode--tactically, it is less that the F-35 in terms of range)
But that is not what will win the next war.
To buy the newer F-18s would be stop-gap at best if you stretch it, because they will just as easily be shot down as our current ones. That would be the real waste of taxpayer money. This is the same with the Eurofighter and Gripen. These planes are 4-4.5 gen at best at costs close to what we are paying for the F-35.
To make a modern fighter takes decades and hundreds of billions of dollars. We have (and the Liberals first signed us on to this) agreed to cooperate on the design and building of this plane with our allies. The costs are to be borne by all of us. There is no way Canada would have a chance at this plane otherwise.
To think about anything else is akin to strapping your seat to a Sopwith--a no worse option than driving our existing planes into the ground. They already are starting to fall from the sky.
When you want to go buy a Chev, or a Dodge you go down to the dealer, shop around a few dealerships to get the best price. But if you want a Lamborghini, they tell you what it will cost, and after you pay for most of it you are on a 6 month waiting list for your car to be built.
Canadians have been led by the Liberals and NDP to think Chev, when we have been going after Lamborghini.
These are the reasons I am convinced we are making the right move.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
1967? That is the year Canada died--having been hijacked by socialists whose failed vision was financial disaster for the country, after failed "visionary" disaster after another.
Ok we get that Janice is in bed with Jack, but must we put up with the ridiculous? We have been 5 years into a series of minority governments. To have "vision" in that setting is to lose a confidence motion. Get real. Without a majority, at best incremental progress is the survival tactic.
2% reduction in GST instead of elimination. Upgrade of the military made possible because Canadians were embarrassed by their condition after "visionary" neglect. Nothing vision-less about lack of corruption: Compared to visionary government of the past, a breath of fresh air. An economy that is not in tatters: Now there is a thought. How boring. If we were as "visionary" as the classical, sterling example of the president to our south, our deficit for the past 2 years would be 300 billion dollars. But in true visionary style, as all mirages do, substance vanishes away.
If that is vision, you can keep it.
_____________________
@Stepnlll, I agree that Quebecers are known for voting strategically. However, they also are known for letting their emotions get in their way. Remember, the CPC failed to win many seats in Quebec mostly because, in the last weeks of the campaign, Mr. Harper made the disastrous arts funding cut back. Seats that may have gone CPC for strategic reasons, flipped to BQ instead.
How much will change when they realize the CPC has a majority? It will be hard for the strategic voter to resist. For all its separatist instincts, it sure hates being on the outside of power looking in
Ok we get that Janice is in bed with Jack, but must we put up with the ridiculous? We have been 5 years into a series of minority governments. To have "vision" in that setting is to lose a confidence motion. Get real. Without a majority, at best incremental progress is the survival tactic.
2% reduction in GST instead of elimination. Upgrade of the military made possible because Canadians were embarrassed by their condition after "visionary" neglect. Nothing vision-less about lack of corruption: Compared to visionary government of the past, a breath of fresh air. An economy that is not in tatters: Now there is a thought. How boring. If we were as "visionary" as the classical, sterling example of the president to our south, our deficit for the past 2 years would be 300 billion dollars. But in true visionary style, as all mirages do, substance vanishes away.
If that is vision, you can keep it.
_____________________
@Stepnlll, I agree that Quebecers are known for voting strategically. However, they also are known for letting their emotions get in their way. Remember, the CPC failed to win many seats in Quebec mostly because, in the last weeks of the campaign, Mr. Harper made the disastrous arts funding cut back. Seats that may have gone CPC for strategic reasons, flipped to BQ instead.
How much will change when they realize the CPC has a majority? It will be hard for the strategic voter to resist. For all its separatist instincts, it sure hates being on the outside of power looking in
NDP wants senate reform.
The NDP want to have senators? Let them get themselves elected. The PM will appoint senators elected... Otherwise quit crying in your soup Jack.
What is really going on is that the Left has lost control of the upper house. No longer can they count on the senate to block legislation they held their nose and passed in the HOC. It makes them uncomfortable because their hypocrisy can no longer fly below the radar.
Reform is coming. It has only become possible recently with the balance of power in the upper house shifting. But instead of being only possible, it is certain with a Conservative majority.
What is really going on is that the Left has lost control of the upper house. No longer can they count on the senate to block legislation they held their nose and passed in the HOC. It makes them uncomfortable because their hypocrisy can no longer fly below the radar.
Reform is coming. It has only become possible recently with the balance of power in the upper house shifting. But instead of being only possible, it is certain with a Conservative majority.
Medical Care in the 3rd world.
If you could spend even a week in a clinic in Darfur, or the hundreds of other places where health care is offered in the 3rd world, you would realize how biased the Western view on medical care is. When the health needs are so basic by so many people, most western medicine is irrelevant--Not to say we can't help. But we come offering a high level of care, when the people need just the basics (I can't find a word that describes anything lower than the term).
For many for example, where the biggest medical need is clean water, we are setting up abortion clinics. Are there any doctors without borders who can comment on this?
For many for example, where the biggest medical need is clean water, we are setting up abortion clinics. Are there any doctors without borders who can comment on this?
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Supreee courts declines Election timing lawsuit.
@conducto274: Did you manage to read the article BEFORE commenting? Or are you repeating lies; or are you completely illiterate?
The law clearly reads: "Subject to an earlier dissolution of Parliament." A minority government can be dissolved virtually at any time. By a failed confidence motion or the will of the Prime Minister.
The law's intent was to make it that in Canada, 4 years is the longest a PM can serve without another election. The language is very clear.
The law clearly reads: "Subject to an earlier dissolution of Parliament." A minority government can be dissolved virtually at any time. By a failed confidence motion or the will of the Prime Minister.
The law's intent was to make it that in Canada, 4 years is the longest a PM can serve without another election. The language is very clear.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
The Demise of the NDP?
An interesting repose John. It is too bad that the press of necessity can seem to compromise idealism: Especially when the utopia of the idealist fails to emerge. This is the problem of the untested thesis. It may sound good until you learn the facts. The brutal reality of a devastating economy can do that to you. Or learning the math behind power consumption, so necessity causes you to change to what needs be done. It remains to be seen what the future looks like for the lib-dems, If the membership has abandoned it, I suppose those who are left can effect a permanent merge. Perhaps this is the future of the NDP. Perhaps they will ultimately merge with the Liberals. Perhaps we are seeing their falling in the polls to be pointing in that direction, but then again the Libs don't seem to be gaining much if anything from its demise. Perhaps that is an indication that the Libs are drifting left, grabbing NDP as they move on the one side, but shedding equally to the center on the other. The dominance of the Bloc, the choke hold it is to Canada demands the 3 party system of yesteryear give way, if we are ever to have a stable government again.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Slavery promoted by the Old Testament?
The Old and New Testaments did not promote slavery. They merely commented on them. Slavery in the ancient near east was normal. If you weren't a slave, you likely had them. All western capitalist concepts cannot be imposed on ancient history. It does violence to the texts. That said, if anything Old and New Testaments sought a higher sort of kindness and justice than was the norm.
It was the Quakers (A Christian sect) who in 1657 began the question of slavery. By the American Revolution there was no Quaker who owned a slave
It was the Quakers (A Christian sect) who in 1657 began the question of slavery. By the American Revolution there was no Quaker who owned a slave
Faith and Atheism.
Thought worthy. I am not sure of your initial premise, Atheism is as old as at least David: "The fool says in his heart there is no God." The same polemic existed before Newton, as reflected in Pascal's Pensees. I do think that in its eagerness to integrate with the science--especially in the enlightenment period, too much was forced. Though the church cannot be wholly blamed, for even the Renaissance spoke of theology that it was the queen of the sciences. The bifurcation that developed in the late 19th century and early 20th century should have had no attempt to co-opt each other--though that is better seen in retrospect.
Today, Christianity has found that it is about purpose, and its sister about process. The nuance and paradox needs be appreciated. That way, whether it is images from the Hubble or Data from the Large Hadron Collider, can still inspire awe whether or not that person is a person of Faith.
http://life.nationalpost.com/2011/01/11/are-some-atheists-more-%E2%80%98religious%E2%80%99-than-they-realize/
Today, Christianity has found that it is about purpose, and its sister about process. The nuance and paradox needs be appreciated. That way, whether it is images from the Hubble or Data from the Large Hadron Collider, can still inspire awe whether or not that person is a person of Faith.
http://life.nationalpost.com/2011/01/11/are-some-atheists-more-%E2%80%98religious%E2%80%99-than-they-realize/
Sarah Palin and Guns and Hate.
Love or hate her, this has gone too far. We target metaphors to put issues in the crosshairs all the time. Rifle through any literature and witness the canon that uses imagery like this routinely. Sure Sarah has bombed some of her comments, any other person on the plane would receive better treatment.
Let me start another bullet, the argument is not shot yet. This is a powder-keg issue that will have the opposite effect for gun detractors, who clearly have crassly seized the opportunity to make the tragedy count for maximum effect. There is something about all of this that makes me recoil.
Let me start another bullet, the argument is not shot yet. This is a powder-keg issue that will have the opposite effect for gun detractors, who clearly have crassly seized the opportunity to make the tragedy count for maximum effect. There is something about all of this that makes me recoil.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Ms Palin
Before we resort to blaming the world's ills on Ms. Palin, I think there ought to be some honest non-partisan assessment. Ms. Palin would never condone this. While the cross-hairs issue was inappropriate, it was appropriately removed. Did we really believe she ordered it? We use the term "targeted" for every thing from politics to environment issues, but we all do so without considering what we say.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Canada is not in a structural deficit. A structural deficit is what Trudeau left us with. A structural deficit is related to normal federal government function, not stimulus spending. The government does not rely on the deficit monies. But it has helped many hard working Canadian families.
In comparison with the deficit spending in the US, Canada's deficit is remarkably low. In fact, if we were to run a deficit according to our relative size, we wouldn't be talking 50 billion, we would be posting a deficit of 260 billion dollars--about half of Canada's current total debt from all time.
In comparison with the deficit spending in the US, Canada's deficit is remarkably low. In fact, if we were to run a deficit according to our relative size, we wouldn't be talking 50 billion, we would be posting a deficit of 260 billion dollars--about half of Canada's current total debt from all time.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
On Inquisitions
It is very easy to lens history from the modern/post modern standpoint. It is to err to impose current perspectives and philosophies on a time they did not exist. Consider for example the influence of Erasmus, described by some as the father of humanism: It is difficult to imagine a time when the life of any peasant had no value--when death was such a small thing. Reminds me of the jihadists of today who deem the women and children they bomb to be insignificant. Today's Western value of human life did not exist in the early middle ages.
The next critical aspect of the Galileo age, relates to the philosophy of science itself. Today's science is so based on empiricism that when we ask why a tree grows, we answer in a way related to cellular biology, which is a post empiricist perspective. Prior to Galileo, the reason a tree grows did not deal with process, it dealt with purpose. Galileo and Copernicus's work was to refute the tombs of "scientists" who predicted the position of the stars and planets for the purpose of astrological prediction. Since no king would go to war if the stars were aligned against them, they paid handsomely for the advice and prediction of astrologer whose livelihood Galileo put at risk.. The church was outwitted by these charlatans and is guilty of inquisition because they were duped/bribed to take a position it paid very little attention to before-hand. It was Galileo's contemporaries/scientists who were the majority of popular science of the day--who were really his enemies. Even today to stand against the press of popular scientific opinion can mean a scientist must weather an inquisition of his own. In that regard modernity and the dark ages aren't so far apart.
The next critical aspect of the Galileo age, relates to the philosophy of science itself. Today's science is so based on empiricism that when we ask why a tree grows, we answer in a way related to cellular biology, which is a post empiricist perspective. Prior to Galileo, the reason a tree grows did not deal with process, it dealt with purpose. Galileo and Copernicus's work was to refute the tombs of "scientists" who predicted the position of the stars and planets for the purpose of astrological prediction. Since no king would go to war if the stars were aligned against them, they paid handsomely for the advice and prediction of astrologer whose livelihood Galileo put at risk.. The church was outwitted by these charlatans and is guilty of inquisition because they were duped/bribed to take a position it paid very little attention to before-hand. It was Galileo's contemporaries/scientists who were the majority of popular science of the day--who were really his enemies. Even today to stand against the press of popular scientific opinion can mean a scientist must weather an inquisition of his own. In that regard modernity and the dark ages aren't so far apart.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Carl Ek
When I first spoke to band director Mr.Sieppe, he said "bassoon and oboe are needed." At the other end of the room I saw Owen playing the Horn. I asked you, Owen, about the Horn, and you explained all the wonderful things. So I thought, "...I think I'll play the Horn with Owen".
That's the reason I chose the Horn. I wonder what would have been had Owen been playing a bassoon... Thanks for having a Horn in your hands that day, Owen!
That's the reason I chose the Horn. I wonder what would have been had Owen been playing a bassoon... Thanks for having a Horn in your hands that day, Owen!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)