Jack Burton asks do you agree with Michael Campbell?
Michael Burton says:
As we all know it is simply the fact that she was an announcer for the CBC as have the past 4 GG’s have been! How else can they get good press! Born in Canada why would we be so crass! The liberals have no shame and should be thrown out of office. Martin is simply like the rest.
Dr. Phil Burton says:
Sounds like he was having trouble coming up with a topic for his collumn. I'm not sure what qualifications are neccessary to be GG or if it should be a prize or lifetime achievement award. Seems to me the GG is a cheerleader for Canada and represents us at cultural, ceremonial, and sports events; ie if it was real important the PM would be there.
The world sees Canada as a tolerant, peaceful place with opportunity for all. While this image may be somewhat undeserved, likely this appointment was made to perpetuate it. Undoubtedly also to suck up to immigrant voters in Quebec.
This lady is a good communicator, youthful, french,pretty, intelligent, and an immigrant to boot... what more could you want. She will have no more influence on government policy than any other GG and hopefully she'll have a bit more common sense than the current GG and realize that her job is not that important and doesn't require 7 figure budgets.
No outrage required on this one
Christopher Burton Says:
I wonder why no one has addressed the main point of Campbell’s article. Are we becoming anti-Capitalist and anti-Globalist? Has the disease of collectivism so permeated the country that we think this is a normal attitude?
The Governor General is the highest post (when the Queen is out of town) in the Country. It is no less a symbol than the national flag. The Liberals managed to destroy the flag and have been doing their utmost to destroy the office of Governor General. I guess they will never forgive Julian Byng.
The Governor General is the head of the Canadian Armed Forces, an organization that is dependant on tradition to maintain morale and effectiveness. The ascension of totally unqualified people who have no idea of the efficacy of military tradition is a slap in the face to our armed forces and further erodes its self-worth. But then again the Liberals never did like the military.
The choice of a woman who has spent her life milking the hind tit at the CBC while applying to become a citizen of the French Republic, our oldest enemy both philosophically and militarily, is a calculated appointment that will without a doubt denigrate the office of Governor General. We don’t even have to bring up the fact that her husband is in favour of destroying the Country, is a socialist and has consorted with terrorists.
I think many in the world view us as a soft touch – an easy mark. Canada can always be counted on to act outside of her best interests. For those of us that are not preoccupied with re-electing the federal Liberals this is a very painful admission.
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
More Evidence of Bogus Scientific Support for Global Warming
Patrick Michaels exposes the "shameful" bias of the scientific press.
There's also nastiness if you say hurricanes aren't getting worse. A month ago, University of Colorado’s Roger Pielke, Jr., posted a paper that was accepted in the Bulletin of The American Meteorological Society concluding there is little if any sign of global warming in hurricane patterns. In a pre-emptive strike, Kevin Trenberth from the federally funded National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, told the local newspaper, "I think he [Pielke] should withdraw his article. This is a shameful article."
Read the article here.
There's also nastiness if you say hurricanes aren't getting worse. A month ago, University of Colorado’s Roger Pielke, Jr., posted a paper that was accepted in the Bulletin of The American Meteorological Society concluding there is little if any sign of global warming in hurricane patterns. In a pre-emptive strike, Kevin Trenberth from the federally funded National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, told the local newspaper, "I think he [Pielke] should withdraw his article. This is a shameful article."
Read the article here.
Drive the car that Stirling Moss drove in 1958!
Someone in Britain has produced a road legal version of the famous Vanwall F1 racer.
Every so often, a story comes along that you simply couldn't make up. Like the one about the new, fully road-legal, single-seat car that looks very much like a famous 1950s grand prix winner.
Read about it here.
Every so often, a story comes along that you simply couldn't make up. Like the one about the new, fully road-legal, single-seat car that looks very much like a famous 1950s grand prix winner.
Read about it here.
All Cultures are not equal.
This comment in US News points out that even the left is turning away from Multiculturalism.
Jean Francois Revel's Cold War comment: "A civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself."
Multiculturalism is based on the lie that all cultures are morally equal. In practice, that soon degenerates to: All cultures all morally equal, except ours, which is worse. But all cultures are not equal in respecting representative government, guaranteed liberties, and the rule of law. And those things arose not simultaneously and in all cultures but in certain specific times and places--mostly in Britain and America but also in other parts of Europe.
Read the whole thing here.
Jean Francois Revel's Cold War comment: "A civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself."
Multiculturalism is based on the lie that all cultures are morally equal. In practice, that soon degenerates to: All cultures all morally equal, except ours, which is worse. But all cultures are not equal in respecting representative government, guaranteed liberties, and the rule of law. And those things arose not simultaneously and in all cultures but in certain specific times and places--mostly in Britain and America but also in other parts of Europe.
Read the whole thing here.
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
How Not to Run a Prison System!
Corrections Canada seems to be more interested in the politics of AIDS and another organisation that watches our border than on providing a secure and safe lockup for our criminals.
Tell me, with all the technology we have today, how does an inmate manage to sneek into another's cell and have sex without the guards knowing about it.
The truth is that Corrections Canada is a slack organization with very low standards.
Read more about priorities at Correcitons Canada here.
Tell me, with all the technology we have today, how does an inmate manage to sneek into another's cell and have sex without the guards knowing about it.
The truth is that Corrections Canada is a slack organization with very low standards.
Read more about priorities at Correcitons Canada here.
We should be proud of our cultural inheritance!
Mark Steyn states the obvious, while the Liberal multiculturists evade it.
"So, as any impeccably progressive soft-lefties would, Her Majesty’s Government in Ottawa decided to build the Mushuau a new town a few miles inland — state of the art, money no object, new homes, new heating systems, new schoolhouse, new computers, plus new more culturally respectful town name (Natuashish). Total cost to Canadian taxpayers: $152 million, which works out to about $217,142.85 for each of the town’s men, women and children. Got a wife and two kids and you’re looking at a government handout of about nine hundred thousand bucks."
Read the whole thing here.
"So, as any impeccably progressive soft-lefties would, Her Majesty’s Government in Ottawa decided to build the Mushuau a new town a few miles inland — state of the art, money no object, new homes, new heating systems, new schoolhouse, new computers, plus new more culturally respectful town name (Natuashish). Total cost to Canadian taxpayers: $152 million, which works out to about $217,142.85 for each of the town’s men, women and children. Got a wife and two kids and you’re looking at a government handout of about nine hundred thousand bucks."
Read the whole thing here.
Monday, August 15, 2005
Prison Reform
I have been asked to state my position on incarceration and its true purpose.
It is my contention that prisons should be humane and safe places for their inmates to reside. The security staff at a prison should model their activity on the precautions taken by the staff of a major casino. If someone can be spotted counting cards at the Black Jack table surely an inmate at a prison can be spotted with drugs or a weapon.
Long-term inmates should be housed in prisons that are far from populated areas and are secure from attack from within or without.
It should not be the responsibility of a prison to rehabilitate a person for committing a criminal act. The goal of a prison is to separate inmates from society as humanely and safely as possible until it is time for their release. The imposition of work details would also come under the purview of prison authorities.
It is the responsibility of the Justice system to make sure that violent offenders are incarcerated and out of circulation for a long enough period to protect law-abiding citizens. Society may well have to contend with an increase in geriatric crime when violent offenders are released, but at least we will be able to out-run them.
Cost savings can be enhanced with the use of modern technology to control the movements of inmates in a prison. Much of this can be done without human intervention. Identity management systems could be used to grant access to areas based on privileges that are unique to each inmate and operate automatically. Surveillance systems can monitor every movement of an inmate and behavioural software would identify aberrant behaviour. A prison should be compartmented so that only a small number of inmates can be together at one time.
A special branch of the army should administer federal prisons. The guards would be rotated through the prison system in the early part of their careers and would be highly trained for their task.
It is my contention that prisons should be humane and safe places for their inmates to reside. The security staff at a prison should model their activity on the precautions taken by the staff of a major casino. If someone can be spotted counting cards at the Black Jack table surely an inmate at a prison can be spotted with drugs or a weapon.
Long-term inmates should be housed in prisons that are far from populated areas and are secure from attack from within or without.
It should not be the responsibility of a prison to rehabilitate a person for committing a criminal act. The goal of a prison is to separate inmates from society as humanely and safely as possible until it is time for their release. The imposition of work details would also come under the purview of prison authorities.
It is the responsibility of the Justice system to make sure that violent offenders are incarcerated and out of circulation for a long enough period to protect law-abiding citizens. Society may well have to contend with an increase in geriatric crime when violent offenders are released, but at least we will be able to out-run them.
Cost savings can be enhanced with the use of modern technology to control the movements of inmates in a prison. Much of this can be done without human intervention. Identity management systems could be used to grant access to areas based on privileges that are unique to each inmate and operate automatically. Surveillance systems can monitor every movement of an inmate and behavioural software would identify aberrant behaviour. A prison should be compartmented so that only a small number of inmates can be together at one time.
A special branch of the army should administer federal prisons. The guards would be rotated through the prison system in the early part of their careers and would be highly trained for their task.
Tuesday, August 09, 2005
Reflections on a Revolution in Canada
I think it would be helpful to take a stand on issues that confront us today and state what government action I would support to solve those problems. I welcome input on these points and suggestions how they could be modified or reasons why they might not work.
Issues:
1) Violence: It is imperative that the freedom of individuals is not constrained by the State for reasons of convenience in times of peace. Limits on freedom must be abhored while physical violence must anticipate severe punishment. The number of laws that restrict human activity must be reduced to a minimum so as not to create unnecessary criminals. The punishment for crimes must be consistent and punitive in nature. Following these principles would produce a free society that would not tolerate violence.
a) Banned substances: No substance should be regulated unless it is a threat to human life or property “in and of itself”. (e.g. radio-active materials and explosives) The state has no business regulating human nature and cannot be responsible for self-destructive activities by individuals. One must live by the consequences of ones actions. Therefore the inherent penalties that result from the abuse of drugs must be borne by the abuser.
b) Firearms: It is the prime responsibility of the State to protect the individual from attacks on his person or his property. It is also the paramount interest of the individual to lawfully defend his person and his property. These motives should not conflict. The use of the tools of defence is an inalienable right. Therefore it is an abuse of State power to curtail the ownership of firearms. It is also incumbent upon the State to apprehend and punish any individual who through ignorance, malice or criminal intent misuses a firearm.
c) Youth: A crime committed by any individual must be consistently and punitively dealt with under the law. An individual under the age of reason (consent) is the responsibility of his parents or guardians and it is they who must bear the repercussions of their charges crimes. It is also a right of the parent or guardian to protect them-selves by publicly disowning their charges prior to a crime being committed if they can show that they have not the means to compel responsible behaviour. The State would then consistently and punitively punish the youth as if he bore the full responsibility for his actions.
2) Morality: Outside of the responsibility to defend the physical person and property of the individual against external attack, the State has no right or interest in defining the morality of its citizens. The State cannot restrict freedom of speech – but it must arbitrate for individuals who claim to have been damaged by maliciously fraudulent speech.
a) Religion: The State has no right or interest in restricting the practice of any religion outside of protecting an individual from being compelled to submit to a religious practise.
b) Sanctity of Life: The State must protect the rights of individuals above those of potential individuals. The law must state emphatically when an individual passes from potential into existence.
Issues:
1) Violence: It is imperative that the freedom of individuals is not constrained by the State for reasons of convenience in times of peace. Limits on freedom must be abhored while physical violence must anticipate severe punishment. The number of laws that restrict human activity must be reduced to a minimum so as not to create unnecessary criminals. The punishment for crimes must be consistent and punitive in nature. Following these principles would produce a free society that would not tolerate violence.
a) Banned substances: No substance should be regulated unless it is a threat to human life or property “in and of itself”. (e.g. radio-active materials and explosives) The state has no business regulating human nature and cannot be responsible for self-destructive activities by individuals. One must live by the consequences of ones actions. Therefore the inherent penalties that result from the abuse of drugs must be borne by the abuser.
b) Firearms: It is the prime responsibility of the State to protect the individual from attacks on his person or his property. It is also the paramount interest of the individual to lawfully defend his person and his property. These motives should not conflict. The use of the tools of defence is an inalienable right. Therefore it is an abuse of State power to curtail the ownership of firearms. It is also incumbent upon the State to apprehend and punish any individual who through ignorance, malice or criminal intent misuses a firearm.
c) Youth: A crime committed by any individual must be consistently and punitively dealt with under the law. An individual under the age of reason (consent) is the responsibility of his parents or guardians and it is they who must bear the repercussions of their charges crimes. It is also a right of the parent or guardian to protect them-selves by publicly disowning their charges prior to a crime being committed if they can show that they have not the means to compel responsible behaviour. The State would then consistently and punitively punish the youth as if he bore the full responsibility for his actions.
2) Morality: Outside of the responsibility to defend the physical person and property of the individual against external attack, the State has no right or interest in defining the morality of its citizens. The State cannot restrict freedom of speech – but it must arbitrate for individuals who claim to have been damaged by maliciously fraudulent speech.
a) Religion: The State has no right or interest in restricting the practice of any religion outside of protecting an individual from being compelled to submit to a religious practise.
b) Sanctity of Life: The State must protect the rights of individuals above those of potential individuals. The law must state emphatically when an individual passes from potential into existence.
Marriage Becomes a Financial Contract
Well, its happening faster than I thought it would. Marriage is becoming nothing more than a short term financial contract.
Two straight men in Toronto are getting married strictly for the financial benefits. While this is hardly a new reason for getting married, the ability of a whole new class of entreprenuers to access benefits may destroy the viability of any financial advantage to being married.
I talked about this earlier here.
The message coming from the social liberals is that there should not be any advantage to being married. I pity our children.
Two straight men in Toronto are getting married strictly for the financial benefits. While this is hardly a new reason for getting married, the ability of a whole new class of entreprenuers to access benefits may destroy the viability of any financial advantage to being married.
I talked about this earlier here.
The message coming from the social liberals is that there should not be any advantage to being married. I pity our children.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)