The perfect business partner!

My father forwarded me this article that discusses why there are no jobs in the US. And I have to say it is the most accurate description of what is going on that I have ever heard.

It always blows my mind how the far left think that the government is the solution to everything. It's the very reason why the Obama administration (and the Harper government to a lesser degree) believe that government stimulus can turn the recession around. At the same time Obama wants the Bush tax cuts to run out.

The snail's-pace bureaucratic mess that is big government is the least efficient means of stimulating the economy. After taking money out of the economy, they hold onto it, they take their time formulating a plan, they take forever fine-tuning (that being a delusion itself) the plan, they vote on the plan, they legislate the plan, they put the plan out to the different agencies who have to come up with their own plans on how to properly work the plan... with each level taking money out of the budget of the plan... all before any action is even taken.

While if you just cut taxes the effects are instantaneous. Either the consumer will spend more money that is automatically injected into the economy, or they will invest it in banks who will then in turn invest it directly into the economy in the form of either business loans -- which start up new businesses and thus raise employment -- or stock investments which provide funds to companies who will in turn invest it into growing their business -- and their employment -- which goes directly back into the economy.

Personally, I trust businesses to be better at running and growing businesses than any government.

The evil Harper government acting in secret? Oh... it's just McGuinty...

Seriously... it's amazing that the Toronto Star even reported the fact that the McGuinty Liberals have been holding secret talks with the unions in an effort to make a deal with them that would help the Ontario government get out of the massive hole they spent themselves into. Would it be too much for us to ask them to hold Dalton McGuinty to the same standard they hold the Harper government (mostly in a paranoid fantasy sense) to?

Of course it's too much!

Anybody want to bet that McGuinty was hoping this whole thing would stay under wraps so that he could make it look like he pulled some magic rabbit out of a hat to fix Ontario's problems? I am not even going to pretend like he had any intention of letting the Ontario public (you know, his bosses?) in on the game until it was too late to know what concessions were made. I bet he would even have found some way to ensure confidentiality in whatever deals he made.

Because he's just like that.

And all those people who complain that Stephen Harper's government is the most secretive, deceptive and unaccountable government out there? I doubt they'll even bat an eyelash over this one.

If Park51 is in fact just a community center...

...then doesn't that by extension mean that it isn't covered by the right to freedom of religion? I mean, there is no human right for freedom to build community centers.

I've seen far too many people who are arguing both sides against the middle that it is not a mosque but that if you oppose the building of Park 51 it means you're a bigot. However, if one side of the equation is right, then the other doesn't apply does it?

Either it is a mosque or it isn't. If it isn't, then there's no problem! We can even have the government step in, stop it from being built and nobody's human right of freedom of religion will have been stepped upon.

We all know that this is as duplicitous an argument as one can come up with. You can't simultaneously argue that it isn't a mosque and that denying it from being built is suppressing that right of people to practice their religion.

And to those who think that opposition to the mosque is a sign of bigotry and an attempt to suppress Islam, if you think that offering free land at another location is an attempt to suppress Islam... well... I see ignoring facts and reporting whatever you want to fit your narrative is actually quite the fad these days.

At least now we know whose reporting techniques you've been studying.

Something only Rob Ford could do.

It was revealed last night that Rob Ford had claimed to not have been arrested for a drug charge only to reveal that he had in Florida. People jumped all over him for supposedly trying to deny or cover up this impropriety. He said he forgot.

The question became, how can anybody forget a pot bust in Florida? After his press conference this morning, his revelation not only made sense but is so very Rob Ford.

Ford said that the reason he forgot the dropped pot charge was because it was in a much more serious DUI charge to which he plead guilty. In that light, it makes sense why somebody might forget a dropped secondary charge.

Does it make Rob Ford look good? Not really. But it certainly takes the wind out of the sails of his critics and rival candidates that he was intentionally lying or trying to cover it up. And by revealing the other charge he now looks even more honest.

Only Rob Ford could turn a DUI conviction into a sign of honesty.

Pelosi joins Obama on the backpedal express!

It's official: the Democrats are completely politically tone-deaf.

According to CNN, a full 70 percent of Americans oppose the building of a mosque near Ground Zero in New York City, the site of the 9/11 attacks. This isn't a right-wing or left-wing centered argument either. There is a grassroots agreement across the political spectrum that to do so would be a spit in the face of those who lost families in this tragedy.

Just don't tell Nancy Pelosi.

You see, many have questioned who exactly is funding the building of this $100 million mosque. However, House Speaker... sorry, scratch that... clearly outgoing-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's first reaction over this debate is not who is funding the mosque. Instead, she would rather investigate the people who oppose this desecration.

Of course, just as Obama was forced to do last week over his comments about the mosque, Pelosi is now quickly backpedalling to provide "clarification" saying she also wants transparency on who is funding the mosque. And of course, the usual suspects in the mainstream media are falling in line to provide the Democrats cover on this.

You feel it necessary to first call for "investigations" into opponents of the mosque but to call for "transparency" on who funds the mosque?

Sorry... Americans aren't going to buy it.

First off, investigation implies criminal or unethical conduct. To imply that it is possible that the opposition is based in unethical efforts is an attempt to cast a shadow on the opposition. Asking for "transparency" from the mosque builders implies a request for an inside view.

If Nancy Pelosi thinks American are going to buy her feeble "clarifications" she is in for a very upsetting November. Like her so-called progressive allies such as Obama who believe they are speaking over the heads of the riff-raff who simply don't understand their subtle nuances, Pelosi thinks she can just keep talking and it will be okay.

People are smarter than you look down upon them for being Nancy. But go ahead. Feel free to open that mouth again and insert other foot if you like.

Slavery by any other name...

Next year will mark the 150th anniversary of the start of the American Civil War. Of course, slavery sat at the heart of this war and it is a given in these times that slavery was, is and shall always be a crime.

So, let's look at what slavery is.

Slavery is by definition the system of turning one person (a slave) into an unpaid laborer without freedoms or rights by another person (a master). In the traditional sense, the owner gains profit by imprisoning the slave and employing them into forced labor. The owner of course pays for the slaves living quarters, their food and their general welfare with the expectation to gain profit over time by their work.

Now, what would be the easiest way to make that process more efficient and profitable for the master? Quite simple: remove the need to house, feed and take care of the slave. The result would be slavery with little cost and almost pure profit.

This is where we find ourselves today with the arrival of hundreds of Tamil "refugees" on our Pacific coast. As many would have us believe, these are simple folk trying to make a new home. And from their end, that may be true. However, the more likely case is that this is a case of organized human trafficking with the organizers making millions of dollars in the process.

Unfortunately, this puts the Canadian government in a bind. Do we let these innocent people in as refugees? The unfortunate truth is that if these people were the product of a human trafficking operation, we may very well be inviting a repeat performance if we let them stay. In essence, allowing them to say may be tacit approval of what is for all intents and purposes the perfect slave operation. One with little maintenance cost and high profit.

Never mind that this case could be a part of a much larger Tamil Tiger operation. In fact, this is one of the ways they have financed their military operations in the past. To make no effort to rectify this situation is simply a matter of diverting responsibility in making a rational decision, no matter how difficult.

As much as I mourn the situation these people face, I fear for the many others who will follow only to become slaves in the process. Turning a blind eye to what could be a very profitable human smuggling operation is simply tacit approval of modern slavery. As difficult as it is, sometimes you have to amputate a limb in order to save the body. And in this case, to prevent condemning countless Tamils to the fate of being in eternal bondage to the smugglers, we may very well be forced to make that difficult decision of turning this group away.

This is a very difficult choice for our government. But the right choice isn't always the easiest. And if we don't make a decision now, we are all responsible for the sign we send out of an open invitation for smugglers to abuse not only our charity but also the innocent Tamil civilians who will place their fate in the hands of these lesser men.

Is Toronto regaining its sanity?

It was with significant surprise that I read yesterday how Rob Ford has slipped into a comfortable lead over all of his opponents in the Toronto mayoralty race. It is surprising considering how comfortable Torontonians were in electing the spendthrift David Miller over the fiscally responsible and always full of unique ideas John Tory.

Perhaps this is a sign of resignation of the citizens of Toronto after endless disruptions by the spoiled brat leaders of the TTC and the Toronto Civic Employees union that has resulted in transit strikes and garbage strikes and saw David Miller fold like a deck of cards every time. To put simply, Torontonians are fed up.

Now, I don't see Rob Ford as a knight in shining armor. I tend to find some of his views to be a little too far to the right for me. But as long as his more socially conservative views are not going to cause a ruckus or lead to ill treatment of minority groups, I don't see this as a problem.

Toronto's problems are fiscal in nature. Under David Miller's seven-year leadership, the annual operating budget has risen from $6.4 Billion $9.2 Billion almost a full 50%. This is as clear a sign of the utter ridiculousness of the Miller team.

And what has it gotten us? Ask any Torontonian what David Miller's legacy will be and most will have no clue. Ask any Torontonian what major changes happened in Toronto since David Miller came to power and they are likely to give you windfall of negativity and no positive angles at all. From new tax after new spending after new tax, Miller has achieved the most epic of epic fails.

Make no mistake, Toronto is a left-wing city. The fact that the federal Conservatives can't make a single headway into the Metro core is a clear sign. As such, it is more likely that people aren't being drawn towards Rob Ford so much as David Miller's policies are driving them in that direction. They know that they were sold a bill of goods by Miller and his cronies who have achieved nothing substantial for the incredible increase in costs Toronto has seen.

As Kelly McParland so eloquently put it, David Miller's legacy could very well be Rob Ford.

Unlike certain places that refuse to accept that there is no such place as a utopia where you can pay anybody anything they want without taking in more tax money to cover the costs, everyday Torontonians have obviously recognized that you can't spend money that isn't there. And while it's a nice fantasy that unions should be able to pay uneducated trash collectors the same wage as some of the most trained professionals out there, fantasy does not bode well in reality and can usually kill it.

Here's hoping that a Rob Ford victory will find him actually able to implement the kind of policies that would save this city from its fiscal destruction.

Finally saw Inception

I have been a fan of Christopher Nolan since sitting in a theatre and watching the opening sequence to his landmark international debut Memento. What I witnessed in that film was a brilliant mind giving an audience the unique experience of having the protagonist's short term memory loss. He did so by playing a film in reverse turning a simple revenge story into a whodunnit mystery. It was refreshing both in terms of storytelling but also in Nolan's signature style (i.e. flashbacks silently revealing the character's inner monologue).

Since then, Nolan in my opinion has been batting 100. While a remake, Insomnia was equally as compelling, Batman Begins turned the comic book movie on its head, The Prestige was a wonderful period piece thriller and of course The Dark Knight was his The Godfather: Part II sequel to rival the original. As such, many a talent have felt in trustworthy hands to lend their talent to any of his outings. And as a fan, I have come to trust him more and more.

So, when I first heard of Nolan's new cerebral sci-fi thriller Inception, I knew we as an audience were in for a treat. And while I tend to shy away from Leonardo DiCaprio films (I feel he's been overhyped) I knew that there was a reason Nolan chose him. As such, I trusted his decision and waited to see what would happen. This trust was compounded when Nolan also attracted Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Ken Watanabe, Marion Cotillard, Tom Berenger, Pete Postlethwaite, Tom Hardy and his mainstays Cillian Murphy and Michael Caine.

Having finally seen it last night, I can say that Nolan has once again earned my trust.

Inception is an entertaining, mind-bending thriller that is equally exhilarating and thought provoking. To say it is visually intense would be the understatement of the year. The film is stunning to watch taking one's perception of reality and spinning it around while still achieving a beautiful palette of color and motion imagery that masterfully runs between slow motion and frenetic action.

And it once again takes a genre and bends it around backward. In its most basic form, Inception is a heist movie in reverse. Instead of the characters trying to break in and steal something, they are breaking in to plant one thought into a person's head in order to alter his motivations and his actions. How do they do this? They enter his dream, construct a new reality and sink into his subconscious to find what could motivate him and make him self-realize the idea.

In this sense, there is not a stone that goes unturned and not a loose end left. Nolan has clearly thought his subject through a million times to make the film and the plot believable. It's not simply a matter of planting a thought in somebody's head as -- just like an invader in the person's dream -- the subconscious will seek out the foreign entity, reject and attack it. Thus, any world that is created in the dream state can be basically crafted but must have it's details filled in by the subject so they accept it as real.

Believe me... Nolan does not miss a thing in understanding the idea of dreams and how they both can be controlled by us and can control us. As such, he has crafted a film that is truly exceptional.

My only problem with the film actually relates to a problem I had in the Dark Knight. In the Dark Knight, the final climactic battle between Batman and the Joker takes place in a building under construction. During this sequence, Batman has to move between floors and rooms quickly in order to save hostages and take out the Joker's henchmen.

My problem with this sequence was that Nolan did not create a focal point to define for audience precisely where in space the action was happening. As such, anytime Batman moved between a floor or a room -- which under construction all looked the same -- it didn't seem like he was doing anything. While ultimately I understood what was happening logicaly, visually Batman could very well have been fighting the same people in one room or on two floors.

The same thing happens in Inception when Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character has to create a "kick", which in the film is sudden change in gravity that makes people feel like they're falling in order to wake them up from whatever dream they are in. At the time, the characters are all in zero-gravity (you'll have to see it to understand) and so he ties them up and puts them in an elevator and proceeds to attach explosives to the elevator in order to make an artificial gravity.

In this sequence, he has to move around the elevator to cut cables and attach explosives. However, while he is moving around and around, since there is no defined point in space, it is as if he could very well have been in one place for each shot. Of course, you understand that he had to move around the elevator. But visually it doesn't translate without a point in space to define where he is.

That is a very minor point of complaint and is the only problem I had with the film. Apart from that, Inception is brilliant. It ranks up there with Blade Runner and 2001: A Space Odyssey in terms of intelligent science fiction that makes you think long after you leave the theatre. And though it is intelligent, it is also thrilling to watch. As such, if you're looking to be wholly entertained while at the same time having something to think about, rest assured you'll love Inception.

As far as I'm concerned, Inception is the best film this year so far.

Just what the Toronto Star needs...

...a twice weekly dose of the ever nasty, unprofessional and immature Heather Mallick.

How anybody can even consider the Toronto Star anything more than a propaganda factory is beyond me. The fact they have no problem employing a hack with a complete lack of professional journalistic standards is beyond me.

It's too bad we don't have a news outlet in Canada that would hold Mallick and her ilk to task for the outrageousness she spews. At least, not yet anyhow.

Is Rob Ford not exactly what the Gay community wants?

I support gay marriage. For the longest time I did not. But it had nothing to do with being against homosexuality. Far from it... I have many friends who are gay and I see nothing wrong with who they are and the life they lead. They are amongst the most beautiful of human beings.

My stance against gay marriage was based on the fact that marriage has always been a union of a man and a women to be husband and wife. I didn't feel that this definition was an affront to the homosexual community. It was simply a word/term/condition that had been used to define a specific bond between two groups.

And there was nothing to stop the homosexual community from coming up with a term to describe their own unions. Just because the name would be different would not mean that it was less than marriage. After all, we have priests, rabbis and imams, all performing the same functions in society but each with a different name based on the community they were a part of.

With time my views changed and I felt that there simply wasn't enough of a reason not to extend marriage to be the union of two people -- whether heterosexual or homosexual -- in an exclusive bond. And I have been witness to some very logical arguments that outline why even conservatives should not only accept gay marriage but in fact embrace it as a sign homosexuals embrace what are defined as long standing conservative values.

That said, not everybody supports that view. And that is their right. Until we live in a socialist or religious extremist dictatorship where every thought must be authorized by the state, people are allowed to believe what they want or think what they want so long as they do not partake in actions that harm other individuals. I don't want to live in a world where there is no freedom of thought, belief or expression.

Which brings us to the present brouhaha surrounding Rob Ford and his views on gay marriage...

Rob Ford supports the traditional definition of marriage being that of a union between a man and a woman. When mayoral candidate Wendell Brereton dropped out of the race this week and threw his support behind Rob Ford, their views on homosexual unions came to the forefront of media attention. And of course the opportunistic media and other self-serving candidates are swooping in on Rob Ford like carrion for their own political goals.

However, Rob Ford qualified his views stating that gay marriage is not something he even cares to focus on and is outside of his scope, specifically saying, "To each their own... I'm not worried about what people do in their private life, I look out for taxpayer's money." And he's right. The Mayor of Toronto has no control over who can and cannot get married and cannot put laws in place that harm the homosexual community. The dominion of the courts prevent it. As such, Rob Ford's views will not affect the homosexual community at all.

But it does raise an important question...

If Rob Ford holds views that run counter to the homosexual community but has no interest in doing anything against them, is that not the very definition of tolerance? And if so, would Rob Ford not be the very icon of what the homosexual community could hope for in a conservative politician? After all, what better example of tolerance could there be than a man who does not support same-sex marriage but does not lash out at the gay community?

The political left and the gay community have fought for tolerance for decades. Well... guess what? That's exactly what Rob Ford is the icon of.

The real question is, does tolerance run both directions? If Rob Ford can be against the views of the homosexual community but have no interest in taking action against them, is it possible for the homosexual community be against the views of Rob Ford and not take action against him?

I'm not saying that Rob Ford is the ideal candidate. There are many reasons not to vote for him. But, contrary to the popular opinion that his views on same-sex marriage should make him a pariah to the homosexual community, I think the homosexual community would in fact be missing a fantastic opportunity in embracing him.

I could not think of a better way to show the world what tolerance is than to have a mayor who does not share the moral views of homosexuality but is tolerant of the gay community... and a gay community who does not share the moral views on homosexuality that the mayor does but is tolerant of him.

Is it really all that surprising?

Considering the media and the Opposition slammed Helena Guergis over criminal culpability until the Conservatives had no choice but to expel her only to have the same hypocrites come back and criticize the government for doing exactly what they wanted, is it really all that surprising that we are now finding out that the famous "meltdown" which started this whole fiasco is now being shown to have no legs?

The two-faced nature of Canadian politics -- both from the NDP/Liberal/Bloc coalition and the media -- is ridiculously out of control. And the media just pretends it isn't involved half the time in stirring up the storms of controversy just to watch them go.

I find it hard to believe that after all this time that security footage is only now being brought to light. At best this reeks of lazy journalism while at worst it is gotcha journalism to the extreme. I miss the day that reporters actually researched rather than just throwing out opinion pieces, rumors and innuendo.