Blue Liberals: are you scared yet? It's time to choose...

One has to wonder whether the blue Liberals are starting to get scared. After all, with the possibility of the Liberal party facing extinction and the NDP taking a shot at the big chair, the fiscally conservative arm of the Liberal party certainly will need to take stock.

As much as they don't like Harper, are they willing to risk Jack Layton being the one to fuel the economic engines of Canada?

As much as they don't like the moderately conservative social policies of the present Conservative Party, are they willing to watch the NDP drag all those wonderful social programs that Liberals love down the toilet with disastrous corporate tax raises and Bob Rae-esque spending promises, neither of which can be afforded as we recover from the worst recession since the Great Depression?

It really is far past time they start to ask whether a vote for the Liberal party is in fact a vote for Jack Layton. The extreme left elements of the Liberal party are already leaving the deflating big red tent in droves to bolster the wind in Jack Layton's sails. All those blue Liberals out there really need to look in the mirror and ask whether they can afford sticking around to see an NDP led coalition.

The blue Liberals can't kid themselves any longer. While Ignatieff has been deceptive on this front, Jack Layton has made no secret of his goal of a coalition since day one of the campaign. If the polls turn true to the NDP, the economy of Canada and everything connected to it -- and if you can't do the math that means literally everything -- is in jeopardy.

So, blue Liberals... what say you?

Are you going to go down with the sinking ship?

Or are you going to be the bigger man/woman and responsibly vote for a party that will keep the NDP's hands off the economy and out of our pockets?

You know the Liberal party is not going to pull out of this nosedive. Are you really willing to let the country go down with your party?

A vote for Iggy is a vote for... Jack?

How often have we heard the Liberals cry that a vote for the NDP is a vote for the Conservatives? That scare tactic is most certainly about to die a horrific death.

Polls are showing NDP support clearly blazing upwards. We have two polls (LaPresse and Ekos) both stating the NDP have taken first place in Quebec with Nanos' latest numbers showing the NDP surging not only in Quebec but also in a three-way dead heat in Atlantic Canada and overtaking the Liberals in both the Prairies and BC.

Nobody can downplay or understate the significance of this turn of events.

I cannot see the Liberals old-school scare tactic used against NDP supporters working this time around. Only die-hard Liberals (and not even all of them) are impressed by Michael Ignatieff. NDP supporters certainly aren't impressed with Ignatieff's support of the invasion of Iraq and his right-winger in a left-winger cloak fakery.

With the Liberal Party's numbers clearly shifting downwards right across the country (with the exception of Ontario so far) there is no chance regionally speaking that NDP supporters are going to switch over to the Liberals now to "stop Harper" as it were. They most certainly are going to be buoyed at the prospect of Jack Layton finally getting the traction they have all longed to see for years.

The NDP need only rise 4.6% in the national polling to overtake the Liberals. And considering that there are ten days to the election and the NDP have clearly risen more than that amount in the past five days, all bets are off.

Jack Layton has had no qualms discussing his desire for a coalition government. If the NDP are able to sap away enough Liberal seats, that would put the NDP in the power position as the official Opposition party. In a coalition government, that would mean one thing: Prime Minister Jack Layton.

Can you think of any other title in the world that would be as likely to scare the pants off of every blue Liberal in Canada? I think not.

It's still a long shot. And we all know that with ten days left in this election anything can happen. But if the NDP continues it's upwards trajectory across the map, the Liberals are most certainly going to become the also-ran in the coalition dream. And blue Liberals don't hate Stephen Harper enough to risk a socialist government with a separatist party holding the strings.

Could it be that we'll soon be hearing the phrase, "A vote for Ignatieff is a vote for Layton?"

Sun News: You Get What You Pay For

I was one who, when I first heard that the Sun News Network was coming, was hopeful that we would finally get a quality news service that would start to balance out the extreme leftist bias in the media. If there could be a service that would rival the CBC and CTV in quality of programming while giving a different perspective that Canadians could grasp, it would no doubt be a wonderful thing.

It has been a couple of days since Sun News Network launch. And while it's great to see Ezra Levant and Charles Adler with their own TV news shows and it's nice to see a non-leftist news source out there, I really have no choice but to say it...

It looks truly and utterly awful.

Sorry, but it does.

It looks like it was done on the cheap using lighting technicians, cameramen, editors, segment producers, sound engineers, makeup artists and facilities designers of the cheapest order.

Let's take a look at one segment as an example. Here is a segment called "America: From Makers to Takers" from the Caldwell Account. Now, it's a great discussion topic. But the presentation is so utterly horrible that one has to wonder who was in charge in making it.

1. The cameras they are using are obviously not of the highest quality. That or the videographers just don't know how to set them up properly.
2. Theo Caldwell's makeup is terrible. It's patchy and he has circles under his eyes. This may seem petty but let's be realistic. Looks are everything in modern television. And you can't have hosts that look like they just walked in from the street.
3. The lighting in the studio has most certainly been just thrown up. No thought process went into it and I would be willing to bet that there are standard room style florescent ceiling bulbs on above as well. This basically sucks the contrast of the host out so that he becomes washed out and nothing but another element to a room full of equally important backdrops.
4. The camera is positioned in a downward angle on Theo (it's looking down at him). Anybody who knows anything about camera angles knows that a downward angle is used to denote a lack of power and authority. It's the very reason why whenever you see iconic images of people of power or you see product commercials where a person is being presented as decisive and powerful and self-assured, the camera is always, always angled upwards. This is one of the most basic principles of photography and videography that I have a hard time believing that the person on the camera isn't doing it on purpose.
5. The camera has also obviously been placed at a far distance away from Theo with the lens zoomed in. You don't do that if you want the person to look anything but small. A person's appearance is all dependent upon a camera's position. If you don't believe me, take a picture of a person at a distance with your camera zoomed in and then walk close to the person and take another picture such that the person fills the same amount of the screen. You'll see that the closer you get, the larger and more rigid your features are.
6. Theo sounds like a boy. Why? Because the audio engineers have done nothing to his voice. Nothing! They have not equalized it so that his voice is thicker and appears deeper. Instead, it sounds tinny and weak. Once again, this is basic audio engineering that reduces his appearance as authoritative, powerful and captivating.
7. At 0:06, there is a video clip from a manufacturing plant. No problem except that the video is on pause for 3 seconds before it gets going. On pause! This is as amateur hour as one can get. If it's video, you leave it running from start to finish. If it's a still, you leave it as a still. But you don't start a video segment with it in pause.
8. At 1:04, the camera moves to the right for no purpose and then back to the left to stop at 1:05. It then sits there for 2 seconds before it starts to move to the left again to position Theo on the right hand side of the screen. For no reason! What is with that?!?! It's ridiculous.
9. At 3:10, the camera shifts up so that Theo stays in the frame. This is one of the reasons why a camera should be placed at a low angle: when the camera is low and facing up, a person moving back and forth, up and down will always stay in frame because they will actually look like they are getting every so slightly closer and ever so slightly farther away from the camera. Once again, basic videography.
10. At 5:07, the camera moves slightly back to the right and stops then moves slightly down and stops so that it is basically back to where it was at the very beginning of the segment.
11. At 5:27, the camera once again has to shift around to keep Theo in frame.
12. At 5:42, it switches to a second camera on Ezra Levant. And I couldn't believe what I saw. Behind the opaque backdrop behind and to the right of him (just over the SunNews logo) you can see that the light is flickering. Why? Because they're using dying lightbulbs in their backlights! It's insane and looks just downright awful.

Now, some might say I'm just nitpicking. Nonsense. If a news organization wants to paint itself as refreshing, new and competitive, it has to at least get the basics down. It has to look as good if not better than its competition.

Let's compare it to the network it was being linked to, Fox News.

Here is a Bill O'Reilly segment called "Donald Trump Closer to Running for President" that is a straight angle on the host and has segments with a guest just like the above video.

Notice how O'Reilly looks larger on camera and seems more authoritative. It's because the camera is closer to him physically, is zoomed in further and isn't looking down on him.

Notice how his features are more defined. That's because with him being closer, the camera's angle on his features draws certain things forward (nose, lips, forehead) while pushing other things back (ears, hair).

Notice that he stands out from the background. That's because he is being lit more than the background thus contrasting him against it rather than having him washed out with it.

Notice how little the camera has to move to keep him in view. When a camera is positioned properly (straight on or from below) the host's movements aren't as drastic.

Notice how deep O'Reilly's voice is. This is because the person at the soundboard has actually taken the time to mix him properly.

Notice when Trump joins the segment. The image is stable and consistent in colour and tone because cheap backlights aren't being used and overhead florescent lights aren't being used.

As well, when the front camera is on, both are on the edge of the screen but closer together. This creates dramatic tension because it adds the sense of combativeness like two titans facing off.

Notice that O'Reilly is off to the side of the screen only when there is something that is to take up the other side such as notes and quotations. By having more than just a face on the screen, it creates more to grab the eye.

Now, this is just a cursory evaluation of one Sun News segment and I didn't even dissect it all. But having watched a few Sun News segments I have to say that there isn't much of a difference between any of them. Honestly, you get what you pay for. And I imagine that whoever they hired to design, produce and craft this channel, it was as cheap as they could get.

It is really too bad because, were they just to employ some very basic production principles, the channel would really be a threat to the CBC and CTV news channels. Here's hoping that they start to recognize that they need professionals really doing their job if they want the channel to be anything more than Wayne's World being cut using iMovie.

Christmas Has Come Early... Thank You, Iggy

Michael Ignatieff has finally and outrightly confirmed it: if the Conservatives get a minority, the Liberal, NDP and Bloc parties will vote them down and form a coalition government.

Not a formal coalition. Just an informal coalition.

Got that?

I'm sure the Conservatives -- who have kept the powder dry and haven't really been on an advertising blitz yet -- got that loud and clear. And I'm also sure Canadians will not be impressed by the word games. The Conservatives now have been given their opening to confirm to Canadians that what they've been saying all along is true, all wrapped up in a bow.

So... Conservative war room... Christmas has come early.

Go get 'em! :-)

Best news all day: the era of Fidel Castro has ended

Finally, after decades of unsustainable Soviet-style communism, Cuba is finally making steps forward to the modern world as Fidel Castro steps down.

As his brother Raul Castro introduces reforms to allow property rights, end price control and ween the public off of complete dependence on the state, we who are pro-freedom and pro-capitalism must encourage the moves. Encouraging is the seeking of ten year term limits on party leadership.

Mind you, a term limit in a still communist state isn't the same as in a democratic state. But a step in the right direction is still a step in the right direction. Here's hoping that the changes will harken a return to prosperity for the Cuban people who have long suffered under the policies of the dictator Fidel.

And we can only hope that the fall of strict communism in Cuba after the fall of strict communism in China will help to shake things up in North Korea, Venezuela and all other communist countries helping them see that free markets encourage competition which results in constant, necessary innovation which leads to a cycle of prosperity for all.

On a side note...

As a musician, I tend to have a specific hatred for the ignorance of what communism does to the creative soul. When you have to get permission to create, to innovate, to express and to perform, art is stifled and expression is not a right. That's why it bothers me when I see artists who simply don't get it.

If you ever want an idea as to how communism can destroy creative freedom, you should check out the movie For Love Or Country: the Arturo Sandoval Story starring Andy Garcia. It tells the true story of Arturo Sandoval, arguably the greatest trumpet player ever and how he had no choice but to flee Cuba to be everything he dreamed of being.

It's both an excellent drama all around but as a true story it is also a lesson in how much the world has been denied such a beautiful culture.

New Liberal Attack Ads: the "You Had An Option, Sir" moment of this Election!

I really hope somebody in the Harper camp reads this...

Obviously a lot of us know how the Liberals have released an ad on TV that misattributes a quote made by National Citizens Coalition president David Somerville to Stephen Harper. The Conservatives are of course demanding the Liberals withdraw the ads.

WORST MOVE EVER!!!!

What is the Conservative camp thinking? This is the absolute perfect opportunity to absolutely destroy the Liberals! This IS the, "You had an option, sir" moment of this campaign... and the Conservatives are just going to leave it sitting on the table?!?!

First of all, the Liberals are spending money on these ads. Whatever dollars they have going towards these ads will not be going to other ads.

But secondly and more importantly, they are buying the rope on which they can be hung! There is ample evidence that this quote is an outright lie. All the Conservatives have to do is let this ad play for a few days and then release their own ad that:

1. Shows who the quote is really from and proves that the Liberal ad is an out and out lie.
2. Shows how Ignatieff and the Liberals refused to pull the ad when it was proven to be a lie (you know... they had an option?).
3. Shows to every Canadian just how low the Liberals are willing to go.

Think about it! It is absolutely impossible for that quote to be validated. And so long as the public finds out that the Liberals have been lying to the public in that ad, the Conservatives can paint the entire Liberal campaign with the same brush. If this weakens Liberal support even a little -- and the NDP is starting to draw off Liberal support -- the Conservatives can make their majority and they don't even have to go up in the polls.

I really hope the Conservatives change course in trying to get these ads pull. This could be the perfect check-mate to this whole chess game of a campaign. Right now they are missing a golden opportunity to end this campaign once and for all.

Elections Canada is a disgrace... Marc Mayrand must resign!

I have had enough of the BS in this election.

Everyday I read the inane rantings of people who accuse the Conservatives of nonsense that always proves to be either taken out of context, overblown or an outright fabrication. This has been going on since the Conservatives came to power; faux scandals like Wafergate, body bags, H1N1, door knobs, logos, even the word "NOT".

But the crap that Elections Canada has pulled -- and continues to pull -- is simply disgraceful!

This whole Guelph ballot box fiasco is truly disgusting. It's bad enough that Elections Canada is allowing a non-preauthorized polling station to continue collecting ballots against Elections Canada rules... that's bad enough. But to also have no scrutineers and to have partisan literature present within the polling facility and still allow that polling station to be counted as legitimate and untainted? It's unbelievable!

I have just written the following letter to Elections Canada (I invite you to do the same here) to object over this absolutely ridiculous decision by Elections Canada to ignore its own rules:

It is with great disappointment that I have come aware of the situation taking place in Guelph in respects to the challenged special polling station. It is particularly upsetting that Elections Canada is ignoring it's own mandate and it's own rules in allowing the votes cast at an illegitimate polling station to be included amongst valid votes by citizens respecting the rule of law.

This is not the first time unauthorized polling stations (notably at Universities) have been contested. In the past, polling stations that did not comply with the rules of Election Canada were considered invalid and thus sealed and uncounted.

A poll must be pre-registered and pre-authorized by Elections Canada. If it is not, it is simply a person with a box collecting pieces of paper that resemble ballots. A non-authorized polling station does not have any authenticity in an election. That alone should discount the ballots collected.

Additionally, without scrutineers to ensure the voting process is conducted according to Elections Canada rules, a vote cannot be considered untainted. A polling station might as well be set up in a candidate's office if no scrutineer is present. Scrutineers are the single most important control measure that Canadians have to ensure fair and accurate elections.

Additionally, the fact that campaign literature was present at the voting location -- expressly forbidden by Elections Canada -- further justifies the ballots collected to be nullified. Campaign literature or advertisements within a polling station is a clear violation of the rules of Elections Canada.

It is bad enough that one set of rules is ignored by Elections Canada. But when two or three or more sets of rules are ignored, one might as well dismantle Elections Canada altogether since it clearly does not believe the rules it enacts are of any importance.

I call on the Chief Electoral Officer to either follow the rules and make sure they are being enforced or to release a statement that denotes those rules will no longer be enforced. Selective enforcement of electoral rules is a clear affront to the entire democratic process. I look forward to your response.

It's time that Elections Canada meets its mandate or it tears itself down. Either way, after prosecuting the Conservatives over the In-And-Out BS scandal while the NDP's were actually given permission to do the same... after the media was leaked of Elections Canada's imminent assault on the Conservative Party HQ... and after Marc Mayrand investigated his own freakin' self (!!!!) over the leaks... and now Elections Canada ignoring it's own rules and even showing another clear double-standard, Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand has failed in his mandate for the last time.

Marc Mayrand is a disgrace to Canadian democracy and must resign as Chief Electoral Officer of Canada.

Hypocrisy: Leftie's on Gun Registry VS Leftie's on Prisons

I was recently debating the necessity of the gun registry with a bunch of very left leaning individuals today who were decrying the Tories wanting to dismantle the long-gun registry. Their argument is that the registry helps with regards to violent crimes.

I did some research to back up some of my arguments and came across a great little page on the Statistics Canada website. They have a collection of statistical data concerning gun crime in Canada.

What was really curious was the rate of decline in homicides by rifles and shotguns:

The long gun registry went into effect in 2001. However, if you look at the stats, rifle and shotgun murders were already in a steep decline leading up to the registry being enacted. In fact the drop is far more significant in the years preceding.

And yet the Lefties want us to believe that the registry is important and money should be spent on it even if the rate of decline in long gun murder has slowed down ever since.

Now compare this to the Lefties and their attack on the Harper government's plans to spend more money on prisons. Of course they're using every chance they can to play the US boogeyman card. But their main bone of contention is that crime is decreasing, so why spend more money on prisons?

It's interesting to watch the hypocrisy of saying we should spend more money on long gun registration during a time when long gun murder was already rapidly declining while saying that because the crime rate appears to be going down (though it's not even close to levels from 40 to 50 years ago) spending money on prisons is pointless.

Play With Fire, Get Burned

By now, we are all aware of the leaking of the Auditor General's report on G8/G20 spending. We of course have the blowhards on both sides crying foul.

The lefties are convinced this report is a damning picture of what the Harper government is about and just another scandal proving so. Not that they ever needed proof of this; they've swallowed every faux scandal that has been thrown out since Harper took power, practically all of which proved to be false.

The righties are saying this report is completely worthless. As a draft report, it is not the final findings of the Auditor General and thus cannot be taken at face value. Mind you, even the Auditor General Sheila Fraser herself has cautioned the public against accepting this report and should wait until the real report is presented in Parliament.

Now, this whole brouhaha doesn't change my opinion of who to vote for. The timing and means of this release (along with the AG's warnings) tells me this is at best dirty politics by the Opposition and at worst outrightly criminal. That kind of move just affirms my opinion of Ignatieff as nothing more than an opportunist and Layton as the pompous hypocrite he is. After all, while the Contempt of Parliament finding by the Opposition causing this election is questionable, the releasing of an AG report outside of Parliament is by legislation a reason for a charge of Contempt.

But the truth of the matter is actually much more simple: if you play with fire, you're going to get burned.

Many Canadians -- including a slew of bloggers in the Blogging Tories blogroll -- were unimpressed at the scope of spending for the G8/G20 summit. The largesse was unfathomable and quite simply reckless. If you don't think so, just look at how many Blogging Tories are screaming from their roofs over Michael Ignatieff and Jack Layton's spending promises.

As any true fiscal conservative knows, the bigger the government initiative, the greater chance for waste and/or error. And also the bigger the chance for pork-belly spending. Whether or not this erroneously leaked report -- I won't call it the AG's report since it was not released by and is not being endorsed by her -- turns out to be a true representation of her findings, the simple fact is that this is simply a matter of the chickens coming home to roost.

Maybe Harper should use this as a lesson and take a long look in the mirror asking himself what he really believes in regarding government spending.

But I -- and I'm sure many people who warned about the G8/G20 spending -- also can't help but say... I told you so.

Backwards Logic = Backwards Morality

Honestly, how messed up does your morality have to be to think that taking less away from somebody equates to a handout?

Or how insane does somebody have to be to think that lowering corporate taxes is actually taking money away from somebody else?

Perhaps that explains our "progressive" justice system...

Victim: That man has taken money out of my pocket time and again!

Thief: Your honour, the last time I took money from his pocket I took less than before.

"Progressive" Judge: Then obviously you were handing money out. Case dismissed!