Shades of Galileo

Recently, a second round of emails taken from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia were released online. This release -- dubbed "ClimateGate 2.0" -- is once again revealing that those scientists and politicians pushing an alarmist view of Earth's climate being in danger due to manmade carbon dioxide emissions have engaged in deception, distortion, intimidation and even criminal activities as pertains to Freedom of Information legislation.

As bad as the revelation has been, the response by those whose careers and financial interests are dependent upon such alarmist dogma has been draconian.

Donna Laframboise who hosts the excellent climate change skeptic blog No Frakking Consensus and is the author of The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken For The World's Top Climate Expert recently reported on how fellow blogger Roger Tattersall -- who runs Tallbloke's Talkshop -- was recently subjugated to officially sanctioned persecution.

Tallbloke just happened to be one of the first people to report and link to the latest batch of released emails. Because of it, last week the police came to his home and seized both his computers and router and even attempted to coerce access to his blog. You can read more about it via a National Post article authored by Ms. Laframboise: Climate Crackdown.

And Tallbloke was not the only person being targeted. As it turns out, the U.S. Justice Department had sent a formal request to blogging company WordPress to have all communications and records ("evidence" as they put it) for Tallbloke as well as Jeff ID at the Air Vent (http://NOconsensus.wordpress.com) as well as noted Canadian mathematician -- and co-destroyer of Michael Mann's hockey stick -- Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit blog.

This is more than a little disturbing. The original ClimateGate emails clearly revealed criminal breaches of Access to Information laws on both sides of the ocean. Did the U.S. Justice Department send the police out to seize the computers of those involved? No. Did they send any notice to the University of East Anglia or Penn State (Michael Mann's employer) to have their data files and emails frozen as "evidence" of a crime? No.

The only action taken in response to the original ClimateGate release were complete whitewashes (greenwashes as it were) by both UK officials who barely lifted a finger in their examinations and Penn State who didn't even depose key figures who would have revealed a great deal about what was really going on.

And yet average citizen bloggers who simply redirected readers to information from another source that was out on the internet are being treated as criminals. Why? Because they did the one thing that is not to be tolerated when dealing with climate change alarmism: they were skeptics.

It just goes to show, one cannot question the supposed science nor the stances of the religious leaders of the day without facing totalitarian authority.

Science is the child of skepticism.

When skeptics are treated as heretics, you are no longer dealing with science. You are dealing with the blind faith of a religion.

NDP math for beginners!

Much has been made over the NDP blasting the PM's handling of the first nations community of Attawapiskat. Some $90,000,000.00 has been spent on this community and that's just the amount since the Conservatives have been in office.

As PM Stephen Harper pointed out, when you divide that $90,000,000.00 by the 1,800 people within the community, you end up with each man, woman and child getting about $50,000.00 each.

Splitting hairs as they always do, the NDP say that there is a $4,500,000.00 deficit and when you break it down the total is either $5,000.00 or $6,000.00 or $6,500.00 per person. Well... they couldn't seem to decide on one number. So three figures are better than one.

However, if we take them at their word (like the sheep do) that there is a $4,500,000.00 deficit, over 5 years that would be $22,500,000.00 in total.

When you subtract that from the $90,000,000.00 spent you end up with $67,500,000.00 left.

Divide that by 5 years and you have $13,500,000.00 per year.

Divide that by the 1,800 people in the community and you have $7,500.00 per person / per year.

Which basically means that the margin of error on the NDP's figures is somewhere between 15% (at the $6,500.00 amount) and 50% (at the $5,000.00 amount).

Utterly spectacular math skills they've got going there. And they wonder why the clear majority of the country won't let their grubby hands anywhere near the country's finances.

A little perspective on Canada's homicide rate...

A friend of mine posted an article today in the Globe & Mail discussing new statistical data indicating that Canada's homicide rate is down to its lowest levels in 44 years. She being one opposing the Conservatives used this information to debase the Conservatives law and order agenda specifically as it relates to prisons.

Here's how I look at it.

The peak murder rate over the last 44 years was in 1975 when Canada was at 3.03 murders per 100,000 people. Today the rate is at 1.3 murders per 100,000 people.

Dropping roughly 57 percent seems like a big deal, enough that it might call into question the need for more prisons today right? Well, not really.

If you look at statistical data on violent crime, 44 years ago there were approximately 350 incidents of violent crime per 100,000 people. That peaked with a spike around 1992 to roughly 1,100 incidents per 100,000. Today, the rate is approximately 900 incidents per 100,000.

With those numbers in hand you can determine that homicide accounted for 0.37% of all violent crime in 1967 and 0.6% at its 1970's peak. Today it accounts for 0.17% of all violent crimes.

So while it may seem like there's a huge drop in homicide rates, as a percentage of all violent crimes it amounted to a decrease of 0.43% from the peak rate and 0.2% from where it was 44 years ago.

Hardly seems impressive, doesn't it?

If the media and the left want to talk about crime over the last 44 years, I'm all for it. Our violent crime rate today is 260% of what it was 44 years ago. Doesn't sound like crime is under control when you put it that way, does it?

*** Update ***

A comment by BlameCrash actually makes a very interesting point. These numbers are representative of a per 100,000 people in Canada. But that doesn't take into account the growing population.

The population was 20 million in 1966, 22 million in 1976 and is presently 33.7 million. If one were to assume the percentage convicted remained the same, that would mean that the prison population today would actually be 4 times that of what it was in the 1960's.

Yet, when one looks at incarceration rates, this is not the case. Alarmingly, it is quite the opposite!

In fact, in 1966 the total number of adults incarcerated was twice the number of incidents of violent crime. By the 1990's the numbers were exactly the same. So, while violent crime had been increasing, the number sent to prison for violent offences as a percent of all convictions would have actually had to decrease significantly.

Do we need any further proof that violent offences have been treated with increasing leniency?

Thieves preying on "poor" Wall Street protestors

The New York Post had an interesting article posted yesterday about how thieves had been preying on the Occupy Wall Street protestors.

I feel sorry for anybody that has been robbed. But the first few paragraphs of the article were particularly enlightening.

Occupy Wall Street protesters said yesterday that packs of brazen crooks within their ranks have been robbing their fellow demonstrators blind, making off with pricey cameras, phones and laptops -- and even a hefty bundle of donated cash and food.

“Stealing is our biggest problem at the moment,” said Nan Terrie, 18, a kitchen and legal-team volunteer from Fort Lauderdale.

“I had my Mac stolen -- that was like $5,500."

Hmm... pricey cameras, phones and a $5,500 Apple laptop. I have an Apple laptop. I can't afford one that runs $5,500 though.

I guess I need to be part of the 1 percent of the 99 percent of the... whatever...

A Legend Is Gone... adieu Mr. Jobs.

There are some people who are great for one reason or another. They invent something fantastic. They create works of beauty. They contribute to the world and change it in one way or another for the better.

But what do we say about somebody who changed everything we do?

There are very few people like that. Steve Jobs, who passed away today at the far too young age of 56, was one of those few.

If one is to look around at the world today, there is almost nothing that hasn't been touched by what he put in motion. In the world of personal computers, Jobs has been at the forefront of technology since the earliest days.

The Apple and Apple II were some of the earliest and most successful mass-market computers to hit the marketplace. Steve Jobs is largely credited with the adoption of multiple fonts including proportionally spaced fonts. The Macintosh was the first commercially viable computer to hit the market that featured both a graphical user interface (GUI) and a mouse and is largely credited with having pushed both features to the forefront of home computing.

(And before anybody gets into the debate about Microsoft ripping off Apple, the truth is that Apple's wasn't the first GUI out there and the original Microsoft team worked with Apple. Apple however was the first to market and first to make a viable case for GUI's in the personal computing world. That said, Windows has been playing catch up with Apple ever since.)

When he was forced out of Apple he created NeXT and bought out a tiny animation studio called Pixar. It is largely due to his visionary ideals that Pixar is what it is today. And when he came back to Apple as it floundered in the marketplace creeping towards almost certain death, he turned it all around.

As the iMac shows, he saw the obsolescence of disk drives several years before the competition did. And the iMac paved the way for single component home computers going from the colourful little dome-shaped devices, to the flatscreen on a half-basketball device to the all in one monitor and computer.

His love for music saw the rise of the iPod which revolutionized portable music players. The iTunes store changed how music is sold in a simple way that even record companies came to appreciate.

Then there was the iPhone. While the Blackberry and Palm were well established, the iPhone with it's fully touch screen functionality and integration with music playback turned the smartphone market on its head. It is now in regular competition with Google's Android phone market for the top spot.

And of course we have the iPad. Tablet PC's when introduced were largely considered as strange computers for tech geeks and nobody else. Leave it to Apple to come up with a device so user-friendly and intuitive with complete cross-relation to its iPod and iPhone technologies as to become an instant hit. And while many other tablets have come to market (and some have already gone) the iPad is still the market leader.

I have used Apple products almost exclusively (school and work account for the "almost" part) for the past seventeen years. As a computer geek who has ripped apart and built PC's and has worked with every version of Windows since Windows 3 was released, my adoration for Mac's OS has grown stronger with every buggy version of Windoze.

I use my MacBook at work because it is the only thing fast and intuitive enough in its design to keep up with how I think. The ability to jump between screens and interact on multiple levels at the same time is wonderful. The instantaneous Finder and the Quicklook preview features makes my work life a breeze.

I'm a musician. I compose, record, mix and produce my band's music on Macs. There really is no comparison when comparing Windows music software to the same software on a Mac. The performance difference is undeniable.

I'm a writer. I've written several screenplays on my Mac.

I use my MacBook to watch movies while traveling. I use my iPod everyday as I commute to work.

I have been on the verge of getting my first smartphone for the past few months. I was waiting until this month as I knew the next version of the iPhone was going to be available. And when I see what Apple's Siri software does, acting as a virtual assistant that runs on voice command doing everything you want it to do in calling, texting and scheduling, I honestly can't wait.

I love the iPad and can see so many uses in my future. The compatibility between it and several music applications I use is perfect. It's ability as an e-reader and video playback device is fantastic.

And I have to say, Pixar has created some of my favourite films over the past twenty years.

When I look over my life and how Steve Jobs has played a part in almost everything I do, it is almost unfathomable.

How do you measure that?

He was a leader. He was an innovator. He was a pioneer. He was brave in the face of being cast out of his own company. He persisted and created other great things. He was vindicated in being brought back to run his own company.

He had a hand in changing the experience of every computer user in the world regardless of the operating system. He changed the world of music.

I am sad to see Steve Jobs go. There will never be another person quite like him.

Creative Accounting and the Toronto Budget

Previously, I mentioned the abysmal track record of David Miller who left Toronto's debt and annual budget 50 percent higher only seven years after he arrived. As such, it isn't very difficult to understand how every year he would have posted larger and larger budget shortfalls.

The budget before David Miller took office had a projected shortfall of $128.9 million. David Miller's first budget in 2004 had a project shortfall of $344 million. In 2005, it rose to $400 million. In 2006, $532 million. In 2007, $575 million. In 2008, $415 million. And in 2009, $679 million.

Notice how most of the time the shortfall got higher and higher and never once got into the arena of a surplus? Even after the introduction of the Vehicle Registration and Land Transfer Taxes as well as a 3% property tax hike, the 2009 budget deficit continued to bloom.

And yet in 2010, shortly before his departure, David Miller was able to pull off a magic trick of going from continuous and at times record deficits into a $250 million surplus. He even found an extra $100 million in a sock drawer in City Hall just before he left office.

It's a miracle!

Present Mayor Rob Ford, having already toasted the Vehicle Registration and Land Transfer taxes, is projecting a $774 million budget shortfall for 2011. Of course, Ford opponents are up in arms suggesting he has been lying about the "gravy train" spending down at City Hall and that he somehow has created a $1 billion turnaround in Toronto's financial situation.

Now, I don't believe government budgets. I'm of the mindset that budgets are one part accounting and three parts political theatre and always assume that whoever is in power is going to be playing creative accounting to make their opponents look bad and themselves look good. But looking at the numbers, one very interesting thing popped into my mind...

It's really hard to believe that with no major spending cuts Miller could push Toronto's financials $1 billion upwards over the course of one year during the worst recession since the Great Depression. It's equally hard to believe that having actually decreased spending Rob Ford could push Toronto's financials $1 billion downwards even with ridding Toronto of two of David Miller's tax grabs.

However, if the shortfall in 2009 was $680 million and let's say hypothetically that nothing actually did change going into 2010's budget and the surplus was creative accounting. And let's also say hypothetically that Miller honestly did find $100 million.

Using 2009's numbers that would put the budget shortfall at $580 million. That's roughly $200 million less than this year's projected shortfall. Coincidentally, $200 million is precisely what was taken out of city revenues with Rob Ford's cancellation of the vehicle registration and land transfer taxes.

It's almost like David Miller's last budget shortfall never did turn into a surplus and this year's increased shortfall was entirely because of the Vehicle Registration and Land Transfer Tax elimination.

But I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

Anti floor-crossing bill and the Titanic's deck chairs

There has been some talk recently about NDP MP Peter Stoffer's attempts to pass a bill that would prevent MP's from leaving one party to join another party in the House of Commons... commonly referred to as floor-crossing. It is his and many other people's belief that if a person is elected under the banner of one party, for them to leave that party and join another is a betrayal of the constituents who elected that MP.

Nonsense.

The problem is not in whether a person leaves one party and joins another. The problem is with the whole concept of parties in general.

Citizens are voting for parties. Not for ideas. Not for MP's who live in the area and understand both the needs and how to best represent the interests of the constituents. They are voting for parties.

The recent election of countless placeholder NDP MP's in Quebec is indicative of the real problem here. How is it possible that people who have never set foot in an area can become the functional leader of that area?

The fact that the focus is on the party and not on the individual best suited to represent the local constituents is a betrayal of the whole concept of local representation in government. Local constituents are no longer voting for local representation. They are voting largely for the image and rhetoric and not for needs and ideas.

I have no sympathy for this bill because it is nothing but rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Party focused systems of government are the problem, not whether a person decides that the best interests for their constituents lies in voting or even sitting with the government.

If he or anybody else has a problem with MP's deciding that it is better to be part of the government who makes decisions affecting their local constituency rather than part of a party on the sidelines, then the solution is simple. Don't ban floor-crossing. Ban the concept of parties. That would take care of two birds with one stone.

No more placeholder candidates.

No more floor-crossing.

Just a return to the real purpose of local representation.

Follow Up: Jack makes good

As a follow up to my previous post calling Jack Layton out on his stance on civility in the House of Commons and the episode of former Senate page Brigitte DePape's disrespect to the Governor General, the House of Commons and Parliament in general...

...I have to commend him on doing what none of my left-wing friends are doing and stating that what she did was in fact wrong.

I guess he realized the gulf that would exist between a call for civility and keeping silent after the first shot taken is from his side of the political spectrum. Of course, while nobody is acting out, it's just as expected seeing how the smugness and insincerity hasn't taken a bow yet.

But it's a start.

I guess it helps when the natural egotist party isn't the one taking the lead and guiding the House of Commons' civility into a nosedive on the first chance to speak.

Calling Out Jack Layton On Civility

So, Jack... you're the one who was so fired up about civility in this session of Parliament. Not that you've really kept your word so far.

I have yet to hear word one from you about Brigette DePape, the young Senate page who disrupted the Governor General during the throne speech with a dramatic and churlish demonstration.

It doesn't surprise me that the media seems to be going out of its way to avoid having to ask you your opinion on this. It's much easier for them to build this unprofessional imbecile up as some martyr of civil disobedience without exposing her to the yardstick that you set for Parliament.

But if you're so dedicated to transforming Parliament into a place where the people charged by Canadians to keep the wheels of government turning productively and politely, let's hear what you have to say about one of those people turning her back on her responsibilities and in fact disrespecting the institution and mechanisms (the throne speech) of Parliament.

The definition of civility is quite clear. And this page certainly was neither courteous nor polite.

So let's hear it.

We'll wait.

Globe & Mail Engages In A Blistering Attack

Let's get this straight.

According to the Globe & Mail, the Conservative Party is testing the NDP's pledge to seek more civility and respect between members of Parliament" by launching a "blistering attack" on the NDP.

What was that blistering attack? International Trade Minister Ed Fast said that the policies the NDP have said they want to put forward would be bad for business.

Now, let's compare.

Mr. Fast called Jack Layton's party “reflexively and ideologically anti-trade,” accusing it of acting contrary to the interests of “hard-working Canadians."

So, according to the Globe & Mail this is what one could consider to be a "blistering attack". Never mind that article author Steven Chase was reduced to cutting and pasting one or two word fragments as quotes to make his point that this was some kind of "blistering attack".

Now, let's compare that to what Jack Layton said a couple of days ago about the Harper Government's response to the flooding in Quebec:

"His policy is to not help people. He said he's not there to do the cleanup or something to that effect. That is an attitude that does not respect the population."

And...

"And the idea that they don't want to interfere with the private sector . what is this? You want to promote the private sector to make money off the misery of people.

"What kind of an attitude is that? Is that the beginning of the attitude we're going to see on the privatization of health care and the privatization of all kinds of things which should be done by the government?

And those were just straight up, full sentence quotes of Jack Layton. Didn't even have to cut it down to one or two word fragments to frame what he said.

Geez... I don't know. I can't figure out which is more of a "blistering attack". Mind you it's not like we expect such incivility from Mr. Layton, the least civil MP in the House of Commons.

There really is only one clear element to this entire brouhaha involved in a blistering attack.

That would be the editorial staff of the Globe & Mail.

Of Witnesses and Weakness

One week ago, the trial of the suspected murderers of Jordan Manners -- a grade 9 student shot to death in the halls of C.W. Jeffery's Collegiate in Toronto -- concluded with a verdict of not-guilty. The trial really hung on the testimony of two witnesses, one of whom retracted testimony and another that changed their testimony significantly.

In this case, the witnesses were too scared to testify.

This week, the SIU concluded it's investigation into the beating of Dorian Barton, a protestor at last year's G20 summit. The SIU determined there was not enough evidence to lay charges against the police officer accused of the beating even though a photographer witnessed the beating, identified the officer and provided a photo of the officer.

The police no doubt knew which officers were assigned what areas. Process of elimination alone would have been enough to figure out this bully with a badge. Even with all of this, none of the officers in the vicinity of the beating would identify the accused. Not even the roommate of this officer during the summit.

In this case, the police are too scared to testify.

Two crimes. Same problem. Same results: justice denied.

How can we as a society expect citizen witnesses to face their fear, stand up and testify against criminals if the police themselves won't? How can the police expect cooperation in the prosecution of criminals if they themselves will not cooperate? Do they really expect that citizens will bend over backwards -- such as freely providing DNA samples -- when the police give them every reason not to be trusted?

This is a sad, sad week for Canadian justice. I am a big supporter of our police officers having a cousin who is a member of the Ontario Provincial Police. But I expect more of them than this, certainly more than citizens who live in an area with one of the highest crime rates in the entire country. It is a tragic statement on our society when even the police are actively involved in the denial of justice.

Cowards.

On the Decorum of the House of Commons

Seeing as we are only one week and one day away from the start of the next session of Parliament, I thought I would take the time to discuss the importance of decorum in the House of Commons.

Many people are turned off by MP's turning sessions of Parliament into mudslinging contests. Of course, this is nothing new. However, we have heard time and again how it is the Conservatives who have supposedly dragged down decorum in the House of Commons.

Out of interest, I thought I would go to the Government of Canada's Hansard to see exactly how quickly the decorum of the House of Commons started to go downhill and who got the ball rolling. The first day of the session was Monday, April 3rd 2006 which basically boiled down to everybody congratulating each other and the choosing of the Speaker of the House.

The second day -- Tuesday, April 4th -- was the first day getting down to business. The opening of Parliament and Oaths of Office were fairly standard. Then came the Speech from the Throne which outlined the government's agenda and the address in reply. All very straightforward.

But the question remains... at what point did decorum break down? Was it halfway through the question period? Three quarters of the way?

Try the very first question by a member of the Opposition!

And of course it was courtesy of everybody's favourite, the member of Mississauga South, Mr. Paul Szabo wherein he brings up the proposed cut to the GST calling it "unholy".

I'm wondering if there are any Liberals out there who might be able to explain the word "unholy" as being procedural or technical.

So, the next time anybody says that it is the Conservative Party of Canada that lowered the decorum of the House of Commons when it took office, kindly point out that the party who took the first shot was the Liberal Party and the man who pulled the trigger was Paul Szabo on the very first question.

Oh, how we'll miss him.

David Mamet: A Hollywood Icon Gone Conservative

I've been a fan of David Mamet for quite some time. His stage and screenplays are nothing short of iconic and have been celebrated time and time again. If you're unfamiliar with his work, he wrote the plays The Lakeboat, American Buffalo, Glengarry Glen Ross as well as films such as The Untouchables, Wag the Dog, The Edge and Ronin amongst countless others. Needless to say, the man is incredibly talented, skilled and intelligent.

Having grown up, studied with and been surrounded by the arts community, he spent much of his life as a left-wing liberal criticizing capitalist America. However, this view never really shone through in his works which focused more on the tragic nature of human interactions. Over the past decade he slowly came to realize that what he and his liberal friends said and what they lived were quite often two different things.

While he criticized capitalism and American society, he cherished and held tight to both aspects of his home. He even noticed this tendency amongst the far left-wing people he had long admired. It was this contradictory nature that led him to dub himself a "Brain Dead Liberal". In 2008, he even wrote an op-ed for The Village Voice titled David Mamet: Why I Am No Longer A 'Brain-Dead Liberal'. It is certainly worth a read.

In June, Mamet is set to release a new book titled The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture. And in the latest edition of the Weekly Standard there is a very interesting article called Converting Mamet that outlines Mamet's transformation, his skewering of the education system as a thought destroying clone machine and his views on the hypocrisy of liberals who cry foul at a system that they cling to harder than anyone.

The book is supposedly an exploration of Mamet's turning point from the brain dead liberal to a conservative who understands the strengths and opportunity that capitalist Western civilization offers anyone fortunate enough to live in such a system. It's always nice to witness when such an influential writer and a Hollywood icon finally sees through the nonsensical demonization of conservative politics and finds a place for himself.

From the makers of Scam Wow!

Definitely the solution to global warming / climate change / climate disruption / insert-next-ill-conceived-and-deceptive-terminology-here.

* Viewer Discretion is Advised *

Dispelling the Myth of the 60% Against Harper

We've heard it before. It's nothing new. Supporters of the NDP and the also-ran parties are once again claiming that, while the Conservatives achieved a majority, a clear majority of 60 percent of Canadians voted against the Conservatives.

Mindless, uneducated nonsense.

The only way to claim that the majority were voting against the Conservatives is if there was a virtual guarantee that either the Conservatives, a) could not have polled higher than they did on election day, or b) could in no way have hit 50 percent of the vote.

Running up to the election, polls had the Conservatives as high as 43 percent or as low as 36 percent with the Conservatives most of the time hovering in the 39 percent region.

However, Compass appears to be one of the few companies that asked the all-important question that the "Anything But Conservative" equation absolutely depends upon: voter's second intentions.

And that is a telling story indeed.

According to the real world numbers, the Conservatives were the second choice for 11 percent of the population. So, the idea that the majority of voters were voting against the Harper Conservatives has no basis in reality.

In fact, if the Conservatives kept their steady base of 39 percent and everybody who would have voted for the Conservatives with their second choice in fact did vote for their second choice, the Conservatives would have unquestionably cracked the majority marker.

But I'm not arguing against reality the way that the whining, sore-losers are. The reality is that 39 percent of the population voted for the Conservatives. And knowing that the Conservatives were the second choice of enough voters to put them into absolute majority territory, suggesting that 60 percent of Canadians voted against the Conservatives only holds true if you also say that:

1. 69% of voters voted against the NDP
2. 81% of voters voted against the Liberals
3. 94% of voters voted against the Bloc
4. 96% of voters voted against the Green Party

Now, can we put this sore-loser nonsense to bed once and for all?

** UPDATE **

And one other point I wanted to mention. The idea of an "Anything But Conservative" majority has one other major detractor. We already know how much support Canadians had in the past with an "Anything But Conservative" situation. And only 4 out of 10 Canadians supported it.

Anything? Sorry, but it looks like that 60 percent number is actually the opposite: 60 percent of Canadians are against "ANYTHING But Conservative".

** SECOND UPDATE **

In the comments, Oxygentax linked his list of significant decisions/programs made by parties who obtained a majority of the house without achieving a majority of the votes. Considering the snail's pace of significant government decisions/programs one sees in minority governments (such as the past 5 years) I imagine that you could easily count a good two-thirds of that list as gone. (h/t to Oxygentax)

And on a related note, imagine how exaggerated that kind of problem would be in a multi-party proportional representation system. Actually, you don't even have to imagine...

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!

Destroying the Illusion of Wealth Redistribution

Saw this video through the NewsBusters.org Facebook page. Absolutely brilliant outline of why wealth redistribution does not work.

19 point lead today... gone tomorrow

A lot of folks on the Blogging Tories are of course ecstatic about the prospect that the Conservatives are polling 43%, a whopping 19 points ahead of the Liberals. This puts the Conservatives into majority territory.

But let's not forget what happens every single time we see one of these polls.

Next week another poll will come out dropping the Conservatives down to 37 to 38% and the media will say the Conservatives must have lost the faith of the Canadian public. I'm sure Frank Graves over at Ekos is doing his own completely unbiased polling which will place the Liberals much higher and the Conservatives much lower.

After all, he has to give Jane Taber something to drool over when she interviews him next.

So, let's not get too hasty here. The election hasn't been called yet and there's a lot of ink to be spilled / pixels to be cycled before a vote even takes place. I certainly won't hide my preference of a Conservative majority government. And I think most Canadians are going to consider voting for the Conservatives if only to end the bothersome trips to the polling booth that the Opposition never seems to tire of.

Pat Martin: The MP Who'd Ignore You

It was really interesting to watch the videos that Hunter at Climbing Out of the Dark assembled showing the disgraceful antics of the Opposition members last week during the witch hunt... er... Commons Committee pretending to investigate whether Bev Oda attempted to mislead Parliament. Discussions of Bev Oda's actions has become completely nauseating; during the committee NDP MP Pat Martin stated several times that how she operates is a "terrible way to conduct business."

Unfortunately for him, in accusing her he displayed how he chooses to deal with requests he doesn't like: he ignores them.

If you go to Hunter's video titled NDP MP Pat Martin Jumps The Shark and skip over to 7:25 you'll hear him describe what he would rather she have done stating, "Why didn't you just not sign it... you could have avoided all this controversy by letting it die... letting it gather dust... never deal with the damn thing."

Well, isn't that an interesting insight into the mind of Pat Martin?

I wonder what his constituents would say if they were to find out that when Pat Martin doesn't want to deal with requests of his office -- what for actual ministers is official government business -- he feels it acceptable to just ignore them?

His ridiculous and despicable antics aside, if you compare the methodology that Bev Oda employed in this situation -- a methodology that the Tories have shown to be standard practice -- to Pat Martin's preference of just ignoring requests made of the government, clearly Pat Martin is the one displaying a complete lack of professionalism.

He sure raised a stink in the committee about MP's not having the option of being silent or as he put it pleading the fifth (note to Mr. Martin: Canada doesn't have a fifth amendment). And yet he feels it acceptable for MP's to ignore requests?

If this is how the NDP would run government, thank God they never will.

Iffy doesn't get it either

So, Michael Ignatieff has jumped into the fray over Justin Trudeau's gap in judgement having complained over honour killings and other cultural violence against women being called 'barbaric'. And what does Iffy say?

"There's no such thing as an honour killing..."

Really Iffy? No such thing?

I wonder what the Liberals would say if somebody came saying something like... oh, I don't know... there's no such thing as a hate crime?

I imagine if the Conservative Party were to say something like this, they would be crucified by the media for ignoring violence against women. I don't anticipate the Liberals facing as much scrutiny over diminishing the reality of cultural violence against women.

Justin Trudeau says he was employing "responsible neutrality" in his comments. Sorry, Justin, but I have a hard time being neutral in the face of women being killed by their fathers or brothers over not being subservient to their wishes... or women facing genital mutilation... or women being forced into marriage.

And not making it perfectly clear to new Canadians how completely unacceptable such behaviour is is not responsible in any way.

Libya, with all your wisdom... teach us how to treat human beings

To them, Rwanda and Darfur was just a dream.

They condemn Israel for targeting vile murderers who lob rockets indiscriminately into schoolyards.

They expect countries like Iran to cease nuclear programs and send their demands on notes dotted with hearts.

But Libya? Here's a country that blows up civilian gathering places in Germany. They conspire to blow up civilian aircraft over Scotland. They shoot their own citizens when the citizens demand freedom.

And yet the United Nations was just a hop, skip and a jump (translation: two weeks) away from praising Libya and sending accolades for "the country’s commitment to upholding human rights on the ground.”

Is it just me or does it make more sense to believe the world is flat than believe the UN is anything but a complete and utter joke that has become completely irrelevant to modern times?

Their stances in the face of genocide, ethnic cleansing, human rights violations, fraud to direct environmental policy, nuclear proliferation... is there nothing this organization can't get wrong?

When a machine has broken down so drastically, when a building is rotting to the foundation, when a bridge from where we are to where we want to be is buckling and rattling at every rivet, it's time to face the truth: it makes more sense to tear down and rebuild than to continue throwing up patchwork repairs, adding weight to a structure that has no more stability than a house of cards.

MSNBC Wrong to Can Olbermann

Back in November, MSNBC suspended its mouthpiece in general Keith Olbermann for having donated funds to the Democrats. And as of last week, he abruptly "parted ways" with the broadcaster after nearly 8 years of his vitriolic hate.

My opinion: MSNBC was wrong.

Now, don't get me wrong. I can't stand Olbermann. Here's a guy who tilts the scales so far to the left that anybody on the right ends up at the top point of 90-degree angle. He has been given a pass on manipulating the truth, being completely unjust in his reporting of the news and spewing some of the most hate-filled, vitriolic venom I've ever heard.

But he has every right to donate to whomever the hades he wants!

Isn't it the right of free citizens to have our opinions represented in the political process? Isn't it the right of free market capitalists (I know, he hardly counts) to spend our money on anything we want?

(*note: those were rhetorical questions in case you thought there was another answer)

I think that MSNBC has done itself a great disservice on the reason for forcing Olbermann out; whether he was fired or he quit we'll never really know. They had every right to fire him for being unprofessional as a reporter. They had every right to fire him for manipulating the truth and painting innocent people (i.e. the Tea Party) as racists or complicit in the Tucson shootings.

But firing somebody because they are exercising their democratic and free capitalist rights? Talk about a pathetic excuse.

Just when you though MSNBC couldn't prove itself to be any more screwed up... they surprise you yet again.