It's been almost a year since I wrote here. At times I feel guilty about that, but I haven't had a lot to say. Watching what's happened in Canada and the world for the last nine months or so just saddens me. It doesn't much surprise me, but it does sadden me.
But that's not what I'm going to write about. I'm going to write about the movie I just finished watching.
It was the worst movie I have ever seen.
I'm so glad I didn't spend money on it.
I feel ashamed to have watched it. My brother, who watched the last half hour with me, is now physically ill. In his own words, he watched so much shit that he developed indigestion.
Transformers: Dark Side of the Moon, is utterly, wholly and in every way a terrible film. I did not think it was possible to make a worse movie than Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (or whatever it was). Michael Bay should be dragged out into the street, wherever he is, and shot twice in the head.
After which, we should collect up EVERY copy of his films. All of them. Every iota of his work. We should take his corpse and all of those movies and commercials and everything else and toss them into the reactor in Fukushima before we cover it all over with lead and concrete for the next few centuries.
Other people have explained that Michael Bay is incapable of telling a story. I agree. I can't help but wonder if Michael Bay is capable of coherent thought. Has anyone held an actual conversation with him, or does he just spew cliches and sound bites of horrible dialogue?
The plot, what there was of it, was a jumbled, muddled mess. I can't imagine that there was an actual script, given the ridiculous shit that was spewing from the actors mouths. My personal theory is that Bay simply masturbates onto a storyboard and then goes on to film whatever he sees there. It's the only way to explain some of the ridiculous bullshit that ends up on the screen.
Physics? Bin it. Logic? Nope. Reason? Out the window with the extra who didn't hang on while the building was falling over for what felt like twenty gods bedamned minutes. Autobots? No, they don't really feature. They wander in, speak a few lines, blow some shit up and then they're gone again for ten or fifteen minutes (or more).
Michael Bay has made a movie trilogy about robots... and THE ROBOTS DO NOT HEADLINE A SINGLE FILM! They hardly even qualify as characters, though to be fair none of the human characters truly qualify as characters. They're cardboard cutouts with a handful of traits assigned to make them seem more than two dimensional.
Instead we are treated to Shia LeBoeuf, who is easily an actor of the caliber of that red shirt who got eaten by the Denebian Slime Devil in that one episode of Star Trek. He's a fantastic actor, truly, with a range from grumpy to angry to screaming and back to grumpy again.
But when I go to see a movie about Robots fighting Robots, a C-list actor who lucked into A-list credentials isn't what I'm looking for. Hollywood nepotism, oh the joys it holds for us.
I am searching for something else I can say, but all I keep coming back to is my disorganised fury at the wreck of a film I just witnessed. From Leonard Nimoy, who played Evil Robot Spock, right down to the cliche Star Trek quotes; to John Turturro, who seems bound and determined to be Al Pacino but simply doesn't have the presence or the charisma to pull it off; to the assortment of Ethnic stereotypes that make up the Autobot ranks. Or the fact that, while equipped with cannon, blasters and missiles, most of the Transformers still seem to prefer swords, axes, buzz saws and bare hands when fighting. None of it was good. The movie is truly horrible, both as a whole and in every single part. As bad as movies get.
And then there was the female lead. No, not Intelligence Bitch (who was both, and who seemed devoid of any other traits than Spy and Bitchy), the other one. The blonde mouthbreathing underwear model who looks for all the world like she just walked out of the intensive care ward.
Really. Those who have seen the movie can vouch for me on this - every time you see her, she looks as though she's been hit between the eyes with a hammer. I don't know her, so I make no judgement, but it's not an attractive look. It leaves me wanting to wrap a blanket around her and call an ambulance. Whether it's shell shock from witnessing Michael Bay's directing or just a quick trepanning during the casting session I have no idea, but I truly do believe the poor woman is in need of medical attention.
Ugh. I feel dirty. I love the Transformers. I can deliver long winded stories about them, treatises on Energon and The Matrix of Leadership and why Hound should have had the spotlight instead of Bumblebee. I remember when Ratbat was in charge of the Decepticons, and I still cry when Optimus Prime dies in Transformers: The Movie (the 1980's one, which was animated by hand as God intended). This abortion is not even in the same world as the Transformers of my youth, and I speak not in dizzy nostalgia, I watched Grimlock kick Unicron just last week.
I have seen bad movies. We all have. Some bad movies are, secretly, in our heart of hearts, good. Ones that we treasure and trot out now and then, to savour the badness. Guilty pleasures.
Rest assured, Transformers 3: Dark Day for Cinema is NOT one of those films. This is the other kind of bad. The kind of bad that will leave you feeling nauseous and angry. The kind of bad that ends marriages. The kind of bad that sees you leaving your child in the woods on the way home from the theatre and telling your spouse they were a lost cause anyways.
I could not conceive of a movie this bad before. I saw it and I still cannot encompass how bad it truly was.
If you haven't seen it, steer clear. If you have seen it, I know your pain.
If you have seen it, and you enjoyed it somehow? I don't know... I can try to forgive you, but I think leaving you in the woods for the coyotes might still be for the best.
Showing posts with label Ranting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ranting. Show all posts
Wednesday, 1 February 2012
Thursday, 19 May 2011
Colour me shocked: Harper & Senate Appointments.
What. A. Surprise.
Scarcely any time at all has passed and lo and behold, our all-powerful, well-coiffed Prime Minister has decided that he will go ahead and make some appointments to the Senate after all.
Rather than wait and begin a process to make the Senate more democratic, Stephen Harper has decided to appoint a trio of Senators from the ranks of Conservative candidates who lost their ridings. I suppose there had to be a use for all those failed candidates, and after all two of them are previous Senators.
Look forward to more of this in the next five years. There are a LOT of Senate retirements scheduled before the next election: twenty five, to be precise. The Conservative majority in the Senate is going to last a long, long time.
Add in the three Supreme Court appointments that our right honourable Hagfish-with-a-Haircut will be making over the summer and Canada is going to have a very different political landscape by the time the next election rolls around.
I'm really not certain what we can do to fight this? A legal omnibus bill chock full of nasty little goodies like Internet Lawful Access (1984 is 2011?) will just be the beginning. Op-eds in favour of healthcare privatization are already being published, just to prepare the ground for an eventual assault on our hard-won universal medical programs.
Is there going to be anything left of my country by the time the Conservatives come up for reelection? Or will Harper and his fascist little gang have carved out the heart and soul of my nation?
(Sources with far more details than my own rant. They do the heavy lifting so we don't have to, bless their hearts: CBC News, The Sixth Estate)
Scarcely any time at all has passed and lo and behold, our all-powerful, well-coiffed Prime Minister has decided that he will go ahead and make some appointments to the Senate after all.
Rather than wait and begin a process to make the Senate more democratic, Stephen Harper has decided to appoint a trio of Senators from the ranks of Conservative candidates who lost their ridings. I suppose there had to be a use for all those failed candidates, and after all two of them are previous Senators.
Look forward to more of this in the next five years. There are a LOT of Senate retirements scheduled before the next election: twenty five, to be precise. The Conservative majority in the Senate is going to last a long, long time.
Add in the three Supreme Court appointments that our right honourable Hagfish-with-a-Haircut will be making over the summer and Canada is going to have a very different political landscape by the time the next election rolls around.
I'm really not certain what we can do to fight this? A legal omnibus bill chock full of nasty little goodies like Internet Lawful Access (1984 is 2011?) will just be the beginning. Op-eds in favour of healthcare privatization are already being published, just to prepare the ground for an eventual assault on our hard-won universal medical programs.
Is there going to be anything left of my country by the time the Conservatives come up for reelection? Or will Harper and his fascist little gang have carved out the heart and soul of my nation?
(Sources with far more details than my own rant. They do the heavy lifting so we don't have to, bless their hearts: CBC News, The Sixth Estate)
Wednesday, 11 May 2011
On the Long Gun Registry and Gun Control in general
It is the intent of our incoming Conservative government to scrap the Long Gun Registry. Leaving aside the fact that police associations across the nation have spoken out against this action, the money's already been spent. Cancelling the Long Gun Registry will save a very small amount of money.
But more important is the simple question: why object to registering your firearms?
Let me explain - in a very general way, I am against gun control. Every repressive government in history has limited access to weapons, from the Japanese Shogunate and Feudal Europe to Communist Russia and China. A disarmed populace is a helpless populace, and therefore incapable of opposing the government. Without weapons to defend ourselves, we are sheep at the mercy of the wolves and beholden to the dogs who are set out to protect us.
I'm also of the opinion that an armed population is a polite one. Or would be, in the generation or so after natural selection was given time to demonstrate its effects. Of course, I'm also of the opinion that an educated population is a free one, and our current level of education and awareness is woefully lacking at the moment. So no, I would not support a dismantling of gun control in Canada at this time. Canadians are insufficiently mature to handle that sort of personal responsibility.
Please note: I include myself on that list. Given license to carry a firearm on a daily basis, I would give myself three months before I used it in a fit of pique on some slack-jawed moron. Six at the outside, but I do not suffer fools gladly. So no, we're not there yet. Not as a whole, not as a nation.
Gun control, of various sorts, has been a reality in Canada since 1892. It has been trending steadily upwards from the first. It isn't new, and it's not a surprise. Anyone who has been paying attention during the last century could view the curve towards control of firearms. While from a philosophical point of view I am troubled by this restriction of my freedom, I am both a practical and deeply cynical man. I have no illusions that the restriction also applies to people who are far more dangerous/foolish/deranged than I. The laws may keep interesting and entertaining technology out of my hands, but they do the same for criminals, potential criminals, idiots and the insane.
So I am both willing and ready to register any firearms that Canada will allow me to own. I may bemoan the fact that some firearms are restricted or prohibited (often for reasons utterly divorced from their capabilities, in many cases based entirely on their appearance) but I accept it. If I truly felt a need to own, say, an FN FAL like the one my father carried while he was an officer in the Camerons, or a Kalashnikov, I would move somewhere less restrictive.
Will the Long Gun Registry save lives? Possibly, but a significant percentage of firearms used in crimes aren't registered and a great number have been smuggled in illegally from the United States. It goes without saying that criminals are less likely to register their firearms. In the same sense that locks are for honest people, the Firearm Registration is for law-abiding citizens.
But the Registry has proven to be a valuable resource for police, and while I have less respect for the Rozzas than I did when I was younger (see the G8/G20 protests, Stacy Bonds, Robert Dziekanski, etc) they still serve an important purpose for the public and if the Canadian Firearm Registry is a useful tool to them then I have no serious objections to it. More than 10,000 hits a day, or so wikipedia informs me here. The RCMP certainly believe that it works.
The objections to the Long Gun Registry seem to come down to cost overruns, which are a feature of virtually any government program (F-35 jets? G20 security? Those damned submarines we bought used?) and that it doesn't make us any safer.
Originally, the Long Gun Registry was supposed to pay for itself, with taxpayers only on the hook for $2 million. Back when this was announced, I was in high school and I still laughed uproariously. Government programs, especially ambitious ones that have never been implemented before, rarely come in under budget, and even more rarely are they "self-funding". However now that the registry is finally up and running, ongoing costs are fairly modest. We pay for our police and the RCMP to protect us, and if they find the CFR-Online to be a useful tool in crime prevention, doesn't it make sense to maintain it? Certainly I would rather offer them a tool like that than Tasers that are used more as devices of torture than as an alternative to their own firearms.
On the safety point, I tend to disagree. Deaths by firearm have been trending steadily (if slowly) downwards in Canada. Here is a reference page from Statistics Canada listing deaths by firearms from 2000 to 2007. Suicide by gun and accidental death have dropped, while homicide by firearm has increased slightly. I would be interested to see the statistics on death by registered versus illegal firearm, but I was unable to find that on StatsCan's website. A quick look shows that homicide statistics as a whole have been relatively stable the last decade and that the trend in death by homicide has been downwards since the 1970's.
In any case, you're more likely to be murdered with a knife, and I haven't seen any suggestion that the government wants us to register anything sharp longer than 2.5 inches.
Overall, I find the thought of the Long Gun Registry being scrapped both pointless and partisan. It's self-evidently a sop to western and rural residents who feel put upon having to inform their government that yes, they own some guns. It does not cost anything to register or transfer the registration of rifles and shotguns, so the complaints about it costing too much loses even more credibility: the boondoggle of organizing it has already happened, the waste that was going to happen has already happened and keeping it running will be really quite reasonable.
But more important is the simple question: why object to registering your firearms?
Let me explain - in a very general way, I am against gun control. Every repressive government in history has limited access to weapons, from the Japanese Shogunate and Feudal Europe to Communist Russia and China. A disarmed populace is a helpless populace, and therefore incapable of opposing the government. Without weapons to defend ourselves, we are sheep at the mercy of the wolves and beholden to the dogs who are set out to protect us.
I'm also of the opinion that an armed population is a polite one. Or would be, in the generation or so after natural selection was given time to demonstrate its effects. Of course, I'm also of the opinion that an educated population is a free one, and our current level of education and awareness is woefully lacking at the moment. So no, I would not support a dismantling of gun control in Canada at this time. Canadians are insufficiently mature to handle that sort of personal responsibility.
Please note: I include myself on that list. Given license to carry a firearm on a daily basis, I would give myself three months before I used it in a fit of pique on some slack-jawed moron. Six at the outside, but I do not suffer fools gladly. So no, we're not there yet. Not as a whole, not as a nation.
Gun control, of various sorts, has been a reality in Canada since 1892. It has been trending steadily upwards from the first. It isn't new, and it's not a surprise. Anyone who has been paying attention during the last century could view the curve towards control of firearms. While from a philosophical point of view I am troubled by this restriction of my freedom, I am both a practical and deeply cynical man. I have no illusions that the restriction also applies to people who are far more dangerous/foolish/deranged than I. The laws may keep interesting and entertaining technology out of my hands, but they do the same for criminals, potential criminals, idiots and the insane.
So I am both willing and ready to register any firearms that Canada will allow me to own. I may bemoan the fact that some firearms are restricted or prohibited (often for reasons utterly divorced from their capabilities, in many cases based entirely on their appearance) but I accept it. If I truly felt a need to own, say, an FN FAL like the one my father carried while he was an officer in the Camerons, or a Kalashnikov, I would move somewhere less restrictive.
Will the Long Gun Registry save lives? Possibly, but a significant percentage of firearms used in crimes aren't registered and a great number have been smuggled in illegally from the United States. It goes without saying that criminals are less likely to register their firearms. In the same sense that locks are for honest people, the Firearm Registration is for law-abiding citizens.
But the Registry has proven to be a valuable resource for police, and while I have less respect for the Rozzas than I did when I was younger (see the G8/G20 protests, Stacy Bonds, Robert Dziekanski, etc) they still serve an important purpose for the public and if the Canadian Firearm Registry is a useful tool to them then I have no serious objections to it. More than 10,000 hits a day, or so wikipedia informs me here. The RCMP certainly believe that it works.
The objections to the Long Gun Registry seem to come down to cost overruns, which are a feature of virtually any government program (F-35 jets? G20 security? Those damned submarines we bought used?) and that it doesn't make us any safer.
Originally, the Long Gun Registry was supposed to pay for itself, with taxpayers only on the hook for $2 million. Back when this was announced, I was in high school and I still laughed uproariously. Government programs, especially ambitious ones that have never been implemented before, rarely come in under budget, and even more rarely are they "self-funding". However now that the registry is finally up and running, ongoing costs are fairly modest. We pay for our police and the RCMP to protect us, and if they find the CFR-Online to be a useful tool in crime prevention, doesn't it make sense to maintain it? Certainly I would rather offer them a tool like that than Tasers that are used more as devices of torture than as an alternative to their own firearms.
On the safety point, I tend to disagree. Deaths by firearm have been trending steadily (if slowly) downwards in Canada. Here is a reference page from Statistics Canada listing deaths by firearms from 2000 to 2007. Suicide by gun and accidental death have dropped, while homicide by firearm has increased slightly. I would be interested to see the statistics on death by registered versus illegal firearm, but I was unable to find that on StatsCan's website. A quick look shows that homicide statistics as a whole have been relatively stable the last decade and that the trend in death by homicide has been downwards since the 1970's.
In any case, you're more likely to be murdered with a knife, and I haven't seen any suggestion that the government wants us to register anything sharp longer than 2.5 inches.
Overall, I find the thought of the Long Gun Registry being scrapped both pointless and partisan. It's self-evidently a sop to western and rural residents who feel put upon having to inform their government that yes, they own some guns. It does not cost anything to register or transfer the registration of rifles and shotguns, so the complaints about it costing too much loses even more credibility: the boondoggle of organizing it has already happened, the waste that was going to happen has already happened and keeping it running will be really quite reasonable.
My problems with gun control are largely with the restrictions on purchase and availability. If the government wants to know that I am armed, and even with what, I'm perfectly willing to tell them. Again - if I had any objection, I would simply do what real criminals do and go to the black market. My problems are also largely philosophical, because there are far better candidates for my ire than gun control.
My concerns with scrapping the Long Gun registry are far more concrete and immediate: if it is removed, in ten or fifteen years we will just have to waste the money all over again starting from square one. It has proven a valued resource for law enforcement personnel and may well be reducing deaths by firearms.
We have to license cars, planes, boats, bicycles, pets... is it so outlandish to require that one also registers their rifle or shotgun?
If anyone could present me a cogent, reasoned and logical argument in favour of scrapping the Long Gun Registry, I would change my tune. Until such time, it remains just one more Conservative plan - long on partisan agenda, lacking in benefit for Canada.
If anyone could present me a cogent, reasoned and logical argument in favour of scrapping the Long Gun Registry, I would change my tune. Until such time, it remains just one more Conservative plan - long on partisan agenda, lacking in benefit for Canada.
Tuesday, 3 May 2011
Fuck!!!
We, collectively, are Fucked.
I'm sorry if that seems harsh. It's still true.
Fuck you.
If anyone in this fuckwit country had been paying attention for the last five years, I wouldn't be watching this happening. Let me refresh your memories with a few choice images:
-an elderly man being arrested by helmeted thugs, his prosthetic leg forcibly removed.
-prisoners handed over into torture by Canadian troops.
-a three time convicted, disbarred lawyer working in the Prime Minister's Office while his prostitute mistress collects a salary he arranged through patronage.
-a Canadian General commanding an airstrike that ended with the death of several children under the age of twelve. Children murdered because a Canadian gave the order.
-the largest mass arrest in Canada's history, incarcerated women threatened with gang rape.
-one hundred and fifty five of Canada's soldiers dead in a mountain land where Empires go to die.
-twenty two Canadians dead of listeriosis because the Conservative government loosened regulations and procedures.
-a Prime Minister who is on record saying Canada is shameful for its socialized medicine.
-an environmental catastrophe so large that it can be viewed from space, shepherded by a Conservative government so disinterested in the environment that their environment minister resigned rather than make his annual reports.
Are you smiling? Do the memories cheer you up? The little people suffering as they should be while your life goes on so utterly unchanged? Good. You've finally gotten the government you wanted. You've finally got the government you deserve. The RCMP can do what they like, the CPC can do what they like, the Corporations can do whatever they like and so can you.
Without your government mandated medical care, public education, civil rights or human rights of course, but you weren't even using those were you? Everything will be just fine, business as usual, smiles and sunshine everywhere...
Provided you don't get in the way of the CPC, the Corporations and the RCMP.
What could be more delightful than this, you ask? Why, you get to pay them for the privilege. Oh yes, and don't worry, your loss is their gain and that's just how they like it.
Do you like it when people in authority they don't deserve lie to your face? When they break the law and laugh when you point it out?
Congratulations. We're all in this together now, and we will be for the next four years.
Fuck you.
And Fuck Me too.
Because with a Harper Conservative Majority, ALL of us are Fucked.
I'm sorry if that seems harsh. It's still true.
Fuck you.
If anyone in this fuckwit country had been paying attention for the last five years, I wouldn't be watching this happening. Let me refresh your memories with a few choice images:
-an elderly man being arrested by helmeted thugs, his prosthetic leg forcibly removed.
-prisoners handed over into torture by Canadian troops.
-a three time convicted, disbarred lawyer working in the Prime Minister's Office while his prostitute mistress collects a salary he arranged through patronage.
-a Canadian General commanding an airstrike that ended with the death of several children under the age of twelve. Children murdered because a Canadian gave the order.
-the largest mass arrest in Canada's history, incarcerated women threatened with gang rape.
-one hundred and fifty five of Canada's soldiers dead in a mountain land where Empires go to die.
-twenty two Canadians dead of listeriosis because the Conservative government loosened regulations and procedures.
-a Prime Minister who is on record saying Canada is shameful for its socialized medicine.
-an environmental catastrophe so large that it can be viewed from space, shepherded by a Conservative government so disinterested in the environment that their environment minister resigned rather than make his annual reports.
Are you smiling? Do the memories cheer you up? The little people suffering as they should be while your life goes on so utterly unchanged? Good. You've finally gotten the government you wanted. You've finally got the government you deserve. The RCMP can do what they like, the CPC can do what they like, the Corporations can do whatever they like and so can you.
Without your government mandated medical care, public education, civil rights or human rights of course, but you weren't even using those were you? Everything will be just fine, business as usual, smiles and sunshine everywhere...
Provided you don't get in the way of the CPC, the Corporations and the RCMP.
What could be more delightful than this, you ask? Why, you get to pay them for the privilege. Oh yes, and don't worry, your loss is their gain and that's just how they like it.
Do you like it when people in authority they don't deserve lie to your face? When they break the law and laugh when you point it out?
Congratulations. We're all in this together now, and we will be for the next four years.
Fuck you.
And Fuck Me too.
Because with a Harper Conservative Majority, ALL of us are Fucked.
Monday, 2 May 2011
Election Day!
The polls open in just a few more hours. If you haven't voted already in the advance polls, get out there and cast your ballot.
Tomorrow my nation decides what kind of future we want. Will we look forward or will we curl in on ourselves? Will we open our minds or will we close our eyes? Will we prove to ourselves and the world that we are still of that same courageous stock as our fathers and forefathers, or will we denounce ourselves as cowards and paranoiacs?
There are many candidates running for office in tomorrow's election, but there are really only two messages. Stephen Harper and his Conservatives are petty, small-minded, theocratic, authoritarian, cowardly, corrupt, venal and thuggish. The campaign Harper and his people (and the lazy, complicit "liberal media" *hawk-spit!*) have run has been the most negative I can ever remember: attack ads, cheap smears, outright lies, people thrown out of town-halls or banned from gatherings, candidates campaigning in hiding and ducking debates.
All of this is of a piece. The Conservative Party follow their leader, and he is a low, vicious, vindictive excuse for a man. He would happily sell out the ideals of my country for his vision of what we all should be - dismantle our socialized medicine, engage us in every brush-fire war the United States sees fit to start, play spendthrift with our tax dollars and have nothing to show for it but photo ops, shiny toys that don't work (courtesy of Lockheed-Martin and their lovely F-35... we'd be better off buying BAC English Electric Lightnings to protect our borders), withdraw funding from charities and NGO's, deny women and homosexuals their human rights and trample all over all of our rights and freedoms with his band of handpicked goons.
That is the message of the Conservative Party of Canada.
The other parties, while they bicker and snipe at one another, all have things in common: principles, ideals, hope, moral courage and a vision for Canada that is positive instead of negative.
Are they perfect? No. Are they flawed? Yes. Do I agree with all of their platforms? No, there are issues that none of the opposition parties have touched on that I feel are very important.
But they they stand for something positive. They all want to build something, instead of tearing down what others have striven so hard to build.
Tomorrow, you have a choice. You can decide the direction of Canada's future, along with every other citizen.
As a people, Canadians can choose to move forward courageously into an uncertain future. Or we can place our heads back into the sand for another five years and hope that the trials and tribulations afflicting the world will mostly pass us by.
Canada was once a leading nation, a shining example to other countries. In technology, in foreign aid, in democracy, in caring for one another.
We can be again.
We stand on the brink of a collapse into authoritarian chaos, if we allow it.
We stand at the cusp of a Golden Age, if we will it.
Tomorrow my nation decides what kind of future we want. Will we look forward or will we curl in on ourselves? Will we open our minds or will we close our eyes? Will we prove to ourselves and the world that we are still of that same courageous stock as our fathers and forefathers, or will we denounce ourselves as cowards and paranoiacs?
There are many candidates running for office in tomorrow's election, but there are really only two messages. Stephen Harper and his Conservatives are petty, small-minded, theocratic, authoritarian, cowardly, corrupt, venal and thuggish. The campaign Harper and his people (and the lazy, complicit "liberal media" *hawk-spit!*) have run has been the most negative I can ever remember: attack ads, cheap smears, outright lies, people thrown out of town-halls or banned from gatherings, candidates campaigning in hiding and ducking debates.
All of this is of a piece. The Conservative Party follow their leader, and he is a low, vicious, vindictive excuse for a man. He would happily sell out the ideals of my country for his vision of what we all should be - dismantle our socialized medicine, engage us in every brush-fire war the United States sees fit to start, play spendthrift with our tax dollars and have nothing to show for it but photo ops, shiny toys that don't work (courtesy of Lockheed-Martin and their lovely F-35... we'd be better off buying BAC English Electric Lightnings to protect our borders), withdraw funding from charities and NGO's, deny women and homosexuals their human rights and trample all over all of our rights and freedoms with his band of handpicked goons.
That is the message of the Conservative Party of Canada.
The other parties, while they bicker and snipe at one another, all have things in common: principles, ideals, hope, moral courage and a vision for Canada that is positive instead of negative.
Are they perfect? No. Are they flawed? Yes. Do I agree with all of their platforms? No, there are issues that none of the opposition parties have touched on that I feel are very important.
But they they stand for something positive. They all want to build something, instead of tearing down what others have striven so hard to build.
Tomorrow, you have a choice. You can decide the direction of Canada's future, along with every other citizen.
As a people, Canadians can choose to move forward courageously into an uncertain future. Or we can place our heads back into the sand for another five years and hope that the trials and tribulations afflicting the world will mostly pass us by.
Canada was once a leading nation, a shining example to other countries. In technology, in foreign aid, in democracy, in caring for one another.
We can be again.
We stand on the brink of a collapse into authoritarian chaos, if we allow it.
We stand at the cusp of a Golden Age, if we will it.
Today we decide what shape the future will be.
Get out there. Vote your conscience. Vote strategically.
But Vote.
Sunday, 1 May 2011
The Election is Tomorrow...
And in my riding, John Baird is running for reelection for the Conservative Party of Canada.
This is a man who, in his time in the House of Commons, is best known for shouting down his party's political opponents and carrying water for Stephen Harper. He is, quite frankly, odious and vile. He is a thug, and his presence as Ottawa West-Nepean's representative in Parliament lowers the tone and the standard for all those he speaks for.
He was the MP who introduced the "Accountability Act." I'll pause a moment while you savour the irony of that. This act has failed systemically and entirely to render a scandal-ridden government anything close to accountable. I would suggest reading Democracy Watch's summary for a series of examples of the failure of the Conservative government to address accountability.
In the five years he has worked in the House of Commons, John Baird has been responsible for cuts to social programs including medical marijuana, the Status of Women, employment for youth and more. He has supported a lackluster environmental policy that saw Consevatives fighting the Kyoto Protocol and Clean Air Act and been personally criticized by such luminaries as David Suzuki and Al Gore.
His presence in the House of Commons is an insult and a joke to every rational citizen of my riding. His policy failures are a matter of public record and his party's policy decisions are crippling Canada's reputation internationally. Tomorrow I have hope that he will find himself out of a job.
Because he's a thug and a toady, because he puts the CPC ahead of local interests, because like the CPC he works to make Canada worse instead of better.
So cast your votes tomorrow, and let's toss Stephen Harper's lapdog out on his ear.
This is a man who, in his time in the House of Commons, is best known for shouting down his party's political opponents and carrying water for Stephen Harper. He is, quite frankly, odious and vile. He is a thug, and his presence as Ottawa West-Nepean's representative in Parliament lowers the tone and the standard for all those he speaks for.
He was the MP who introduced the "Accountability Act." I'll pause a moment while you savour the irony of that. This act has failed systemically and entirely to render a scandal-ridden government anything close to accountable. I would suggest reading Democracy Watch's summary for a series of examples of the failure of the Conservative government to address accountability.
In the five years he has worked in the House of Commons, John Baird has been responsible for cuts to social programs including medical marijuana, the Status of Women, employment for youth and more. He has supported a lackluster environmental policy that saw Consevatives fighting the Kyoto Protocol and Clean Air Act and been personally criticized by such luminaries as David Suzuki and Al Gore.
His presence in the House of Commons is an insult and a joke to every rational citizen of my riding. His policy failures are a matter of public record and his party's policy decisions are crippling Canada's reputation internationally. Tomorrow I have hope that he will find himself out of a job.
Because he's a thug and a toady, because he puts the CPC ahead of local interests, because like the CPC he works to make Canada worse instead of better.
So cast your votes tomorrow, and let's toss Stephen Harper's lapdog out on his ear.
Wednesday, 27 April 2011
I am a Crown Loyalist
While reading blogs this morning, I came across one (on an American blog) which may as well have been a screed against the Royal Wedding. As someone who quite respects the writer, I was somewhat nonplussed.
Am I excited about the Royal Wedding, watching all the coverage, waiting with bated breath for the ceremony and obsessing? No, I'm not. The media's obsession with turning Ms. Middleton into the next Diana I find frankly offensive. Yes, she is a public figure now, but this relentless celebrity madness is a tremendous waste of our collective time and energy.
Here is what excites me - as a citizen of the Commonwealth and one of Her Majesty's loyal subjects, I am delighted that we are one step closer to securing the succession. I am likewise pleased that His Royal Highness Prince William of Wales has found a woman to be his partner and that they seem to genuinely love one another.
As a Canadian I am proud to be a Commonwealth Citizen. I have seen Her Majesty in person on two occasions during the course of my life and was deeply moved both times. My family have served Crown and Country for as far back as we can trace our line and I am justly proud of our history.
Attack Her Majesty if you like, attack Prince William and his fiancee. You're wasting your time and ammunition when there are far worse enemies far closer to home.
The Royal Family are not perfect, and the media do love to leap on their failings and mistakes. What they are, however, is a stabilizing influence on the Commonwealth, a link to our collective history and a reminder of the importance of Service and Duty.
That is why I am a Monarchist, and that is why I will always be proud to call myself a Crown Loyalist.
Am I excited about the Royal Wedding, watching all the coverage, waiting with bated breath for the ceremony and obsessing? No, I'm not. The media's obsession with turning Ms. Middleton into the next Diana I find frankly offensive. Yes, she is a public figure now, but this relentless celebrity madness is a tremendous waste of our collective time and energy.
Here is what excites me - as a citizen of the Commonwealth and one of Her Majesty's loyal subjects, I am delighted that we are one step closer to securing the succession. I am likewise pleased that His Royal Highness Prince William of Wales has found a woman to be his partner and that they seem to genuinely love one another.
As a Canadian I am proud to be a Commonwealth Citizen. I have seen Her Majesty in person on two occasions during the course of my life and was deeply moved both times. My family have served Crown and Country for as far back as we can trace our line and I am justly proud of our history.
Attack Her Majesty if you like, attack Prince William and his fiancee. You're wasting your time and ammunition when there are far worse enemies far closer to home.
The Royal Family are not perfect, and the media do love to leap on their failings and mistakes. What they are, however, is a stabilizing influence on the Commonwealth, a link to our collective history and a reminder of the importance of Service and Duty.
That is why I am a Monarchist, and that is why I will always be proud to call myself a Crown Loyalist.
Tuesday, 26 April 2011
More on the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II
The latest from CBC News.
I do believe I predicted that, but I don't think there's any call for plaudits. Anyone familiar with military spending could have done the same. I still remember the disaster that was Canada's Used Submarine Purchase. I believe the appropriate phrase to describe our purchase process for the F-35 Lightning II would be "Spinning Bow Tie Extravaganza."
So not only are we purchasing jets without weapons, avionics or engines... which leaves, well, the airframe and a novelty size price tag I suppose. I make this the second time since the election cycle began (and do keep in mind that's less than a month) that the Ministry has admitted that the price for these fighters is going up.
At this rate, by the time we are purchasing them in 2016 we may well have to hock Alberta to afford them. Which given how I'm feeling about Alberta these days might not be so bad.
Regardless, I think it's entirely clear that whichever party or coalition of parties forms a government, the plan to purchase the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II should be subjected to an open and very public review. An open and public review followed by an open tender for competing bids to see if, just possibly, Canada can find a cheaper, more efficient choice to replace our CF-18 Hornets.
Here are some other useful sources I dug up after reading that CBC article:
Embassy Magazine
CTV Edmonton
Defense Industry Daily
I think my favourite is the mention by Mr. Wheeler in the Embassy article of mass and wing loading. The comparison of the F-35's probably flight characteristics to the F-105 Thunderchief had me torn between laughing and weeping. For those who don't recall or weren't around, the F-105 (often called the 'Thud') was a supersonic fighter/bomber from the Vietnam era. It earned the nickname "Lead Sled" because it simply did not have the agility to maneuver against North Vietnamese MiGs. By the end of the war, it had been reduced to ground attack and SAM-suppression operations.
So Canada is planning to purchase a stealth fighter that comes with no engines and that may not be able to dogfight once we scrape up enough money to buy the engines (ooh, and the CD player, extended warranty and undercoat). That is, sadly, exactly what I've come to expect from the Harper Government (tm).
I do believe I predicted that, but I don't think there's any call for plaudits. Anyone familiar with military spending could have done the same. I still remember the disaster that was Canada's Used Submarine Purchase. I believe the appropriate phrase to describe our purchase process for the F-35 Lightning II would be "Spinning Bow Tie Extravaganza."
So not only are we purchasing jets without weapons, avionics or engines... which leaves, well, the airframe and a novelty size price tag I suppose. I make this the second time since the election cycle began (and do keep in mind that's less than a month) that the Ministry has admitted that the price for these fighters is going up.
At this rate, by the time we are purchasing them in 2016 we may well have to hock Alberta to afford them. Which given how I'm feeling about Alberta these days might not be so bad.
Regardless, I think it's entirely clear that whichever party or coalition of parties forms a government, the plan to purchase the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II should be subjected to an open and very public review. An open and public review followed by an open tender for competing bids to see if, just possibly, Canada can find a cheaper, more efficient choice to replace our CF-18 Hornets.
Here are some other useful sources I dug up after reading that CBC article:
Embassy Magazine
CTV Edmonton
Defense Industry Daily
I think my favourite is the mention by Mr. Wheeler in the Embassy article of mass and wing loading. The comparison of the F-35's probably flight characteristics to the F-105 Thunderchief had me torn between laughing and weeping. For those who don't recall or weren't around, the F-105 (often called the 'Thud') was a supersonic fighter/bomber from the Vietnam era. It earned the nickname "Lead Sled" because it simply did not have the agility to maneuver against North Vietnamese MiGs. By the end of the war, it had been reduced to ground attack and SAM-suppression operations.
So Canada is planning to purchase a stealth fighter that comes with no engines and that may not be able to dogfight once we scrape up enough money to buy the engines (ooh, and the CD player, extended warranty and undercoat). That is, sadly, exactly what I've come to expect from the Harper Government (tm).
Tuesday, 12 April 2011
The English Debate is Tonight
And while Elizabeth May will not be there, the rest of the major party leaders will be in attendance.
I hope that they will have learned from their lesson in 2008. Attack Harper, band together, ignore his attempts to turn you against one another. There are ten thousand things they can hold up as evidence of Stephen Harper's malfeasance, if only they take this opportunity. Being in front of the cameras and confronted with difficult questions that he simply cannot dodge is Stephen Harper's worst nightmare.
These two debates are the only time in this election that he absolutely cannot campaign inside his protective shield of flunkies, cronies and sycophants. If Ignatieff, Layton and Duceppe take this opportunity and work together, they can destroy him.
Oh, I hope they've learned. You can only fight Harper's lies by confronting him with the truth of his deeds. Expose him to Canada as the criminal and villain that he is and you can drag him down.
Harper is a wounded beast already in this campaign, snarling and roaring to everyone who can hear. He tells every crowd he speaks to (and oh, such carefully vetted crowds they be) just what they want to hear and hopes that no one else is paying attention. He wants only his own supporters to vote, doing everything he can to drive down turnout.
Even if forming a coalition is off the table for Michael Ignatieff, Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton, they should be banding together. Compared to the enmity Harper holds for them, their differences are small, and they are petty. Harper is a threat to all of them.
Work together. Drag him down. Tear out the lies that fuel his campaign and show them to the people.
They can hand Harper a ringing defeat tonight.
I hope they can see that.
I hope that they will have learned from their lesson in 2008. Attack Harper, band together, ignore his attempts to turn you against one another. There are ten thousand things they can hold up as evidence of Stephen Harper's malfeasance, if only they take this opportunity. Being in front of the cameras and confronted with difficult questions that he simply cannot dodge is Stephen Harper's worst nightmare.
These two debates are the only time in this election that he absolutely cannot campaign inside his protective shield of flunkies, cronies and sycophants. If Ignatieff, Layton and Duceppe take this opportunity and work together, they can destroy him.
Oh, I hope they've learned. You can only fight Harper's lies by confronting him with the truth of his deeds. Expose him to Canada as the criminal and villain that he is and you can drag him down.
Harper is a wounded beast already in this campaign, snarling and roaring to everyone who can hear. He tells every crowd he speaks to (and oh, such carefully vetted crowds they be) just what they want to hear and hopes that no one else is paying attention. He wants only his own supporters to vote, doing everything he can to drive down turnout.
Even if forming a coalition is off the table for Michael Ignatieff, Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton, they should be banding together. Compared to the enmity Harper holds for them, their differences are small, and they are petty. Harper is a threat to all of them.
Work together. Drag him down. Tear out the lies that fuel his campaign and show them to the people.
They can hand Harper a ringing defeat tonight.
I hope they can see that.
Monday, 4 April 2011
The CF-35 Lightning II?
The CF-18 Hornet has served Canada well. Since 1982 when the RCAF first began to receive them, they have done their job and done it well. But the airframes are growing old and within ten years they will have reached the end of their useable lifespan. A replacement is needed.
All of this I will grant you. To maintain our sovereignty as a nation, Canada has need of an air force. To patrol our borders (and we have so much border to patrol), to support our troops in their missions overseas (providing reconnaissance, close air support and air superiority if necessary) a replacement for the CF-18 is necessary. I will not argue this point.
But not the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. For one thing, I would be shocked to learn that Lockheed Martin had EVER brought in a military contract on time and under budget. Whatever the cost we taxpayers are quoted, expect it to rise and balloon. If you don't believe me, consider the revelations back in fall about the military procurement process for Chinook helicopters (available here on CBC's website ). The F-35 is a single engine, limited payload and limited range multi-role aircraft. I am not a defense industry professional, nor am I a military pilot, but in my view the F-35 is entirely inadequate for Canadian needs.
One of the reasons for acquiring the CF-18 Hornet instead of the F-16 Fighting Falcon or one of its competitors was the use to which the RCAF intended to put it: long distance patrols, especially in the arctic where Canada needs to assert sovereignty. In a single-engined aircraft such as the F-16 or the F-35, engine trouble could be catastrophic and result in the loss of the plane and (likely enough, in the high arctic) the pilot as well. With a twin-engined fighter like the Hornet, the chances of being able to limp back to base are significantly better. Cheaper to repair a damaged aircraft than it is to have to buy a replacement AND train a new pilot, no?
The simple fact is that the procurement process for the CF-18 replacement has never been open and competitive. Without really thinking about it, I can name a half dozen alternatives to the F-35 (all of which are two engined and have similar or better performance and payload capacity): the Eurofighter Typhoon; the Dassault Rafale; the Super Hornet; the Sukhoi SU-30 or SU-35 Flanker derivatives; the Mikoyan Mig-35; the Russian/Indian PAK FA... how many is that? Why not license the SU-47 prototype that Russia built, have Bombardier and other companies manufacture it domestically and call it the "Archer"? I'll bet that would support a good few jobs and might even garner some export sales to boot.
Simply put, there are options. Ones that would better serve Canada's needs and ones that could well be cheaper for the taxpayers.
I sincerely hope that Stephen Harper's government is replaced and that whoever replaces him begins this process again in an open, honest and reasonable manner. Because expecting openness and honesty from the unreasonable Stephen Harper and his Conservatives is just not in the cards.
---
edit: fixed the link on the CH-47 & EH-101 helicopter procurement process.
All of this I will grant you. To maintain our sovereignty as a nation, Canada has need of an air force. To patrol our borders (and we have so much border to patrol), to support our troops in their missions overseas (providing reconnaissance, close air support and air superiority if necessary) a replacement for the CF-18 is necessary. I will not argue this point.
But not the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. For one thing, I would be shocked to learn that Lockheed Martin had EVER brought in a military contract on time and under budget. Whatever the cost we taxpayers are quoted, expect it to rise and balloon. If you don't believe me, consider the revelations back in fall about the military procurement process for Chinook helicopters (available here on CBC's website ). The F-35 is a single engine, limited payload and limited range multi-role aircraft. I am not a defense industry professional, nor am I a military pilot, but in my view the F-35 is entirely inadequate for Canadian needs.
One of the reasons for acquiring the CF-18 Hornet instead of the F-16 Fighting Falcon or one of its competitors was the use to which the RCAF intended to put it: long distance patrols, especially in the arctic where Canada needs to assert sovereignty. In a single-engined aircraft such as the F-16 or the F-35, engine trouble could be catastrophic and result in the loss of the plane and (likely enough, in the high arctic) the pilot as well. With a twin-engined fighter like the Hornet, the chances of being able to limp back to base are significantly better. Cheaper to repair a damaged aircraft than it is to have to buy a replacement AND train a new pilot, no?
The simple fact is that the procurement process for the CF-18 replacement has never been open and competitive. Without really thinking about it, I can name a half dozen alternatives to the F-35 (all of which are two engined and have similar or better performance and payload capacity): the Eurofighter Typhoon; the Dassault Rafale; the Super Hornet; the Sukhoi SU-30 or SU-35 Flanker derivatives; the Mikoyan Mig-35; the Russian/Indian PAK FA... how many is that? Why not license the SU-47 prototype that Russia built, have Bombardier and other companies manufacture it domestically and call it the "Archer"? I'll bet that would support a good few jobs and might even garner some export sales to boot.
Simply put, there are options. Ones that would better serve Canada's needs and ones that could well be cheaper for the taxpayers.
I sincerely hope that Stephen Harper's government is replaced and that whoever replaces him begins this process again in an open, honest and reasonable manner. Because expecting openness and honesty from the unreasonable Stephen Harper and his Conservatives is just not in the cards.
---
edit: fixed the link on the CH-47 & EH-101 helicopter procurement process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)