Sunday 2 October 2011

Lies, Damn Lies, and Quotations...

Apparently my my Saturday “Sand in the Shorts” column has gotten the attention of the Liberals and NDP. First, the Liberals included a quote from “Hudak Makes the Grade (Barely)" in this press release:

Priority List Faces Horwath's Growing Credibility Gap

Horwath Having Trouble Keeping Her Stories Straight
TORONTOOct. 1, 2011 /CNW/ - Andrea Horwath is presenting her so-called priorities list while facing a growing credibility gap.
"[She claimed] that her son went to Hamilton General Hospital with a broken arm and didn't get treated.  Horwath was forced to back away from that claim... It was wrong of Horwath to push the envelope in such a way. In fact, it was dumb of her [to] exaggerate about something that could easily be checked. The number one rule of politics is don't lie — because you'll surely get found out. And yes, it speaks to character that she told a big one."
Christina BlizzardToronto Sun, October 1, 2011
"[Horwath] has struggled with facts and figures ... During a visit this week to The Globe and Mail's editorial board, Ms. Horwath confused details of her platform, including implying that a cap on the salaries of public-sector executives would save $20-million, and an acknowledgment that she wasn't sure to what the figure referred."
Adam Radwanski, Globe & Mail, October 1, 2011
"Tim Hudak's Progressive Conservatives and Andrea Horwath's New Democrats... neither has put forward credible plans."
Toronto Star Editorial, October 1, 2011
"Horwath was asked whether there was a financial connection between Cornerstone, a company that owns a building on Richmond St. E. where the NDP leases offices for its headquarters, and the NDP campaign. At first, she said Cornerstone had, 'no role whatsoever,' ...In fact, Cornerstone put up $4.3 million collateral for a loan used to finance the NDP campaign."
Christina BlizzardToronto Sun, October 1, 2011
"Andrea Horwath, leader of the NDP, demonstrating her complete unreadiness for the job of premier at every turn, by responding to every concern with another goofy promise."
- James Phieffer, Belleville Intelligencer, October 1, 2011
"Her mantra seems to by 'why let the truth get in the way of a good political rant.'  Well, thank you Andrea for providing the Ontario campaign with its first Sarah Palin moment."
Bill Kelly, CHML Radio, September 29, 2011
Later, the NDP retaliated with this release, quoting other parts of the same articles and statements:
FACT CHECK: Liberals adrift with selective quoting

TORONTOOct. 1, 2011 /CNW/ - The Ontario Liberals put out a press release today featuring quotes from comment pieces about Andrea Horwath. They conveniently left out these parts:
"Dalton McGuinty has had two terms to prove he is the right person for the job — and has completely failed. If times get tough over the next few years, we can't afford to have Gilligan in command."
- James Phieffer, Belleville Intelligencer, Oct. 1, 2011
"Frankly, it's a bit rich that McGuinty, the guy who twice promised not to hike our taxes — and then promptly raised our taxes twice — can now look us in the eye and complain about another politician not telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."
Christina BlizzardToronto Sun, Oct. 1, 2011
"So why's McGuinty so worked up about all of this? Clearly polls are showing them that Horwath is gaining — big time. Compared to the lacklustre performance of the two men during the debate, she shone."
Christina BlizzardToronto Sun, Oct. 1, 2011
"The danger for Mr. McGuinty is that voters, concerned about their pocketbooks and cognizant of new economic realities, are wary of what he'll next ask of them as the province tries to get its finances in order."
Adam Radwanski, Globe and Mail, Oct. 1, 2011
Apparently, my opinions of other parties are held in high esteem by the powers that be within the Ontario Liberals and NDP.  Notably - or likely not - they seem less taken with my observations on their own parties.  Significant?  No more so than an observation on the likelihood of the sun rising in the east.  But for a writer, knowing someone saw fit to read and share my thoughts on anything is something of an ego-boost.

Hudak Makes the Grade (Barely)

After a complete snooze-fest of a campaign, with important non-issues being argued about for it's entirety, the big day is almost upon us. On Thursday, October 6, Ontarians will go to the polls to decide who will be handed the responsibility of governing us for the next four years (or potentially less, if it's a minority government).

In light of the seriousness of the responsibility, and the economic turbulence already tossing Europe about, and making our fiscal flight increasingly unsteady, it would have been appropriate for the party leaders to demonstrate a solid grasp of what needs to be done to reign in government spending, and otherwise prepare the province for what is increasingly looking like a rough decade ahead.

But no. Instead we got Andrea Horwath, leader of the NDP, demonstrating her complete unreadiness for the job of premier at every turn, by responding to every concern with another goofy promise. Gas prices too high? Cap them – which when done, in practice has locked the prices at that cap, and no lower, in jurisdictions where it's been tried. Similar situations brought forth promises such as canceling contracts with Quebec based industries to supply goods to the Ontario government, and implement a strict “Buy Ontario” policy – ignoring the Ontario business' which would be hurt if Quebec and other jurisdictions returned the favour.

We had “Premier Dad”, Liberal leader Dalton McGuinty, trying to convince us that when he says no more taxes this time, he means it – unlike in 2003 and 2007. But as he's saying this, he's racked up the biggest deficits in Ontario history, government spending has exploded during his tenure at Queen's Park, his government has seen the e-Health boondoggle as well as the worst example of corporate welfare in provincial history – the $7 billion Samsung deal. 50,000 jobs promised, 20,000 supposedly created, but with no evidence to back up this assertion anywhere – your tax dollars at work. His government has been marked by a failure to demonstrate any sense of fiscal sanity, runaway spending, and broken promises. Dalton McGuinty has had two terms to prove he is the right person for the job – and has completely failed. If times get tough over the next few years, we can't afford to have Gilligan in command.

So that leaves Tim Hudak, whom I (ever so reluctantly) endorse as Ontario's next premier. I do so because he has shown fewer flaws than Horwath or McGuinty. While his economic plan is only slightly more solid than McGuinty's, and Hudak's shown a distressing reluctance to actually say what spending cuts he'd make to get the budget balanced, he does seem to get the fact that what has gone on for the last eight years cannot continue. Hudak needs, however, to focus. Deal with the major issues, and do it now – no more of the dog distracted by a squirrel routine. He has to lay out his plan for returning Ontario to fiscal stability – and then do it.

I have a much easier time endorsing Todd Smith for Prince Edward – Hastings MP. He is a solid citizen of the riding, someone who's involved in the community, and through his work in local news and sports, someone who truly sees what's happening in the area. He is someone who is aiming to serve the riding well, and I believe he is the best option for voters in Hastings and Prince Edward counties, and in the city of Belleville.

So give the matter thought. You may agree or disagree with me – we have the freedom to do so in this, the best country in the world. But, regardless of whom you support – make sure you get out and vote on October 6.

And if you can't be bothered to vote – don't complain. The political opinions of those too lazy to vote are not worth others wasting their time listening.

Sunday 25 September 2011

Moore to the Point – Christ, the Church, and Pat Robertson

By Russell D. Moore - from Moore to the Point


This week on his television show Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson said a man would be morally justified to divorce his wife with Alzheimer’s disease in order to marry another woman. The dementia-riddled wife is, Robertson said, “not there” anymore. This is more than an embarrassment. This is more than cruelty. This is a repudiation of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Few Christians take Robertson all that seriously anymore. Most roll their eyes, and shake their heads when he makes another outlandish comment (for instance, defending China’s brutal one-child abortion policy to identifying God’s judgment on specific actions in the September 11 attacks, Hurricane Katrina, or the Haiti earthquake). This is serious, though, because it points to an issue that is much bigger than Robertson.

Marriage, the Scripture tells us, is an icon of something deeper, more ancient, more mysterious. The marriage union is a sign, the Apostle Paul announces, of the mystery of Christ and his church (Eph. 5). The husband, then, is to love his wife “as Christ loved the church” (Eph. 5:25). This love is defined not as the hormonal surge of romance but as a self-sacrificial crucifixion of self. The husband pictures Christ when he loves his wife by giving himself up for her.

At the arrest of Christ, his Bride, the church, forgot who she was, and denied who he was. He didn’t divorce her. He didn’t leave.

The Bride of Christ fled his side, and went back to their old ways of life. When Jesus came to them after the resurrection, the church was about the very thing they were doing when Jesus found them in the first place: out on the boats with their nets. Jesus didn’t leave. He stood by his words, stood by his Bride, even to the Place of the Skull, and beyond.

A woman or a man with Alzheimer’s can’t do anything for you. There’s no romance, no sex, no partnership, not even companionship. That’s just the point. Because marriage is a Christ/church icon, a man loves his wife as his own flesh. He cannot sever her off from him simply because she isn’t “useful” anymore.

Pat Robertson’s cruel marriage statement is no anomaly. He and his cohorts have given us for years a prosperity gospel with more in common with an Asherah pole than a cross. They have given us a politicized Christianity that uses churches to “mobilize” voters rather than to stand prophetically outside the power structures as a witness for the gospel.

But Jesus didn’t die for a Christian Coalition; he died for a church. And the church, across the ages, isn’t significant because of her size or influence. She is weak, helpless, and spattered in blood. He is faithful to us anyway.

If our churches are to survive, we must repudiate this Canaanite mammonocracy that so often speaks for us. But, beyond that, we must train up a new generation to see the gospel embedded in fidelity, a fidelity that is cruciform.

It’s easy to teach couples to put the “spark” back in their marriages, to put the “sizzle” back in their sex lives. You can still worship the self and want all that. But that’s not what love is. Love is fidelity with a cross on your back. Love is drowning in your own blood. Love is screaming, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me.”

Sadly, many of our neighbors assume that when they hear the parade of cartoon characters we allow to speak for us, that they are hearing the gospel. They assume that when they see the giggling evangelist on the television screen, that they see Jesus. They assume that when they see the stadium political rallies to “take back America for Christ,” that they see Jesus. But Jesus isn’t there.

Jesus tells us he is present in the weak, the vulnerable, the useless. He is there in the least of these (Matt. 25:31-46). Somewhere out there right now, a man is wiping the drool from an 85 year-old woman who flinches because she think he’s a stranger. No television cameras are around. No politicians are seeking a meeting with them.

But the gospel is there. Jesus is there.


Moore is the Dean of the School of Theology and Senior Vice-President for Academic Administration at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.  He can be reached by e-mail at rmoore@sbts.edu.

Moore to the Point – Christ, the Church, and Pat Robertson:

'via Blog this'

Saturday 24 September 2011

Christie Blatchford: Bureaucracy calls shots on reservists | Full Comment | National Post

That Canada’s reserve army routinely gets the shaft comes as news to no one, least of all the country’s long-suffering reservists.
As one reserve officer I know says, “In the civilian world, we would be the third shift at the Ford plant … or the casual part-time force that has no union, no guarantees, no benefits and no representation.
“We’re almost like discretionary spending.”
Still, the report, which was released this week by the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute and the Canadian International Council, is nonetheless startling.
Written by distinguished military scholar and veteran Dr. Jack English, it shows how the bureaucracy in Ottawa — an incestuous nest of regular army bosses with turf to protect and intractable civil servants — has consistently ignored or thwarted government directives to increase the size of the reserves.
What’s more, either those defence ministers whose pledges came to nought had the collective attention span of gnats, or they failed to grow a set of nuts sufficient to demand their instructions be followed, or they were simply shifted within Cabinet and the new fellow came in.
Any way you look at it, Dr. English says, the bureaucracy is calling the shots.
In the result, despite pledges to grow the reserves, the militia part-time head count remains still at about 16,500, or, as Dr. English wryly notes, about the size of National Defence Headquarters, or NDHQ as it’s called.
By the way, just getting the damn numbers out of NDHQ is a trick.
David Pratt, the former Liberal MP who wrote another report on Canada’s citizen soldiers for the CDFAI this spring — he takes a different approach, but certainly shares the view that the reserves have been neglected — first asked the Library of Parliament for an accurate count of reservists.
The library approached the Canadian Forces, which in turn essentially said it could go back only three years and couldn’t come up with a proper count.
In referring to this explanation in his report, Dr. English scornfully labels it “typical Byzantine, prevaricating gobbledygook.”
Virtually everyone who has studied the Canadian army, and their number is legion, agrees on a couple of things: The bureaucracy is obscenely bloated, far out of proportion for the size of the army; the citizen soldier, who until called up to full-time service costs only about 20% of the regular one, is a bargain for the taxpayer; the militia is more diverse, ethnically and otherwise, than the regular army.
Easily the most important report was that done recently by Lieutenant-General Andrew Leslie, an NDHQ insider who knew where to look for the skeletons and who has the courage to call them what they are. His findings buttress the veracity of Dr. English’s report.
As Lt.-Gen. Leslie writes in his executive summary of the myriad studies and reviews that preceded his, “These various efforts have resulted in hundreds of recommendations, some of which are innovative and first class, some of which are not.
“A number are quietly buried in the bowels of filing cabinets as being too hard or too threatening of the status quo.
“The eventual result was usually not what was originally intended, and in far too many instances, the headquarters and other overhead grew while ships were being decommissioned, regular and reserve battalions were disbanded and whole aircraft fleets cashed in.”
In other words, both men conclude in their different language, the bureaucratic tail is wagging the Parliamentary dog.
Part of the difficulty in any discussion about the reserves is that as a force based in armouries spread across the country, they are diffused, and don’t always speak with a single voice.
Part of the difficulty is that there are so many categories of reservists — Class A, the part-timers who serve in Canada; Class B, those employed full-time in Canada; Class C, those deployed on overseas operations — that the civilian brain, or this one anyway, can barely wrap her head around the distinctions.
And part of the difficulty is that the reserves are controlled by the leaders of the regular army. There are no reserve generals; the highest reserve position is a major-general, or two-star, role, and whoever has the job is outranked and outnumbered by the regulars.
This is no slur upon the regular army, troops or officers: Canada’s is among the best-fighting army in the world, as its magnificent performance in Afghanistan demonstrated. And on the battlefield level, with regular and reserve soldiers fighting (and dying) together in Kandahar, the differences disappeared.
But the senior leaders of the regular army have the same self-protection instincts as anyone else, and especially in rough economic times, they’re not likely to go to bat for their part-time brothers.
Canadians ought to care about the state of reservists: It’s these men and women who bring to the profession of arms not just the skills but also the sensibilities of the larger civilian world, who best straddle the divide. They are the living connection between the people of this country and the military, and for that reason alone should be treasured and nourished.
Yet it’s harder now to join up as a reservist — an application that used to take a week to process at the local level now takes as long as four months, thanks to that monstrous bureaucracy — than ever before.
Besides, the notion that the fonctionnaires have done and will do what they like, regardless of government orders, should offend everyone, even those who don’t give a fig about matters military.

Christie Blatchford: Bureaucracy calls shots on reservists | Full Comment | National Post:

'via Blog this'

Link between the Liberals and unions - Belleville Intelligencer - Ontario, CA


I think of it as the missing link.

A slide deck sent to me in a sort of electronic brown envelope shows a link between the Liberal campaign team and union political advertising campaigns that have skewered Tories in the past three elections.

Until now, the Liberals have loudly proclaimed that those expensive ad campaigns a variety of unions have put on since the 2003 election have nothing to do with them.

There's no connection to the Liberal Party, they insist.

That's important, because during an election campaign, there are strict rules governing the amount of money the political parties may raise and how much they can spend on advertising.

There aren't the same kinds of spending rules around third-party advertising. That's why unions — mainly under the guise of the Working Families Coalition, but also through teacher unions — have been able to spend millions on TV ads.

But the presentation leaked to me shows that top Liberal campaign organizer — and fellow QMI Agency columnist — Warren Kinsella actually made a presentation to United Association Local 46, a plumbers' union, where he pitched the idea that they should become politically involved.

The 28-page presentation laid out talking points about the record of the Mike Harris and Ernie Eves governments and tied them to Tim Hudak.

The last two slides tell the union members to act: "Not just a lawn sign," it says.

"Contact your local newspaper. Submit letters to the editor. Open line radio shows." It also tells them to get involved with social media.

"Use paid media, such as radio or television ads," says the presentation.

It said, "politically charged campaigns launched by other unions have been successful in the past" — pointing to the controversial Working Families' "Not this time Ernie," campaign of 2003.

When I contacted him Thursday, Kinsella said the union requested the presentation.

"I was asked by the union to come and speak to them before the election about how to avoid a Hudak-PC government. I spoke to about 200 people, and they were introduced to me as members of all of the political parties," he said in an e-mailed response.

"I encouraged them to get involved in the democratic process in any way they could. One way they could do that is to advertise, and to, of course, ensure that they followed all of the Elections Ontario rules.

"To my knowledge, they have done no advertising at all."

Kinsella has posted the deck at his blog (warrenkinsella.com). He accuses me of being "snarky" in my e-mail to him, which makes me sad because I like Kinsella and wouldn't want to offend him.

I thought I was just being business-like. He also said I e-mailed the deck to him, which I didn't. I sent him a description of its contents.

I admire Kinsella enormously. He's a brilliant political strategist and would be the first person I'd call if I were to run for office. The guy's a genius, and Dalton McGuinty's last two election successes are largely due to him.

And trust me, when I get snarky, I get really snarky.

I believe it's wrong for unions — or any other third party — to be allowed to freely advertise during the election writ period because it makes a mockery of election financing laws.

This presentation shows the Liberals have been soliciting unions for support.

Why have election financing laws if Liberal friendly unions can flout them?


Link between the Liberals and unions - Belleville Intelligencer - Ontario, CA:


'via Blog this'

The Chicago Way: Union Boss Collects Pension After One Day on Job - Page 1 - Mike Shedlock - Townhall Finance


If you need evidence on how corrupt self-serving unions and union officials can be, then please consider Ex-labor chief's 1-day rehire nets $158,000 city pension
A retired Chicago labor leader secured a $158,000 public pension — roughly five times greater than what a typical retired public-service worker in the Windy City receives — after being rehired for just one day of active duty on the city payroll, local news reports said.

According to 
The Chicago Tribune, Dennis Gannon stands to collect approximately $5 million in city pension funds during his lifetime. He now draws the pension while working for a hedge fund, the Tribune reported.

Gannon, former president of the Chicago Federation of Labor, was able to take a long leave from a city job to work for a union and then receive a city pension based on a high union salary. That arrangement is allowed under a state law signed by Gov. Jim Thompson on his last day in office in 1991, according to an investigation by the Tribune and WGN-TV.

The change has enabled a couple dozen labor leaders to become potential millionaires.

What is different in Gannon’s case is that he became eligible for the especially lucrative pension deal only because the city rehired the former Streets and Sanitation Department worker for one day in 1994, before granting him an indefinite leave of absence, according to the investigation. He retired from the city job in 2004 at age 50.

Gannon’s pension is so high that it exceeds federal limits and required Chicago’s pension fund to file special paperwork with the Internal Revenue Service to give it to him, the Tribune reported.

"I am extremely proud of my many years of service to the city of Chicago and the working men and women of organized labor," Gannon wrote in a statement provided to the Tribune.
The Tribune reports ...
The pension came on top of Gannon's union salary, which had grown to more than $240,000. He now draws the pension while working for a hedge fund, Grosvenor Capital Management, that does work with public pensions, including the Teachers Retirement System of Illinois. The firm also was one of Mayor Rahm Emanuel's largest campaign contributors.
Chicago Teacher's Pensions Massively Underfunded
Care to see the results Gannon presided over? Please consider Interactive Map of Public Pension Plans; How Badly Underfunded are the Plans in Your State?


Illinois has the worst public pension plans in the country as of April 2010. I am sure it is still true today. See link for more details.

Gannon says "I am extremely proud of my many years of service to the city of Chicago."

I believe he means one day of service for which he will collect $4 million for ripping off taxpayers for his own personal gain. Yes, that is something to be damn proud of.

For Dennis Gannon to go on leave after 1 day shows this was all planned from the outset. Moreover, by granting the leave, the corrupt Streets and Sanitation Department went along with it all the way.

Any guesses as to how many bribes and payoffs were associated with this chain of events?

It is time to end public unions entirely and all the associated graft.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock


The Chicago Way: Union Boss Collects Pension After One Day on Job - Page 1 - Mike Shedlock - Townhall Finance:

Friday 23 September 2011

Sand in the Shorts: All Means All, and Other Election Silliness...

By James Phieffer


All:
-the whole number of (used in referring to individuals or particulars, taken collectively): all students. -from dictionary.com


In a scene right out of a Marx Brothers film this week, the following things occurred:
  • An All-Candidates meeting was held, for some of the candidates,
  • Truman Tuck was criticized for wanting in when he was left out
  • Todd Smith was criticized for staying out when he was wanted in,

Some thoughts on this.  First, it appears that certain community organizations and columnists (Chris Mallette – this means you) are still weak on the whole “definition of all” thing.  For them, and anyone else, I have included it at the beginning of the column.  All means all, to use a truism.  When the Affordable Housing Action Network announced, in it's invitations and it's signs, an all-candidates meeting, it made a clear statement – that this was to be a meeting where all of the candidates were invited to participate.  As such, when they excluded three of the seven local candidates, they made themselves liars – purveyors of an untruth.

If they had wished to have a meeting of only certain candidates, which is their right, they should have publicized it – and stated clearly in the invitations to candidates – that this was to be a meeting of specific candidates only.  They certainly have that right, as another columnist pointed out yesterday. But when they used the label of “All-Candidates”, they made a specific statement that this would include all registered candidates.

As to the decisions by Treat Hull (Green) and Todd Smith (Progressive Conservative) not to attend, it seems that Mr. Hull is getting off rather easily.  The focus of commentary has been on Mr. Smith, with the references to Hull being left to “he sent his regrets”.  Smith commented on why he decided not to attend, but left out one point.  Smith decided not to go after hearing that Hull wasn't going to attend, and after considering the need to to other necessary parts of his campaign.  It should be noted that Hull was also a no-show at the Canadian Association of Retired Persons meeting Thursday night.

While I give kudos to the NDP candidate, Sherry Hayes, and the Scarlet-Clad Tooth Fairy (Liberal Leona Dombrowsky) for making both events, the attendance of any candidates at all such meetings during this election will be no small accomplishment.  There are at least 10 of them during the campaign – and talking to Smith I found out from this past Monday to next Thursday, there are eight (8!) of these events.  When the campaign is 30 days long, that is too many to expect the attendance of every candidate at every meeting.

The onus isn't on candidates to attend – the onus needs to be on the multiple special interest groups to get their acts together and merge these into a more reasonable four or five – with one each for North and Central Hastings, and the County, and two for Belleville.  If there is a reasonable number of all-candidates meetings, then, and only then, will it be reasonable to jump up on the nearest soap box and decry a candidate's non-participation.  But as it stands, such criticism of either Smith or Hull is unreasonable.

And if the title is “all-candidates meeting” – make it one.



Irwin Cotler: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad should be locked out of the U.S. | World Politics | Full Comment | National Post

By Irwin Cotler - from the National Post
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s impending visit to United Nations is a cruel parody of law. Ahmadinejad will enter the U.S. despite being inadmissible under American law. He will address the United Nations General Assembly despite being in violation of its UN Charter and international law. And, he will be indulged — even feted — by universities, institutes and the media, thereby sanitizing his crimes and mocking the suffering of the Iranian people.
This charade — repeated annually since 2007 — ignores and undermines basic principles of domestic, international and humanitarian law.
First, President Ahmadinejad belongs on the U.S. “watchlist” of persons barred from entry — those who “aid terrorists … persecute religious minorities … or commit or incite to genocide.” Indeed, President Barack Obama issued a proclamation just last month barring entry for persons “who participate in serious human rights and humanitarian law violations and other abuses.”
The evidence of Ahmadinejad’s criminality on each of these counts is compelling. The recent U.S. State Department Annual Report lists Iran as a leading state sponsor of international terrorism. Iran directly supports terrorist proxies such as Hamas and Hezbollah, whose platforms and policies are replete with genocidal calls.
Under Ahmadinejad, Iran has intensified its persecution and prosecution of religious minorities, especially the Baha’i — its largest religious minority — whose members are subject to harassment, repression, torture, imprisonment and execution. As for Christians, whose persecution has also accelerated, even praying together is a criminal act. These assaults on the religious rights of his own people, combined with the many other repressive acts carried out by his regime, are crimes against humanity.
Ahmadinejad’s violations of the Genocide Convention’s prohibition against “direct and public incitement to genocide” — symbolized by parading down the streets of Tehran with a Shiab-3 missile draped with the emblem “Wipe Israel off the map” — is cause alone for exclusion.
A person who pursues the world’s most destructive weaponry in violation of Security Council resolutions; who has already committed the crime of incitement to genocide in violation of international law; who is complicit in crimes against humanity; and who engages in massive domestic repression against his own people belongs in the dock of the accused, not at the world’s most watched podium.
Yet, Ahmadinejad has been admitted before and is likely to be admitted again. How can this be?

Wednesday 21 September 2011

Sand in the Shorts: "An odd "all-candidates" debate" - Silliness Flies Courtesy Local Housing Group

By James Phieffer


Is the definition of an "All-Candidates" meeting that complex? In light of it being apparently beyond the ken of the Affordable Housing Action Network (AFAN), and after the Canadian Association of Retired People managed to screw up the concept in the last election, maybe it is beyond the abilities of some to understand. Interestingly, in both cases the poor grasp of democratic concepts was a problem for left-wing, or at least anti-conservative, organizations.

Here's the pertinent part of the article from the Intelligencer:


One candidate did more debating off stage than on leading up to what was advertised as an all candidates meeting.
Trueman Tuck, candidate for the People First Republic Party of Ontario, argued while the Affordable Housing Action Network called Wednesday's session an "all-candidates" meeting they had misled the public as only four candidates — those representing the Liberal, New Democratic, Progressive Conservative and Green parties — had been invited to participate in the actual debate.
"They won't let me on the stage. They won't let me speak," Tuck said minutes after arriving at the event and speaking with Gina Cockburn of the network, the hosting agency for the debate at Eastminster United Church.
Cockburn explained the agency had invited only the four candidates due to a systematic approach to the evening.
"We deliberately looked at statistics from the last provincial election and invited those candidates representing the parties that had received the most percentage of the votes," she said. "Unfortunately, only the NDP and Liberal candidates are participating."
Organizers did, in an effort to appease Tuck, permit him to present a three minute introduction but he was not permitted to remain on the stage and could not answer any questions.
Ontario PC candidate Todd Smith, when reached at home Wednesday evening, said while he had decided not to participate because he had learned only two of the seven candidates were planning on participating it was not the main factor in his absence.
"Basically what it came down to is it's a matter of time. We've got two weeks left in this campaign and, no offence to those people who showed up, but there's a lot of work to be done in those next two weeks and I had a lot of things that I needed to do to get caught up," Smith said.
Green candidate Treat Hull, the crowd of roughly 120 people were told, had "sent his regrets" as he was unable to attend the session.
In the comments section I posted the following (it should be made clear that the majority of comments targetted PC candidate Todd Smith's absence):