Overheard on the Titanic

- Captain:

You were chosen for this task with the expectation that you would safely navigate this ship across the North Atlantic.

A nearly invulnerable ship with the most modern technologies was made available to you.

It is obvious, now that we have struck an iceberg, that our trust in you abilities was misplaced. We have selected a more suitable replacement from among our own number.

You have been relieved of your command, and effective immediately, you will address me as CAPTAIN Ignatieff.

You are dismissed.

Priorities

What could have happened...

We can't really fault Dion, can we? After all, it was he who said "Do you think it is easy to make priorities?

Apparently it's easier to make priorities when you have leaders of two competing parties assigning them to you, and explaining what they are.

----

In an alternate universe here's what could have happened:

Harper proposes the elimination of the $1.95 / vote subsidy.

Liberals either accept it or don't.
- if they take it, they suffer financially for awhile, but bounce back leaner and more focussed, as the Conservatives did not so long ago.
- if they don't:

NDP sees an opportunity:
-They are already grass-roots, and will have less to lose by this plan.
-They would have a tactical advantage over the Libs in the next election (financially), and perhaps usurp the Libs as the federalist Left option
-They could wear the white hats for participating in a plan that financially chokes off the Separatists, and make them irrelevant for perhaps a full generation.

Neither Liberals nor NDP did so.

Thus, they chose the other option, of validating the Bloc, emboldening the separatists, and as a bonus, stoking separatists sentiments in the West.

Good goin' boneheads!

Regarding: co-Prime Minister Gilles Duceppe.

As my last post indicates, it is irrational to suggest that Harper's Tories are a larger threat (whatever that means) than they were before this past election.

They have a renewed, and larger mandate.
The economy in Canada is doing better than the other Industrialized nations.
Canada now has near-record-low unemployment rates.

Andrew Coyne has a great article "The Tories Made Them Do It" that summarizes many of the flaws in this objection. (Thank-you Small Dead Animals for the link).

Obviously, this arrangement has been a long time coming. The audio where Layton admits to orchestrating the alliance with the Bloc a long time ago should be a clue. "You couldn't put three people together in three hours".

Coupled with the deal May had with Dion, it gives one pause to consider just how long this has been in the works. Is this why Dion didn't want to go to the polls in October? Was this already underway, even then?

The sad truth is this:
-Parliamentary Democracy allows for coalitions to form.
-The coalition is technically legal.

BUT...
-Parliamentary Democracy presupposes that members would not want to destroy the very country they are governing.

Thus:
-If Lib / NDP together could form a simple majority, without needing to be propped up by the Bloc...
... then as much as I hate the proposition, I would cringe and accept it, in much the same way as I would have accepted either of those parties being granted an electoral majority.

However:
-The Liberals / NDP could NOT form a majority without appealing to the Bloc. Thus, the Bloc has leverage on every decision, and is put in a position of extreme power, and will demand proportionate concessions.

Never before have we had a Separatist as defacto co-Prime-Minister. This is what makes this arrangement such a deal with the Devil.

(To see an examination and assessment of the agreement, look here for Ezra Levant's Article.)

He who pays the piper calls the tune. Duceppe can hold the threat of unseating the government over the supposed alliance, as leverage to make any demand (or whim?) he might deem appropriate.

In Light of CoupGate...

Contrast these ideas.

In the last parliament, Harper's Conservatives had a smaller minority than they have presently.

Here is the breakdown of the Absent Professor's (Dion's) voting record during that term:

Yea: 40
Nay: 34
Absent / Abstained: 87

Of the 161 total votes, Dion cast a ballot yea or nay only 45.96% of the time.
So on 54% of Total votes cast, DION STOOD FOR LITERALLY NOTHING.

One may surmise that of the 74 issues he was decisive about, he supported the government 54% of the time.

40 yea / (40+34 decisive ballots cast) = 54% in favour of the Conservative agenda.

He actively opposed Harper only 21% of the time.

Therefore, Harper must not be "scary".

Therefore, Harper's policies are NOT contrary to Canada's best interests, when judging by Dion's own voting record.

Modern and ancient bailouts contrasted.

Some of you may think the Bible is a dusty, musty and generally irrelevant book from forever ago that has nothing of value to say for today.

What follows is the post from my other site which argues against the bailouts using events outlined in the latter part of Genesis as the rationale.

It is entitled "We have been here before"

News of late centers on global uncertainty in the financial markets.

The conventional wisdom of the experts seems to be that the government has to intervene, and prop everything up.

It all comes down to risk. What consequences are acceptable, and which ones should be circumvented?

There is an inherent problem to this question, though. Risk, like consequences, are never eliminated, they can only be managed or deflected.

Historically, risk has been managed by individuals or businesses weighing the pros and cons, and the relative likelihood of success before setting out on a task. This principle is what Jesus pointed to in his parables of the tower and of the approaching army. If you think risk is manageable, or outweighed by possible gains, then you proceed -- knowing what will happen if you have miscalculated.

There is a disturbing trend, lately, to deflect risk.

I used to often say that the difference between USA and the old Soviet regime was that the Russians promised freedom FROM failure, whereas the Americans promised freedom TO succeed. It's time to update my expressions, because USA doesn't look like that anymore.

Someone who tries to pass off the risks of his choices on another is, effectively, also passing off authority to that same person or group. If you duck responsibility for your decisions, someone else bears the responsibility of those choices. They then have a right to make certain demands of you, relating to those decisions. You eventually become a slave to your "rescuer".

This bailout situation has its analog in the Bible. That is, not a merely superficial analog, but a close parallel to today's situation.

A little background: Genesis 41. Pharaoh had those famous dreams which foretold 7 years of abundance to be followed by 7 years of famine. Joseph set out a plan of taxation. (20% of crops are taxed and put in storage until needed.) The is a shift in focus until it picks up again in chapter 47.

The people came to Pharaoh first as customers and free men. They bought grain for cash. (Genesis 47:13)
Then they came to haggle. They traded their livestock (their actual livelihood) for food. (Genesis 47:16-17) They continued to rely on Pharaoh.

When the food ran out, they made the desperate plea: "there is nothing left for our lord but our bodies and our land" and the still more desperate bargain:

19Why should we die before your eyes, both we and our land? Buy us and our land for food, and we with our land will be servants to Pharaoh. And give us seed that we may live and not die, and that the land may not be desolate."

The Egyptian people ceded their rights as free men, for some security. The government now had a lawful claim to them, and to their land. The government became legitimately, and as result of a legal transaction, OWNER of its citizens, with the land-owner's right to charge its citizen-slaves for the use of ITS land, as recorded:

23Then Joseph said to the people, "Behold, I have this day bought you and your land for Pharaoh. Now here is seed for you, and you shall sow the land. 24And at the harvests you shall give a fifth to Pharaoh, and four fifths shall be your own, as seed for the field and as food for yourselves and your households, and as food for your little ones." 25And they said, "You have saved our lives; may it please my lord, we will be servants to Pharaoh." 26So Joseph made it a statute concerning the land of Egypt, and it stands to this day, that Pharaoh should have the fifth; the land of the priests alone did not become Pharaoh’s.

Governments, once they have power, are very, very reluctant to give it up.

If you have the government bail out our industries, you are, inviting the government, to nationalize industries and to make us defacto slaves.

Proverbs 22:7
The Rich rules over the poor and the borrower is the slave of the lender.

Keep in mind, every totalitarian begins claiming he acts in the interest of 'the greater good', and
if we are not alert, we may find a new wave of totalitarians pops up worldwide, in response to this crisis.

Letting it run its course will be painful, but would never completely destroy the people.

Look around and count how many blacksmiths you see. Is this because their union negotiated poorly? Or is it because there was no longer a need for trational blacksmithing? We still have metal-workers, even though we no longer have smithys.

Let's not panic, alright?

Setting the Stage

I see that, now that the frenzy of the US election cycle is over, his supporters feel comfortable in laying some cards on the table that were previously held close to the vest.

Of course, I mean what some are already calling "Ayers-Gate".

What is it exactly?

If you actually have a life, and weren't paying attention, here's the recap:

There was this US-born terrorist [Bill Ayers]... a "peace-terrorist" if you like ... who was part of an organization of Marxist-type Militant America-haters. He liked to play with bombs, and start riots. (see the link above for details). Oh, yeah. He bombed the NYC police headquarters, the Capitol Building, and the Pentagon, too. [NY Times article] In the Times interview, he leaves the door open to doing so again.

Why is this guy relevant?

Critics of President-Elect Obama claimed there were significant ties between them. They were both in Chicago, worked co-operatively in some projects, served together on a board, and a few other things. Some say the launch of Obama's run for office was made from the Ayers home.

Barack Obama took great pains to portray their relationship as that of mere acquaintances. Why? Because Ayers has a history of being an extremist radical. Some were looking at other questionable relationships [Tony (Slumlord) Rezko; Rev. Wright, with his Black Liberation Theology and anti-US rhetoric; Alinsky, an openly Marxist prof who was known for nothing less than that now-famous "profession": community organizer].

The old maxim of "a man is known by the company he keeps" was causing his critics to demand answers.

Now that the election is over, Bill Ayers is claiming the friendship is closer than Mr. Obama would have had us believe. Who's telling the truth?

Those who dubbed this 'Ayers-Gate' are waiting with baited breath, wondering:

If this has surfaced, even before the Oath of Office has been sworn, what other things will surface?

Are the allegations of crypto-Marxism (ie: being secretly Marxist) to be substantiated or allayed?

Only time will tell.