Junk Food Tax in BC?

The nanny-state prepares to strike again!

As predicted a BC legislative panel has recommended that 'junk' food be taxed as part of a proposed war on obesity.

CBC’s Don Newman a declared Liberal!

So, you say, this is a surprise? We all know that the likelihood of any particular CBC employee being a Conservative supporter is vanishingly small. Liberal or NDP or Green or Commie supporter, a near certainty.

But knowing in your gut that Don Newman most likely votes Liberal isn’t the same as having it openly declared. Mr. Newman is, after all, the host of the show ‘Politics’ on a taxpayer funded network. He’s a public servant. We taxpayers are entitled to expect a certain minimum level of objectivity, at least the pretence of it, are we not? If, at the beginning of each edition he began by explicitly disclosing his support for one political party or another it would certainly impact how the audience viewed the show.

Anyway, during yesterday’s show, James Travers of the Toronto Star made the following comment to Don Newman (quoting from memory): "having watched a Liberal like you for years". There it was, no flinching from either Newman or Travers and no denial from Don - it was a matter of fact. Don Newman, host of CBC’s award winning show ‘Politics’ is officially declared a LIBERAL!

Come to think of it, wouldn’t it be a great idea to have the political sympathies of all CBC reporters and commentators presented at the beginning of each program - like a product hazard warning label?

CBC announcer and on-screen text: "In the interests of full disclosure and fairness, CBC viewers should be warned that Don Newman votes Liberal and the rest of the program staff vote either NDP or Green".

Then we conservatives, fairly warned, could view at our own risk of blowing a cork or switch to a more politically acceptable channel. Which, in Canada, would be ....? Fox News and "The O’Reilly Factor".

Socialist Fantasy vs. Reality

Worth quoting: from Alan Charles Kors, "Can There Be an 'After Socialism'?"

The cognitive behavior of Western intellectuals faced with the accomplishments of their own society, on the one hand, and with the socialist ideal and then the socialist reality, on the other, takes one's breath away. In the midst of unparalleled social mobility in the West, they cry "caste." In a society of munificent goods and services, they cry either "poverty" or "consumerism." In a society of ever richer, more varied, more productive, more self-defined, and more satisfying lives, they cry "alienation." In a society that has liberated women, racial minorities, religious minorities, and gays and lesbians to an extent that no one could have dreamed possible just fifty years ago, they cry "oppression." In a society of boundless private charity, they cry "avarice." In a society in which hundreds of millions have been free riders upon the risk, knowledge, and capital of others, they decry the "exploitation" of the free riders. In a society that broke, on behalf of merit, the seemingly eternal chains of station by birth, they cry "injustice." In the names of fantasy worlds and mystical perfections, they have closed themselves to the Western, liberal miracle of individual rights, individual responsibility, merit, and human satisfaction. Like Marx, they put words like "liberty" in quotation marks when these refer to the West.

Snow Storm!!

Over 20cm fell in Victoria yesterday and overnight. First serious snowfall since The Big One in 1996!

Quebec as a Nation (continued)

This is like picking at scabs - painful but you just can't stop.
Anyway, William Watson's column in today's National Post says it best:

For men not blessed with eloquence, both Stephen Harper and Bill Graham gave surprisingly stirring speeches about Canada on Wednesday. But the speech I liked best was Gilles Duceppe's. "We are what we are, period," echoing the show-stopping "I am what I am," from -- what could be more appropriate? -- La Cage aux Folles.

When our own cage aux folles reconvenes next week, I hope MPs will consider the following philosophically impeccable substitute for Mr. Harper's motion: "Resolved, that this House recognize that Quebecers are what they are, period, and so is everyone else in the Canadian nation."

Quebec as a Nation

My mail to the Prime Minister today.

Dear Prime Minister Harper,

Re: Quebec as a ’nation’.

I have to agree with Andrew Coyne’s view of this. I, along with a majority of Canadians, already voted against the idea of special status for Quebec or any other ethnic group. It seems to me that the role of Canada’s ‘federal’ government is to promote what unifies Canada as a nation, not to promote differences that separate us.

You may believe that the ‘nation’ debate is meaningless semantics. But most Québécois certainly do not. The separatists in particular consider this to be their ‘raison d’être’ for Quebec independence. Now they have federal recognition of it.

Can we now look forward to similar declarations for Newfoundland’s, Alberta’s and ...[your group here] .... status as a ‘nation within a united Canada’? And, what now is the meaning of the ‘Canadian nation’?

Pandering to Quebec nationalism may help secure the vote in Quebec in the short term, but I honestly don’t see how this can be good for the nation in the long run.

Sincerely,

Update:
On more careful reading of the text of the Liberal, Bloc and Conservative resolutions there are some subtle differences which may or may not make a difference.

The Liberal resolution refers to the Quebec nation. The Bloc refers to Quebecers. While the Conservative resolution refers to Québécois forming a nation within a united Canada.

From Wikipedia:

"The word Québécois can be politically charged because it combines notions of territory and residence (in the Province of Quebec), ethno-cultural identity (of French-speaking Quebeckers), and ancestry ( Québécois de vielle souche). Government publications generally refer to Quebec territory and residence, while the news media focuses more on issues of ethnocultural identity — especially facing separation or nationalist issues. "

Looks like fodder for endless, useless debate. Bleeeaagh!! Enough of this crapola!

"Stop Spanking kids: UN envoy"

Stephen Lewis gives Canada black eye at world forum.

The above title was the headline that greeted me in this morning's Times-Colonist newspaper.

If there's anything that will get my stomach churning on any given morning it's a photo of Stephen Lewis' hectoring, sanctimoniuos puss ranting in righteous indignation about some earth-shattering issue. Like, for example, the epidemic of abuse being perpetrated on the nation's children. In this case he was speaking to a world forum on child welfare.

According to Stephen Lewis, UN special envoy on HIV/AIDS in Africa: Canadian children are subjected to "gratuitous, offensive, and damaging violence" and "there's something wrong with a country like Canada". I'd agree with the latter assertion, mainly on the grounds that it produces too many people like Stephen Lewis.

Mr. Lewis' problem, it seems, is that the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the physical disciplining of children is a discretionary matter (within strict limits) left to the judgement of (gasp) parents. He wants that discretion removed and he'll do anything, including giving Canada an undeserved international black eye, to make it happen.

Now those countries with serious human rights deficits have yet another excuse to avoid reforms. When Canada raises human rights issues they can just point back at us using Stephen Lewis' accusations. This is not just a hypothetical consideration. In fact, just this week, in response to PM Harper's having raised human rights issues with the Chinese president, China's ambassador accused Canada of violating aboriginals' rights. The ambassador's 'ammunition' was thanks to the Canadian branch of Amnesty International who had briefed the UN Human Rights Commission on Canada's treatment of its indigenous people.

Dictatorships just love the old bogus 'moral equivalence' game.