Do we need a Parliament or Government?
Here is my suggestion: let us NOT elect any Parliament or any Government. Here is my prediction: nobody would ever notice that something is missing. In addition, a lot of money would be saved.
Democracy in Canada?
Here is one issue that no party is talking about: the so-called democracy in Canada. The reality is that 40% of population can elect majority government which would be able to practically dictate anything they please to the remaining 60% of the population who didn't want this government in the first place.
The word democracy implies rules of majority, so isn't it about time to change Canadian electoral system in such a way that minority would not be able to establish a dictatorship?
Members of parliament claim that they represent the population which elected them. In reality, they always vote along "party line", more precisely, exactly the way party boss tells them to vote. I was born in Soviet Union, but even in Soviet Union, members of Parliament were not OFFICIALLY told how to vote. Clearly, this kind of voting has nothing to do with interest of population. In the case of majority government, this makes Prime Minister a de-facto dictator.
Members of Parliament are called law makers. In reality, it is the Government which make the laws, while members of Parliament vote like puppets according to whatever their boss tells them.
Isn't it about time for the people of Canada to demand that their members of Parliament start representing them and stop being voting puppets?
Here is suggestion: if you know well how to design a website and give it a name indict Harper, invite public to sign a petition if they agree that Harper should be indicted for squandering 300 million tax payer dollars and also breeching of his own law, which established specific dates for the election. He also should be ordered to pay 300 million back and this should be done by garnishing 25% of his salary until he dies.
Ministers' double salary
For some reason, in Canada, a Minister doesn't need to be a specialist in particular field of his Ministry, but he has to be a deputy. The logic of this escapes me completely. How, for a example, a person with no medical education can be Minister of Health?
These fat cats are doing only one thing, stealing money from their ministries by awarding contracts to their buddies. In addition, they pocket double salaries. One is member of parliament, and the other as a minister. Why should this be allowed? Being a member of Parliament is a full time job, being a minister is a full time job, are they working 16 hours a day? Isn't it about time to stop all this non- sense?
Global warming - catastrophe?
I hear from every side that we are facing a catastrophe, that our planet is in peril and I just do not get the logic of it. Presume for a second that what these people are saying is exactly what is going to happen, and let us see in what kind of peril Canada is in.
They predict warming of 1 degree at the Equator and warming of 12 degrees in Canada, namely, the further to the North, the greater is the warming. Isn't this "what the doctor prescribed"?
Indeed, most of Canada territory is not fit for habitation. It is the second largest country of the world which has one of the smallest population. Warming up by 12 degrees would make the whole Canada inhabitable. Why is this a catastrophe? Imagine Canada being able to grow oranges and grapefruit, and doesn't need to import them from Florida or California. What is wrong with that? It was reported that one iceman has managed for the first time in history to grow wheat. If this not a blessing, what is? Imagine Arctic sea melts completely and become fit for navigation all year around; it is trillions of dollars in economic windfall.
If anything, Canada should not spend a penny on stopping global warming, but rather do all in its power to speed it up and so should Russia and all other Northern countries. Am I missing something?
Canada has new cabinet. I watched today on CTV interview with two new ministers, environment and natural resources. The host asked minister of environment how he was going to reconcile the needs of economy with protection of environment, to which minister responded in a pretty long speech how important it is to reconcile economy with environment, but didn't say a single word on how he was going to do it. What is funny is that the host didn't have brains or courage to point out to the Minister that he hasn't actually answered the question.
Then there came a turn of Minister of Natural Resources. The host asked minister as to what was her plans of action as a minister. And she answered that in the nearest weeks, she will be talking to the people in the field to find out what their problems were. Effectively, her response was: "I have no idea what I am going to do".
Here is my
suggestion to any host how to interview a minister: ask him what is his
education, what is his experience, how his education and experience is relevant
to the portfolio that he is receiving. I would ask for example the new Minister
of environment why does he think that
he would be better minister of environment than someone with doctorate in Environmental studies.
I just wonder how stupid we must be as people to allow appointment of ministers to the field where they have no education, no experience, nothing at all which would justify their appointment. You would probably not hire a doorman who doesn't have experience in this field.
What are we doing in Afghanistan?
The media tells us that we have a noble purpose in Afghanistan: to install democracy there. Now, do the people of Afghanistan want us there? When I hear that some person there decided to kill himself for the sole person of killing Canadian soldiers, it looks to me like a hint and a very strong one that we are not very welcome there.
We installed Karzai there 7 years ago; why does he need foreign soldiers to keep him in power? When Taliban took power, it didn't need any foreign soldiers to keep them in power. When Saddam Hussein took power in Iraq, he didn't need foreign soldiers to keep him in power.
We are being told by yellow media that our Afghan army in its "embryonic state", that it takes long time to train a soldier. Well, in 7 years, you can train a brain surgeon, not just a soldier. The truth is that people of Afghanistan do not support Karzai and his corrupt Government, and do not wish to serve in his army. How come out of 30 million population, he cannot find a couple of thousands to replace Canadians?
Who do you call a war hero?
I am talking about McCain and I am trying to understand why
they call him war hero. Let us see: he was flying over Vietnam, bombing
civilian population, killing women and children and burning them with napalm.
He was shot down over Hanoi (which is certainly not a military target); he
surrendered to the enemy and spent most of the time as prisoner of war, while
others risked their lives. Now, how does all this justify to call a war hero.
If he is war hero, how would you call a guy, who refused to surrender, who fought the enemy to the last bullet and died fighting
Many in the U.S. are celebrating election of first black president. Let us look at it more attentively. Imagine that you discovered that the new president has color of eyes so unique that no other president before him had the same color of eyes and you decide to celebrate this as a remarkable national achievement. Everybody would say that you are complete idiot because the color of eyes doesn't matter. Now, replace color of eyes by the color of skin. The mere fact that you are celebrating with serious faces means effectively an admission that color of skin still matters and you are nothing but a bunch of bigots, who claim to have overcome their bigotry.
Now, let us look at whether you really have overcome your bigotry. Almost half of electorates voted against Obama, and this is in the situation where country is two losing wars, with bankrupt and broken economy, and all this was done by Republican administration. Obama in this situation should have won by 99% majority, not 52%.
Repugnant and revolting (coalition)
know what you feel about sudden agreement with people who proclaimed on
numerous occasions that they would never make an alliance, but I feel nothing
but disdain. Is there any doubt that the only reason they got into coalition is
Harper's attempt to cut off their money? These scoundrels do not give a damn
about people of Canada. They all of a sudden found common language because
their money got in danger. This doesn't mean of course that Harper is any
better than these clowns.
After all, it is we who elected them.
Where is Global Warming?
Whenever there is heatwave, I hear triumphant call: here is the proof of Global Warming. Now, we see snow in Las Vegas, in Texas and Arizona. What happened to Global Warming? If there was a panic about Global freezing, then this would be a good argument for the fear mongers.
Sick sick sick nations
Here is the evidence as to how sick Canadians and Americans are. People are being killed in Gaza, in Iraq, in Afghanistan and guess what makes news in this nations? Important news item is Oprah gained weight.
I rest my case.
Difference between Government of Israel and Jewish People
As you might know, I am Jewish and most of my family (all grandparents, majority of uncles, aunts and cousins) were killed during Holocaust. I am deeply ashamed of behavior of Government of Israel. They are destroying good name of Jewish people by their criminal actions. They should be tried for crimes against humanity.
Madoff obviously bribed the judge who allows him to stay in his $7- million apartment, while it is quite obvious that the guy is guilty as sin, and stolen amount is difficult to imagine, $50 BILLION.
He claims that he doesn't have the money anymore. Here is a little arithmetic's. If one wishes to spend, $50 billion in 10 years, he has to spend around $16 million every day. Is this humanly possible to do so?
Crooks with doctoral degree
Item in the latest news: there is difference of opinion about Polar bear. Inuits who live there say that not only Polar bear is not in any danger, but its numbers are increasing. Scientists on the other hand are claiming that Polar bear is in great danger and might soon disappear completely. Now, who is right here?
If you are a scientist studying anything in nature and you need money for research, in which case will you get the money: if you tell that everything is fine, or if you claim doom and gloom and you are the one who will save the world? The answer is obvious, if you claim gloom and doom, you are guaranteed a lot of money and these crooks with doctorates are doing just that.
If you saw documentaries of them, harassing bears on helicopters, shooting them with drugs and then traumatising animals with their stupid tests, in my books, this is cruelty to animals and it should stop. The money wasted on this so-called research would be more than enough to use the same helicopters just to throw down food for the bears and we would have the bears forever.
Whatever media you turn on these days, I can bet 100 to 1 that within the first minute, you will hear or see the name Obama. They spent practically 24 hours on any possible nonsense related to Obama and his inauguration. I invented a new word for this, I call it Obamarrhea. I like Obama, for God's Sake, it is vomiting to hear about it for 24 hours. There are so many other important things happening in the world, except Obama's inauguration.
To pig or not to pig
Astounding news: Montreal police has asked authorities to make a law forbidding to call policemen a pig and "donut eater". I agree. To call a policemen a pig is certainly insulting to pigs.
Is there any way to explain to these people that respect cannot be legislated. Respect may be only earned. And it may be earned only in the old fashioned way - by proper conduct.
Stupidity of the month
I heard today on CNN a woman claiming that it is extremely important how U.S. first lady is dressed because by how she is dressed, the world creates opinion of the whole country. It's difficult to imagine anything more stupid than that. Nobody in his right mind would base his opinion about a country on the basis of how its first lady is dressed. As far as U.S. is concerned, people make their opinion on the basis of their actions in Abu-ghraib, Afghanistan, Guantanomo, etc.
How to end war on terror?
In previous posting, in other places, on numerous occasions that there is no way U.S. can win war on terror the way they are doing it. The only way to end it is to understand why people are ready to kill themselves in order to kill some Americans. And only by understanding it, and taking proper measures, you can still stop this from happening again and again.