GFY Canada

There is not going to be anything eloquent about my writing today - not that I claim it to be as such on a regular basis anyway. I just need to make a few things clear about this constitutional cluster fuck. I recognize the constitutional legitimacy of the coalition government. My discontent with it is not based on an incorrect notion that it is illegal, unconstitutional, or even undemocratic. My issue with this pathetic coalition is based on morals and ethics, not parliamentary nuances. Just because something is legal does not make it morally or ethically sound. I could choose to sleep around on my wife. Technically, I am doing nothing illegal. Jumping in the sack with a different woman every day this week does not make me a criminal. It does make me an asshole. The Dion/Layton/Duceppe coalition is not illegal. It is just morally wrong. It is obvious that Layton had this up his sleeve the day after the election. Anyone willing to argue with me on this one is just plain stupid or ill-informed (which I recognize is the majority of Canadians who vote for this fool). To dress this coalition up as economy crusaders is a slap in the face of the minority of Canadians that have the intelligence and integrity to see it for what it is. And believe me folks, it is a minority (yes I have lost all faith in this country). This coalition is an unreasonable response to a relatively benign economic statement. It is nothing more than a disguised grab for power. People will say that Harper used a constitutional loophole to have parliament prorogued - maybe so. But don't overlook the fact that this coalition is also born from a parliamentary loophole. Are you seeing a trend? The British Parliamentary System is fucked.

If Mr. and Mrs. Dion (or is it Layton) had come out and said, "we are forming this coalition because we hate Harper's guts and the fact that we keep losing to him" I would have had some respect for them. But this economy bullshit is more of what I come to expect from this now unified party of socialist sell-outs.

I have said all along that my disgust with this coalition is non-partisan. Quite frankly there is no party in this pathetic country that represents me any more. I was hoping for a Liberal revival under Mr. Ignatiefff however he too has disappointed me (see previous post). I know Harper is an arrogant prick but at least he can put together a high quality video clip and understands the concept of a deadline. Dion not only missed the deadline, but he put together a video recorded on someone's cell phone. Not that higher quality video would have made him any more understandable.

This post ain't gonna end with a clever musing. This country just sucks.

Dear Mr. Ignatieff,

I am disappointed in your support of the coalition government. I have voted Conservative in the last two elections not because I identify myself as such, but because I was uncomfortable with Liberal leadership at the time. I consider myself just a tad right of center but a “centrist” nonetheless. In this last election I encouraged friends and family to once again vote Conservative for one simple reason: to ensure that Mr. Dion would be unsuccessful and consequently forced out of leadership. I knew the Conservative Party would not win a majority and within a few years we would be back at the polls. My hope was that you would win the Liberal leadership race and I would finally have choice. I felt that you best represented my values and interests and would bring the Liberal party back into relevance and closer to the center. I was excited about this possibility. I have watched your emergence on the Canadian political scene and was greatly disappointed when victory was stolen from you at the last Liberal leadership convention.

On the weekend I heard rumours that you were struggling with the idea of this coalition. I told my wife that this didn’t surprise me and I hoped you would publically voice your disproval for it and recognize it for what it is: opportunistic greed. I am not sure if these rumours were true but it no longer matters – you are publically supporting it. I had hoped that this would be your chance to differentiate yourself from the type of politician that Canada has been forced to get used to over the last six years. I thought you would stand for integrity and truth and demonstrate your courage to stand up for honesty. I am disappointed that you haven’t.

Mr. Ignatieff, this coalition has nothing to do with the economy. If it did, your party would have backed down when Mr. Harper rescinded the clauses on public financing for political parties, the right for civil servants to strike, and announced that there would be an early budget in January. If it did your party would recognize the impact an unstable government has on consumer confidence and the markets. Canada has withstood the economic downturn better than any industrialized nation. Whether you care to admit it or not this has much to do with the handling of our economy over the last two years under Conservative government. This is not a partisan statement – just a simple observation. Quite simply I do not feel your party’s response to this economic statement is reasonable or proportionate to the details within it. Over the last two years your party has chosen to sit on their hands during votes on Afghanistan, the environment, and immigration reform – issues far more significant than the recent economic statement. Issues on which your party publically opposed the Conservative government. Yet, it appears to the casual observer that when public funding for your party was threatened your party suddenly had the energy and passion to lose confidence in the government. Does public financing of political parties trump the environment? Afghanistan? This all leads me to believe that this coalition was weeks in the making.

I recognize Mr. Harper’s arrogance and stubbornness. However this alone is not a reason to form a coalition with a far-left party to be propped up by an outfit destined to separate from our country. You missed your chance to stand out as a true leader – something for which Canada is starving. I really thought you represented change but your poor judgment this week leads me to think otherwise.

You have lost my support Mr. Ignatieff and that disappoints me. I was excited to work on your behalf and voice my support in the next election. After your decision to support this coalition I will be unable to do so.

The HPV Vaccine: Promoting Promiscuity at a School Near You

Okay little one, get on out there and spread those legs! Can you imagine saying that to your pre-pubescent daughter? Unthinkable. Not surprisingly, this is the message that the rigidly religious feel would be portrayed to our daughters if we choose to have them vaccinated with Gardasil or Cervarix, the recently approved HPV vaccines. How ridiculous. Once again, the belief in an invisible man prevents humankind from making sound decisions for the betterment of society.

HPV, or Human Papilloma Virus, is a sexually transmitted disease that is believed to cause most cancer of the cervix. The really scary thing about HPV is that it goes relatively undetected and most studies indicate that greater than half of the sexually active population, both men and women, has it. So, after considering these facts it is easy for any rational, intelligent individual to see that a safe vaccine against HPV is a revolutionary discovery. The problem lies in the lack of intelligence and rational thought that is generated in the minds of those that hold literal, unyielding religious beliefs.

Now listen, my issue here is not with informed people who question the efficacy of the vaccine. I understand that vaccines in general are a hot topic amongst parents and the efficacy studies on the HPV vaccine are, to my understanding, somewhat limited at this point. If I had a daughter right now, I wouldn't be lining her up to be vaccinated until studies become more conclusive on its efficacy and side effects. But this would be a result of my concerns regarding the vaccine's biological effects on my daughter, not a fear that she would suddenly become hornier than a three-peckered-billygoat. For the love of all things hypothetically holy, if this vaccine is found to be perfectly safe and as widely effective as current studies conclude, why would anyone choose to prevent their child from avoiding the wrath of cancer? Because having your daughter vaccinated against a sexually transmitted disease promotes the sex that spreads the disease? Please! If you ask me, any 10-year -old girl who is told, "this needle will prevent you from getting sick from a bug that enters your body when you eventually have sex," is going to chalk that bug up as another reason to wait a while. If your daughter ends up having sex shortly after getting her HPV vaccine, it's more likely the result of the inherent challenges of monitoring her behaviour or a failure to educate her about the realities and risks of sexual activity than it could ever be the result of a life-saving vaccine. I have never seen a study on this, but in my experience, many teenage pregnancies occur to the daughters of strictly religious parents. There is no scientific validity to my observation. It's purely anecdotal and I could be wrong. But I would not be shocked to see such a study reveal that there is a scientifically significant correlation between the two.

This discussion has nothing to do with whether or not HPV vaccination should be legislated as mandatory or publically funded. As I said, it also has nothing to do with the recurring debate of whether or not vaccines are too readily administered without a true understanding of their efficacy and side effects. No, this debate is not even close to as complex as that. I just cannot understand how the reaction of a group of people who literally believe that a 900-year-old man built a boat, collected two of EVERY animal, insect, and flea on the planet, corralled them all onto that boat, and made them all have sex, carries any weight in the discussion of whether or not a life saving vaccine should be administered to our daughters. Call me irrational I guess.