Betting on the F35 and Harper

A couple of friends and I have a running bet.  The bet has three parts.  I have won the first part.

The bet is:
1) when the Cons will back away from the F35;
2) when Harper will leave politics; and
3) when the Cons will announce that, after "extensive and unbiased" analysis of needs and capabilities, Canada, not the Cons, will buy the F35?

For the record my timing is as follows:
1) before end of year 2012 (I won);
2) in October 2013; and
3) three minutes to midnight on the Friday of a long weekend in September 2013.

So far my winnings amount to an "Atta boy".  If I win the second part, I am upgraded to "You da' man!"

If I get all three, I win the ultimate prize - Benevolent Dictator of Canada for four years; during which I can make all the decisions and implement all the policies I ever cared about, without regard for either Canadians or the Constitution... just like Harper does!

You note that there is no bet on when Elmer McKay's little boy gets the bump from Cabinet... that would have been too easy.

Stay tuned.

What's up with Justin?

On the heels of his latest apology Justin Trudeau is about to step in it again.  On December 22 he is addressing the Reviving the Islamic Spirit get-together in Toronto.  Sounds quite inclusive on the face of it, but when you look at the sponsors and co-speakers at the event, another word comes to mind - NUTS.

RIS is sponsored by Islamic Relief Canada, the Canadian branch of Islamic Relief, a UK-based charity.  Amongst all the good works carried out by Islamic Relief is a serious belief that they are also a front for Islamic fundamentalism and funders of Hamas, a group on Canada's terrorist list.  In November 2012 the Swiss bank UBS closed Islamic Relief accounts and blocked donations (called zakat) to IR due to "counter terrorism" concerns.

On a hidden page (and I mean you have to know that it is there to see it - www.islamicreliefcanada.org/?p=1596) on the IRC website there is a list of who benefits from Zakat.  Line item 3 refers to the people who collect and distribute it - the administrative overhead; and line item 7 refers to "Those struggling in the path of Allah."  That is what is used to describe Jihadists.

I encourage everyone to check out www.pointedebasculecanada.com, educate themselves on the IRC, then contact Trudeau's campaign to warn him off the visit.

While you are at it, ask co-speaker John Ralston Sauls, what part of Sharia Law he wants for Canadians.  Many senior members of Islamic Relief Canada tried to get it on the books in Ontario a few years back.

The Law of Unintended Consequences

Years ago I made up a term called The Law of Unintended Consequences.  In essence it means that there are consequences to every decision you make.

Let's say that you decide to use the scenic route to drive work, the consequence is that it will take longer to get where you are going.  The unintended consequence is that you will be late for work or you have to get up earlier in the day (thus losing sleep).  Your intention was not to be late for work or to lose sleep... those were unintended consequences.

A week or so ago, Toronto Mayor Rob Ford was found guilty in a conflict of interest case.  The judge slapped him with the loss of his job.  True, the case did not involve huge sums of money or influence pedaling, i.e. Montreal area mayors, but he was guilty none-the-less.

Well his friends on the right side of the political spectrum went ballistic.  There was gnashing of teeth and foaming mouths and cries of left-wing political motivation on behalf of the judge.  "The punishment does not fit the crime," they screamed from their corporate board rooms.  The right wing press joined in the frey and kept the issue alive even past the time that Ford decided to be contrite in accepting his punishment (all the while saying he was innocent).

While I agree that the punishment was severe considering that Ford did not make money or break any criminal law, I have to agree that the judge was right.  After all there was no allowance in the law for discretion on behalf of the judge.  The penalty was prescribed in the law. This is an example of Mandatory Minimum Sentencing (MMS). 

Does that term ring a bell?  It should, because the same rabble that decry the penalty handed out to Ford, support the Fed-Con government's push for mandatory minimum sentences for a whole array of petty, and not-so-petty, crimes.  Non-supporters of MMS say that it abrogates judicial discretion.  Tough noogies, say the Feds.

If the right sees MMS as democratic then they have no basis to attack the penalty that was handed out to Ford... because that was MMS also.

Unintended Consequences.  You cannot have it both ways, my friends.