THE CONSERVATIVE HIPSTERS

I thought this would be a suitable dedication.

It combines a number of my favorite things: hip hop, Will Farrell and Robert Goulet. Well two of my favorite things anyway.

And I'm actually not so jazzed about the personal tax cuts as I won't be seeing much of them. I'm more excited about lowering the corporate income taxes to nearly the lowest rate in the G8 and a number of tax cuts for small businesses. That's fantastic.

It's nice to see a government thinking about ways to put money back in your family's pocket.

Sweet.

Now, let's dispense with a few gripes we will certainly hear. Firstly, that cutting taxes means lower revenue. Yes it does - at first. But in only 4 short years, the revenue from these cuts will be back up to current levels. That's because more people are spending their own money. And secondly, I'm not sure if anyone noticed - but a surplus means the government is taking in MORE MONEY THAN THEY NEED. So give it back post haste. Thank you.

Now, not everyone is happy with Flaherty's budget. Predictably, Toronto David Miller feels your money would be better spent by him:

"I'm disappointed with (Finance) Minister (Jim) Flaherty's decision not to
reinvest the federal government's ballooning surplus in cities. After all, the
federal government collects nearly all of its money in cities"

While that may be true, that's not what the issue is. The issue is that you and your Council are going to spend it on things that YOU think are important. Things like:

• Safe injection sites
• Pesticide by-laws
• Money-losing community theatres
• Non-specific grants for fringe community groups
• Every increasing tank-like streetcars
• Unsuccessful ad campaigns to get money from the federal government
• Customer surveys to determine whether citizens want "less service" or "higher taxes"
• Unionized garbage pickup

Whereas residents and families getting this money will invest it in things like:

• Clothes for their families
• Rising subway fare costs so they can do the right thing and take public transit
• A home
• Their children's (or their own) education
• Getting out of debt
• Consumer goods to boost the local economy

Yeah, you're right Dave - you would make much better choices than the average family on where the money should go. I for one am tired of my hard-earned money going towards pet projects for Councillors. If the feds invest in Canada's cities (which I actually think it should) it should be directly into core service programs, not a blank cheque for Councillors to spend as they see fit. I see fit to not give it to you.

I definitely don't watch "Keeping up with the Kardashians", and I'm glad I don't or else I would have thrown my TV out after watching this. The real spectacle is right around the :50 sec mark.



How did it become OK for a teenage girl (like 12 or 13) to be swinging around on a stripper poll? And from her "abilities" on that thing, I get the feeling this isn't her first visit on the ol' poll. Yeah, I get all the pussycat dolls/empowering women etc, etc, blah blah but this is not empowering for a young teenage girl.

If I was ol' Wheaties Box Bruce there, I would have ripped that poll off of the ceiling and knocked my daughter's heads with it.

Hey, conservatives: you may think this is just crappy TV, but it is shaping the minds of our youngins. With The Hills and other shows of that ilk, kids are learning to value material items and superficial existances over personal character.

Don't sound too hip right now, fair enough. But if anyone is the lame-ass moron, its the people on these shows.

When we will as a society stand up and say: "I am just not down with young teens whoring themselves on TV. I'm just not cool with that."

Ever sometimes think common sense is under attack and its been fatally wounded?

Behold: "Indian Thriller."

I absolutely LOVE this video. Thanks to Double J for the tip.

As promised, here are my thoughts regarding "Election Debacle '08".

I refuse to hang this car crash of a campaign on the faith-based funding issue. For sure, it was a horrible policy to put in a platform. But I'm convinced that even if it wasn't included we would of had a difficult time getting elected. There was no evidence the "broken promises" broken record was effective; and I'm not sure how many of you actually read the platform, but it wasn't exactly a product of conservative thinking. I think we still would have been in trouble.

However, faith-based funding was an absolute horror show, electorally. As a Party member in good standing, here are the key questions I'd like answered:

1. Who EXACTLY decided that to include the policy in the platform?
2. When was that decision made?
3. If polling indicated this policy was an opportunity to gather support, why did it not reveal the underlying angst?
4. Who was asking those polling questions?
5. Why were the obvious responses of the other parties not gamed out beforehand?
6. How could these "experts" not have seen the coming wave of opposition to the policy?
7. If the campaign team were such experts, why couldn't they pull out of the tailspin they were in?
8. What idiot decided to get John Tory to announce a free vote?

If John Tory wants my support, he needs to ditch his entire existing team. Let's not forget - this is the SAME TEAM THAT RAN EVES FOR LEADER and were largely responsible for the 2003 CAMPAIGN LOSS.

I'm tired of the hired guns - the people who come in to run things into the ground and then go off to their private sector jobs to let everyone else clean up in the aftermath. I never saw them around in the hard slugging in the first couple of years, but they sure did show up once the Party was out of debt and cheques were starting to be cut again.

If Tory intends to stick around, its time to clean house. Even if there are individuals (I know there are) who did their jobs correctly, we need a fresh start. There was nothing good about this campaign, and the people affiliated need to be benched for a while. Even if that means a loss of talent (I'm sure the risk is minimal).

If John Tory wants my respect, here's what he can do. Even if he decides to quit, he can stay around to clean up the mess. He should help to wipe out the expected millions in debt the Party will (once again) have racked up during the election campaign. There's no rush for a new leader to be in place, so Tory can at least set the table properly for the next leader.

Secondly, he can make sure the details of this brutal campaign be released to Party members. If we are to move forward (together, as the Fiberals say), we need to know what happened. For my part, I want to know who got paid and when.

I hope John Tory and his campaign team have the guts to stand up at the next AGM (or wherever) and take their lumps. They certainly earned them. But at least I would respect the fact that they were willing to stand up and be accountable. That's leadership. And as you repeatedly told us - leadership matters.

Until then, I have no intention to do anything for the Party.

C-O-W-A-R-D-S.

If you want to stab the Leader in the back - during a campaign no less - man up and get yourself quoted.

Its sad that political journalism is essentially "anonymous sources" and "campaign insiders" these days. I wish journalists would have some integrity and say to these douchebags:

"Listen, if I can't name you, I won't quote you."

These "senior caucus members" should be ashamed of themselves.

I know I'm ashamed of you.

I have a few small thoughts on John Tory's decision to offer a free vote on faith-based school funding:

1. Get out the dictionary.

lead·er·ship

Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lee-der-ship] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun

1. the position or function of a leader: He managed to maintain his leadership of the party despite heavy opposition.
2. ability to lead: She displayed leadership potential.
3. an act or instance of leading; guidance; direction: They prospered under his leadership.
4. the leaders of a group: The union leadership agreed to arbitrate.

Do the math, people. Even if the Tories win a majority, a good chunk of their caucus is against this policy, or at least their constituents are. With the Libs, NDP, Greens and 25% of the Tories against Faith Based funding, free vote = no funding. Period. Full stop.

2. If I was one of the 76% the Toronto Star asked about faith based funding who unequivocally supported the Party's position and had been slugging it out over the last month - defending, explaining, listening, defending, defending - I would be SUPER pissed right now.

3. What's worse are people like THIS chick who damn well knew what was in the platform months ago, but decided to run anyway and when the faith based stuff came up decided to cut ranks. Guess its all good to be down with JT when the going gets tough, but when it looks like his position is on the wrong side of public opinion, its ship jumping time. You know who are usually the first ones off the ship, right? It ain't women or children. Yeah, I said it.

4. I will have lots more to say after the election, I can assure you.