Obama's Protectionism - Canada and the World Get Nervous

Barack Obama's announcement of "Buy American" provisions in his $825 billion bailout package are sending shockwaves not only throughout Ottawa but is also being watched nervously throughout the world economy as nations wait and see how this first test of Canada-U.S. trade relations plays out. The provisions state that companies would only qualify for bailout aid by purchasing "U.S. made" materials for Infrastructure projects - which would result in a severe dampening of Canadian imports of steel to the U.S. The damaging effects of this type of policy were last seen in the great depression of 1929 - where similar protectionist policies delayed recovery from what should have been 2 years until the beginning of World War 2. The resulting trade war between us and our greatest trading partner would benefit neither, supporting false economies which create a greater dependence on government aid, which makes it more difficult to dig out of once the aid evaporates and industry must go back to world markets to be competitive. Apparently the lessons of history have been lost on Mr. Obama. If Obama holds to this policy with America's best trading partner, we can only expect the same hard line with the remainder of the U.S.'s trading partners - thus turning this bad downturn into something horrific which could last us a decade or longer if not reversed in short order.

Smilin' Jack Not Smilin' Today

Poor Jack Layton.

He's angry with everybody.

He doesn't trust anybody.

The budget had nothing.

No friends left in the playground.

Even labour has gone to the liberals.

He doesn't even like the Eco-Bag lady.

Sob, sob . . . . .

I think Jackie's gettin' upset playin' this game . . .

Harper Had To Say No to Separatism

While most Conservatives are still in the process of trying to stomach the spending found in the 2009 Budget, I believe that years from now, when Stephen Harper writes his memoirs, he will state that he had no option other than to capitulate to the pressures of the Coalition after surviving a "near-death" experience in the prorogation of Parliament in December.

Why?

Harper said it himself. The thought of going down in history playing a part in giving the Quebec Separatists power over Canada under his watch is something unfathomable to our PM. To just sit back and allow Gilles Duceppe to be part of a ruling coalition with the ability to hold the country ransom to Separatists' demands was just not in the plan.

Am I being alarmist in pointing this out? While the coalition deal was being negotiated, sly old Gilles was saying, "I won't interfere, I'm just looking out for the interests of Quebecers". But right after the signature, he stepped up the microphone and stated, "The Cause of Quebec Sovereignty has just taken a bold step forward" (or words to that effect). So don't be mistaken to this man or his party's agenda - they may say they're about protecting Quebec's interests, but it's really all about Separation, something I am confident the vast majority of Quebecers do not want.

Iggy Playing Both Sides of the Recession Fence

Well, now that Stephen Harper is being held hostage by the "coalition", Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals are now blaming Stephen Harper's Conservatives for causing the recession. Ignatieff, a Canadian citizen who spent 35 years living in the United States and also lived in England prior to his taking up residence in Toronto and immediately heading straight into politics, is obviously an intelligent man of letters but definitely not an economist, like our Prime Minister. So while the list of the demands put forward in the coalition's package include $30 billion in "stimulus", most notably to the Detriot three who are acting funny about disclosure and a business plan, Iggy is saying that our going into deficit is "the fault of the Conservatives". I guess the record paydowns of the debt (greater than during Chretien's 13 years in office) in less than 3 years of conservative minority rule is a fact lost on the Liberals. Let's hope that Canadians call him on this - casual observers I speak to certainly don't blame Stephen Harper's Conservatives for what is a worldwide phenomenon.

More on Jill Biden

My wife and I were watching the swearing-in of Barack Obama last night and she exclaimed "Oh my Gawd, look at her!" Jill Biden was notable for her high-heeled go-go boots and short-skirted dress. "Totally inappropriate for the wife of the Vice-President", she said. I replied with, "Betcha old Joe doesn't mind one bit".

Bottom line: Jill Biden on consecutive days is scoring 2 for 2. I can't wait for what comes next, she looks like she's more of a handful than Joe, who they've successfully neutered up until now. Guess they just forgot to book his wife in for same.

Jill Biden's Gaffe - How does Hillary feel now??

Jill Biden, wife of VP-elect Joe Biden, has supplied the first gaffe in this honeymoon period with Barack Obama, revealing that the president-elect gave Joe a choice between VP and Secretary of State, the position eventually accepted by Hillary Clinton (Bill must be thrilled that she'll be out of town most of the time). I wonder how Hillary must feel now, humiliated at knowing that she wasn't Obama's first choice. In addition, what position would she have been offered had Mr. Biden taken Secretary of State? No chance in hell she would have been offered VP - would she have accepted another position in the cabinet? Will this push Hillary further over to Bill for foreign policy advice - whose foundation has been rumoured to have accepted funds from countries like China and Kazakhstan, a foundation that stonewalled the Obama team when asked for its list of donors. And how will she contend with Bill's globetrotting with the rich and famous? How much will Madonna influence U.S. foreign policy?

Safe Injection Sites Are Wrong

Oh, where do I start on this one? Let's see what we know: (a) that organized crime supplies the drugs, (b) organized crime facilitates the illegal activities (prostitution, trafficking, etc.) that help pay for the drugs and (c) that once you've committed a crime to get the money to pay for your illegal drugs that the state will then step in and say, "don't worry, it's okay to do what you're doing, just let us watch you get stoned for today and then we'll send you on your merry way". I mean, really, is this an answer? To my mind, it's just aiding and endorsing a continued downward spiral for these troubled individuals.
What I do support is (a) treatment, (b) counselling and (c) much more vigilant law enforcement. The argument that the insite facility is more cost-efficient in serving public health is a cop-out in actually dealing with the root causes of the problem - I challenge Mayor Sullivan, the B.C. health minister and the local health and law enforcement groups to provide real answers and help get these people off the streets in the first place.