I just wanted to capture a few thoughts regarding the Climategate scandal that is currently erupting on the blogosphere, and then I’ll go away quietly for another undetermined spell.

If you don’t know what I’m talking about, this is big. Potentially. You may want to start with Kate’s post here and then follow her blog for the latest updates, as she seems to be on top of the issue better than most.

My thoughts on Anthropogenic Climate Change? I’m skeptical to the idea, especially to the degree of human involvement, although I’m not entirely committed to the idea that humans are not having any effect on the atmosphere either. The hacked emails and codes from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, which is the clearinghouse for all things climate in academia and which has been the source for much of the scientific evidence upon which the International Panel on Climate Change rests, are not very persuasive to the cause, to say the least.

Whether or not this whole climate change thing is the truth or has been greatly exaggerated, I hope now that enough impetus is available for a more open and industrious study into the quantity and extent of the fraud that has been perpetrated on citizens across the globe. As I have never been fully convinced of the AGW theory, the proponents of this concept have a lot of ’splainin’ to do, Lucy.

However, even if the hacked data amounts to nothing more than a hill of beans, what concerns me is the insistence of the powers that be on the one scheme that supposedly could control or mitigate the effect of accumulated carbon in the atmosphere just so happens to have very similar attributes with the political ideology of world socialism. Any other concepts to address the alleged problem — promoting nuclear fuel, say, or developing strategies for humans to live comfortably or safely with a warmer climate — are not considered and dismissed as being spawn in the pocket of Big Oil/Nuclear/Corporations/Military-Industrial Complex.

Why does everything have to come down to transferring resources to a world government for distribution of their choosing?

Of course, atoning for guilt through the use of sacrifice is nothing new. It’s encoded in our genes. Indulgences to the church in exchange for retribution of our souls is a common example of this. Rich men and women would pay indulgences to their local bishop or prior who in turn would intercede on their behalf with the Lord Almighty Himself, which would often turn into a lucrative business. Other cultures sacrificed livestock in order to curry favour with their gods. This was often profitable for the vendors at the temple who were happy to oblige the tortured souls. Human sacrifice rituals were often commonplace in certain cultures, although I doubt the sacrifices themselves came from the elite families of their barbaric societies.

Thankfully, we have not succumbed to human ritual sacrifice in the cause of global warming (yet), but the sacrifices that are and will continue being made will be borne by the vast majority of middle class citizens in western liberal democracies. Those who are encouraging this massive shift in private capital through government-mandated bureaucracies will not suffer the consequences of increased taxes, limited freedoms and ever-increasing intrusion of the state into our private lives.

I cannot tell where this Climategate is going to lead, what other scandals will emerge, or how the citizens of the West will respond. I do know, however, that I will not support the Copenhagen Treaty and I will oppose any further initiative that cynically claims to help the environment through tired and worn socialist schemes.

Any reasonable person ought to do likewise.

Stay tuned.

For the record, here is my prediction for playoff performance in this most coveted of seasons.

EASTERN CONFERENCE

First Round

(1) Boston Bruins v. (8) Montreal Canadiens
In 2002, the eighth-seeded Habs upset the top-ranked B’s in a stunning first-round match-up. The difference? In 2002, the Bears were led by Joe Thornton. In 2009, you have Zdeno Chara and his mighty stick.

Money quote: “No contest.”

Bruins in 5.

(2) Washington Capitals v. (7) New York Rangers

This might be more difficult than you might expect. The Blueshirts have a slight edge in goaltending, but not enough to make up the difference. The Capitals overwhelm with firepower but are notoriously weak on defense. The Rangers are the complete opposite. Unfortunately for them, even though defense wins championships, it doesn’t always get you past the first round.

Money quote: “If you’re not sick of Ovechkin now, just wait a couple of weeks.”

Caps in 6.

(3) New Jersey Devils v. (6) Carolina Hurricanes

Two teams to watch, this is going to be one fantastic hockey series. True, it will be boring, the teams have virtually no interest to others across the league, and we’ll probably be lucky to catch the highlights on SportsCentre, let alone watch any games themselves. Both both teams have their fair share of Stanley Cup rings, they both boast Stanley Cup-winning goaltenders, and both have enough depth and balance to go all the way. One of them will represent the East in the Stanley Cup finals.

Money quote: “Who cares? Lord Stanley, that’s who.”

Canes in 7.

(4) Pittsburgh Penguins v. (5) Philadelphia Flyers

A re-match from last year’s Eastern conference final, this one will be bloody. Pittsburgh has enjoyed a revitalization of sorts in the past month, but only solidified their playoff position on the very last day of the season. Meanwhile, Philly hasn’t exactly rocketed up the charts this season, but Simon Gagne is back with a vengeance. Keep in mind that one of these teams is better than they were a year ago, and that team isn’t based in western Pennsylvania.

Money quote: “Sid who?”

Flyers in 6.

Second Round

(1) Boston Bruins v. (6) Carolina Hurricanes

Along with New Jersey, the Canes are the only team capable of knocking off this supposed juggernaut. Cam Ward will outplay Tim Thomas, who will spasm himself right out of Beantown before series end, and Rod “The Bod” Brind’Amour — who owns both the best name and the best nickname in the NHL — will smother Marc Savard like a fat man smothers nutella on toast. It’ll be fun to watch.

Money quote: “Wha’ happened?”

Canes in 7.

(2) Washington Capitals v. (5) Philadelphia Flyers

Good, fast, high-scoring series. Philly will put up a good fight, but coach John Stevens will be out-coached by Bruce Boudreau, and that will be the difference.

Money quote: “If you weren’t sick of Ovechkin in the first round, you will be after the second.”

Caps in 6.

Third Round

(2) Washington Capitals v. (6) Carolina Hurricanes

Yes, the incredible has happened — two Southeast division teams will take it down the wire in the conference final. Unfortunately for the Caps, they will meet the one team in said division that can kick them across the ice three ways from sideways. True, the vaunted Washington offense will score their fair share of goals, but Jose Theodore will finally succumb to the realization that he sucks like a Dyson DC07 upright Cyclonic vacuum and that he would be doing us all a favour if he would simply quit hockey, move to Russia, and never show his face in the light of free peoples everywhere again.

Money quote: “Okay, seriously. What’s wrong with you? Why aren’t you sick of Ovechkin?”

Canes in 5.

WESTERN CONFERENCE

First Round

(1) San Jose Sharks v. (8) Anaheim Ducks

Anaheim will be a much better team in the playoffs than they were in the regular season. The Sharks won’t.

Money quote: “What has Joe Thornton ever won?”

Ducks in a bloody 7.

(2) Detroit Red Wings v. (7) Columbus Blue Jackets

Swami Johnny sez, “A hot young goaltender, an experienced playoff team, and having nothing to lose — What are three attributes not shared by either team in this series?” True, that wasn’t funny, or even remotely interesting, but see what you can do without the comedy writing team of The Tonight Show in the ’80s.

Money quote: “Too tough to call”

BJs in 7.

(3) Vancouver Canucks v. (6) St. Louis Blues

The two hottest teams in the NHL, if not the most wretchedly boring. As good as Vancouver was, St Louis seems to have more balance, not to mention loads of more luck and swagger. The pressure’s on V-City, so I’m going with the looser team.

Money quote: “St Louis is the silver lining on the Flames dash to the regular season finish line.”

Blues in 6.

(4) Chicago Blackhawks v. (5) Calgary Flames

Oh. My. God. The Hawks have it all — youth, energy, health, scoring, balance, and a goaltender who has made a career out of beating a single team, which just happens to be his current opponent. The Flames have … um, well, a recovering Rene Bourque? That said, Kiprusoff has the ability to beat any team almost single-handedly, and the present squad in front of him is as good as any iced in the past decade or more. Considering that the genius sports commentators all across this great dominion have placed the Flames’ odds at winning at roughly three-billion-seven-hundred-million-and-forty-two-to-one, there’s money to be made.

Money quote: “I’ll be damned if the first time I don’t bet on the Flames since 2004s turns out to be their first upset since that time.”

Flames in 7.

Second Round

(4) Calgary Flames v. (8) Anaheim Ducks

The bane of Calgary’s playoff existence, the Ducks can walk all over Calgary on any given night. Then again, if Kipper can stonewall the high-scoring Hawks, he will do no worse against the one-note Quackers, right?

Right?

Money quote: “This series will be as close as Chris Pronger’s incisors.”

Flames in 5.

(6) St Louis Blues v. (7) Columbus Blue Jackets

Um, I don’t know. I probably shouldn’t have called either one of these teams to win in the first place. The Battle of the Masons is as probable as my own shot to make it with Megan Fox, but that doesn’t mean that the possibilty doesn’t exist. Or does it?

Money quote: “This will be fun to watch. I won’t watch it, but it would be fun if I did.”

Blues in 7.

Third Round

(5) Calgary Flames v. (6) St Louis Blues

The luck runs out for the boys from Cowtown as St Louis avenges the tightly-fought 1988 conference final battle that featured their current vice-president for hockey operations playing for their rival. And if you believe that, then you’ll probably have bet your house that this improbable conference final will even occur.

Money quote: “Phaneuf pulls a Steve Smith and forever lives in infamy.”

Blues in 7.

STANLEY CUP FINAL

(6) Carolina Hurricanes v. (6) St Louis Blues

Jeezuz, if this happens, I’d better buy a lottery ticket.

Money quote: “Wow. Just, wow.”

Canes win their second in four seasons.

Conn Smythe Trophy: Rod Brind ‘Amour.
.
.
.
.
.
.
… and then I wake up.

The other day on my beloved Facebook, I posted a link to this graph:

I added as my own caption, “Of course, this is of no concern to you … unless you happen to live a country that is completely tied into the American economy.”

Which, of course, is true.

One comment I received went as follows:

This is like me renting an apartment for 7 years, having a huge party the night that I move out that trashes the place and then a week later complain about how the new tennants are spending so much on repairs and can’t keep their place clean. Dude, I thought you were intelligent?

You see, if you don’t believe what I believe, then it’s me who must be unintelligent, right?

Right?

My response:

Using that specious analogy, the new tenant asks the landlord to clean up the mess, but then calls him out publicly and stiffs his payment. At the same time, the new tenant hires a bunch of unlicensed contractors to renovate the apartment by knocking down some load-bearing walls and adding a granny suite to the perilously hanging fire escape ladder, and then gets your grandkids to pay for it — while yukking it up on The Tonight Show.

Yeah, it’s clunky, but the premise holds.

His response:

I hope you are kidding.

My retort:

I wish I was.

Remember the talking points, people: If there is a problem with anything during the next four years, it’s Bush’s fault.

Lousy economy? Bush.

Terrorists hate us? Bush.

You get a sunburn? Bush.

You see, Obama is brilliant, as evidenced by his glowing, ephemeral speeches. And his two autobiographies written before he became president. And, well, because he isn’t Bush.

So when a leader of a country decides to solve the deficit crisis by doubling said deficit, when he tries to instill faith in the economic system by denouncing those who work in said system, when he attempts to bring “fairness” to the tax code by appointing an admitted tax cheat as Treasury secretary, it’s because he operates on a higher plane than poor li’l ol’ you or me.

And if anyone dares to question this man’s tact, it is the questioner who must have it all wrong.

Who lacks intelligence.

Blow it out your ass, man. If you want to hang on to the dream, fine by me. Just don’t drag me down there with you.

To say that Canadian railway operators are reluctant to accept realities of modern life is an understatement:

With plans for the 25th Street extension now approved, the major question turns to if or when the railways will abandon some of their downtown lines for new routes on the periphery of the city.

But Canadian Pacific Railway dug in its heels Tuesday, saying it has no plans to leave downtown. Doing so would significantly disrupt its business in the city, a spokesperson said.

“We have no desire or intention to relocate,” Breanne Feigel said in an interview.

As usual with anything worth noting that’s published in the StarPhoenix, here my requisite letter to the editor:

Re: Railway reluctant to leave downtown, March 18

The national railway companies must think of Saskatoon residents as a cackle of ignorant prairie rubes. Otherwise, why else would they be so dismissive of plans to develop and reinvigorate the city’s north downtown on the grounds that it would “disrupt its business in the city.” Know what else disrupts business in this city? A freight train that crawls through major transportation corridors during rush hour.

Time has come for the rail companies to recognize Saskatoon as the province’s major urban hub and centre of economic activity. Moving the tracks outside the city core is not a matter of “if” but of “when”. The sooner the rail companies can agree with this sentiment, the sooner Sasktoon’s economic and transporation strategies can enter the 21st century.

Damn, I’m witty.

But come on: why the hell haven’t the major rail companies — who obviously are waiting for the re-emergence of passenger rail as a viable transportation alternative — done anything to divert or mitigate disruption of traffic during, you know, the past century? And where was the city or federal government on this?

It’s tough to take a city seriously when you’re waiting at the train tracks every couple of weeks. Boo-urns.

(Disclaimer: The title of this post may not live up to your expectations.)

Former President George Walker Bush will descend on Calgary’s Stephen Avenue next Wednesday for his first private speaking engagement since leaving office in January. Unfortunately for him, he won’t be lucky enough to avoid the semi-professional, semi-sane moonbat parade during his visit on St Patrick’s Day, as this Herald article points out:

A series of events aimed at protesting the impending visit of former United States president George W. Bush to Calgary launched Thursday afternoon with a short-lived demonstration on downtown’s Stephen Avenue.

Usually protesters wait, you know, until the protestee actually arrives before they begin protesting. It sure has been a long two months for these poor souls.

Hanging two banners — one black to reflect the events that unfolded while the United States was helmed by Bush and one white bearing messages looking toward the future — peace activists tried to engage passers-by.

Black = bad? White = good? Racists!

According to Toby Pollet, a former peacekeeper who served in Croatia and Yugoslavia, Bush should be facing war crimes charges under the Canadian Criminal Code.

“Now we’re inviting him here for a chat. It’s ridiculous,” he said as he helped hang the black banner.

Somehow I don’t believe that Peacekeeper Toby invited anyone to chat anywhere.

Or vice versa.

Fellow activist Tavis Ford said he was shocked to learn not only that Bush was coming to Calgary, but that the Chamber of Commerce was welcoming him on behalf of Calgarians.

“What are we doing?” he asked.

Good question.

Besides the banner event, the People vs. Bush group has planned a fake trial of the former leader–complete with actors and a script — for his alleged crimes.

The correct legal terminology in Canada would be Rex v. Bush, Roundhead.

Ford said it doesn’t matter that Bush is no longer the leader of the United States.

“If we let Bush go, what do we tell future leaders?” he said.

Perhaps that Canada doesn’t jail former leaders of our allies on the whim of a small but embarrassing mob?

Bush is set to talk on March 17 at the Telus Convention Centre.During the private event, called A conversation with George W. Bush, the former president is expected to talk about his eight years as the head of the United States and what challenges the world now faces.

Event organizers would not say how ticket sales for the event are progressing. Previously, they said they expected about 1,500 people to attend.

A friend is one of the organizers. He tells me that this is one of the most popular events they have ever had.

Mount Royal College political scientist Keith Brownsey called the strong dislike of Bush “profound,” but said it is “in many ways” deserved for leading the United States into a war in which thousands have lost their lives.

… and in which two brutal dictatorships were disposed and when Saddam Hussein was captured and tried and where liberal democracy in the Middle East has grabbed a foot-hold …

“The hopes that were dashed with George W. Bush, the policies he pursued, have put the United States in a profoundly difficult position, both domestically and worldwide,” he said. But he added he is interested in hearing what the former leader has to say.

Come now, Brownsey. What hopes did you ever have of George Bush, and whence were they dashed?

The activists’ arguments echo those from a group of lawyers who have asked the RCMP to bar the former president from entering the country, saying there is “overwhelming evidence that he has committed, outside Canada, torture and other offences.”

The group, called the Lawyers Against War, wrote a letter to the national police service’s war crimes section, copying Prime Minister Stephen Harper, other federal ministers and opposition MPs and has asked for a reply prior to Bush’s arrival in Canada.

I’m going to write a letter asking Prime Minister Stephen Harper to declare a War Against Lawyers.

Thursday’s event lasted less than an hour as bylaw officers indicated the group could face fines or court appearances for hanging their banners on trees and lampposts, and the signs were subsequently taken down by the group. One of the officers confirmed they had received a call about the protest.

They’re flouting the law! Arrest them! Arrest them all!

As an aside, am I the only one in thinking that these nut-bags would secretly endorse a change to the American Constitution that would have enabled President Bush to hold office indefinitely — if only to provide meaning to their pathetic lives?

Dare to channel Adam Smith in your latest criticism of modern capitalism? Better read Peter Foster’s piece in The Walrus, of all places. The article, which to my knowledge has not been published online to date, ends thus:

[I]t was only last year, after two centuries of neglect, that a significant statue of Adam Smith was finally raised in Edinburgh, and it went up by private subscription. At the Kirkcaldy museum, meanwhile, there is another quote, from an essay collection titled “A Hotbed of Genius.” “Smith,” it says, “is often misrepresented as an uncritical advocate of a free economy. In fact, he believed that the government should be responsible for major public works … he warned against the evils of industrialization.”

While it stresses Smith’s qualms about free markets and industrialization, this government-run museum makes no reference to his much greater reservations about government.

Quoting Joseph Schumpeter, Friedrich Hayek, Niall Ferguson, and even Michael Lewis, Foster keeps the reader informed on the basics of free-market thinking, and reminds us that to go back to Smith means to go back to basics. This would include the avoidance of excessive government intervention every time there is a downturn.

To quote the great man himself, we are to watch out for “that insidious and crafty animal, vulgarly called a statesman or politician, whose councils are directed by the momentary fluctuations of affairs.”

Bravo, Mr. Smith. Bravo.

Stephen Taylor on the ideal-busting Conservative budget:

We can lament the budget delivered by our Conservative Party and complain that it goes against our instincts as conservatives. But yesterday, the Conservative government did it’s job, it presented a survivable budget in the current political climate. However, the conservative movement failed because it was unsuccessful in creating the conditions of ideological survivability for what should have been a sincerely conservative budget.

So what are we going to do about it?

It is difficult to be politically realistic without appearing cynical, but Taylor walks this fine line. He is also absolutely correct. The battle for idealogical conservatism in this country will not be won on parliament hill, even though it is a theatre of said battle. Rather, national support for conservatism needs to come through the concerted effort from the supporters themselves. The Left have done a impressive job in infiltrating all aspects of our culture, developing the arguments and boundaries by which we debate key issues. From schools to local community organizations to the arts to the civil service to industry to the environment movement and so on, the debate has been framed to suit a more liberal (in the modern sense) and socialistic agenda. While this re-framing was done with good intentions, the result is a governing ideology that cannot credibly mount an argument for fiscal prudence and the conservative values, especially those values that promote tradition, responsibility, self-sacrifice, and individual success.

In other words, conservatives must not yield their positions in the aforementioned fields because they have lost the war of attrition. The argument has not been won on ideological grounds but because of guilt, guilt of our successes, our wealth, and our freedoms. Believe me; having grown up Catholic, I know all there needs to be known about the power of guilt.

That our society was not perfect 50 years ago allowed for modern liberal and socialist ideas to permeate and, ultimately, dictate the accepted norms. Chief among these norms is the meme that socialism is compassionate while conservatism is harsh, cold, uncaring. Conservatives lost this ground, even though conservatism can be — nay, is — compassionate as any ideology can muster.

Conservatives must re-take that argument. Conservatives must not be over-run by fantastiful delusions that by allowing central authority to rule over most aspects of our lives, our society will improve as a result.

The past few decades have shown this to be completely false. In that time, modern liberal states have done nothing more than our conservative predecessors in preventing crime, poverty, or social ills. What they have been successful in doing is taking away rightfully earned dollars and pissing them away in huge money pits that only serve to preserve status quo, rather than advance the nation’s interests. Can anyone, for example, argue that the Canadian health care system is now the envy of the world? Can anyone say that the $10 billion thrown toward native groups each year has done anything to improve the lives of our aboriginal citizens? Can anyone credibly argue that unions have not been a drain on productivity in our civil service, social service or industry?

I am not advocating that we scrap these institutions, funding, or policies outright. I am however calling for a renewal in a conservatism that can confidently question policies now considered sacred by our self-anointed elites.

Unfortunately, that confidence is lacking, the country will have to pay as a result of it.

The time has come to change all this. Canada needs conservatism more than ever, and conservatives themselves must define exactly what that means.

I came across the following letter in the Star-Phoenix today that read with all the subtlety of a giant bull’s eye on the back of a white tail buck:

Wrong group in charge

It is easier for media commentators to decide what went wrong with the economy than to propose how to fix it.

The “Chicago School” economic fundamentalism preached by Milton Friedman held that an unregulated market was best, because it worked on entirely rational principles. The American government, with Allan Greenspan as its adviser, endorsed this policy, as did industry and some other national governments.

U.S. President Barack Obama referred to today’s “culture of greed and scheming.” It’s a culture that throws a monkey wrench into Friedman’s ideas. Some people are so indoctrinated that they won’t believe the system has flaws. Greenspan now admits he was wrong.

Deregulation and privatization are so entrenched in our minds of government leaders that they aren’t likely to find the solutions to turn around the economy.

Washingston’s aid package was not as effective as it could have been because the Bush administration delayed its passage. It’s been suggested that we should not expect much change from the Obama administration because a lot of his campaign money came from lobbyists who represent industry, banks and the health-care industry, such as drug makers.

Governments have cut funding in areas such as education, agriculture and culture, but quickly found billions to bail out financial institutions. They got it wrong, of course. Taxpayers were not protected, but the corporate leaders who got the banks into trouble collected millions in bonuses.

Neo-conservatives have trouble deciding what went wrong. Should they now be in charge of changing our system?

Lorne Jackson

Riverhurst

I wrote my own letter in response, though I’m not holding my breath for its publication:

Re: “Wrong group in charge,” Letters, Jan. 28

It is easier for some letter writers to come up with an exhaustive list of straw men to blame for what went wrong with the economy than to offer any suggestions as to how to fix it. Take Lorne Jackson. Please.

In his letter, Jackson rolls out the usual suspects, namely the “Chicago School”, Milton Friedman, Allan Greenspan, “industry”, the “culture of greed and scheming”, “deregulation and privatization”, the Bush administration; lobbyists, corporate leaders and, of course, neo-conservatives. I suppose Dracula, the boogeyman, and the Wicked Witch of the West were excluded due to space restrictions.

Jackson felt no need to place any blame on stupid homeowners who borrowed money they could not possibly afford to pay back, or American government policies designed specifically to promote sub-prime mortgages while penalizing institutions that refused to invest in potentially delinquent files. No, the cause of the crisis was instead due in part to cutting funding to “education, agriculture and culture.” Sure, it was.

Most tellingly, Jackson does not suggest who ought to be “in charge of changing our system,” leaving the reader to guess at the possibilities. In lieu of an ailing Fidel Castro, perhaps Jack Layton would suit his preference?

The economic crisis was the result of the complex convergence of many factors that exposed some of the weaknesses of the free market system. That said, while there are flaws with this system, they do not negate the fact that capitalism is largely responsible for the unparalleled successes of our own society, the richest, most advanced and prosperous the world has ever seen. It’s a pity that there are members of this society who remain willfully ignorant to this fact.

I wish I were more eloquent.

I also wish letter writers could refrain from spewing out ideas stolen from Naomi Klein and have an original thought or two themselves.

Any suggestion that the $85 billion government deficit in the next five years is meant to stimulate the economy should be rightly met with loud cries of derision. As has been mentioned elsewhere, any irrational and unsustainable increase in spending by the government is designed not as “economic stimulus” — because it will hurt the economy in both short- and long-term — but rather “government stimulus” — because it allows the government broad latitude in involving itself further in the lives of the citizenry.

Kelly McParland’s not-so-witty-yet-on-the-mark commentary on the budget line items express this better than anyone. Most of the spending increases would never be passed by a true conservative government, with a majority at least.

I would be livid except for these three words: Finance. Minister. Layton. Yes, children, it could have been worse.

But it could have been so much better.

Prime Minister Harper, I urge you: grow a pair.

The good Count Ignatieff deigned himself to write me a pleasant, personal note thanking me for my heretofore unknown contribution to his “litmus test” “economic listening tour” done since he took over as leader of the Liberal Party in a stunning display of democratic showmanship last December.

His letter below.

Dear Robert,

During my January economic listening tour – and by way of thousands of emails – you provided me with a litmus test for the upcoming budget, and I shared your views with Mr. Harper. I told him that in order for his budget to earn the support of the Liberal Party, it must do three things: 1) protect the most vulnerable Canadians – those hardest hit by these difficult times, 2) protect the jobs of today, in every region of the country, and 3) create the jobs of tomorrow, strengthening Canada’s competitiveness and productivity without leaving our children to inherit a legacy of debt and deficit.

Later today, when the government releases its budget we will be looking to see if it meets this test and whether Stephen Harper is serious about addressing the economic challenges we face after failing to act for so long.

In order to make the right decision for Canada, I will be taking some time to review the contents of the budget, and will return with our Party’s decision on Wednesday. In the meantime, I want to hear from you. Please let me know if you think the budget meets your test.

As I’ve said before, we are in this crisis together and we will get out of it together. I look forward to hearing from you.

Michael

Count Michael “Michael” Ignatieff then directs me to a link on his own website where I may offer my response. For prosperity’s sake, I copied my own response here.

I think you should let the budget pass only if funding for political parties is scrapped — in addition to tax credits for private donations to said parties.

Money is tight and political parties need to feel the burn like the rest of us.

Other than that, I believe that you are doing a terrific job leading the Liberal Party down into the gutter of history where it belongs. Keep up the good work!

“Signed”, etc.