Britian's Sir Fred Goodwin claims he is entitled to his pension rewards, regardless of his dismal performance as head of Royal Bank of Scotland. The RBS ex chief executive is defending his right to not only a dubious payment amounting to 16.9 million pounds, but also a yearly pension amount of 703,000 pounds.
It is said that that he still takes the view that he is entitled to the money.
He should start a new career as Britain's version of Ed the Sock. Sir Ed, cigar?
"Goodwin's pension pot was doubled to £16.9m on the weekend the bank was bailed out by the taxpayer in October."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/apr/03/fred-goodwin-pension-rbs-agm
Friday, April 3, 2009
Where's Jack?
Has anyone heard from the usually anxious to be seen and heard Jack Layton lately? I can't remember the last time I read an article about what Jack Layton thinks about such things as more stimulus, or the Auto Industry or G20 priorities or anything else for that matter. Maybe I'm just not reading the right sources, but it seems to me that Jack is unusually quiet. Especially for Jack.
When I read a link from the Toronto Star by Chantal Hebert provided by Dee earlier, I got to wondering why we aren't hearing from him? That article points to a poll done by Leger, which indicates Canadians coast to coast largely agree on something for a change. No bailout for GM and Chrysler. According to Hebert, only 15% of Canadians support bailing them out, and even in Ontario there is only 17% who support it.
So, back to my thought, why aren't we hearing from bouncy Jack?
When I read a link from the Toronto Star by Chantal Hebert provided by Dee earlier, I got to wondering why we aren't hearing from him? That article points to a poll done by Leger, which indicates Canadians coast to coast largely agree on something for a change. No bailout for GM and Chrysler. According to Hebert, only 15% of Canadians support bailing them out, and even in Ontario there is only 17% who support it.
So, back to my thought, why aren't we hearing from bouncy Jack?
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Searching for an intelligent debate re: Long Gun legislation
This is a pet peeve of mine. I have read a number of items from people who oppose abolishing the Long Gun Registry, and have never found any of them to be convincing. In fact, most of the time they rely on catch phrases, rhetoric, bias borne from swishing down contemporary urban thought process with pints of spittle and other misc. tidbits which they cannot support thoroughly with numbers.
This bill does not propose scrapping the entire gun registry. It does not propose changing the status of firearms that are currently illegal. Kalashnikov's will still be illegal. It does not propose ending the very time consuming and intrusive process involved in obtaining a license to own a firearm or any of the other laws associated with that.
What it addresses is, ending the record keeping arm of the bureaucracy which is related to Long guns. Such things as hunting rifles, military rifles (non automatic) and antique rifles.
At the heart of this, is a clash of cultures, era's and political pandering. What we have in essence, is a time warp of sorts. The cities have lot's of trouble's these days with drugs, drug dealers, assorted criminal elements and they also have noisy special interest groups. The issue of the Long guns has become a crutch for those who haven't the courage to admit where the real source of their troubles comes from. That being themselves, their daily habits and weaknesses and dull wits. Oh look, there's a new bandwagon to jump on! Hurry!
At the core of my gripes is another consideration, that being the lack of public input and regional representation involved when these laws and regulations were initially implemented. I don't remember any public discussions in my area. I don't remember this being an important election plank. I don't remember the government of the day giving consideration to a long established right, and the weight of past practice involved. What I remember is the arrogance of a majority federal government who as usual, acted based on what was politically expedient at the time.
I don't presume to have basis to tell Ontario, Quebec or B.C. what to do about the problems that have been created, largely in their high population areas. If they can't address the drug issues, without encompassing laws covering ownership of guns, then that is something for them to deal with. And that is who I think should deal with it. I think most of the responsibility for gun legislation should rest with provincial governments. Perhaps incorporating municipal government where warranted. Situations such as what is experienced in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver would suggest that might be sensible. It would localize controls on an as needed basis, plus costs as well.
But this one size fits all routine, sticks in my craw. I live in the outbacks, I don't want the troubles of the cities, and I don't need no steenkin' Big Brother telling me whether I's growed up enough to own a gun. Sometimes I wondered if Big Brother is all growed up?
This bill does not propose scrapping the entire gun registry. It does not propose changing the status of firearms that are currently illegal. Kalashnikov's will still be illegal. It does not propose ending the very time consuming and intrusive process involved in obtaining a license to own a firearm or any of the other laws associated with that.
What it addresses is, ending the record keeping arm of the bureaucracy which is related to Long guns. Such things as hunting rifles, military rifles (non automatic) and antique rifles.
At the heart of this, is a clash of cultures, era's and political pandering. What we have in essence, is a time warp of sorts. The cities have lot's of trouble's these days with drugs, drug dealers, assorted criminal elements and they also have noisy special interest groups. The issue of the Long guns has become a crutch for those who haven't the courage to admit where the real source of their troubles comes from. That being themselves, their daily habits and weaknesses and dull wits. Oh look, there's a new bandwagon to jump on! Hurry!
At the core of my gripes is another consideration, that being the lack of public input and regional representation involved when these laws and regulations were initially implemented. I don't remember any public discussions in my area. I don't remember this being an important election plank. I don't remember the government of the day giving consideration to a long established right, and the weight of past practice involved. What I remember is the arrogance of a majority federal government who as usual, acted based on what was politically expedient at the time.
I don't presume to have basis to tell Ontario, Quebec or B.C. what to do about the problems that have been created, largely in their high population areas. If they can't address the drug issues, without encompassing laws covering ownership of guns, then that is something for them to deal with. And that is who I think should deal with it. I think most of the responsibility for gun legislation should rest with provincial governments. Perhaps incorporating municipal government where warranted. Situations such as what is experienced in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver would suggest that might be sensible. It would localize controls on an as needed basis, plus costs as well.
But this one size fits all routine, sticks in my craw. I live in the outbacks, I don't want the troubles of the cities, and I don't need no steenkin' Big Brother telling me whether I's growed up enough to own a gun. Sometimes I wondered if Big Brother is all growed up?
Harper unexpected no-show at G20 family photo
This should be fun! Besides reminding me of Dion's little problem with showing up late for an interview during the last election campaign, I am looking forward to the Cat's and Dogs going at it over their interpretations. Given some conflicting reports on Harper's recent statements on stimulus, and the push pull on economic policy among the G20 leaders that has been reported, some room for speculation has emerged. Add to that, Mark Carney's recent back peddling and seeming contradictions of Harper's latest statements re: leaders should over act, (more power to the engines Mr. Scott!), I'm wondering whazzup?
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090402/world/g20_summit_harper
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090402/world/g20_summit_harper
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
And the rain rain rain came down down down, but the markets went back up again
Just a quickie post. I noticed both the TSX and the DJIA are up about 150 points today. Based on what, I have no clue. Nothing but bad news on the economic front, economic growth numbers and projections all down, employment numbers are frightening and the Peasants in London England are referring to it as Fortress London this week.
What do those investment people read anyway? Winnie the Pooh?
Silly Wabbits.
What do those investment people read anyway? Winnie the Pooh?
Silly Wabbits.
Frank Valeriote, MP for Guelph, cries foul on Auto deal
For those who don't know who Frank is, he's a newly elected first time MP and a Lawyer from the little burgh of Guelph Ontario. Guelph is home to Linamar Corp., a company heavily involved in providing parts for the Automotive Industry. Apparently, Frank is the Liberal member on the Subcommittee on the Automotive Industry of Canada, which is a bit curious given his background, but I suppose this type of thing is common place in Otterwa.
I read the roughly 4 page document put out by the Liberal Party on their concerns regarding the Industry, the gist of which appears to be to recommend a North American working group to discuss strategies for the ailing auto industry. All very well and good I suppose, except for the realities of the Big 3 being American companies and that it most definitely appears to be a high priority item for the Obama admin at this time. So what exactly Frank and Co. think at this point is quite likely not very high on the Obama peoples agenda.
The concern that stood out in the great long 4 pages or so, was this;
“This government has been completely negligent in defending Canadian interests and Canadian jobs,” he said.
This was made particularly evident last week, when General Motors told the auto subcommittee that it had committed all of its worldwide assets, including its assets in Canada, as collateral for U.S. loans to keep its American operations alive, Mr. Valeriote said.
“That may mean that this government's loans to GM Canada are going to be unsecured and Canadian taxpayers are going to be on the hook,” he said.
Political rhetoric aside, Frankie is a Lawyer, and I expect can easily understand loan documents and whether or not the government of Canada and thus it's citizens are properly secured in regards to the loans he refers to. Maybe getting some facts/terms would be more useful than writing up 4 pages plus on things that are largely irrelevant at this time?
The US government is going to do whatever it's going to do regarding GM and Chrysler. I don't think Canada's concerns will get much attention at this time, so better to expend your efforts clearly understanding our position than to speak only to be heard. I know a large number of Frank's constituents depend on the Auto Industry for their living. Not just the Linamar employees but the many who travel that awful highway every day to jobs in Milton, Oakville and the GTA, and I expect they want to hear that their guy is doing something. In keeping with that, my suggestion would be to learn all you can about the legal position, as quickly as possible, and to help make preparations if the bomb is dropped. Otherwise, you might be an MP with a very short term of service.
Liberal Party release below;
http://www.liberal.ca/story_15699_e.aspx
I read the roughly 4 page document put out by the Liberal Party on their concerns regarding the Industry, the gist of which appears to be to recommend a North American working group to discuss strategies for the ailing auto industry. All very well and good I suppose, except for the realities of the Big 3 being American companies and that it most definitely appears to be a high priority item for the Obama admin at this time. So what exactly Frank and Co. think at this point is quite likely not very high on the Obama peoples agenda.
The concern that stood out in the great long 4 pages or so, was this;
“This government has been completely negligent in defending Canadian interests and Canadian jobs,” he said.
This was made particularly evident last week, when General Motors told the auto subcommittee that it had committed all of its worldwide assets, including its assets in Canada, as collateral for U.S. loans to keep its American operations alive, Mr. Valeriote said.
“That may mean that this government's loans to GM Canada are going to be unsecured and Canadian taxpayers are going to be on the hook,” he said.
Political rhetoric aside, Frankie is a Lawyer, and I expect can easily understand loan documents and whether or not the government of Canada and thus it's citizens are properly secured in regards to the loans he refers to. Maybe getting some facts/terms would be more useful than writing up 4 pages plus on things that are largely irrelevant at this time?
The US government is going to do whatever it's going to do regarding GM and Chrysler. I don't think Canada's concerns will get much attention at this time, so better to expend your efforts clearly understanding our position than to speak only to be heard. I know a large number of Frank's constituents depend on the Auto Industry for their living. Not just the Linamar employees but the many who travel that awful highway every day to jobs in Milton, Oakville and the GTA, and I expect they want to hear that their guy is doing something. In keeping with that, my suggestion would be to learn all you can about the legal position, as quickly as possible, and to help make preparations if the bomb is dropped. Otherwise, you might be an MP with a very short term of service.
Liberal Party release below;
http://www.liberal.ca/story_15699_e.aspx
Hold the Presses! Iran offers to help U.S in Afghan..
Wa'll, it just might be good news. It might be just another shiny lure too. I have written earlier that I liked what Obama says, not so much what he has done. I am especially wary of his Bush era associates. I have also said, that for very many years, I tried my best to ignore American politics. Alas, that is no longer possible for me, once again, nor the rest of our Canadian citizens, who at the end or the day, don't care much about good intentions.
That said, and I could write a great deal more, but won't right now, I haven't given up on Obama's admin yet. I do reserve the right to try to understand the challenges of satisfying the many sucklings. As Abraham Lincoln once said, "Too many pigs, not enough teats". Extraordinary fellow their Mr. Lincoln. Not perfect. Many horrible things took place on his watch, but he had purpose and understanding and that provided him the gift or curse, of wisdom.
To the article;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/31/iran-afghanistan-obama
Having consumed that, I wish to add some thoughts. Is Iran finally feeling the pinch of the World Economic Crisis in a way that is so powerful that even they cannot resist an open hand?
Is there actually some, who hold wisdom within the admin/foriegn departments of the United States?
Can they find, the upside of down and make it work for the greater good? Perhaps we should also consider if this is in fact, the end game. For now.
Or is this yet another ruse? Another diversion. Another load of the oft delivered feel good medicine that has made those of us, who have experienced the true spirit of corrupted Democracy, so hardened?
That said, and I could write a great deal more, but won't right now, I haven't given up on Obama's admin yet. I do reserve the right to try to understand the challenges of satisfying the many sucklings. As Abraham Lincoln once said, "Too many pigs, not enough teats". Extraordinary fellow their Mr. Lincoln. Not perfect. Many horrible things took place on his watch, but he had purpose and understanding and that provided him the gift or curse, of wisdom.
To the article;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/31/iran-afghanistan-obama
Having consumed that, I wish to add some thoughts. Is Iran finally feeling the pinch of the World Economic Crisis in a way that is so powerful that even they cannot resist an open hand?
Is there actually some, who hold wisdom within the admin/foriegn departments of the United States?
Can they find, the upside of down and make it work for the greater good? Perhaps we should also consider if this is in fact, the end game. For now.
Or is this yet another ruse? Another diversion. Another load of the oft delivered feel good medicine that has made those of us, who have experienced the true spirit of corrupted Democracy, so hardened?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
