A bad night for the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario

There is a very concrete rule in Canadian politics:  winnable by-elections need to be won by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

With the party offering an ineffective candidate in Tony Genco in Vaughan, there was only one true by-election to contest.  A riding they were in fact defending.

Tonight, the Ontario PC Party had a very winnable by-election in Kitchener Waterloo.  Had the party kept its traditional level of support obtained by Elizabeth Witmer (40-43%), they would have hung on given the fact that the Liberals could get 25-30% at least.

But as it turns out, the PCs dropped 12% and so did the Liberals.  The NDP in turn picked up all the Liberal support and almost all PC support.  The Greens had a modest uptick. 

Tim Hudak campaigned for the by-elections with a message of "Stop McGuinty."  Well as it turns out in Kitchener Waterloo, they did.  Just not for his party.

The Ontario PC Party continues to suffer from a communications problem that has extended from the last election.  In the 2011 provincial election, there was a sense that Tim Hudak felt he could say anything and because he wasn't Dalton McGuinty, that he would coast to victory. 

As of tonight, that trend continues.  There is no vision in this party.  A few tiny policies and anger towards McGuinty.  Hardly an inspiring brand. 

The Ontario PC Party has not articulated a strong, principled and conservative vision for governing Ontario.  Ontario badly needs fiscal conservatism as it continues to dwindle in deficits and corruption. 

Paging Mike Harris...

Why Obama might lose

When I saw this picture on the left, I thought it was a good omen as to what is happening.  

I have a sense that the Obama presidency is crumbling, slowly but surely.  From the weight of its own hubris.

There is a lot of talk about how President Obama is very much still in the driver's seat to win the election.  It's all about the electoral college and how the map will play out in November. 

While it is true that the President has more paths to victory than does Romney, I believe that the map is not set in stone. 

Mr. Obama spent the first half of his term pushing through a stimulus that mostly helped his friends at the expense of the American people.  He then pushed a questionable healthcare bill through that nobody likes.  All the while, the economy moved at a tepid pace. 

Any sign of recovery in the economy has been short lived.  Unemployment is still very high and there is much malaise out there. 

And unlike Bill Clinton, the last Democratic president who will speak at the DNC this week, Obama did not use the defeat of his party in the midterms to reach out to Republicans and find ways to enact pro-growth policies. 

Instead, it's been much ado about blame and retreating to the golf course while the rest of the nation has coped with the slow economy. 

So far in this campaign cycle, the president has offered no solutions for helping the economy grow.  Instead, we have heard anti-business rhetoric like the "you didn't build that" speech. 

Obama's strategy appears to be pinned down to demonizing Romney, scaring certain voting segments from voting Romney and relying on holding enough of the states won last time to clinch a narrow victory. 

But I believe that will ultimately backfire.

Mr. Obama is turning off independents by the day which makes me believe that many states that voted blue in the past 4-8-12 or more years are in play.  States like Wisconsin and Michigan. 

Americans are looking for an optimistic message to turn the economy around and Romney is the one sounding it at the moment. 

The next 63 days will be very telling.  We could be in for a huge surprise come election day. 

Mass public killings in perspective

On the heels of the Aurora, CO massacre, a study has revealed that mass public killings account for less than 1% of total murders in general.
In fact, not even 0.5% of total murders.   It's 0.1% according to Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections. 

Now why is this important?  It's important because both pro- and anti-gun control advocates are using the tragedy to further their own agenda.  And the media is facilitating them by sensationalizing this horrific, violent act. 

When you listen to the media sometimes (and Fox News is equally guilty), you get the feeling that they want to make it seem like America is a gun-toting, hungry-for-violence country and that a massacre like the one seen at the Dark Knight premiere is all-too-common. 

Let's be clear:  when a homicide takes place, it is an isolated and awful event.  The same goes for this cowardly attack on innocent movie-goers, albeit on a much greater/horrific scale. 

There are millions of people who are capable of watching violent movies or owning guns and never turning a gun on people.  There are maybe 10 people who will inflict massacres in the span of 3-5 years. 

It would be very difficult to set policy based on a very small and radical minority of people.  But I'm sure it will be attempted. 

But that's not to say that nothing should happen.  Greater security may have to be looked into. 

The key is not to get strung up in the high emotions of a very sensational event like the Aurora, CO massacre.   That has never been the recipe for good decision-making. 

Recruitment agents: curse or blessing?

So I have been searching for work in the last little while.  Up until today, the only interviews I had were with recruitment agents.   More specifically, they were with three agencies specializing in recruiting accounting professionals.

It works like this:  they bring you in and give you a psuedo-interview.  They create the impression that part of their job is to find you a job.  That's only partially true. 

While you do figure a lot in their overall commission, the agens exists to serve the employer.  The employer is the one who pays their bills. 

And while the more you make means the more they will make, an agent will not hesitate to sell you short to make a quick buck.    Not only does the employer pay you, but he must pay a cut on top. That is often the reason why you start at a smaller pay rate because the employer is looking to cut the cost of bringing you on.

One problem that appears to be surfacing is that agents are overtaking a majority of online job postings such that at times, it is almost impossible not to get hired without one.

Another issue is this:  you may be subject to a lot more scrutiny when you get the job because there is a premium to be paid on you.  There is usually less pressure when you come in by yourself. 

Bottom line is this:  the agent is not your friend.  Use them with caution.  Try to get a job by yourself but if you absolutely must, then go with agents. 

Obama to business: "you didn't build that."

I've watched this video a few times.  Quite the populist rhetoric from
Barack Obama. 

Here's the jist:  the President said that businesses are dependant on
so-called public goods, such as roads, bridges and even the research
that led to the internet.  

Fair enough:  I never disputed the fact that government is a necessity. 
Government exists for the things we all need collectively that we could
not possibly get from the private sector.   If the private sector was able to
administer the services that government provides, no government would be
necessary.  

In fact, there was one such political system where the private sector acted like
a government.  It was called feudalism and it didn't work very well. 

But it works the other way too.  Businesses employ people who pay taxes.
Businesses pay taxes themselves.   It is after all, a simbiotic relationship. 

The problems start when government views the more affluant in society
as an endless ATM that they can draw on whenever they wish. 

John Locke theorized that government was created in large part to protect
property and allow for the acquisition of more property.   That these things
would extend to any member of society.   In other words, government's main
reason for being is to facilitate the pursuit of happiness.  If not for that, why
would government exist? 

So the President in effect is asking business to be grateful for government's
basic duties?   Businesses are merely making the most of the situation. 

Quite often, the difference between being an employer as opposed to being
an employee is seizure of opportunity.  And those who make the most of their
opportunities should not be blamed for doing so.

They are after all taking on more risks than an employee.  An employee can always
leave and get another job.  An employer may have to deal with bankruptcy if things go awry. 

And where is the government then? 

I never hear the government say to business:  "thank you for employing people."   "Thank you for
creating taxpayers rather than tax recipients." "Thank you for the sales taxes you collect"  Never. 
Not a peep.

And another question to President Obama:  where do you think the revenue the government
already receives comes from?  It's not yours.  It belonged largely to the successful class.