Opinionated Fool

At a town hall meeting yesterday, US president Barack Obama made the mistake of saying the AARP was a supporter of the currently before congress healthcare proposals as they relate to seniors. What Obama didn’t do though, apparently, is fact check that statement ahead of time. The AARP came out in contradiction to him, saying escentially if the bill took away from medicare benefits for seniors it wouldn’t be supported.

Clearly, the group is more than a little cautious where this bill’s concerned–and who wouldn’t be? It’s pretty well larger than life right now. And, clearly, Barack Obama’s going through a tiny bit of an overconfidence phase. Sorry, Barack. Apparently you don’t get to guarantee support for something just by opening your mouth. Next time, before you declare an organization’s intent to support something, maybe you aught to make sure that organization actually supports the said something. Just a thought, of which the opinionated fool has plenty.

That’s apparently the Dalton Mcguinty approach to things. In the legislature this past week, it came out that the review, which was previously cancelled rather on the hush hush, ended up never actually being started to begin with. So all this time of saying Ontario’s government had things in hand with the investigation, they were primarily blowing smoke.

The article goes on to say their latest reasoning behind it was because the starting of that contract would have been a duplication of the auditor general’s efforts–funnily enough, the same reason they used to cancel it. Question of the day, from the opinionated fool: which lie is the real lie? Or does Dalton McGuinty expect tax payers to just buy whatever he spits out? Between Ignatieff and McGuinty, I’m having trouble seeing why anyone’s surprised at the number of elections, both provincially and federally, the liberal party of Canada hasn’t actually won.

That’s what he’s saying this week, anyway, as he gets together with Canada’s prime minister and Mexico’s president this week. There’s just one problem. Everyone who’s not in Barack Obama’s employ tends to disagree with him–including Sir Flipsalot Michael Ignatieff himself, who criticised the legislation as it was introduced in Obama’s stimulous package. At the same time, Ignatieff was–and rightly so–criticising prime minister Stephen Harper for not getting on the US president over this sooner.

Now, of course, Obama points out to the reporter writing the article Harper brings it up to him every time they get together–he calls it representing the concerns of his nation. And, he’s right. When Canada’s own liberal party, who many believe to be more to the left than their US counterparts, balks at the measure as it stands right now, you know it has to be a little iffy. But, Obama says it’s nothing serious–said he needed the stimulous bill passed and passed now, so there wasn’t time to debate the issue. And we’re all supposed to just smile and nod, because that must be how it goes.

Barack, I liked your other idea better. Stick to that. You can at least pretend to know what you’re talking about with that–although, you could probably take some lessons on that from north of the border as well. Not that you will, of course, but even an average blogger can have a fantasyland. The only difference is it doesn’t make headlines.

That’s his reasoning to Mexico’s president for why it is Mexican visitors require visas when crossing the border. The requirement was introduced in early July in response to a sharp increase in bogus refugee claims from both Mexico and the Czech Republic.

You don’t need to look all that far to see why it is he can blame Canada’s immigration policies for the current situation–Mexico and the Czech Republic are supposed to be allies, as well as supposed to be legitimatly democratic countries. So there shouldn’t be refugee claims coming from those particular countries. Applications for refugee status are, or were pre-visas, getting to the point where legitimate refugees escaping legitimate crises ended up waiting significantly longer for their hearings than they should have been.

Canada is far too soft on immigration in a lot of cases–and this would be one of them. Now, though, that the hopefully temporary visa requirement is in place and claims have been appropriately decreased, here’s hoping Stephen Harper can actually push through some much needed reforms in that area. His press team will appreciate it.

In the latest episode of republicans from left field, two Kansas senators have decided that if Barack Obama doesn’t back off on his plans to relocate terrorism detainees, or provide them with specific details on his relocation plans, they won’t allow him to fill vacant positions in his administration. This from the same party who was perfectly fine with sending suspects that were supposed to be under their own jurisdiction to Cuba–who they never really trusted all that much in the first place.

So basicly, if Obama tries to do his job, they’re going to make it rather difficult for him to get anything really accomplished. Including, apparently, blocking two members of their own party among others from being appointed to positions in the pentagon and department of justice respectively. She may be in the opinionated deadpool, but apparently her party has learned to adopt the Palin style political touch–shoot yourself in the foot if you don’t get your own way then see what happens.

In other news, republican members of the house of representatives released a joint statement this morning. Effective immediately, they are resigning to pursue other avenues. In the statement, they said could better serve their country by quitting.

Most especially, Canada does not need a national 360-hour standard for minimum eligibility. The fact that Michael Ignatieff and the liberal party are clinging to that like it’s some kind of life preserver is, well, typical of the Canadian liberal party of late. By that, I mean perhaps one of the most ridiculous sticking points to ever come out of an attempt by a minority government to make something work.

The conservative government has already refused that suggestion, more than once, but for reasons I fail to comprehend, Ignatieff won’t move from it. To his credit, he did say he would be more than willing to negotiate with prime minister Stephen Harper, and that his insistance on 360 hours is just a starting point–now he just has to negotiate, rather than dangle an election Canadians don’t want over his, and their, heads. Can he actually do that?

Rather than throw election threat after election threat in the face of the prime minister, why not, say, help him to actually extend employment insurance to people who aren’t, or who soon won’t be, getting it.

Unemployment insurance in the US is already being tossed about as in need of an extension to cover off the fact jobs are still being lost, and people are running out of money. But north of the border, they stick to the 360-hour minimum for eligibility. And if they don’t get it, they’ll try for a vote of non-confidence and kick this thing into election gear. It’s a rare thing indeed, but Canada’s liberals could stand to learn a thing or two from their US counterparts. And someone should really tell Michael Ignatieff negotiations don’t do a whole lot of working when your people don’t actually negotiate.

Well, okay, so they’re only thinking about removing the “new” from their name, but still. That’s probably the first actual change I’ve seen that particular party put forward in a very long time, if ever. Of course, the fact it doesn’t make them any more relevant hasn’t seemed to enter into the party’s head, but then again they did elect Jack Layton as their leader.

In semi-related news, the opinionated fool has submitted for their consideration the suggestion that they change their name to the party of not conservatives. They’ve issued no comment in response.

Seems everyone had a suggestion when it came down to beer day at the whitehouse. Most of them, not unexpectedly, with pro-American suggestions for the peace offering. And now, just like was predicted before the little get-together happened, after the smoke cleared and the guests were sober, everyone became a critic.

Folks are scratching their heads now on just why it is Obama, Gates and Crowley would dare to even think about drinking a beer made by a company not owned by Americans. Of course, they toss around the theory that it was just a mistake–they were under the impression, due to the presence Budweiser has in the US, that it was an American company. I can buy that. Of course it might just be that they drank what happens to be their preference. He may be the president of the united states, but that doesn’t mean he can’t have semi-decent taste in beer.

Note to the American-owned breweries. If the president won’t buy your product, it’s not a political statement. He just doesn’t like your beer. Live with it.

Oh, and hey, they’re even going back to their old habbits of let’s call an election because the people of Quebec want us to. Of course, they’ll need to come up with a much better reason than that. How about because they don’t like the fact there’s no definite answer on employment insurance yet? On the one hand, I kind of suspected–no, wait, it was more than a suspicion–that there’d be something along those lines coming out of the province of exceptions. Of course, on the other, does anyone outside of Quebec actually take Duceppe and the Block Quebecois seriously anymore? They didn’t like what the liberals were doing when they were in power, they don’t like what the conservatives are doing now that they’re in power. And since they don’t have a slowball’s chance in hell of getting elected outside of Quebec, they can’t expect to get the chance to do any differently. So what are they going at? No… wait… don’t tell me. They’re Jack Layton fans aren’t they? That explains it.

Second verse, same as the first. Michael Ignatieff and the liberal party set out to negotiate with the governing conservatives over reforming the employment insurance regulations. Except for one problem. Ignatieff and his lackies won’t budge from their position that a 360-hour national minimum is required for people to be qualified for benefits.

A minimum nationally like that is not just unreasonable, but outright ridiculous. And the minister of human resources, who’s leading the conservative side of the negotiations, said as much. And what’s Ignatieff’s response? It’s not to relax on his minimum qualifications and come up with, say, 400 instead–or even 375. Which, one would think, anyway, should be the standard approach to negotiations. Apparently, not if your name is Michael Ignatieff.

Instead, Michael responds with exactly the same retaliation that prompted the striking of these negotiations in the first place–you either accept my terms, or I’ll call an election. This from the same man who now tells us he has a platform which he’ll reveal to us in the fall–no doubt containing about as much substance as the platform he had in January.

Mikey, I told you before. If you push that red button, you’re probably going to wind up regretting it. Canadians do not want another election. Least of all, I don’t think, do the majority of Canadians with any sort of inteligence at all want an election in which you could possibly be the one running the country. How about this. Stop waffling, play nice with the government, and actually negotiate. Can you do that? I thought so. There’s only one thing far more frightening than a conservative minority–a liberal majority. Please, Michael, don’t make me have to throw my vote away on some nobody just to avoid that happening.

The encouragement comes from a Mass. congressman, who goes so far as to offer a suggestion as to what it is they should drink when he, professor Gates, and Sgt. Crowley have themselves a sit down to let bygones be bygones in what amounted to a 911 call turned racial. The congressman suggested–and was ultimately rejected–they should sit down to a bottle or 3 of American-owned Sam Adams. For Obama’s part, though, he’s a Bud Light man, it appears. The other two are apparently fans of foreign-owned beer as well. I fully expect today’s or tomorrow’s headline to read something to the effect of “Obama is anti-American; elects to support foreign breweries”. Hey, as long as he stays the hell away from Molson, he’s alright in my book–you can leave that sludge to Crowley. He’ll take it.

And, just like every other government entity who’s ever been called to account for spending practices on both sides of the border, GM and Chrysler are saying a big fat I don’t wanna to the idea of actually telling the citizens of both countries, who’s tax dollars are keeping them afloat post-recession, exactly where their money’s being spent. For all the positive that can still come out of Barack Obama’s healthcare initiative, if this ends up going where it looks like it’s going now, it could be more than cancelled out real fast. And, of course, Canada’s liberals twisted prime minister Stephen Harper’s arm into bailing the manufacturers out north of the border as well–thanks for that, by the way, Michael Ignatieff. The Canadian Tax Payers Federation’s not entirely too pleased with the auto makers at this stage of the game. I don’t imagine the US equivalent if they have one is jumping for joy either. As a tax payer, I can easily say I’m most definitely not. Say, Mikey, can I have my refund now?

Oh, you’ll never hear Dalton McGuinty saying that–he’s too busy stressing the economic advantages so far as the creation of new jobs is concerned. Which, okay–we all could use a little good news on the job creation front. But I kind of like the idea of being able to aford rent at the same time. That’s something the opposition parties are saying won’t be quite so likely should the new HST go through. Now, if you’ve been a regular reader in the 3 short weeks since I started randomly spouting off my nonsense, you’ll be well aware that I’m nowhere near being an economist. But I can do basic math. And more jobs plus higher rent plus a higher tax overall equals not a very pretty situation. Or very happy voters. And when your party’s in trouble federally, plus you’re not exactly doing very well provincially in what is probably one of the largest, if not the largest, vote-getting province in the country–we’re not counting Quebec, here–you probably don’t want any of your basic math equasions to add up to not very happy. Of course, I’m not a politician either so maybe there’s some hidden strategy here. Hopefully that works out better than your national counterparts, Dalton. I generally don’t like to have to toss more than one person from the same party into the opinionated deadpool.

It might even be crazily awesome enough to actually manage to work. See, I was thinking–which could in and of itself be dangerous, rather than simply passing a resolution in the house that both recognises it’s been 50 years since Hawaii was made a state and declares that Obama was born in Hawaii 2 years later, why not just, let’s say, show his birth certificate? Then, the so-called birthers will shut up about it and find something else to rake you over the coals about, and you won’t have anything more to worry about–at least on the citizenship front. You *are* a legal US citizen, aren’t you? If the local whackjobs from left field really have nothing on you, then prove it. And I don’t mean in the form of a resolution passed in the house. Of course if you can’t prove it, I hope you can run better than you can pitch.

The newspaper that initially reported on crackergate are dining on a fine meal of crow today, after having issued an appology for the story. Apparently, the theory that a communion wafer given to him at former governor general Romeo Leblanc’s funeral ended up maybe or maybe not pocketted was sort of casually stuck into the story by the editor pre-printing, and not written by the reporters who initially drew up the article. At least, that’s what they’re saying, anyway. But seeing as this appears to be the year for covering one’s own ass, yours truely will remain skeptical on exactly where it is that theory came from. In the meantime, mister Harper, I’d still recommend strongly you say no to crack. Or crackers. They don’t like you.

Dear conservative, liberal and NDP members of parliament,

I don’t know the correct way to say it, so I’ll just say it. Canada absolutely does not want a fall election. Least of all, Canada doesn’t want a fall election based on a non-platform–hear that, Michael Ignatieff? The polls are a dead lock between liberals and conservatives. The NDP may or may not actually get anywhere if an election’s called. And those other guys from Quebec are dreaming.

I can hardly say I speak for all Canadians, of course, but for God’s sake, unless you can offer something beyond “what Stephen Harper’s doing is wrong”, don’t hit that red button. You’ll probably end up not liking the result. Oh, and if you happen to be Stephen Harper and you call an election on your own, I won’t be held responsible for the lambasting you take in the polls. Why? … Did you even read this? Canadians don’t want a fall election. If any of the 3 big players in the House of Commons slap that button, I will be more than happy to throw my vote away on someone that doesn’t have a shot in hell–yes, even one of those guys from quebec if there’s one running here. Because, if you refuse to listen when you’re told we so do not want an election, none of the 3 big players in the HoC deserves to come out on top. Least of all someone running on a non-platform–yeah, Mikey, I’m looking at you again. Deal with it.

I believe Canada’s parliament is supposed to sit for a maximum of 5 years before an election absolutely has to be called. Since the last 2 elections, it’s not even been a year. And those two elections occured 8 months apart. Let’s try to make it last a little longer, shall we? It’s good for you. Of course, if you choose not to take that advice, you have been warned.

Sincerely,
the Opinionated Fool

That’s kind of the message Mexico looks like it’s sending. A whole two weeks after Canada closed the door on Mexican citizens floating across the border and then immediately applying for refugee status, Mexico has decided to get downright childish. Canada’s putting the breaks on the old habbit of folks coming across from the US, either by choice or by force, and claiming refugee status once they get here. And what does Mexico plan to do? Why, require the reporters etc accompanying Stephen Harper to Mexico, of course. And it’s not about diplomacy or anything, as I’m sure we’ll be hearing it is later on. If Harper wants the press to accompany him to Mexico, he’s not allowed to make sure his people get them their visas. Mexico wants every reporter, camera person, and equipment carrier accompanying the prime minister on his visit to apply for their own visas, sans assistance from the prime minister’s office.

I’m not exactly sure what that’s supposed to accomplish, aside from making sure Canada’s government has even less to do with anything going on on Mexican soil. The majority of Canada’s population–that is, those who aren’t actually going as reporters with the prime minister–also known as tourists, still aren’t required to get visas before entering Mexico. Which sort of begs the question, please do explain? I somehow don’t think requiring 20 members of the press to apply for visas will do a whole lot more than make Canada’s government do a little tiny bit of a WTF. Which may or may not be all Mexico’s after–I have no idea. But if their government expects anything more to come of it than that, well, good luck. That’s really all anyone can say.

Not even a month after Obama told Russia’s president and prime minister he wanted to reset relations with them, Biden comes out with yet another social gem. This one, escentially stating the Russians are a failing nation. Naturally, the comments–which cast a less than thrilling light over Russia–made front page on just about every newspaper in the country. Among claims made by the vice president, be they true or not, he predicted Russia’s banking sector likely wouldn’t last another 15 years. Maybe it’s just common sense, and politicians are more often than not devoid of common sense, but one would think when your boss is trying to play nice with a former cold war adversary, you might want to either back him up or shut up. Mister Biden’s doing neither–and if it doesn’t hurt Obama, it’ll probably hurt him. Here’s a tip, Joe. If they fix Obama’s teleprompter, ask him if you can borrow it for a week or two. Or just go buy your own. You don’t do this off the cuff commenting thing very well.

Even the pro-healthcare advocates have to realize that. If the government does nothing, or gives the impression of doing nothing, you will have problems. The same would be and has been said about any other government run system–education, social security, pensions, etc. An example of the problems you might notice was posted to the Sudbury Star (Sudbury, Ontario) earlier this morning. It outlines an example of what can go sideways if the government doesn’t keep its ear on the healthcare situation.

Ontario’s government, under Dalton McGuinty, has let the Sudbury hospital situation slip just a touch out of controll. And, in fact, it’s not the only issue of its kind in the province–in fact, emergency room wait times are probably one of the biggest complaints against Ontario’s implementation of the healthcare system. It’s not a liberal versus conservative issue, however–British Columbia’s healthcare system, under Gordon Campbell’s government–also a liberal government, has significantly reduced those same emergency wait times in its own province. So what’s the difference between the two, and can people on both sides of the border learn from it?

Simply put, the difference is money. The BC government has committed more of its resources to fix its problems with the healthcare system than has Ontario at this point. And, while Ontario’s healthcare system is still a better alternative than is the system currently in the US, both can easily learn from what’s presently being done in BC. Ten hours’ wait in the emergency room, while still not anything to write home about, is still better than the average of twenty found in Ontario.

That having been said, emergency room wait times are not a Canadian healthcare issue, as evidenced by a study released in January of 2008 that noted emergency times south of the border were on the rise. Much the same as up north, general overcrowding and a shortage of resources is being blamed for the wait times. The only difference between the Canadian and American problems at this stage of the game is the many people who right now don’t have health insurance in the US–the very thing pro-healthcare advocates are critical about when it comes to their current system. A problem that can be, and is slowly being in some cases–like the case in British Columbia, delt with by increasing the amount of money dedicated to healthcare spending. Of course, it might also be helpful if the Ontario government maybe starts pulling some of that healthcare expense out of things that just plain aren’t working out.

Not literally, of course. But effective today, her career most asuredly is. She resigned as governor today, with still absolutely no clue whatsoever as to what she plans to do post-politics. The hopeful–or, as some would say, delusional–are still trying to encourage her to run for president in 2012. Beyond that, she may write a book, host a talk show, become a full-time mom, disappear off the face of the earth, or do something completely and totally unheard of in the Palin household–get an education. No one has a clue, including the one person who probably should. Until she figures it out, she can take a nice, relaxing swim in the opinionated deadpool. Gonna miss ya, Sarah.

A prime example of why minority governments in Canada just plain don’t work. Jack Layton, leader of Canada’s New Democratic Party, has already made it clear it’ll be very unlikely his party will back anything proposed by Stephen Harper and his conservative party. Which effectively leaves matters in the hands of the waffler and Quebec’s only legitimate complaining party, the Blocke Quebecois. Not that it’s all that much of a surprise–the US has the party of not democrats, so we should get a party of not conservatives, right? Harper needs at least one of the 3 opposition parties to back him in order to avoid an election. Right now, Michael Ignatieff seems to be waffling in his general direction, but a month from now that might change. As for Layton, well, at least he’s being consistent. That has to count for something.

Sarah Palin surprises me again. Though it probably shouldn’t. Her pre-governor life consisted of driving home the point that there was corruption at the state government level by the then republican governor and his associates. She went through her pre-election days doing, well, exactly what she’s now criticising others for doing. When she believed there to be an issue of state laws being violated, not only did she pressure the Attorney General to investigate, but she went public with those investigations–again, much as she’s now criticising others for doing.

When she was elected, she championed the new, and now current, ethics law in Alaska which gives citizens the right to launch inquiries of their own into the activities of the government in the name of accountability. Then, she slipped up. She pressured a state commissioner to fire her former brother-in-law. When he wouldn’t, she fired him. She started claiming expenses normally reserved for one’s time living in the governor’s mansion while she spent that time at her regular, usual family home. She used private, Yahoo email addresses for the conducting of state business. She CC’d her husband on some of those emails, in spite of the fact he was not a state employee or politician. And of course, most recently, there is the small matter of her illegal defense fund. And she’s now being nailed to the wall on all of those, plus probably more.

The fun doesn’t stop there, though. Palin ended up resigning, using the various ethics complaints against her as an apparently large part of the reason she couldn’t remain in politics. Still clinging to the notion that they’re costing the state millions of dollars, in spite of the fact that’s been refuted already. She ended up saying the best thing she could do for the state of Alaska was resign to minimise the amount of money being spent on these complaints–some of which are still on-going, and some of which have already been ruled against her.

Now, though, is where it gets just a little bit confusing. She resigned her position under fire for supposed ethics violations, under a law she enacted during her time as governor. She’s still taking heat for some of those complaints, and may or may not–she still hasn’t really given us any indication of that yeet–be running for president in 2012, which would lead to about 50 billion other varieties of ethics complaints against her, among other types of criticism, I’m sure. Only now, she says she’ll be reviving her image as a champion of ethics. Maybe before you go out and start trying to educate others on that whole ethics thing, you might want to consider getting a little education for you. Quitting in the middle of your term, when people are making full use of a law you wanted to make sure you’re not doing anything naughty, isn’t exactly going to be very inspirational if you do actually intend to get back into the ethics fight. No one likes it when the rules are set against you. But they were Palin’s rules. Palin set them up. And Palin broke them. And now she wants to lead the charge for ethics reform nationally. Well, I guess anything to stay in the spotlight a little longer. Maybe we won’t have to miss her after all.

Let me be the millionth person to congratulate you. You have singlehandedly proven to us all that yes, indeed, anyone can run a government when it’s coasting on oil profits that come off a price tag above $100. You have proven that facts are optional when you’re an elected official. But most importantly, you’ve proven that you really don’t have a clue when it comes to anything outside of Alaska. Which begs the question of whether or not you really knew anything about what goes on inside Alaska.

I give you as an example, your claim that rather than look for ways to decrease your reliance on energy resources that have a tendancy to be priced well above $100, the US government should simply order that more oil be produced locally. Because, you know, there’s just such an abundance of the very things God gave us and all that. There’s just one niggling little problem with your claim, Sarah. The US uses more oil in an average year than it has locally available. In any way, shape or form. You increase oil production, you dry it up faster. You dry it up faster, you need to import more. You need to import more, the price goes right back above $100. But you knew that already, didn’t you Sarah? Sure you did. You’d have to be an idiot not to.

So, let’s ignore this whole global warming thing for about 30 seconds. Pretend like it never existed. You never heard that term. Now, let’s focus on the fact there’s probably a metric ton of proof available to you, and all you’d have to do is read, that says sooner or later, the world is going to run out of oil–it’s not water, Sarah. It’s not a renewable resource. But you knew that too, didn’t you? Sure you did. Again, you’d have to be an idiot not to.

I’m left scratching my head, then, Sarah. What’s your major problem with the idea that the government actually has the nerve to try and encourage companies, by any means necessary, to lay off the oil and such? Obviously it’s not an environmental one. And you’re no longer running Alaska so it’s not really a state issue for you. Or are you just one of those “say no because it’s an Obama proposal” type politicians? That can’t be it, though–that would be un-Amarican, wouldn’t it? Inquiring minds really would like to know. Of course, since I doubt you’ll actually read this, I’ll simply just choose to be content with the fact that mother Sarah knows best. Enjoy your break from politics, Sarah. We’ll all miss you.

I have to wonder if Michael Ignatieff isn’t in fact a conservative come back to put the final nail in the liberal party’s coffin. In a speech he gave in 2005 at an Irish university, wherein he escentially blamed Canada and its then ruling liberals for what he called a stripping down of their millitary, he criticised 3 liberal prime ministers, including 2 who were in power while he was hiding outside of Canada–Jean Cratien and Paul Martin, for their cutbacks to the millitary and their insistance that they maintain a peacekeeping role.

Ignatieff took it a step farther, though, saying Canada as a whole was perfectly fine with that supposed myth. He added that the ruling liberal party usually preferred to hide behind the peacekeeping label while calling out the US for not doing so–the US was one of the first into both Iraq and Afghanistan, Canada went in to clean it up. Ignatieff went on to say national healthcare, multiculturalism and bilingualism were equally as much a myth as the whole peacekeeper idea, blaming all of that on some believed liberal agenda.

Yet, even with that having been said, Ignatieff still came back to Canada in 2008. Still joined up with the liberal party. Still received the nod for party leadership after their previous leader was rather soundly stepped on by prime minister Stephen Harper. And still wants to lead that liberal party back to power. Or does he? His address in 2005 would tell me no. The fact that Ignatieff still hasn’t come up with any kind of a liberal policy platform or even a rough outline of one also tells me no. I would then be inclined to believe the answer is no. So, the question becomes, exactly what is Michael Ignatieff up to? And what’s Stephen Harper’s cut?

Or if he does, he’s had it translated to him by the liberal spin doctors first. Canada is making a turn-around economy-wise, many are wondering if even the first stimulous was needed, and he’s already on a soapbox about a second. At least 70% of the initial stimulous money hasn’t rolled out the door yet, and that was supposed to have contributed to lowering the unemployment rate. Economists are saying that will be one of the last indicators that Canada’s recovering, and yet the fact it’s not improving is Ignatieff’s reason for demanding the government throw out even more money. I don’t suppose he’s been paying a whole lot of attention to what’s going on south of the border–Obamaconomy, as some are calling Barack Obama’s own stimulous, makes Canada’s look about the size of my student loan. And yet, the US unemployment rate is still expected to kiss 10%. You’d think that would tell you something. But, apparently, not if your name is Michael Ignatieff.