The Canadian Election, or “Free daycare versus Stealth jet fighters”

May 2nd, 2011. Who will run Canada?!?

On one side we have the incumbent Conservatives, on the other, the Liberals. “Hmmm…both those guys look equally lame…two lame, old white dudes.” OK, let’s boil your choice down to the issues: Here’s a picture of the proposed, super-duper expensive F-35 stealth fighter, 65 of which were supposed to be purchased for the Canadian Air Force (a). And here’s a picture of some four year olds watching Barney for free while their parents are at work (b).

Assuming that only one of these, (a) or (b), can be realized given tax revenue constraints,* which one is a cost that should reasonably be incurred by the state?

Did you answer (a)?

Congratulations! You are a pragmatist that thinks occasionally upgrading the military’s equipment is a noble initiative. You recognize that $250-odd million (CAD) has already gone into the project, that we worked on it along with our friends Australia and Britain and even Norway since the 1990′s, that $12 billion (CAD) in repair contracts become available to bidding upon by Canadian industry, that the other prototypes put forward as potential candidates didn’t and still don’t even approach this plane in sophistication and – most importantly – that our current CF-18s are quite old. You should probably vote Conservative this Spring (unless you take issue with Christian conservatism…i.e. those reactionary “traditional-values” folk that take issue with everything that runs against said values).

Did you answer (b)?

Oh, we’re sorry, you’re wrong, and very likely a p*ssy to boot. You should probably vote Liberal** this Spring (unless you take issue with borg-like, mindless tax-and-spend populism).

Let’s examine why you picked this most-unbelievably-LAME-and-WRONG-answer, shall we?

Option 1) The Classic Canadian Pacifist
Your view of the world is that people are fundamentally good, armies and guns and really-expensive-planes-with-guns-on-them are all “bad.” “Violence is intrinsically immoral,” you say. You believe that the need to ever project force (shudder) overseas either never arises, or simply should never be met. You prefer absolutely anything to do with the armed forces to have the tagline “peacekeeping” jammed in there. Kids, good. Guns, bad. This is an easy choice for you: Universal child-care. “Yes, because caring for children should obviously be universal in this country.”

Option 2) The “Un-Brainwashed” Counter-Culture Type
Jet, stealth….fighters?? “Leave that to those Americans with their ””>~Empire~<,''''" you spit, thereby making Canada into some kind of pacifist-monk type character: morally irreproachable and entirely ineffectual. You believe that most or all of the world’s developed nations are inherently evil “neo-colonialists,” that subsistence farming is the most noble human endeavor possible, ever, and – of course – that our culture here in North America is (uber-simply) one of “fear“*** You hate military stuff almost as much as you hate your father. No contest: you choose whatever free government handout program is on the table. “Yeah, the kid thing,” you say, “I guess that’s OK…”

Option 3) The End of History Argument
Perhaps you take the End of History approach: “The day of advanced countries fighting one another is over, so why do we need anything as sophisticated (and therefore as monstrously-expensive****) as these planes? A CF-18 can hit a Toyota pickup full of AK-toting as*holes as good as this new plane.” This, at least, is a decent argument that doesn’t necessarily betray a deeper animosity (smoldering or tepid as it may be) towards having-an-army-or-air-force-in-general as do options one and two. Our answers, in link form: these quiet buggers, and how ’bout these precocious sumbitches…remember these vodka-swilling bastards? Yeah, the earth is running out of fresh water and we share a border with them! ….OK, the prospect of an armed conflict with either of these countries – or a terrorist-seized (still-nuclear!) Pakistan or any other scenario – within the next decade is highly improbable; sure, this we admit, BUT, remember, back in the 1860s the guy who invented dynamite and the guy who invented the machine gun both thought that they’d ended warfare between developed nations with the level of killing-sophistication that they’d reached with their respective breakthroughs…

Option 4) I.. like… free STUFF, and I can not lie
“Whoa!” you say, “C’mon! I’m not a moron!! I read Reuters, not Chomsky. I’m aware that we need a military with modern equipment, and I get that these new planes are great and all, but, frankly, I prefer the thought of the financial easement that I would receive in the form of my two littlest ones receiving free daycare.” Maybe you go on to explain lucidly and convincingly, “They already begin public school around five, right? What’s a few years more? Child psychologists show that blah blah blah etc. etc.”

Well, we at TTT must admit: very interesting! Some good stuff has been voiced by option-four-guy here, some good stuff… May we just ask…(ahem)……”Where in the F*CK do you get off sticking all of us non-parents with the bill for making sure your stupid toddler doesn’t choke on his own boogers while you’re at work??? We all already help the little piece of sh*t get free pencils and textbooks and whatnot from junior kindergarten right up to college*****- so what? Now we’re all supposed to pay for little Timmy and Tammy to learn how to share at three years old?? Yeah, we’re real impressed the wife works. Very 90′s of you. …OK…seriously though, we do understand that to make rent in a big city often both parents do have to work full-time, but even with that being acknowledged: Can’t you stick the kiddies with Grandma? Or your sister?

There’s not one homemaker in the neighborhood that can watch her kids and yours??

You’ve never heard of “latch-key kids”???

If you answered (a) it’s very likely that you are also American, a place where “paying for your own sh*t” is just kind of a logical, going assumption in day-to-day society and a place where it is commonly acknowledged by most everyone that stealth fighter jets are just really, f*cking cool, while little-kids-playing-parachute-for-free is obviously less so.


(Look out for next week’s column on the remaining core issues in The Canadian Election, entitled “Prisons versus geezer-fare”…..readers will be shocked when TTT explains how “drug crimes” fundamentally do not exist and are therefore entirely and profoundly unjust while retaining its “ice-floe approach” regarding benefits for the elderly, and endorses neither option!)


*a necessary caveat for those NDP types that never took ECO101 or anyone else who says “I’d pick BOTH!”

**or, as a throw-away protest vote, one of the the other, fringe parties. “You’re aware that by fragmenting the Liberal block, this is just a vote for the Conservatives, right?”

***yes, EVEN the squirrel waterskiing.

****anywhere between $9 billion (Harper’s unlikely figure) and $30 billion (Ignatieff’s unlikely figure) CAD.

*****let’s not even get into the “university should be free” thing. HALF the cost of one’s undergraduate tuition is already subsidized in Canada. The remainder is either parental assistance, student jobs, student loans or scholarships. It isn’t some “human right” nor is it even “for everyone” practically-speaking, and we shouldn’t totally commie it up (thereby simultaneously dumbing it down) into “high school the sequel.”

One Response to “The Canadian Election, or “Free daycare versus Stealth jet fighters””

  1. Sgt. Barnes says:

    After I came back from Nam, I had a lot of jobs. Short order cook, janitor, exotic male dancer, and then in the early 80s, high yield bond broker. Unfortunately when the market for that product collapsed I was out of work and ended up working as a Barney performer (I was the one in the big purple suit kids). I originally wanted to play Snow White but management decided that Barney was a better fit for me because of the hideous facial scars I EARNED in combat, and the fact that I have 40 inch biceps and a penis. Anyway, I can tell you from personal experience that Barney actors need to get paid too, but we’d much rather let the demand side of the market – parents who use television as a babysitter and whose children are scared of clowns and magicians – pay for our services. The federal government should not be in charge of Barney. There would be too much purple tape to wade through.

    Anyway, after the show’s popularity began to decline, and childrens tastes gravitated to pan-sexual japanese monsters, I decided to hang up my claws and hit the road.

    I’ve been drifting around the country since then. Moving from town to town, living off of whatever work I can find, and preaching the tenets of Dysonism.

    Sgt. Barnes (ret.)

Leave a Reply