I'm convinced that the Harper government is randomly puncturing the sidewalls of our tires as part of their economic recovery plan.
It's kind of like the home renovation tax credit they recently implemented. If you're fortunate enough to already own a home and you have a spare $10,000 kicking around, you can get a tax break this year for doing upgrades to your home that probably weren't needed in the first place. The general idea is to get people spending money hiring licensed tradespeople, which pumps cash back into the economy and keeps those tradespeople working, reducing EI payments and such. It's a well-intentioned idea that kind of misses the mark a bit, since the only people who really stand to benefit from the tax break are the ones who don't actually need a tax break in the first place. And in that sense, it's kind of like the Universal Child Care Benefit, which redirected money that had been earmarked for the creation of subsidized childcare spots for low income earners. Instead of providing those spots, the UCCB provides a monthly taxable sum of $100 per child per month to the lower income partner in every household with young children, regardless of income threshold. So now, a single parent working a minimum wage job and the stay-at-home spouse of a millionaire are treated equally and given the exact same amount of assistance per head, and everything is "fair". You know; kind of like Communism.
This is what comes of having a government that caters to the wealthy. It's like living in a country run by Robin Hood. Only in reverse. And without archery or fancy outfits. Try Conservative - The Un-Robin Hood!
Not that there's anything wrong with being wealthy. I myself aspire to it someday. And I am certainly a fan of plans that focus on encouraging selective spending to aid economic recovery, if the plans are implemented correctly. I am also a fan of all things pretty and clean, as well as of efficiency in general. But I think there are limits as to how far one should go. Not so for the Honourable (and I use that word loosely) Nancy Ruth, an Ontario Conservative whose "kill two birds with one stone" philosophy extends to cover off the death of any two inferior beings. One bird and one poor person, for example.
The following editorial is taken from page A14 of the March 29, 2009 Edmonton Journal. Enjoy.
"Another blow to the poor, beleaguered Canadian Senate was struck last week by the Honourable Nancy Ruth, an Ontario Conservative appointed by the Martin Liberals. Ruth was holding forth on her important priorities at the Senate finance committee on Tuesday, as the body deliberated the budget for Canada's Food Inspection Agency, which hasn't had great outings of late.
Ruth's laser-like gaze fixed on the vexing national problem of dirty Canada geese. They are a "health hazard," she said, since they foul the waters around her summer cottage. That produces the malady known as swimmer's itch, and Ruth was itching for a war against our iconic fowl. They're also soiling her home in downtown Toronto, she continued.
When enlightened by colleagues that waterfowl hunting rules are a provincial matter and only aboriginals are allowed to shoot Canada geese, Ruth pronounced that as "excellent. Why don't we kill them and feed them to the poor in Toronto?"
While we're at it, senator, why waste all that summer roadkill when food banks are looking for supplies? Surely, the hands-down winner of the 2009 Marie Antoinette on the Rideau Award is Senator Nancy Ruth, doing the people's work, one (dead) honker at a time."
They're dirty. A health hazard. They cause swimmer's itch. They foul up our waters and soil our homes. So let's kill them. And feed them to the poor. Who presumably will voluntarily ingest dirty, diseased waterfowl? Excellent!
As ridiculous as that is, it is clear that the Conservative government is looking for solutions to the crises in our nation. And we know that one such solution is to encourage spending to aid economic recovery. And for that, I applaud them. But random acts of vandalism? Seriously?
The thing is that so far this year, we have experienced six (yes, six) irreparably flat tires. Each time, the puncture has occurred in the sidewall, where it cannot be patched. Some of these tires were new. Only one was under warranty at the time. And so, we have had to pay for five new tires so far this year. Sidewall punctures are relatively rare, so it's a bit odd to see six of them in the space of three months. And this leads me to conclude that the Harper government, wanting to encourage spending in the tire and rubber market, is puncturing our sidewalls in order to force us to buy new tires. Really, it's the only logical explanation.
Dear Harper government: You've gotten us six times. Please move on to someone else's vehicles now. We should not single-handedly be responsible for the revitalization of the entire rubber industry. Our contribution has been made.
To everyone else: Protect your sidewalls. For Big Brother is here, and he wants your tires. There is no telling where he may strike next. Be warned.