Jack Layton didn't resolve to be less of an idiot in 2006

Inexplicably woke up this morning and made my choice between playing X-Men Legends II and watching the CBC cover Jack Layton's speech to kick of the latter half of the 2005/2006 campaign. Strangely enough, the latter option won out, even though I hate Jack Layton, detesting him for his constant race-baiting and class-baiting. It was the usual Jack Layton speech, though he tried to be less creepy: obvious result, it was his creepiest speech ever.

Jack was name-dropping like it was nobody's business. He mentioned some woman in Dartmouth whom he'd talked to (first and last -- question of the day: Mr. Layton, do you not believe in the concept of protecting sensitive personal information) and then named her daughter like it was some sort of memory test being conducted, using them as a chance to blast the lack of daycare options. Next he name-drops somebody from his "hometown of Toronto". Not meaning to get side-tracked here, but when did Torontonians stop considering themselves the The Centre of the Universe and start thinking of themselves as a little berg they were reared in? The rapid switch is confusing.

Anyways, this Toronto chick got namedropped for the shame of her having to leave her job to care for her "93-year-old father". Shame? Shame??? Isn't Jack the leader of the psychotic anti-capitalist party? Isn't a person leaving the shackles of corporate tyranny for the namby-pamby world of caring for elderly loved ones something the NDP would be in favour of?

No, apparently not: they'd much rather you stay at your job and pay them to look after your children (or grandparents) instead. Both the daycare and the healthcare arguments sure do end up sounding like the NDP isn't too interested in the old or the young getting the best care, but would much rather the NDP appear to be interested in the old and the young getting care.

This name-dropping was more than a little ridiculous though: its like Jack is trying to prove that he's been out there talking to people. But who its clear Jack hasn't been talking to is Constitutional experts, the kind of people who might let him know that DAYCARE AND HEALTHCARE IS NOT A FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY! I would kill for somebody to ask him why he can turn around and piss on the Constitution, the highest law in the land, after he just finished getting all worried about the violation of the Charter, which is perhaps the Constitution's least-important section.

Yes, Jack, healthcare is a mess across the country, but here's a news flash: it isn't the fault of the federal government. Well, the federal government's universal care bullshit can be given some of the blame, but its merely the provinces for buying into socialized healthcare that's ruining it. Shortage of cash? That doesn't seem to be helping in Alberta or seriously hurting Nova Scotia. It's the system, dumbass, and as long as Jack's leftist notion of government is the moral validation for the system it will never get better.