For quite some time now, I've been searching for my country. This is getting serious, I'm about at the point I think I should report to authorities it is missing. I put the blame squarely on myself, while I was distracted Canada must have wandered off and recently I've been in a panicked search for it.
Of course that may seem like babble, but I have a particular affinity for babbling, eventually I get to the point.
I'm sure we all have our own ideas of what Canada is. Sure there are differences, but it's the similarities in our hearts and minds that define us as something different that people who live in other nations. If it weren't for these kinds of definitions there would be no need for countries or borders, if we all felt the need to run our affairs exactly the same as others do.
My Canada, the one I am searching for, had much sharper definitions from its neighbour to the south, and I liked that. My Canada was a country founded on cooperation of a small population spread over a massive geographic location, unlike the "every man for himself" attitude which turns my stomach in so many ways. My Canada was different because it cared about the disadvantaged, the disabled, to those whose voices would otherwise never be heard. My Canada welcomed immigrants and refugees and didn't expect them to become us, rather learn more about their cultures to enrich ourselves, a welcoming attitude that made them more determined to be good Canadians and adapt to our way of life without having to discard their own. My Canada had a stellar reputation globally, it was a honest broker, it wasn't a war monger or blind follower of the "great powers" in their military misadventures, it was often leading the charge for social and environmental change, friend to most, defender of the opressed, and it was a badge of honour to carry the Canadian Maple Leaf proudly displayed on one's attire.
In short, I'd say we were "lovable Americans" (sic). Hear me out, if you've travelled outside the country you will often hear what people think of Americans, and it ain't pretty. Years ago, many Americans would go so far as to sew Canadian flags on their gear to escape the shame a bad country can bring to good people. Conversely if people knew you were Canadian, while they knew little about the country itself, they were always welcoming and held a special affinity for Canadians.
That Canada has become mysteriously absent. I'm sure I am not the only one alarmed by this trend, and not the only one dedicated to rebuilding and repairing the mess we're faced with now. I'm not going to pick this apart in any great detail at the moment as I intend, over the next while to look at some of the politics and geopolitics on an issue by issue basis. We need to talk about these things, or we risk becoming a homogenous "American" society.
What would lead me to think that way? Just look where we are today. Canada has absolutely no national interest, other than being a source of commodities and toadying up to the US/UK agenda. Not only has an economy that should have been poised to lead developed nations started on a steady downward slope, by electing a Harper majority, Canadians have guaranteed themselves 4 years of people who don't have a clue how to handle the economy of a country. They might be great at a business, but running a country comes with considerations no business has to take into account and these guys don't get it at all. Add to that our absolutely abysmal record on the environment which has had the effect of turning a once respected nation into an international pariah, and our blind following of other countries into military adventures that are not well thought out, where we don't know what our goal is or how to end these things and the spiral went from gradual to cliff-like in a few short years.
If you want your Canada to be exactly like the train wreck south of us, you're probably over-the-moon happy right now. If you want your Canada to do a U-turn and try to redeem ourselves in the eyes of the world then join me in sharing this blog with your friends. Join me in speaking up about a better, kinder, Canada. There is a lot of work ahead, we're either up for it, or giving up.
I want my Canada back.
Thought provoking ideas. Comments/arguments welcomed, abusive comments unceremoniously deleted.
Sunday 29 May 2011
Wednesday 25 May 2011
Conditioning (not at the gym dumbass)
Funny how many people think they are so smart. If I had a nickel for every time I heard someone say "Advertising doesn't affect me" I would be a billionaire and they would still be totally wrong.
Now my point is not about advertising, it's just an example of conditioning. It is merely planting a seed in your mind, which, depending upon your likes and dislikes, will either grow or flail, but once it's there, it's there. No different that what happens to you a zillion times a year with everything from news stories to speeches, to "scientific research", to partisan politics, conditioning of the human mind is a tried and true tactic, widely used to shape everything from consumer habits to societal thinking.
The major breakthrough in the understanding of conditioning, of course, is Pavlov's Dog. Many will remember this from high school science classes. A quick summary of Pavlov's experiment in his attempt to prove that conditioning could be taught. His experiment basically started with him ringing a bell before feeding the animal. Eventually he started to ring the bell but delay giving the food while observing what happened with the dog after the bell was rung. Pavlov's "eureka moment" came when he observed that by ringing the bell, the dog reacted emotionally and physiologically as if it were time to eat. This was proven due to the fact when the bell was rung and food withheld, the dog would begin to salivate, the natural reaction of the body preparing for food intake (this is true in humans as well). I'm sure Pavlov would shudder to see where the results of his experiments have gone and how conditioning invades every square inch of our life.
Let's talk about about conditioning. Lots of people own iPhones, for example. How many of them know why? How many could tell you how they even first because aware of the existince of something called an iPhone. Most of them will tell you they aren't affected by advertising. They'll never be able to tell you why they were among the first to try a new product, adopt a new style, get a popular haircut or always buy certain brands. But they will guarantee you they are not influenced by outside sources.
Advertising is bad enough, but as the science of conditioning advances, it is creeping into every facet of society. One of the most unfortunate areas conditioning has come into play is in science. Scientists are human, and humans can be greedy. Just like cops and judges and politicians have allowed themselves to be bought off over the years, so to have a number of scientists. Yes there are groups of corporate interests who will pay big money to fund research that presents "their" viewpoint. Sad but true. If you think I am slinging you a line of bullshit, please explain to me the many hundreds, nay, thousands of studies showing the safety and benefits of smoking. I'm pretty sure most of us realize smoking isn't the world's healthiest activity, yet you can still find recent studies extolling the virtues of tobacco. Along with people who will swear they are right.
Now we're seeing the same thing happening with climate change. The most legitimate research is being effectively challenged by funding of groups and individuals by large corporate and government interests who want you to think everything is normal, that humans aren't contributing to climate change and so on. There are people predisposed to believe them and just like it worked for decades with tobacco, it will sow enough of a seed in the minds of people who don't understand it to drag things on until we are forced to act when we've already reached a critical juncture, or worse, a precipice. I welcome those who would like to argue environment issues with me, I've been working on environmental issues for 30 years, I've held positions at the helm of groundbreaking citizen science organizations, I've spoken publicly in many forums to many people, I've taught children, I've run organizations to improve freshwater quality and I've sat on government panels. So if you want to talk environment, have at 'er.
The last election was an exercise in conditioning, thanks to the tea party of Stephen Harper. Say the same things over and over and over and never deviate from the standard message and once people hear it enough many will believe it to be fact, from the sheer number of times they've been told. This tactic goes way back to the likes of Stalin, Kruschev, Mao, and yes especially Adolf Hitler. It's continuing, but suddenly failing in many countries with "President for life" guys, with the exception of Kim Jong-Il and a few others doing a fine job at conditioning their populations. If you don't think this is true, explain with many serious scandals, parliamentary problems, an absolutely failed management of the economy from top to bottom, the G8/G20 fiasco with millions on things in Tony Clement's riding, needed things like highway signs and outdoor toilets and gazebos that not a single leader ever saw, how anyone could vote for these organized criminals and hold their head up. How many idiots in the face of incontrovertiable proof of economic mismanagement would look you in the eye and tell you "Stephen Harper has handled the economy well". Plenty, I meet them.
You have to be on your guard at all times. Fortunately we have available, at our fingertips a wealth of imformation, a deluge of knowledgable people we can contact through the internet, there are libraries and smartphones and so many ways to educate yourself before making up your mind on the surface of any single statement. Be skeptical and always remember that out there are a lot of special interests trying to make you their own Pavlov's Dog.
There's always a bigger picture, keep it mind and you'll have a chance at finding truth in a lying society.
Now my point is not about advertising, it's just an example of conditioning. It is merely planting a seed in your mind, which, depending upon your likes and dislikes, will either grow or flail, but once it's there, it's there. No different that what happens to you a zillion times a year with everything from news stories to speeches, to "scientific research", to partisan politics, conditioning of the human mind is a tried and true tactic, widely used to shape everything from consumer habits to societal thinking.
The major breakthrough in the understanding of conditioning, of course, is Pavlov's Dog. Many will remember this from high school science classes. A quick summary of Pavlov's experiment in his attempt to prove that conditioning could be taught. His experiment basically started with him ringing a bell before feeding the animal. Eventually he started to ring the bell but delay giving the food while observing what happened with the dog after the bell was rung. Pavlov's "eureka moment" came when he observed that by ringing the bell, the dog reacted emotionally and physiologically as if it were time to eat. This was proven due to the fact when the bell was rung and food withheld, the dog would begin to salivate, the natural reaction of the body preparing for food intake (this is true in humans as well). I'm sure Pavlov would shudder to see where the results of his experiments have gone and how conditioning invades every square inch of our life.
Let's talk about about conditioning. Lots of people own iPhones, for example. How many of them know why? How many could tell you how they even first because aware of the existince of something called an iPhone. Most of them will tell you they aren't affected by advertising. They'll never be able to tell you why they were among the first to try a new product, adopt a new style, get a popular haircut or always buy certain brands. But they will guarantee you they are not influenced by outside sources.
Advertising is bad enough, but as the science of conditioning advances, it is creeping into every facet of society. One of the most unfortunate areas conditioning has come into play is in science. Scientists are human, and humans can be greedy. Just like cops and judges and politicians have allowed themselves to be bought off over the years, so to have a number of scientists. Yes there are groups of corporate interests who will pay big money to fund research that presents "their" viewpoint. Sad but true. If you think I am slinging you a line of bullshit, please explain to me the many hundreds, nay, thousands of studies showing the safety and benefits of smoking. I'm pretty sure most of us realize smoking isn't the world's healthiest activity, yet you can still find recent studies extolling the virtues of tobacco. Along with people who will swear they are right.
Now we're seeing the same thing happening with climate change. The most legitimate research is being effectively challenged by funding of groups and individuals by large corporate and government interests who want you to think everything is normal, that humans aren't contributing to climate change and so on. There are people predisposed to believe them and just like it worked for decades with tobacco, it will sow enough of a seed in the minds of people who don't understand it to drag things on until we are forced to act when we've already reached a critical juncture, or worse, a precipice. I welcome those who would like to argue environment issues with me, I've been working on environmental issues for 30 years, I've held positions at the helm of groundbreaking citizen science organizations, I've spoken publicly in many forums to many people, I've taught children, I've run organizations to improve freshwater quality and I've sat on government panels. So if you want to talk environment, have at 'er.
The last election was an exercise in conditioning, thanks to the tea party of Stephen Harper. Say the same things over and over and over and never deviate from the standard message and once people hear it enough many will believe it to be fact, from the sheer number of times they've been told. This tactic goes way back to the likes of Stalin, Kruschev, Mao, and yes especially Adolf Hitler. It's continuing, but suddenly failing in many countries with "President for life" guys, with the exception of Kim Jong-Il and a few others doing a fine job at conditioning their populations. If you don't think this is true, explain with many serious scandals, parliamentary problems, an absolutely failed management of the economy from top to bottom, the G8/G20 fiasco with millions on things in Tony Clement's riding, needed things like highway signs and outdoor toilets and gazebos that not a single leader ever saw, how anyone could vote for these organized criminals and hold their head up. How many idiots in the face of incontrovertiable proof of economic mismanagement would look you in the eye and tell you "Stephen Harper has handled the economy well". Plenty, I meet them.
You have to be on your guard at all times. Fortunately we have available, at our fingertips a wealth of imformation, a deluge of knowledgable people we can contact through the internet, there are libraries and smartphones and so many ways to educate yourself before making up your mind on the surface of any single statement. Be skeptical and always remember that out there are a lot of special interests trying to make you their own Pavlov's Dog.
There's always a bigger picture, keep it mind and you'll have a chance at finding truth in a lying society.
Monday 23 May 2011
Google: Judge, Jury & Executioner
I suppose if I'm critical of Google, maybe their next step will be deleting my blog. Not that I care at this point, I'll find a new forum to write. I hadn't anticipated writing a second post today, however, sometimes fate has a funny way of doing things.
History
For the past several years, I'd been too busy caring for my ailing, aging mother to be able to find time to write, something I very much enjoy doing. After she passed away in November, after a period of time, I realized I now had time to persue some personal interests.
While talking with a friend one day, I was encouraged to visit this site and set up a blog. I thought about it somewhat, then decided I would do so. Events leading up to the recent election in Canada gave me plenty of fodder as I've always been a news/politics/geopolitics fanatic, so I decided I'd set up my own site, whether anyone actually read it or not I knew I'd enjoy the reading, reasearch, and writing. I always have.
Sometime after setting up my blog, some of the readers had suggested I should create a website, which, of course, costs money. At this point, someone said I might be able to help finance the hosting of my own site by joining Google's AdSense program. I figured it couldn't hurt, so I dutifully set up the account, placed the ads on my page and did what anyone trying to promote something would do, I encouraged friends, co workers, relatives, readers, in fact anyone at all to support my efforts by clicking on the ads. I was happy to see I seemed to being doing pretty well, approaching the payout threshold for the month, apparently, so I'd been checking my progress a couple of times a day. Then came the events of this afternoon.
My Big Surprise
Since I had created a new post, and a new post generally creates new traffic, I thought I'd check in and see if there had been any rise in my earnings from the previous day. I click on the tab to check and was greeted by the notice below:
Of course, I was confused. Who wouldn't be? I read the rules and I've worked in the advertising industry so I understand why they don't want you to log in and click on your own ads, I get that, so I made it a point not to do this. I've even had to catch myself several times when I almost clicked on something on my own page that interested me. To the best of my knowledge, I never did.
I figured, by clicking the "learn more" link I would get an explanation why my account had been, without any type of warning, disabled. Imagine my surprise when the link took me to nothing but a FAQ page with a variety of links to reasons why they may have disabled the account and/or how I might beg them to allow me to put their sponsored ads back on my page.
Perhaps at that point I got pissed off. I realized I had just been subject to some kind of prehistoric justice system run by the all-powerful Google. I was both convicted and sentenced in secret with absolutely no indication of any reason why they disabled an account that was about to pay out. Being reasonably sure I hadn't contravened any of the rules and regulations therewith, I clicked on the link to see about reinstatement.
I realized I received an email from them so, before filing said appeal, I figured I'd read the email to find out what possibly could have caused them to disable my account without any prior warning, sure that it was some kind of error that would be corrected quite simply.
Text of the "Official Notification" email from Google AdSense:
Below is the complete text of the email I received from Google, notifying me they had disabled my adsense account.
In Closing:
Google proves you don't need to have brains to have a multi-billion dollar company.
History
For the past several years, I'd been too busy caring for my ailing, aging mother to be able to find time to write, something I very much enjoy doing. After she passed away in November, after a period of time, I realized I now had time to persue some personal interests.
While talking with a friend one day, I was encouraged to visit this site and set up a blog. I thought about it somewhat, then decided I would do so. Events leading up to the recent election in Canada gave me plenty of fodder as I've always been a news/politics/geopolitics fanatic, so I decided I'd set up my own site, whether anyone actually read it or not I knew I'd enjoy the reading, reasearch, and writing. I always have.
Sometime after setting up my blog, some of the readers had suggested I should create a website, which, of course, costs money. At this point, someone said I might be able to help finance the hosting of my own site by joining Google's AdSense program. I figured it couldn't hurt, so I dutifully set up the account, placed the ads on my page and did what anyone trying to promote something would do, I encouraged friends, co workers, relatives, readers, in fact anyone at all to support my efforts by clicking on the ads. I was happy to see I seemed to being doing pretty well, approaching the payout threshold for the month, apparently, so I'd been checking my progress a couple of times a day. Then came the events of this afternoon.
My Big Surprise
Since I had created a new post, and a new post generally creates new traffic, I thought I'd check in and see if there had been any rise in my earnings from the previous day. I click on the tab to check and was greeted by the notice below:
| AdSense for Content |
Of course, I was confused. Who wouldn't be? I read the rules and I've worked in the advertising industry so I understand why they don't want you to log in and click on your own ads, I get that, so I made it a point not to do this. I've even had to catch myself several times when I almost clicked on something on my own page that interested me. To the best of my knowledge, I never did.
I figured, by clicking the "learn more" link I would get an explanation why my account had been, without any type of warning, disabled. Imagine my surprise when the link took me to nothing but a FAQ page with a variety of links to reasons why they may have disabled the account and/or how I might beg them to allow me to put their sponsored ads back on my page.
Perhaps at that point I got pissed off. I realized I had just been subject to some kind of prehistoric justice system run by the all-powerful Google. I was both convicted and sentenced in secret with absolutely no indication of any reason why they disabled an account that was about to pay out. Being reasonably sure I hadn't contravened any of the rules and regulations therewith, I clicked on the link to see about reinstatement.
I realized I received an email from them so, before filing said appeal, I figured I'd read the email to find out what possibly could have caused them to disable my account without any prior warning, sure that it was some kind of error that would be corrected quite simply.
Text of the "Official Notification" email from Google AdSense:
Below is the complete text of the email I received from Google, notifying me they had disabled my adsense account.
This message was sent from a notification-only email address that does not accept incoming email. Please do not reply to this message. --------------------------------------------------------------- Hello, After reviewing our records, we've determined that your AdSense account poses a risk of generating invalid activity. Because we have a responsibility to protect our AdWords advertisers from inflated costs due to invalid activity, we've found it necessary to disable your AdSense account. Your outstanding balance and Google's share of the revenue will both be fully refunded back to the affected advertisers. Please understand that we need to take such steps to maintain the effectiveness of Google's advertising system, particularly the advertiser-publisher relationship. We understand the inconvenience that this may cause you, and we thank you in advance for your understanding and cooperation. If you have any questions or concerns about the actions we've taken, how you can appeal this decision, or invalid activity in general, you can find more information by visitinghttp://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/answer.py?answer=57153. Sincerely, The Google AdSense Team
So What Next?I've now removed any of the adsense crap on my page. As I told them, I don't care if they reinstate the account. No further google ads will appear on any page I own until such point as they explain why, in the middle of a holiday afternoon, they disabled my account without either warning or explanation. I did tell them I was glad they weren't running the justice system.At the risk of being deleted, I will say a hearty "Fuck You Google, self-appointed judge, jury and executioner in a system with no sensible due process".Below is the laughable text of the email I received in response to my "appeal". Thanks to everyone who took the time to try to support free speech by clicking my ads. Free speech apparently isn't something Google cares about, unless they happen to control it.The foolishness continues:
Hello, This message confirms that we've received your appeal submission. We'll get to your appeal as soon as we can, though due to the high volume of emails we receive, it may take us up to a week or more to process it. If you've previously submitted an appeal for this account, you might not receive a response to this or future appeals. Also, please be aware that appealing the disabling of your AdSense account does not guarantee that it will be reinstated. If you have any questions or concerns about accounts disabled for invalid activity, please visithttps://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/answer.py?answer=57153. Thanks for your patience and understanding. Sincerely, The Google AdSense Team
In Closing:
Google proves you don't need to have brains to have a multi-billion dollar company.
Hoodwinked? I think not!
I haven't said a lot post election, regarding the outcome of the 41st election, which has delivered to us a Harper majority. This was purposeful, as I wanted to take a bit of time to pay attention to what others were saying. The media, the various social media, and people I take time to talk to at the various place I go.
I'd like to say it's laughable, but it isnt.
My feeling that people aren't very bright most of the time has been heavily reinforced. Before you think I am some kind of big-feeling pompous ass, I want you to know I also include myself in the same category, since I find many times when I realize I should have put more thought or more research into something before coming to a conclusion. This often leads to me changing my mind, which, I believe, differentiates me from the majority, in that, when I find I am wrong, I am willing to admit I was wrong and alter my thinking and actions accordingly. For many, this is a step they just won't take. When they find they're wrong, rather than admit they may have been incorrect in their thought process, they entrench. They ignore facts and evidence and cling to their mistaken beliefs in order to not have to admit they were wrong. I see it every day, because I engage a lot of people in discussion. Usually it works like this: Person 1 makes a statement of "fact" (in quotations because they've only stated what they believe to be true). At this point, I will generally call them out on their statement, presenting what I know through research and experience to be the truth of the matter. This inevitably leads to my being called all kinds of names, right up to being threatened by "internet bullies" who somehow think acting like a 6 year old has suddenly reversed the truth and made their point magically become reality. Generally, I won't stoop to this level since it makes absolutely no sense to a grown up to behave that way, so I will either continue to try to engage them with fact (only if I see a glimmer of hope they may have a common sense bone somewhere) or I'll just stop responding (when I see it's absolutely hopeless to continue to try to talk sense to them).
Which leads me to this, my latest diatribe on the Jerk referred to as Stephen Harper. I like most people. Even some who are relatively jerky, I will try to find good qualities rather than dwell on the bad. When it comes to Stephen Harper I harbour a great distate for this individual. I'd have no problem telling him to his face what I think of him, I would probably derive great pleasure in doing so.
What really galls me is what I've been seeing since the day Harper appointed his bloated cabinet, then walked away before a release was issued that he had appointed to the senate three of his cronies who had lost on election day. I have to admit, I was taken by surprise, not that Harper had done what he did, but by the reaction from conservative supporters. The same morons who voted for this asshole, indeed many of the same "so-called" journalists who endorsed him and encouraged others to give this clown the ultimate power he so craved, expressing some kind of "moral outrage" at these indefensible senate appointments.
I'm not new to Harper bashing. I took notice of this punk in an expensive suit long before he was ever leader of his party, let alone Prime Minister of what once was a great country. Many years ago I took note of the things he was saying publicly, I recognized him as a flat out US-style far right republican (however, I've revised this with the advent of the Tea Party because that is where he fits) and being the kind of person that actually cares about others and thinks government can play a constructive roll in the lives of citizens, I began to pay attention to him. I followed his rise to prominence, watched as his various power plays gained traction and how he destroyed the Progressive Conservative party and turned it into republican north. He's not a stupid man, just shallow, small minded, and the ultimate playground bully. He's managed to cloak himself in the "conservative" name, which is rather clever on his part, because many of his supporters somehow cling to the mistaken belief this is the same party as the progressive conservatives they voted for all their lives, that their parents and their parents before them voted for. Nothing could be further from the truth, which reinforces my belief that most people are just plain dumb or too lazy to look at the facts.
What else could possibly explain Canadians handing absolute power to this fascist? In the face of all of the evidence of his dictatorial tendencies, in the face of him surrounding himself with criminals as his top advisors, in the face of fraud, faked reports, mad-whore spending that would put the most left wing socialist to shame, contempt for parliament, contempt for the media, contempt for Canadians, 2 prorogations of parliament to keep himself in power, and all of the other disgusting crap this power hungry freak has rained down upon us, morons flocked to the polls to give him more power than someone like him should ever have. Now they're whing. Publicly crying foul because he is doing what he has always done.
I wonder if they think this forgives them for what is going to happen to this country over the next few years. I certainly don't forgive them. I don't feel the least sypathy for any of these people, who are bemoaning the first moves of our new dictator, they're directly responsible for giving him the power to do whatever he wants to do, and what he wants to do is make Canada into America North. Make no mistake about it, you will hear wailing and gnashing of teeth from the same blithering bastards who did everything they could to give this man what he wanted. Dictatorship of Canada.
Laughingly, they pontificate as though this is some kind of surprise. That, somehow, by giving this small minded creep a majority, he would change his ways. Stephen Harper is going to change, just not in any way that is positive for this country. The most unfortunate thing about it? People are so stupid they ignored every bit of evidence the worst thing that could happen to Canada in the entire history of the country would be to put ultimate power into the hands of this freak.
I don't find any of this funny. For years I have watched in horror as this piece of garbage consolidated his power, then gained power, then proved though a multitude of actions he is an irresponsible and dangerous man, and in return was given ultimate power in this country. If he wants to recall parliament and enact his radical right agenda, there is nothing short of revolution to stop him. If he wants to gut medicare, he can. If he wants to make abortion illegal, he will. If he wants to remove the rights of marginalized people who fought long and hard to gain a bit of understanding and acceptance, he is going to. Fact is, Stephen Harper is our dictator. Just like Franco, or Stalin, or Hitler, or any of those people I will be villified for comparing him to, Stephen Harper is your supreme ruler and he does not give a damn about your wants, needs, opinions or anything else for that matter. It's too late to whine, it's too late to moan, and far too late to pretend you had no idea what the Harper agenda was.
No one should be surprised. Stephen Harper has not had a hidden agenda. He's been clear for 2 decades where he wanted to go, and where he wanted to take this country. Because plenty of the irresponsible media types chose to ignore this, we got what they wanted, only now, they are crying about it.
To read their crap, listen to their crap, you whould think they'd been hoodwinked. If I've known and spoke out against this man and his agenda for over a decade, how is it these so-called journalists with all of the access and resources available to them, are now screaming as if they had no idea Harper would move immediately to show his contempt for all?? I submit they are either incredibly naive and stupid, or perhaps, seeing all the other losers who pretended they were journalists being appointed to the senate, they were angling for their own plum job for life.
Hoodwinked? I think not.
I'd like to say it's laughable, but it isnt.
My feeling that people aren't very bright most of the time has been heavily reinforced. Before you think I am some kind of big-feeling pompous ass, I want you to know I also include myself in the same category, since I find many times when I realize I should have put more thought or more research into something before coming to a conclusion. This often leads to me changing my mind, which, I believe, differentiates me from the majority, in that, when I find I am wrong, I am willing to admit I was wrong and alter my thinking and actions accordingly. For many, this is a step they just won't take. When they find they're wrong, rather than admit they may have been incorrect in their thought process, they entrench. They ignore facts and evidence and cling to their mistaken beliefs in order to not have to admit they were wrong. I see it every day, because I engage a lot of people in discussion. Usually it works like this: Person 1 makes a statement of "fact" (in quotations because they've only stated what they believe to be true). At this point, I will generally call them out on their statement, presenting what I know through research and experience to be the truth of the matter. This inevitably leads to my being called all kinds of names, right up to being threatened by "internet bullies" who somehow think acting like a 6 year old has suddenly reversed the truth and made their point magically become reality. Generally, I won't stoop to this level since it makes absolutely no sense to a grown up to behave that way, so I will either continue to try to engage them with fact (only if I see a glimmer of hope they may have a common sense bone somewhere) or I'll just stop responding (when I see it's absolutely hopeless to continue to try to talk sense to them).
Which leads me to this, my latest diatribe on the Jerk referred to as Stephen Harper. I like most people. Even some who are relatively jerky, I will try to find good qualities rather than dwell on the bad. When it comes to Stephen Harper I harbour a great distate for this individual. I'd have no problem telling him to his face what I think of him, I would probably derive great pleasure in doing so.
What really galls me is what I've been seeing since the day Harper appointed his bloated cabinet, then walked away before a release was issued that he had appointed to the senate three of his cronies who had lost on election day. I have to admit, I was taken by surprise, not that Harper had done what he did, but by the reaction from conservative supporters. The same morons who voted for this asshole, indeed many of the same "so-called" journalists who endorsed him and encouraged others to give this clown the ultimate power he so craved, expressing some kind of "moral outrage" at these indefensible senate appointments.
I'm not new to Harper bashing. I took notice of this punk in an expensive suit long before he was ever leader of his party, let alone Prime Minister of what once was a great country. Many years ago I took note of the things he was saying publicly, I recognized him as a flat out US-style far right republican (however, I've revised this with the advent of the Tea Party because that is where he fits) and being the kind of person that actually cares about others and thinks government can play a constructive roll in the lives of citizens, I began to pay attention to him. I followed his rise to prominence, watched as his various power plays gained traction and how he destroyed the Progressive Conservative party and turned it into republican north. He's not a stupid man, just shallow, small minded, and the ultimate playground bully. He's managed to cloak himself in the "conservative" name, which is rather clever on his part, because many of his supporters somehow cling to the mistaken belief this is the same party as the progressive conservatives they voted for all their lives, that their parents and their parents before them voted for. Nothing could be further from the truth, which reinforces my belief that most people are just plain dumb or too lazy to look at the facts.
What else could possibly explain Canadians handing absolute power to this fascist? In the face of all of the evidence of his dictatorial tendencies, in the face of him surrounding himself with criminals as his top advisors, in the face of fraud, faked reports, mad-whore spending that would put the most left wing socialist to shame, contempt for parliament, contempt for the media, contempt for Canadians, 2 prorogations of parliament to keep himself in power, and all of the other disgusting crap this power hungry freak has rained down upon us, morons flocked to the polls to give him more power than someone like him should ever have. Now they're whing. Publicly crying foul because he is doing what he has always done.
I wonder if they think this forgives them for what is going to happen to this country over the next few years. I certainly don't forgive them. I don't feel the least sypathy for any of these people, who are bemoaning the first moves of our new dictator, they're directly responsible for giving him the power to do whatever he wants to do, and what he wants to do is make Canada into America North. Make no mistake about it, you will hear wailing and gnashing of teeth from the same blithering bastards who did everything they could to give this man what he wanted. Dictatorship of Canada.
Laughingly, they pontificate as though this is some kind of surprise. That, somehow, by giving this small minded creep a majority, he would change his ways. Stephen Harper is going to change, just not in any way that is positive for this country. The most unfortunate thing about it? People are so stupid they ignored every bit of evidence the worst thing that could happen to Canada in the entire history of the country would be to put ultimate power into the hands of this freak.
I don't find any of this funny. For years I have watched in horror as this piece of garbage consolidated his power, then gained power, then proved though a multitude of actions he is an irresponsible and dangerous man, and in return was given ultimate power in this country. If he wants to recall parliament and enact his radical right agenda, there is nothing short of revolution to stop him. If he wants to gut medicare, he can. If he wants to make abortion illegal, he will. If he wants to remove the rights of marginalized people who fought long and hard to gain a bit of understanding and acceptance, he is going to. Fact is, Stephen Harper is our dictator. Just like Franco, or Stalin, or Hitler, or any of those people I will be villified for comparing him to, Stephen Harper is your supreme ruler and he does not give a damn about your wants, needs, opinions or anything else for that matter. It's too late to whine, it's too late to moan, and far too late to pretend you had no idea what the Harper agenda was.
No one should be surprised. Stephen Harper has not had a hidden agenda. He's been clear for 2 decades where he wanted to go, and where he wanted to take this country. Because plenty of the irresponsible media types chose to ignore this, we got what they wanted, only now, they are crying about it.
To read their crap, listen to their crap, you whould think they'd been hoodwinked. If I've known and spoke out against this man and his agenda for over a decade, how is it these so-called journalists with all of the access and resources available to them, are now screaming as if they had no idea Harper would move immediately to show his contempt for all?? I submit they are either incredibly naive and stupid, or perhaps, seeing all the other losers who pretended they were journalists being appointed to the senate, they were angling for their own plum job for life.
Hoodwinked? I think not.
Saturday 21 May 2011
Doing something sensible (for a change)
How out of touch are we? Very much so it appears, but thanks to the efforts of more and more people tired of this theatre of the absurd, it appears the movement to move drug policies forward into the 21st century could be gaining some traction. Don't get me wrong, I don't for a minute believe victory is imminent, because common sense is so very uncommon and almost no politician actually has the common sense gene.
What got me thinking about this today is a twitter link to the website of Avaaz, an organization I quite frequently agree with. Especially in the case of this petition to end the "war on drugs" which, when looked at with any degree of critical thought has been an utter failure, has cost taxpayers and the economy untold billions of dollars, and will never be effective. Never.
Most, if not all of the people who read this will not remember the successful prohibition of alcohol, well, that's because the prohibition on alcohol was a success, in a lesser degree, in the same way the war on drugs is. That is, utter failure with far worse consequences to society than the benefits that may have been gained by some form of orderly success.
Most of the informal reasearch I've done traces the use of alcohol back to at least 10,000 BC, and the use of marijuana back a minimum of 12,000 years. Who in their right mind would believe that substances that have been in use for millenia would suddenly stop being used because some overly-righteous asshole decided they were bad and should be illegal. The second the penstroke hits the page making things like this illegal, it sets off a chain of events that causes horrific consequenses. If you haven't put much thought into this subject, please read on for a discussion of what these prohibitions do, to individuals and to society.
The second someone came to the realization that they could ingest or inhale something that made them feel good it was game on. People like to feel good, some get it through adreneline rushes, some bask in accomplishments and accolades, others like to have a drink, or a few, or way too many. Some like to smoke weed, others prefer some other substance. The point is, most human beings crave outside stimulation that makes them feel good, and it is probably more convenient to achieve through 10 bucks worth of grass or a six pack or beer than it is through parachuting off the Eiffel Tower.
That said, I won't go into any kind of long history lesson on the prohibition of alcohol, most are aware it happened, it was a disasterous failure, it ended, liquor is now sold on a mostly regulated basis and puts billions of dollars of revenue into government coffers every year. Even if they banned it again tomorrow, people would still drink, they would find ways to make or get alcohol, and would share it with like minded people either for camaraderie or for profit. The truth is, people will never stop drinking alcohol.
Those are history lessons we know. Have you ever thought about what the consequences of the alcohol prohibition were? Worse, it didn't last near as long as the drug prohibition so the damage, while substantial, was nowhere near what the war on drugs has cost societies across the globe. Because these things are rooted in populist ideas, they are widely supported by influential segments of the population who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about and no capacity to think of the far ranging societial consequences of prohibiting anything that is widely used across the global population. From a law enforcement perspective, causes like alcohol prohibition and the war on drugs are popular and are great PR for policing agencies as they always garner headlines and the majority of them heap praise on these organizations for their crime fighting abilities. The unfortunate part is how it takes people and resources away from crimes that really matter. The prohibition of alcohol can clearly be linked to a more than substantial rise in crime and boosting the prominence of the mafia. As it is now with drugs, while prohibited, people still wanted alcohol and were willing to pay a premium to get it. Being entrepreneurs, criminals were interested in cashing in on that premium by providing the product. Greed is also a factor, in that, it will draw in people who otherwise would never have committed a crime in their lives to cash in also. This leads to huge profits for organized criminals who can use it to fund their other, more sinister criminal enterprises, thus the prohibition itself actually creates more powerful criminal orgnizations which contribute to a worsening crime situation by funding other illegal activities with the fortunes they make from selling a product everyone wants but some dumbass got elected by opposing it. Along with this, we create another whole class of criminals, those who use, posess, and minimally distribute the prohibited substance to others. A person who could have lived an entire lifetime without any stain on their reputation could be followed forever by a criminal record for merely catching a buzz. Not to mention how many people died from drinking something they shouldn't have, something they thought was the same as the illegal alcohol they'd been buying but turned out to be something poisonous. This is not great policy. This does not make society better. Prohibiting food will not make people lose weight.
So now I come to the sustained, yet absolutely useless war on drugs. Think about the consequences of alcohol prohibition as I summarized it above, then multiply it by about 1000. That's probably somewhere close to the havoc the lengthy and continued drug prohibition has caused. Now the "law and order" industry has figured out how to milk this thing like a cow. Billions of dollars annually are pumped into the industry and the result is minimal effect. It doesn't work and never will work. Sure, they orchestrate drug busts to look big and sensational, they'll expend hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars to bring down 15 or 20 small and medium players and it gets headlines and publicity for months on end. The truth is, if they managed to intercept more than 10% of the supply they'd be over the moon. I'll guarantee you I could leave my house right now and go buy anything I want, from weed, to extacy, cocaine, prescription pills, heroin, whatever I want in a city of about 130,000. I can also find most of that in just about any small community I visit, whether I know anyone or not. That's the reality.
There is minimal funding for services to help victims of crime. Unlimited funding to stop that guy with a bag of weed. No one can be bothered devoting resources to looking for missing women or children but they'll happily spend thousands of dollars and a ton of man hours doing surveillence on someone who may or may not be trafficking in one one-trillionth of the drugs sold and consumed daily on this planet. There is a whole lot wrong with this picture, and the bigger the picture you look at, the more you can find wrong with it.
I was born near the end of the baby boom. I was a teen in the 70's. I know a lot of people who tried drugs, a lot who used for a time and have stopped and many who continue to recreationally enjoy putting various substances into their body for the sheer enjoyment of it. Some of these people are regular everyday working stiffs, others are wealthy business people, still others hold esteemed positions in our society. I believe it is their business what they enjoy in their spare time, we are all responsible for our own conduct. I do know some people who have had problems with addiction, however I will qualify that by saying they are pretty much the same people who, if they weren't addicted to drugs, would engage in some other kind of self destructive behaviour. I know many people who have had their lives stained with a criminal record that will follow them forever and cause them to be excluded from working in places they would be an asset, who otherwise are decent, upstanding citizens who wouldn't think of breaking a law. I will also admit, I know a few people who never grew up and I continue to see their name in the paper because they've made a living selling drugs and have no other skills and the occasional stint in jail is just a cost of doing business.
The worst of the war on drugs is not just the criminal enterprises it has spawned, but the idea that most people do not understand they connection between prohibition and creating powerful criminal organizations. Not the guy down the street who sells a few bags of weed to suppliment his income, these people are ruthless, organized, monetized, and their interests do not stop at drugs. Drugs are a cash cow to fund other operations, and the lengthy prohibition on drugs, their use and possession, has created something that makes the mafia look like a freaking joke in comparison. This has gone on long enough that many of these drug kingpins are richer and more powerful than most countries in the world, many of them have their own private armies, they have important figures in their pockets. These people are not unsophisticated in their operations. If they need to spend a billion dollars on a new way to smuggle more of their overpriced product into a place where millions of people are more than willing to buy it, they will, as a cost of doing business. Just the fact it is illegal and so many people want it raises the stakes, and inevitably, leads to turf wars and violence. With the mafia, it was generally held to mob family on mob family violence. The length of time drugs have been prohibitied have led it to become something else, something far more sinister, where rivals now engage in violence for violence sake, and it's no longer targetted hits but random drive by shootings or bombings or whatever kind of violence they prefer at the time. It's no longer just the serious organized criminals, the idea of the "gangsta" life has been glorified so much so that an entire generation is growing up to the realization even if you don't bother to try hard to be a productive citizen you can have piles of money and piles of fun by engaging in various criminal activities, even if that includes spraying a crowd of your percieved rivals with automatic gunfire at the age of 15, or 13, no different than the child soldiers in countries we condemn for human rights abuses. As long as these substances are prohibited by force of law, yet wanted by such a significant proportion of the population, the situation will continue to worsen.
The time has come to be sensible about how we deal with intoxicating substances. People are not going to stop using them. Period. Fact. Thousands of years of history teaches us this yet we ignore that because it doesn't conveniently fit the argument for the status quo. Rather than being a massive cost monetarily and societally, sensible regulation will create benefits we should have been taking advantage of for a long time.
First and foremost, it cuts a massive source of funding for criminals off. It also allows the better allocation of resources to the prevention of crime, it frees up police to deal with crimes that are under funded, to purchase better and more modern equipment and advanced training, and allows for more effort to be put into victim services. It takes a huge load off the court system and allows more serious crime to be put through the system in a more expedient fashion, possibly leading to less plea bargains and more convictions for the serious ills of society.
Economically, the war on drugs makes no sense. I've said before and will say again people are never going to stop using intoxicating substances, so we are continually flushing money down the toilet trying to enforce the unenforcable. Under regulation, producers would become legitimate tax paying businesses in an industry that is instantly worth billions of dollars a year in this country alone. Then there would have to be a retail system, also made up of tax paying business people who would require employees, who would also be tax payers. Add to that the spinoffs available to equipment manufacturers, distribution and transportation networks, packaging designers, and everyone else who would now be doing legitimate business within the legal system. Finally there would be tax revenue, and plenty of it. It would probably be a conservative estimate to say they'd take in a couple of billion dollars a year and the product would still be less expensive at the retail level than it is today on the black market.
I submit we should stop the madness, it can only get worse if we continue to do what we are doing. The negatives of prohibition are many and varied. This is not an issue of morals. It's an outdated and misguided policy that has no basis in fact or reality. We rightly express outrage at countries that think it is acceptable to allow men to legally rape their wives yet we have no problem with ruining a 19 year old kids life forever because he had a couple of bags of grass in his car. That criminal record will exclude him from work, from travel, from many of the things most people take for granted.
The time has come for a stop to the damage of the war on drugs. The collateral damage is far too great to accept once someone begins to explain exactly what it is.
Thanks, comments for and against are most welcome.
What got me thinking about this today is a twitter link to the website of Avaaz, an organization I quite frequently agree with. Especially in the case of this petition to end the "war on drugs" which, when looked at with any degree of critical thought has been an utter failure, has cost taxpayers and the economy untold billions of dollars, and will never be effective. Never.
Most, if not all of the people who read this will not remember the successful prohibition of alcohol, well, that's because the prohibition on alcohol was a success, in a lesser degree, in the same way the war on drugs is. That is, utter failure with far worse consequences to society than the benefits that may have been gained by some form of orderly success.
Most of the informal reasearch I've done traces the use of alcohol back to at least 10,000 BC, and the use of marijuana back a minimum of 12,000 years. Who in their right mind would believe that substances that have been in use for millenia would suddenly stop being used because some overly-righteous asshole decided they were bad and should be illegal. The second the penstroke hits the page making things like this illegal, it sets off a chain of events that causes horrific consequenses. If you haven't put much thought into this subject, please read on for a discussion of what these prohibitions do, to individuals and to society.
The second someone came to the realization that they could ingest or inhale something that made them feel good it was game on. People like to feel good, some get it through adreneline rushes, some bask in accomplishments and accolades, others like to have a drink, or a few, or way too many. Some like to smoke weed, others prefer some other substance. The point is, most human beings crave outside stimulation that makes them feel good, and it is probably more convenient to achieve through 10 bucks worth of grass or a six pack or beer than it is through parachuting off the Eiffel Tower.
That said, I won't go into any kind of long history lesson on the prohibition of alcohol, most are aware it happened, it was a disasterous failure, it ended, liquor is now sold on a mostly regulated basis and puts billions of dollars of revenue into government coffers every year. Even if they banned it again tomorrow, people would still drink, they would find ways to make or get alcohol, and would share it with like minded people either for camaraderie or for profit. The truth is, people will never stop drinking alcohol.
Those are history lessons we know. Have you ever thought about what the consequences of the alcohol prohibition were? Worse, it didn't last near as long as the drug prohibition so the damage, while substantial, was nowhere near what the war on drugs has cost societies across the globe. Because these things are rooted in populist ideas, they are widely supported by influential segments of the population who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about and no capacity to think of the far ranging societial consequences of prohibiting anything that is widely used across the global population. From a law enforcement perspective, causes like alcohol prohibition and the war on drugs are popular and are great PR for policing agencies as they always garner headlines and the majority of them heap praise on these organizations for their crime fighting abilities. The unfortunate part is how it takes people and resources away from crimes that really matter. The prohibition of alcohol can clearly be linked to a more than substantial rise in crime and boosting the prominence of the mafia. As it is now with drugs, while prohibited, people still wanted alcohol and were willing to pay a premium to get it. Being entrepreneurs, criminals were interested in cashing in on that premium by providing the product. Greed is also a factor, in that, it will draw in people who otherwise would never have committed a crime in their lives to cash in also. This leads to huge profits for organized criminals who can use it to fund their other, more sinister criminal enterprises, thus the prohibition itself actually creates more powerful criminal orgnizations which contribute to a worsening crime situation by funding other illegal activities with the fortunes they make from selling a product everyone wants but some dumbass got elected by opposing it. Along with this, we create another whole class of criminals, those who use, posess, and minimally distribute the prohibited substance to others. A person who could have lived an entire lifetime without any stain on their reputation could be followed forever by a criminal record for merely catching a buzz. Not to mention how many people died from drinking something they shouldn't have, something they thought was the same as the illegal alcohol they'd been buying but turned out to be something poisonous. This is not great policy. This does not make society better. Prohibiting food will not make people lose weight.
So now I come to the sustained, yet absolutely useless war on drugs. Think about the consequences of alcohol prohibition as I summarized it above, then multiply it by about 1000. That's probably somewhere close to the havoc the lengthy and continued drug prohibition has caused. Now the "law and order" industry has figured out how to milk this thing like a cow. Billions of dollars annually are pumped into the industry and the result is minimal effect. It doesn't work and never will work. Sure, they orchestrate drug busts to look big and sensational, they'll expend hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars to bring down 15 or 20 small and medium players and it gets headlines and publicity for months on end. The truth is, if they managed to intercept more than 10% of the supply they'd be over the moon. I'll guarantee you I could leave my house right now and go buy anything I want, from weed, to extacy, cocaine, prescription pills, heroin, whatever I want in a city of about 130,000. I can also find most of that in just about any small community I visit, whether I know anyone or not. That's the reality.
There is minimal funding for services to help victims of crime. Unlimited funding to stop that guy with a bag of weed. No one can be bothered devoting resources to looking for missing women or children but they'll happily spend thousands of dollars and a ton of man hours doing surveillence on someone who may or may not be trafficking in one one-trillionth of the drugs sold and consumed daily on this planet. There is a whole lot wrong with this picture, and the bigger the picture you look at, the more you can find wrong with it.
I was born near the end of the baby boom. I was a teen in the 70's. I know a lot of people who tried drugs, a lot who used for a time and have stopped and many who continue to recreationally enjoy putting various substances into their body for the sheer enjoyment of it. Some of these people are regular everyday working stiffs, others are wealthy business people, still others hold esteemed positions in our society. I believe it is their business what they enjoy in their spare time, we are all responsible for our own conduct. I do know some people who have had problems with addiction, however I will qualify that by saying they are pretty much the same people who, if they weren't addicted to drugs, would engage in some other kind of self destructive behaviour. I know many people who have had their lives stained with a criminal record that will follow them forever and cause them to be excluded from working in places they would be an asset, who otherwise are decent, upstanding citizens who wouldn't think of breaking a law. I will also admit, I know a few people who never grew up and I continue to see their name in the paper because they've made a living selling drugs and have no other skills and the occasional stint in jail is just a cost of doing business.
The worst of the war on drugs is not just the criminal enterprises it has spawned, but the idea that most people do not understand they connection between prohibition and creating powerful criminal organizations. Not the guy down the street who sells a few bags of weed to suppliment his income, these people are ruthless, organized, monetized, and their interests do not stop at drugs. Drugs are a cash cow to fund other operations, and the lengthy prohibition on drugs, their use and possession, has created something that makes the mafia look like a freaking joke in comparison. This has gone on long enough that many of these drug kingpins are richer and more powerful than most countries in the world, many of them have their own private armies, they have important figures in their pockets. These people are not unsophisticated in their operations. If they need to spend a billion dollars on a new way to smuggle more of their overpriced product into a place where millions of people are more than willing to buy it, they will, as a cost of doing business. Just the fact it is illegal and so many people want it raises the stakes, and inevitably, leads to turf wars and violence. With the mafia, it was generally held to mob family on mob family violence. The length of time drugs have been prohibitied have led it to become something else, something far more sinister, where rivals now engage in violence for violence sake, and it's no longer targetted hits but random drive by shootings or bombings or whatever kind of violence they prefer at the time. It's no longer just the serious organized criminals, the idea of the "gangsta" life has been glorified so much so that an entire generation is growing up to the realization even if you don't bother to try hard to be a productive citizen you can have piles of money and piles of fun by engaging in various criminal activities, even if that includes spraying a crowd of your percieved rivals with automatic gunfire at the age of 15, or 13, no different than the child soldiers in countries we condemn for human rights abuses. As long as these substances are prohibited by force of law, yet wanted by such a significant proportion of the population, the situation will continue to worsen.
The time has come to be sensible about how we deal with intoxicating substances. People are not going to stop using them. Period. Fact. Thousands of years of history teaches us this yet we ignore that because it doesn't conveniently fit the argument for the status quo. Rather than being a massive cost monetarily and societally, sensible regulation will create benefits we should have been taking advantage of for a long time.
First and foremost, it cuts a massive source of funding for criminals off. It also allows the better allocation of resources to the prevention of crime, it frees up police to deal with crimes that are under funded, to purchase better and more modern equipment and advanced training, and allows for more effort to be put into victim services. It takes a huge load off the court system and allows more serious crime to be put through the system in a more expedient fashion, possibly leading to less plea bargains and more convictions for the serious ills of society.
Economically, the war on drugs makes no sense. I've said before and will say again people are never going to stop using intoxicating substances, so we are continually flushing money down the toilet trying to enforce the unenforcable. Under regulation, producers would become legitimate tax paying businesses in an industry that is instantly worth billions of dollars a year in this country alone. Then there would have to be a retail system, also made up of tax paying business people who would require employees, who would also be tax payers. Add to that the spinoffs available to equipment manufacturers, distribution and transportation networks, packaging designers, and everyone else who would now be doing legitimate business within the legal system. Finally there would be tax revenue, and plenty of it. It would probably be a conservative estimate to say they'd take in a couple of billion dollars a year and the product would still be less expensive at the retail level than it is today on the black market.
I submit we should stop the madness, it can only get worse if we continue to do what we are doing. The negatives of prohibition are many and varied. This is not an issue of morals. It's an outdated and misguided policy that has no basis in fact or reality. We rightly express outrage at countries that think it is acceptable to allow men to legally rape their wives yet we have no problem with ruining a 19 year old kids life forever because he had a couple of bags of grass in his car. That criminal record will exclude him from work, from travel, from many of the things most people take for granted.
The time has come for a stop to the damage of the war on drugs. The collateral damage is far too great to accept once someone begins to explain exactly what it is.
Thanks, comments for and against are most welcome.
Thursday 19 May 2011
The Canadian Foreign Policy Mirror
At one point, at a time I was happier with our stance on world affairs, I think our particular, quirky, role on the world stage was a place most Canadians could agree on overall as our stance in the world once made us appealing and somewhat the envy of many other countries.
Let's face it, the Americans can have a huge influence on most nations in the world, and our status as that geeky kid next door who wants to be accepted so will do almost anything to be part of the "inner circle" even though the closest he gets in to hang in the fringe make our relationship special. Special as in, lock step behind whatever the US says or we'll punish you with unrelated yet devastating tariffs. At least, that's how it works today. The US wants us to put troops in Afghanistan, getting them killed and maimed, ostensibly hunting down Osama Bin Laden, who of course was in Pakistan all or most of that time. Now we're right in there like a dirty shirt bombing Lybia with no clear idea of what the mission is, will be, or may be forced to become. This is toadyism at its worst.
It also leaves the world with a huge void. For a long time Canada was respected across the globe as the pragmatic country that did not unessecarily get involved in armed conflicts, but readied ourselves for the opportunity to teach the world that, with a little help, a peaceful existence could be attained. Canada maintained (sic) its comittment to NATO and if NATO required a job from Canada it was done.
Aside from these aspects, if you examine the Canadian record, we have basically stayed in lock step with America and the UK, with the unfortunate exception we have expressed eagerness to blow the USA and China out of the water as the world's most irresponsible stewards of our own environment, and the biggest impediment to moving forward on anything a step up from the clown show that is our government's climate change policy.
Canadian foreign policy, once a source of pride for many Canadians, has deterioriated to a trick mirror image of America's, the trick mirror makes us look uglier.
Let's face it, the Americans can have a huge influence on most nations in the world, and our status as that geeky kid next door who wants to be accepted so will do almost anything to be part of the "inner circle" even though the closest he gets in to hang in the fringe make our relationship special. Special as in, lock step behind whatever the US says or we'll punish you with unrelated yet devastating tariffs. At least, that's how it works today. The US wants us to put troops in Afghanistan, getting them killed and maimed, ostensibly hunting down Osama Bin Laden, who of course was in Pakistan all or most of that time. Now we're right in there like a dirty shirt bombing Lybia with no clear idea of what the mission is, will be, or may be forced to become. This is toadyism at its worst.
It also leaves the world with a huge void. For a long time Canada was respected across the globe as the pragmatic country that did not unessecarily get involved in armed conflicts, but readied ourselves for the opportunity to teach the world that, with a little help, a peaceful existence could be attained. Canada maintained (sic) its comittment to NATO and if NATO required a job from Canada it was done.
Aside from these aspects, if you examine the Canadian record, we have basically stayed in lock step with America and the UK, with the unfortunate exception we have expressed eagerness to blow the USA and China out of the water as the world's most irresponsible stewards of our own environment, and the biggest impediment to moving forward on anything a step up from the clown show that is our government's climate change policy.
Canadian foreign policy, once a source of pride for many Canadians, has deterioriated to a trick mirror image of America's, the trick mirror makes us look uglier.
Wednesday 18 May 2011
Why "Uniting the Left" will fail.
Since I've seen a lot of chatter about uniting the "left" recently, I thought I might weigh in on the subject while the topic is still fresh.
Many pundits and regular folk have been musing about what needs to be done to allow the majority of the population to have the majority say in the affairs of the nation. Many varied pieces have been written in the aftermath of the election that gave Stephen Harper's conservatives a majority in the House of Commons, with the support of only 40% of the 60% of eligibile Canadians who took the time to vote. There are variations on several themes, and some very good ideas, most of which imply the opening of the constitution which is fraught with many dangers I will surely discuss at some point, but for now, I'd like to focus on the people who believe the solution is to "unite the left".
Our current difficulty stems from the catch 22 situation that exists in the Canadian political landscape. The system we operate under is equipped to allow for any number of political parties to participate, but the process of government is actually designed for "mano-a-mano" government versus opposition two party rule. The more parties involved, the less influential and effective they will be, especially when facing a majority government. This is our reality. The NDP went from a position of power to being the mouse that roared. Enough of that, let's get to the meat of the discussion.
As I see it, the left is already just about as united as they get. The left, of course, would be Jack Layton's NDP. For most of the Liberals I know personally, and many I discuss ideas with, any kind of merger with the New Democrats is neither a probability nor a possibility. The NDP is a separate party for a reason, that reason being they are too uncomfortably left for people who have considered themselves as socially progressive over the last half century. While I suspect many NDP supporters may fall somewhere on the right hand side of the official party position, they have a certain populist appeal which will draw some people in, and, like supporters of any party, will ignore the areas the party might tend to go further than they like in order to support a narrower agenda they do want to see moving forward. This is the same principle that allows conservative supporters to ignore the horrificly bad things the Harper Government has done and proudly support them, and the one that allows Liberals to somehow not notice their party stopped standing for anything in particular some time ago.
I'm not going to self-aggrandize and say I know the answer to what ails Canada right now. I do know that the heart and soul of the Liberals and the heart and soul of the NDP are camps that sit father apart than one would think on the surface.
Looking at things in a smaller context, perhaps defeating Stephen Harper and his band of merry-men is the be all and end all and that if that other 60% of voters all joined in a big group hug we'd chase those bullies from the playground once and for all and Canada would live happily ever after. To which I give the "Bev Oda ^NOT Award".
This is not what I'm asking myself after this election. I never dismiss anything on its face, so of course I pondered the option of some kind of coming together of the left, however, it isn't an option I would dwell upon for any great length of time. If the rift is too wide for me, I know it will be far too wide for a mass audience it really needs to appeal to. What I'm expending much of my thought process on is a far more complex and compelling question. A question that really goes to the root of what you or I personally see as what it means to be Canadian. It truly can be a defining moment for the future of the country.
I'm asking this: Do I want a Canada that more closely resembles America, and the politics that go with that? With a harshly defined right versus left that is exactly what we'll get. 20% hard to the right, 20% hard to the left and the remaining 60% who are either forced to hold their noses and vote for whichever is the lesser of the two evils at the time, or just not bother to vote at all. I find it appaling, but some people think it's just dandy.
Is there room for a political centre in Canada? I believe there is. I actually believe there is a very bright future for "centrists" in this country. It may sound odd, when one looks at the unfortunate drubbing of the Liberal party in the election just past, but I will tell you why, where others see abject failure, I see glorious opportunity.
The reason for hope begins with time. Most of us who are tuned in realize what a Harper majority has the potential to do. Nothiing can be done about that, except to do our level best to provide vocal opposition to the bad legislation they are going to pass during this term in office. Time also will help those in the centre by showing Canadians what the NDP is really about. Never before have they had to undergo the kind of scrutiny the "official" opposition will have to. Before, they were written off by a lot of very content people as a bunch of unelectable 3rd party wackos and when they said something dumb or had policies that didn't really stand up to scrutiny, it didn't really matter because they were the "other" guys. The also rans. Now they will matter. Moderate Canadians will get a much closer look at who they are and what they stand for, and in my estimation will find it not to their suiting.
Time also benefits the centre in that many of the old progressive conservatives, and indeed, many in the reform party will come to the stark realization the Stephen Harper is to Canada what the Tea Party is to the US. He is right. Right-of-right. At this moment Stephen Harper has done exactly what he and his closest backers had planned. Destruction of the progressive conservatives using the reform party as a vehicle, then the takeover of reform and a "merger" with the much weakened progressive conservatives, then consolidation of power within the party itself, and finally, drop most of the pretense and move to US-style junkyard dog politics to annihilate your most serious opposition, to the point where you've jacked the system enough to form a majority government and enact the policies you intended to enact and vocalized two decades previously. Moderate conservatives are in for a shock since many of them still mistake Harper's conservatives for the ones of their past.
These are some of the things that bode well for those of us who still believe that Canada can be a country known for its compassion, known for its fiscal good sense, and known for exhibiting good character in all of our global dealings. Now what the centre really needs is to identify the people who can articulate the truth. The truth that when we ask ourselves what it means to be Canadian, it means sitting somewhere on the line of sanity between the factions. To be Canadian is a lot about moderation, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Will the voices of Canada, please speak up.
Many pundits and regular folk have been musing about what needs to be done to allow the majority of the population to have the majority say in the affairs of the nation. Many varied pieces have been written in the aftermath of the election that gave Stephen Harper's conservatives a majority in the House of Commons, with the support of only 40% of the 60% of eligibile Canadians who took the time to vote. There are variations on several themes, and some very good ideas, most of which imply the opening of the constitution which is fraught with many dangers I will surely discuss at some point, but for now, I'd like to focus on the people who believe the solution is to "unite the left".
Our current difficulty stems from the catch 22 situation that exists in the Canadian political landscape. The system we operate under is equipped to allow for any number of political parties to participate, but the process of government is actually designed for "mano-a-mano" government versus opposition two party rule. The more parties involved, the less influential and effective they will be, especially when facing a majority government. This is our reality. The NDP went from a position of power to being the mouse that roared. Enough of that, let's get to the meat of the discussion.
As I see it, the left is already just about as united as they get. The left, of course, would be Jack Layton's NDP. For most of the Liberals I know personally, and many I discuss ideas with, any kind of merger with the New Democrats is neither a probability nor a possibility. The NDP is a separate party for a reason, that reason being they are too uncomfortably left for people who have considered themselves as socially progressive over the last half century. While I suspect many NDP supporters may fall somewhere on the right hand side of the official party position, they have a certain populist appeal which will draw some people in, and, like supporters of any party, will ignore the areas the party might tend to go further than they like in order to support a narrower agenda they do want to see moving forward. This is the same principle that allows conservative supporters to ignore the horrificly bad things the Harper Government has done and proudly support them, and the one that allows Liberals to somehow not notice their party stopped standing for anything in particular some time ago.
I'm not going to self-aggrandize and say I know the answer to what ails Canada right now. I do know that the heart and soul of the Liberals and the heart and soul of the NDP are camps that sit father apart than one would think on the surface.
Looking at things in a smaller context, perhaps defeating Stephen Harper and his band of merry-men is the be all and end all and that if that other 60% of voters all joined in a big group hug we'd chase those bullies from the playground once and for all and Canada would live happily ever after. To which I give the "Bev Oda ^NOT Award".
This is not what I'm asking myself after this election. I never dismiss anything on its face, so of course I pondered the option of some kind of coming together of the left, however, it isn't an option I would dwell upon for any great length of time. If the rift is too wide for me, I know it will be far too wide for a mass audience it really needs to appeal to. What I'm expending much of my thought process on is a far more complex and compelling question. A question that really goes to the root of what you or I personally see as what it means to be Canadian. It truly can be a defining moment for the future of the country.
I'm asking this: Do I want a Canada that more closely resembles America, and the politics that go with that? With a harshly defined right versus left that is exactly what we'll get. 20% hard to the right, 20% hard to the left and the remaining 60% who are either forced to hold their noses and vote for whichever is the lesser of the two evils at the time, or just not bother to vote at all. I find it appaling, but some people think it's just dandy.
Is there room for a political centre in Canada? I believe there is. I actually believe there is a very bright future for "centrists" in this country. It may sound odd, when one looks at the unfortunate drubbing of the Liberal party in the election just past, but I will tell you why, where others see abject failure, I see glorious opportunity.
The reason for hope begins with time. Most of us who are tuned in realize what a Harper majority has the potential to do. Nothiing can be done about that, except to do our level best to provide vocal opposition to the bad legislation they are going to pass during this term in office. Time also will help those in the centre by showing Canadians what the NDP is really about. Never before have they had to undergo the kind of scrutiny the "official" opposition will have to. Before, they were written off by a lot of very content people as a bunch of unelectable 3rd party wackos and when they said something dumb or had policies that didn't really stand up to scrutiny, it didn't really matter because they were the "other" guys. The also rans. Now they will matter. Moderate Canadians will get a much closer look at who they are and what they stand for, and in my estimation will find it not to their suiting.
Time also benefits the centre in that many of the old progressive conservatives, and indeed, many in the reform party will come to the stark realization the Stephen Harper is to Canada what the Tea Party is to the US. He is right. Right-of-right. At this moment Stephen Harper has done exactly what he and his closest backers had planned. Destruction of the progressive conservatives using the reform party as a vehicle, then the takeover of reform and a "merger" with the much weakened progressive conservatives, then consolidation of power within the party itself, and finally, drop most of the pretense and move to US-style junkyard dog politics to annihilate your most serious opposition, to the point where you've jacked the system enough to form a majority government and enact the policies you intended to enact and vocalized two decades previously. Moderate conservatives are in for a shock since many of them still mistake Harper's conservatives for the ones of their past.
These are some of the things that bode well for those of us who still believe that Canada can be a country known for its compassion, known for its fiscal good sense, and known for exhibiting good character in all of our global dealings. Now what the centre really needs is to identify the people who can articulate the truth. The truth that when we ask ourselves what it means to be Canadian, it means sitting somewhere on the line of sanity between the factions. To be Canadian is a lot about moderation, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Will the voices of Canada, please speak up.
A National Dream?
I've been wondering. Pondering. Questioning. Reading. I just don't see it.
A main theme of mine continues to be vision. Leaders with vision, even a narrow, partial vision, either don't exist or are totally unable to articulate a vision that could appeal to Canadians from coast to coast.
I long for someone with an idea or ideas on a grand scale. Ideas that improve the lives of Canadians from every corner of the country. Early on, it was coast to coast rail, then the Trans Canada Highway, medicare, public pensions, repatriation of the constitution, the charter of rights and freedoms and since...well...nothing. I mean, free trade was not an inspiration and did nothing for our national identity. I haven't even heard anyything from anyone I'd think of as an up and comer in any party express any kind of new ideas.
I'm not sure what other Canadians are looking for. I think many would agree it wouldn't hurt for someone to come out with some kind of idea that unifies us, that mends some of the horrific devisevness heaped upon us in the last couple of decades.
I have my own ideas of important things we might be able to do on a national scale, and I'd be tremendously interested to hear from others what they think might be a tonic for the region versus region, province versus province, provinces versus feds, feds versus provinces, urban versus rural crap that's been used for partisan political gain for far too long in Canada.
If it were me, I'd advance an agenda of making Canada the greenest country on the planet. A comprehensive strategy that utilizes the resources of each and every Canadian, from the householder to the heads of the largest corporations.
This is not one of those, cap and trade, carbon tax advocacy papers, rather it is the idea of an entire country making the committment to become the world's environmental leader in every way. For business, it's incentives to get greener and about paying your way for the harm you do. It's about programs to encourage the development of greener technologies, about new support businesses that will become reality to service new technologies which can be exportedall over the world. It's about more money for research for our Universities for programs that develop and enhance methods and new technologies to benefit Canadian industries, it's about finding new markets for recyclable materials and better methods of recycling. It's about public education, what can be done at home and at work and money for programs that encourage citizen science groups who have become increasingly successful in providing a wealth of reliable data that couldn't ever be compiled without the dedication of people who care about various aspects of the world around them. For the provinces, incentives to close old, inefficient power generating plants and replace them with greener energy sources.
Canadians are concerned about the environment and rightly so. More than anything I can think of in this day and age, I believe our concern for the environment could be a unifying factor and a source of pride for a Canada which has been wandering in the wilderness, unable to see the forest for the trees.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on national dreams. As always, I'm searching for the bigger picture.
A main theme of mine continues to be vision. Leaders with vision, even a narrow, partial vision, either don't exist or are totally unable to articulate a vision that could appeal to Canadians from coast to coast.
I long for someone with an idea or ideas on a grand scale. Ideas that improve the lives of Canadians from every corner of the country. Early on, it was coast to coast rail, then the Trans Canada Highway, medicare, public pensions, repatriation of the constitution, the charter of rights and freedoms and since...well...nothing. I mean, free trade was not an inspiration and did nothing for our national identity. I haven't even heard anyything from anyone I'd think of as an up and comer in any party express any kind of new ideas.
I'm not sure what other Canadians are looking for. I think many would agree it wouldn't hurt for someone to come out with some kind of idea that unifies us, that mends some of the horrific devisevness heaped upon us in the last couple of decades.
I have my own ideas of important things we might be able to do on a national scale, and I'd be tremendously interested to hear from others what they think might be a tonic for the region versus region, province versus province, provinces versus feds, feds versus provinces, urban versus rural crap that's been used for partisan political gain for far too long in Canada.
If it were me, I'd advance an agenda of making Canada the greenest country on the planet. A comprehensive strategy that utilizes the resources of each and every Canadian, from the householder to the heads of the largest corporations.
This is not one of those, cap and trade, carbon tax advocacy papers, rather it is the idea of an entire country making the committment to become the world's environmental leader in every way. For business, it's incentives to get greener and about paying your way for the harm you do. It's about programs to encourage the development of greener technologies, about new support businesses that will become reality to service new technologies which can be exportedall over the world. It's about more money for research for our Universities for programs that develop and enhance methods and new technologies to benefit Canadian industries, it's about finding new markets for recyclable materials and better methods of recycling. It's about public education, what can be done at home and at work and money for programs that encourage citizen science groups who have become increasingly successful in providing a wealth of reliable data that couldn't ever be compiled without the dedication of people who care about various aspects of the world around them. For the provinces, incentives to close old, inefficient power generating plants and replace them with greener energy sources.
Canadians are concerned about the environment and rightly so. More than anything I can think of in this day and age, I believe our concern for the environment could be a unifying factor and a source of pride for a Canada which has been wandering in the wilderness, unable to see the forest for the trees.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on national dreams. As always, I'm searching for the bigger picture.
Friday 13 May 2011
If Bigpicguy Was Your Prime Minister
Funny how sometimes an innocent conversation gets you thinking, and sometimes the thought doesn't go away, it builds over time. Which leads me to this particular blog post. I'm going to ignore what anyone else has as a platform, and talk about what I would do with my fantasy majority government.
Of course, getting elected by being honest with people would never work, so this will always remain a fantasy, but for fun I'll share.
Of course, first things first, I'd have to choose a cabinet. My process would be different. Normal conventions go in the toilet. Cabinet Ministers in my Government of Canada would not be chosen by power or party influence or location, they would be chosen by their understanding of the issues of their portfolio and their willingness to work for all Canadians, not their province/territory or region or ethnicity or anything else other than carrying out their duty to make this the best damned country in the world. From coast to coast to coast as they love to say. A minister serves at the pleasure of the Prime Minister, and under my administration fairness and competence are a must or you get assigned a different seat, on in the back, because everyone can be replaced.
Next order of business, a budget. Since I would not be the finance minister, I wouldn't presume to think I could detail this for you, only assure you there would be no sudden shock for the average Canadian, no big anti-business hit, and that my Government's budgets will aim to advance my agenda for change, including far more open information on actual spending, and finding sensible ways to live within our means and to include payments on our debt in every budget. There must be measures put in place where only extrordinary measures could trigger deficit spending. More accountability for tax dollars is an absolute must.
Now we have to get down to a legislative agenda. MP's can expect to be working a lot more. As one who firmly believes if you're going to lead, you do it by example. So long recesses would be an exception rather than a rule, there's a country to improve. Number one on my agenda is clarity on how every penny of your money is spent. I don't think any Canadian would object to setting up an agency that provides them the ability to go online and see every payment released from every Government account, to be able to see scanned images of every invoice, to know how their tax dollars are being spent so they are able to make an informed judgement on how their tax dollars are being spent. As a starting point, I think it's a good one. It forces people to be more careful when they know someone can immediately see they just bought 150 golf balls or 60 bottles of pricey Champagne. I'm not saying there aren't times those may be good investments, but if people can see it you'd best be able to justify it. It also opens opportunities for smart businesses. If I can go online and see an opportunity to supply the Government with a product or service at a lower price and still make money, the law would ensure their case gets a hearing. This is the 21st Century, so let's move into it.
My agenda is reform of a system that has served us so poorly for so long. What once worked well (maybe) no longer is sensible in this day and age. Government has to change so Canadians have the kind of faith in their institutions required to open their minds to change.
All my life I've listened to politicians say they have to have all the pay and perks and platinum pensions and on and on and on and to that I say "Up Yours". I don't know many starving politicians, especially former PM's, Premiers, Cabinet Ministers, Opposition Leaders and critics, these people have many new doors opened to them through their political careers. Most of them make far more money after they leave office than they could ever have made prior to it.
Your job in parliament is about to become just that, a job. Since you are paid a salary, if you work extra hours, too bad. Yes, you'll have a fair amount of sick days but, like any other Canadian, if you miss too much time it will have to be taken from your pay. You'll also have a fairly generous vacation allotment, it's a difficult and stressful job, but if you aren't using that vacation time and the house is not sitting you are required to be in your constituency office 8 hours a day or attending a public function where you can account for your time, or take more unpaid time and explain it to the voters. It's about work ethic. It's about real public service. About setting the example. Just like every other Canadian who gets up and goes to work.
Now we're going to set an example when it comes to pay and perks and money fountains of all kinds that can be eliminated or have the funds redirected to things that actually help Canadian people and business to flourish. Since I like personal accountability, MP's, Ministers and the PM will have their level of compensation tied to the average wage in Canada. The average + a set percentage, so you have an incentive to find ways to improve the standard of living and you pay if you're irresponsible. If the economy goes bad and everyone hurts, you do too.
When we get to the pension thing, over baby. MP's will recieve an annual contribution to the RRSP of their choice and when they go it goes along with them. I wish them well, they're better off than many.
I also wouldn't be taking a knife to perks and personal budgets, rather I have a chain saw and know how to use it. Get used to working like most other people. Drive your own car to work. If you use a government vehicle it will be comfortable but economical, no chauffeur but I promise a GPS so you can find your way. No one subsidizes a working Canadian's daily lunch, and you'll be paying full price for your own too. You won't fly if you can use a train, you won't use a train if you can drive, just like Joe Blow who voted you in. Just think of me as the guy who made the country club a little more like the sweat shop for politicians. You'll be surprised how much you can accomplish by showing up to work and not tripping over too many servants. If there is an occasion a limo is required, very few will be available to anyone, so it better be an important requirement.
Since parliament is a workplace, Question Period will revert to Question Period. Where questions are asked and answers to the questions are given, or deferred for more information with a specified period of time to provide said answer. No more disorderly conduct, hollering, thumping of desks, etc as that will get you removed from the house for a time out as it were. Running the country is a business and it's about time we got down to it.
MP's will be tasked with consulting extensively with Canadians on what their spending priorities are. Finding acceptable ways to stop spending frivilously and either save the money, redirect it, or a little of both. Let's not go off in a direction without determining priorities first, then finding ways to improve our health services, to prioritize continuing education so our youth have opportunity to grow, not to be buried in debt. We need to foster an atmosphere of hard work and results that improve the lives of all of our people. To concentrate on the things that unite us as Canadians, so we can work to find a fair concensus on things that divide us.
That's how I would start. From the top. Of course I'd need to make the blog a zillion miles long to expound on all of my policy ideas but, this is a pretty good start.
As always, I value your comments and suggestions for topics you might like to hear more of my views on. Thanks for visiting, come back often!!
Of course, getting elected by being honest with people would never work, so this will always remain a fantasy, but for fun I'll share.
Of course, first things first, I'd have to choose a cabinet. My process would be different. Normal conventions go in the toilet. Cabinet Ministers in my Government of Canada would not be chosen by power or party influence or location, they would be chosen by their understanding of the issues of their portfolio and their willingness to work for all Canadians, not their province/territory or region or ethnicity or anything else other than carrying out their duty to make this the best damned country in the world. From coast to coast to coast as they love to say. A minister serves at the pleasure of the Prime Minister, and under my administration fairness and competence are a must or you get assigned a different seat, on in the back, because everyone can be replaced.
Next order of business, a budget. Since I would not be the finance minister, I wouldn't presume to think I could detail this for you, only assure you there would be no sudden shock for the average Canadian, no big anti-business hit, and that my Government's budgets will aim to advance my agenda for change, including far more open information on actual spending, and finding sensible ways to live within our means and to include payments on our debt in every budget. There must be measures put in place where only extrordinary measures could trigger deficit spending. More accountability for tax dollars is an absolute must.
Now we have to get down to a legislative agenda. MP's can expect to be working a lot more. As one who firmly believes if you're going to lead, you do it by example. So long recesses would be an exception rather than a rule, there's a country to improve. Number one on my agenda is clarity on how every penny of your money is spent. I don't think any Canadian would object to setting up an agency that provides them the ability to go online and see every payment released from every Government account, to be able to see scanned images of every invoice, to know how their tax dollars are being spent so they are able to make an informed judgement on how their tax dollars are being spent. As a starting point, I think it's a good one. It forces people to be more careful when they know someone can immediately see they just bought 150 golf balls or 60 bottles of pricey Champagne. I'm not saying there aren't times those may be good investments, but if people can see it you'd best be able to justify it. It also opens opportunities for smart businesses. If I can go online and see an opportunity to supply the Government with a product or service at a lower price and still make money, the law would ensure their case gets a hearing. This is the 21st Century, so let's move into it.
My agenda is reform of a system that has served us so poorly for so long. What once worked well (maybe) no longer is sensible in this day and age. Government has to change so Canadians have the kind of faith in their institutions required to open their minds to change.
All my life I've listened to politicians say they have to have all the pay and perks and platinum pensions and on and on and on and to that I say "Up Yours". I don't know many starving politicians, especially former PM's, Premiers, Cabinet Ministers, Opposition Leaders and critics, these people have many new doors opened to them through their political careers. Most of them make far more money after they leave office than they could ever have made prior to it.
Your job in parliament is about to become just that, a job. Since you are paid a salary, if you work extra hours, too bad. Yes, you'll have a fair amount of sick days but, like any other Canadian, if you miss too much time it will have to be taken from your pay. You'll also have a fairly generous vacation allotment, it's a difficult and stressful job, but if you aren't using that vacation time and the house is not sitting you are required to be in your constituency office 8 hours a day or attending a public function where you can account for your time, or take more unpaid time and explain it to the voters. It's about work ethic. It's about real public service. About setting the example. Just like every other Canadian who gets up and goes to work.
Now we're going to set an example when it comes to pay and perks and money fountains of all kinds that can be eliminated or have the funds redirected to things that actually help Canadian people and business to flourish. Since I like personal accountability, MP's, Ministers and the PM will have their level of compensation tied to the average wage in Canada. The average + a set percentage, so you have an incentive to find ways to improve the standard of living and you pay if you're irresponsible. If the economy goes bad and everyone hurts, you do too.
When we get to the pension thing, over baby. MP's will recieve an annual contribution to the RRSP of their choice and when they go it goes along with them. I wish them well, they're better off than many.
I also wouldn't be taking a knife to perks and personal budgets, rather I have a chain saw and know how to use it. Get used to working like most other people. Drive your own car to work. If you use a government vehicle it will be comfortable but economical, no chauffeur but I promise a GPS so you can find your way. No one subsidizes a working Canadian's daily lunch, and you'll be paying full price for your own too. You won't fly if you can use a train, you won't use a train if you can drive, just like Joe Blow who voted you in. Just think of me as the guy who made the country club a little more like the sweat shop for politicians. You'll be surprised how much you can accomplish by showing up to work and not tripping over too many servants. If there is an occasion a limo is required, very few will be available to anyone, so it better be an important requirement.
Since parliament is a workplace, Question Period will revert to Question Period. Where questions are asked and answers to the questions are given, or deferred for more information with a specified period of time to provide said answer. No more disorderly conduct, hollering, thumping of desks, etc as that will get you removed from the house for a time out as it were. Running the country is a business and it's about time we got down to it.
MP's will be tasked with consulting extensively with Canadians on what their spending priorities are. Finding acceptable ways to stop spending frivilously and either save the money, redirect it, or a little of both. Let's not go off in a direction without determining priorities first, then finding ways to improve our health services, to prioritize continuing education so our youth have opportunity to grow, not to be buried in debt. We need to foster an atmosphere of hard work and results that improve the lives of all of our people. To concentrate on the things that unite us as Canadians, so we can work to find a fair concensus on things that divide us.
That's how I would start. From the top. Of course I'd need to make the blog a zillion miles long to expound on all of my policy ideas but, this is a pretty good start.
As always, I value your comments and suggestions for topics you might like to hear more of my views on. Thanks for visiting, come back often!!
Wednesday 11 May 2011
Media? What media??
People may wonder why I'm so critical of today's Canadian media, or media in general for that matter. Before I begin to rant on them, I'll explain my reasons.
I have a long history of a family media tradition. My father was a journalist, an editor of several newspapers and a close associate of some major media players whom I met as a child. Not to be outdone, my mother was a graduate of journalism school in Montreal at a time when the profession was more persuaded toward men than women. She was a reporter, a syndicated columnist, and editor in her lifetime, accomplishments I look fondly upon.
I was an early reader, apparently self-taught, and, surrounded by news and newspapers, obviously it was natural for me to read them, and everything else I could get my hands on. From an early age I was enouraged to learn, but more than that, I was encouraged to be skeptical. Not to believe everything on the surface, but to dig deeper and search for truth, or as close as I could get to it. The most valuable lesson I learned from this is: We can believe deeply in something, and be totally wrong. Without facts to back up whatever we think we know, we're merely blowing smoke when we speak. It helps a great deal to be able to admit when you're wrong, and to alter your thinking if your thinking doesn't fit the facts, rather than alter or ignore the facts if they don't fit your thinking. It's not about convenience, it's about truth. It's about reality. It's about being able to face the ugliness of the world at large and come out better on the other side.
Let me be clear, I don't just read/watch/listen to what I agree with, otherwise I would have a terribly slanted view and have no clue whether those I may disagree with have some valid points. I grew up with several broadcasters and journalists I admired and still have some I do admire today. I'm not going to foist my choices upon you, people who are influential to you are a personal choice.
I began my own career in broadcasting in the late 70's, almost fresh out of high school. Initially I got my foot in the door as a button pusher on the crappiest shifts a radio station could offer, but I spent 16 hours a day in the station, even on my days off, learning everything I could about every aspect of the business. Being predisposed to writing, the first opportunity I had to score a writing job I went after it. It was a difficult run, I began by not being able to type, so the boss said I couldn't apply. I asked if he'd lend me a typewriter for the weekend and let me try the typing test on Monday. He agreed. I did, staying up for almost 48 solid hours of typing. On Monday I delivered 55 words per minute and reluctantly, the fresh out of high school kid was in for the competition. Never one to be intimidated, I went through the first part of the interview with all the bravado of someone who doesn't know any better and aced it. I made the short list, competiting against a candidate with a Major in English from a great university, and another writer with previous experience. That only served to make me more determined and in the end, in late '79 I became paid to write. A professional.
I spent 16 years in the broadcast industry as a writer, reporter, producer, announcer, creative director, promotions & PR specialist. I branched out into freelance in all of those areas and expanded my journalism bent by having published magazine articles, op/ed pieces, and coverage of politics, sports and environmental issues.
I had to take a hiatus for a while after being left a single father with an infant daughter, then transitioning to caring for a sick, then terminally ill mother who, on top of leukemia, began to develop alzheimers. Mum passed away last November and my love of writing is bringing me back now that my life is slowly becoming mine again.
In my world, journalists/broadcasters were always "the official opposition", the voice of the masses who didn't have the power to openly expose the truth. No self respecting journalists would ever print, without question, positions taken by anyone involved in a story. Journalists were our last line of protection against big, powerful, established institutions. They have special constitutional protection for themselves and their sources and many have been willing to risk jail or worse to protect the truth.
I'm not saying this type of journalism no longer exists. Only that is has become, and is rapidly degrading, to political correctness, regurgitation of releases without research, and outright partisanship. The way things are presented have also changed. Partisan things were always relegated to editorial or op/ed pieces and were clarly identified as such. This same content now appears as legitimate news, which leads one to believe at least a degree of research has been done. The mere fact that the word "blog" has slipped into daily papers obfuscates the fact that a blog is what I am writng now. Opinion. Perhaps based on fact, perhaps emotion, or even for nefarious purposes and personal gain. Journalism is in its worst state in my 5 decades of life, and I see it getting worse rather than better.
Citizen bloggers will become the new official opposition if the mainstream media does not step back and ask themselves what the hell they are doing and how they have gone so terribly astray. I don't see that happening without a massive and concerted pushback.
Media concentration is just one of the major problems we face. If a handful of corporate interests control media across all formats, and those interests are owned by those who share a particular political leaning, the public is manipulated, not informed.
One need only to look to the campaign and recent election for proof the Canadian media machine is terribly broken, horribly lacking in journalistic ethics, and not much looking like they have any appetite for positive improvement. If you think I'm wrong, explain how CBC Ottawa Bureau's Julie Van Dusen repeatedly told viewers the Harper government fell because the opposition voted against their budget. Ignoring the fact they didn't even have a vote on the budget and this was the first time in the history of the Westminster parliamentary system a government had ever been found in contempt of parliament, losing power on a vote of non-confidence. How else can one explain while people wanted to talk about issues, all we heard was talking points. Should the millions of Canadians who begged to hear Elizabeth May at the debates hve been cerimoniously ignored by a media who apparently know what messages you need to hear and what you don't? Not that they limited their ultimate power to that single degradation, the mainstream media made a concerted effort to ignore the Green party, their platform, their campaign for any of 307 ridings Elizabeth May was not running in, just out and out shut them out, whether you wanted to hear their message or not. Then we have SunTV (nuff said there) et al.
I could go on forever on the subject. My point is, we are being let down by the media and if we allow it to continue unchallenged, you might as well rename the whole thing Pravda.
I'm sure I'm not the only person with a lot of unaswered questions for Stephen Harper and his band of thugs. Of course, those questions will remain unanswered because thanks to a media rife with toadyism, the important things will not get asked. If they do get asked, and turn out bad, they get buried and we move on to important things like whether sketchy NDP candidates are a tittilating subject.
With the exception of a handful of still-principled media types in this country, we become more Orwellian by the day.
I have a long history of a family media tradition. My father was a journalist, an editor of several newspapers and a close associate of some major media players whom I met as a child. Not to be outdone, my mother was a graduate of journalism school in Montreal at a time when the profession was more persuaded toward men than women. She was a reporter, a syndicated columnist, and editor in her lifetime, accomplishments I look fondly upon.
I was an early reader, apparently self-taught, and, surrounded by news and newspapers, obviously it was natural for me to read them, and everything else I could get my hands on. From an early age I was enouraged to learn, but more than that, I was encouraged to be skeptical. Not to believe everything on the surface, but to dig deeper and search for truth, or as close as I could get to it. The most valuable lesson I learned from this is: We can believe deeply in something, and be totally wrong. Without facts to back up whatever we think we know, we're merely blowing smoke when we speak. It helps a great deal to be able to admit when you're wrong, and to alter your thinking if your thinking doesn't fit the facts, rather than alter or ignore the facts if they don't fit your thinking. It's not about convenience, it's about truth. It's about reality. It's about being able to face the ugliness of the world at large and come out better on the other side.
Let me be clear, I don't just read/watch/listen to what I agree with, otherwise I would have a terribly slanted view and have no clue whether those I may disagree with have some valid points. I grew up with several broadcasters and journalists I admired and still have some I do admire today. I'm not going to foist my choices upon you, people who are influential to you are a personal choice.
I began my own career in broadcasting in the late 70's, almost fresh out of high school. Initially I got my foot in the door as a button pusher on the crappiest shifts a radio station could offer, but I spent 16 hours a day in the station, even on my days off, learning everything I could about every aspect of the business. Being predisposed to writing, the first opportunity I had to score a writing job I went after it. It was a difficult run, I began by not being able to type, so the boss said I couldn't apply. I asked if he'd lend me a typewriter for the weekend and let me try the typing test on Monday. He agreed. I did, staying up for almost 48 solid hours of typing. On Monday I delivered 55 words per minute and reluctantly, the fresh out of high school kid was in for the competition. Never one to be intimidated, I went through the first part of the interview with all the bravado of someone who doesn't know any better and aced it. I made the short list, competiting against a candidate with a Major in English from a great university, and another writer with previous experience. That only served to make me more determined and in the end, in late '79 I became paid to write. A professional.
I spent 16 years in the broadcast industry as a writer, reporter, producer, announcer, creative director, promotions & PR specialist. I branched out into freelance in all of those areas and expanded my journalism bent by having published magazine articles, op/ed pieces, and coverage of politics, sports and environmental issues.
I had to take a hiatus for a while after being left a single father with an infant daughter, then transitioning to caring for a sick, then terminally ill mother who, on top of leukemia, began to develop alzheimers. Mum passed away last November and my love of writing is bringing me back now that my life is slowly becoming mine again.
In my world, journalists/broadcasters were always "the official opposition", the voice of the masses who didn't have the power to openly expose the truth. No self respecting journalists would ever print, without question, positions taken by anyone involved in a story. Journalists were our last line of protection against big, powerful, established institutions. They have special constitutional protection for themselves and their sources and many have been willing to risk jail or worse to protect the truth.
I'm not saying this type of journalism no longer exists. Only that is has become, and is rapidly degrading, to political correctness, regurgitation of releases without research, and outright partisanship. The way things are presented have also changed. Partisan things were always relegated to editorial or op/ed pieces and were clarly identified as such. This same content now appears as legitimate news, which leads one to believe at least a degree of research has been done. The mere fact that the word "blog" has slipped into daily papers obfuscates the fact that a blog is what I am writng now. Opinion. Perhaps based on fact, perhaps emotion, or even for nefarious purposes and personal gain. Journalism is in its worst state in my 5 decades of life, and I see it getting worse rather than better.
Citizen bloggers will become the new official opposition if the mainstream media does not step back and ask themselves what the hell they are doing and how they have gone so terribly astray. I don't see that happening without a massive and concerted pushback.
Media concentration is just one of the major problems we face. If a handful of corporate interests control media across all formats, and those interests are owned by those who share a particular political leaning, the public is manipulated, not informed.
One need only to look to the campaign and recent election for proof the Canadian media machine is terribly broken, horribly lacking in journalistic ethics, and not much looking like they have any appetite for positive improvement. If you think I'm wrong, explain how CBC Ottawa Bureau's Julie Van Dusen repeatedly told viewers the Harper government fell because the opposition voted against their budget. Ignoring the fact they didn't even have a vote on the budget and this was the first time in the history of the Westminster parliamentary system a government had ever been found in contempt of parliament, losing power on a vote of non-confidence. How else can one explain while people wanted to talk about issues, all we heard was talking points. Should the millions of Canadians who begged to hear Elizabeth May at the debates hve been cerimoniously ignored by a media who apparently know what messages you need to hear and what you don't? Not that they limited their ultimate power to that single degradation, the mainstream media made a concerted effort to ignore the Green party, their platform, their campaign for any of 307 ridings Elizabeth May was not running in, just out and out shut them out, whether you wanted to hear their message or not. Then we have SunTV (nuff said there) et al.
I could go on forever on the subject. My point is, we are being let down by the media and if we allow it to continue unchallenged, you might as well rename the whole thing Pravda.
I'm sure I'm not the only person with a lot of unaswered questions for Stephen Harper and his band of thugs. Of course, those questions will remain unanswered because thanks to a media rife with toadyism, the important things will not get asked. If they do get asked, and turn out bad, they get buried and we move on to important things like whether sketchy NDP candidates are a tittilating subject.
With the exception of a handful of still-principled media types in this country, we become more Orwellian by the day.
Sunday 8 May 2011
What many don't understand
I've taken a few days after the election to really pay attention to what Canadians are saying across a wide variety of media. Newspapers, radio, television, blogs, and social media can be a good source of the pulse of public opinion if you retain a vigilance when you follow public commentary. Not all public commentary is true public commentary, quite often political parties and interest groups will encourage like minded followers to dominate a topic to make it look like it has more support than it does. They're all guilty of it, so no one gets to feel superior here.
I deal in reality. Ugly, horrific reality. Face it, we all hate having to look at reality but I thrive on it as it's the only way to move forward. As much as I would like things to be a different way, they aren't, and the sooner I see it for what it is, the sooner I can move forward to do my part to effect change.
The world has changed. In our society, while we have the resources to be educated beyond what previous generations were, we use it for garbage, like tracking what celebrities do, or how our favorite "reality" show is doing, or some such drivel. I'm not dissing anyone's hobbies, but I encourage people to at least educate yourself about politics, our system, our history, and don't do what you've just done again. Even if you take a couple of hours a weekend to read a variety of news, to ask some questions, to use your search engine, library, reference library, any resources available to you to become involved in what is probably the next most important thing in your life next to your family.
Yes. Politics is that important. These are the people who make the rules you have to live by, and with. They decide your level of taxation. They decide how your money will be spent and how much of it and where. Over the 41st parliament it is concievable the majority government of Stephen Harper will spend in the vicinity of a quarter-trillion dollars, plenty of it borrowed from your children, and their children.
I will be very frank. I welcome comments. I welcome questions. I welcome discussion. This is my assessment. You can believe it or not, like it or not. This is my "reality show" for the very confused people I see making comments.
A majority government in Canada means you live under a dictatorship for the next 4 years minimum. Opposition means nothing. Like dogs barking in the distance, they can neither change any proposed legislation nor stop it. Canada has handed Stephen Harper carte blanche to proceed with his (and that of his inner circle) agenda. I've seen many naive comments about how he'll have to take other people's concerns into account now that he has such awesome responsiblility. Rainbows and puppies covered in a thick layer of fantasy. The Harper governement fell because of their contempt of a minority parliament and people think rewarding him with a majority will correct bad behaviour? This argument is about as good as one that says if the kids won't eat the healthy meal you made at home, you can teach them a lesson by taking them to McDonalds or Boston Pizza or wherever.
I've followed Stephen Harper since the early 90's. I recognized him as someone driven to remake the institutions of Canada in the image of the republic of the United States of America. I don't like the man, I don't like what he stands for, I believe most Canadians do not want a Canada that's America with oil. If you'd really like a glimpse of what the mindset of Stephen Harper et al is, and the agenda he has that some would argue is hidden, but I would argue has been very clear all along, read (and even bookmark to reread) the text of his Montreal speech, as President of the right-wing National Citizens Coalition lobby group. It's telling these are the right wing Americans he is addressing. It's full of disdain and vitriol for Canada, it's politics, it's parties and it's institutions. This is what Stephen Harper hates. Probably all of the things you've been proud of most of your life. All of the things that make us different than Americans. From this point forward, only ugly dirty politics will win elections in Canada. Everything will be played out to capture the lowest common denominator. Fear. Attack ads. Bogus media reports. Obfuscation of fact. Spin. In order to change it, we either have to engage in it or die, whether it goes against the grain of everything we may stand for or feel inside, the longer we try to be principled in a system skewed totally in the other direction we shall wander in the wilderness until it is virtually impossible to tell the difference between America and Canada. If this is what you want, feel free to remain blissfully ignorant of reality.
Here is what Stephen Harper thinks of Canada many thanks to the Tyee.ca for the reprint of the text. Gravol may be required.
For those of you unaware of what you've let yourself into. Stephen Harper, hated as he may be, seriously is your supreme ruler. What he says goes. Experienced Liberals have been left to 3rd party status leaving Jack Layton as opposition leader. He had more power prior to the election. He has nothing but a pulpit now, from which he can preach anything he wants knowing it doesn't make a lick of difference. He also is going to have serious internal problems to deal with. Much of his caucus is from Quebec, inexperience, idealisitic, and expected to carry the Quebec vs Canada message to Ottawa within a national party. This is a very unenviable position to be in and will consume much energy. Whether Jack Layton ran the same campaign across the country is debatable, but moot, as Quebeckers certainly are not, and I predict, will not be marching to the beat of the same drummer.
It's not the time for those of us who make up the centre of the spectrum to sit crying in our beer. There is work to do on many fronts. We need to make use of a century of experience, and listen to how Canadians define themselves domestically and internationally. Whether the Liberals take advantage of this opportunity or someone else does, I am of the opinion most Canadians are of the kinder, gentler persuasion and prefer not to get radical on either direction. The fact the next 4 years everything will go the way of the right wing is reality. Our job is to expose the coming, leaner, meaner Canada and educate everyone you can that things need to change. Not in a small way. This will not be easy. My best advice is to remove emotion from the equation. Emotion will cloud your judgement and force you to take a narrower view, foiling your attemps to appeal to a broader base. I'm not saying you can't have emotions, just that they can't apply to anything but the selling of the solutions.
I'm not happy. I'm disappointed in the lack of understanding of what just happend. I'm saddened by people who think it's a reason to give up when the exact opposite is true.
I will continue to speak out for a just Canada, where public service means serving the public rather than your political masters, and for change in democracy so it reflects the realities of the 21st century. Tradition is cute and all that but it's not working. If it's broke, fix it.
Let's git R dun.
I deal in reality. Ugly, horrific reality. Face it, we all hate having to look at reality but I thrive on it as it's the only way to move forward. As much as I would like things to be a different way, they aren't, and the sooner I see it for what it is, the sooner I can move forward to do my part to effect change.
The world has changed. In our society, while we have the resources to be educated beyond what previous generations were, we use it for garbage, like tracking what celebrities do, or how our favorite "reality" show is doing, or some such drivel. I'm not dissing anyone's hobbies, but I encourage people to at least educate yourself about politics, our system, our history, and don't do what you've just done again. Even if you take a couple of hours a weekend to read a variety of news, to ask some questions, to use your search engine, library, reference library, any resources available to you to become involved in what is probably the next most important thing in your life next to your family.
Yes. Politics is that important. These are the people who make the rules you have to live by, and with. They decide your level of taxation. They decide how your money will be spent and how much of it and where. Over the 41st parliament it is concievable the majority government of Stephen Harper will spend in the vicinity of a quarter-trillion dollars, plenty of it borrowed from your children, and their children.
I will be very frank. I welcome comments. I welcome questions. I welcome discussion. This is my assessment. You can believe it or not, like it or not. This is my "reality show" for the very confused people I see making comments.
A majority government in Canada means you live under a dictatorship for the next 4 years minimum. Opposition means nothing. Like dogs barking in the distance, they can neither change any proposed legislation nor stop it. Canada has handed Stephen Harper carte blanche to proceed with his (and that of his inner circle) agenda. I've seen many naive comments about how he'll have to take other people's concerns into account now that he has such awesome responsiblility. Rainbows and puppies covered in a thick layer of fantasy. The Harper governement fell because of their contempt of a minority parliament and people think rewarding him with a majority will correct bad behaviour? This argument is about as good as one that says if the kids won't eat the healthy meal you made at home, you can teach them a lesson by taking them to McDonalds or Boston Pizza or wherever.
I've followed Stephen Harper since the early 90's. I recognized him as someone driven to remake the institutions of Canada in the image of the republic of the United States of America. I don't like the man, I don't like what he stands for, I believe most Canadians do not want a Canada that's America with oil. If you'd really like a glimpse of what the mindset of Stephen Harper et al is, and the agenda he has that some would argue is hidden, but I would argue has been very clear all along, read (and even bookmark to reread) the text of his Montreal speech, as President of the right-wing National Citizens Coalition lobby group. It's telling these are the right wing Americans he is addressing. It's full of disdain and vitriol for Canada, it's politics, it's parties and it's institutions. This is what Stephen Harper hates. Probably all of the things you've been proud of most of your life. All of the things that make us different than Americans. From this point forward, only ugly dirty politics will win elections in Canada. Everything will be played out to capture the lowest common denominator. Fear. Attack ads. Bogus media reports. Obfuscation of fact. Spin. In order to change it, we either have to engage in it or die, whether it goes against the grain of everything we may stand for or feel inside, the longer we try to be principled in a system skewed totally in the other direction we shall wander in the wilderness until it is virtually impossible to tell the difference between America and Canada. If this is what you want, feel free to remain blissfully ignorant of reality.
Here is what Stephen Harper thinks of Canada many thanks to the Tyee.ca for the reprint of the text. Gravol may be required.
For those of you unaware of what you've let yourself into. Stephen Harper, hated as he may be, seriously is your supreme ruler. What he says goes. Experienced Liberals have been left to 3rd party status leaving Jack Layton as opposition leader. He had more power prior to the election. He has nothing but a pulpit now, from which he can preach anything he wants knowing it doesn't make a lick of difference. He also is going to have serious internal problems to deal with. Much of his caucus is from Quebec, inexperience, idealisitic, and expected to carry the Quebec vs Canada message to Ottawa within a national party. This is a very unenviable position to be in and will consume much energy. Whether Jack Layton ran the same campaign across the country is debatable, but moot, as Quebeckers certainly are not, and I predict, will not be marching to the beat of the same drummer.
It's not the time for those of us who make up the centre of the spectrum to sit crying in our beer. There is work to do on many fronts. We need to make use of a century of experience, and listen to how Canadians define themselves domestically and internationally. Whether the Liberals take advantage of this opportunity or someone else does, I am of the opinion most Canadians are of the kinder, gentler persuasion and prefer not to get radical on either direction. The fact the next 4 years everything will go the way of the right wing is reality. Our job is to expose the coming, leaner, meaner Canada and educate everyone you can that things need to change. Not in a small way. This will not be easy. My best advice is to remove emotion from the equation. Emotion will cloud your judgement and force you to take a narrower view, foiling your attemps to appeal to a broader base. I'm not saying you can't have emotions, just that they can't apply to anything but the selling of the solutions.
I'm not happy. I'm disappointed in the lack of understanding of what just happend. I'm saddened by people who think it's a reason to give up when the exact opposite is true.
I will continue to speak out for a just Canada, where public service means serving the public rather than your political masters, and for change in democracy so it reflects the realities of the 21st century. Tradition is cute and all that but it's not working. If it's broke, fix it.
Let's git R dun.
Saturday 7 May 2011
My Favourite Word: Vision
I'm waiting. Provincially, federally, I'm waiting for someone, anyone, who has a vision.
Politically, we've become all about the agenda of electability. As the freshly minted parliament shows, elections going forward will be less and less about issues and more about which campaign is safest. The winner is the team with the best short soundbites and the catchiest of catchphrases. We're a poorer people for it.
People talk about leaders. We don't have many. We have an assortment of the most popular guys in their individual parties, or the most powerful. When the liberal party attempted to advance a leader who may have been a leading thinker, he was villified and marginalized so badly he couldn't even get his message across during a campaign. If anyone believes this is a one-shot deal they're nuts. Once politics descends into the level of sport we will get increasingly bad government. We get the equivalent of the WWE, except the ticket costs us a hell of a lot more and we can't choose not to attend.
Because of managed, win-at-all-costs politics, Canada has slowly evolved (or devolved) into a group of angry regions. Because of political expediency, long standing grievances have been used as goldmines of support. In every region of the country, in modern elections, people bring up things that happened decades ago, maybe centuries ago. Truth and reality don't matter, it's how you manage the message. While, in the short run, this crap will allow you to gain power, it disregards the degradation of the natural things this country absolutely must depend upon to survive as an independent nation.
By geography, Canada is the second largest nation in the known universe. By population, we're California, dude. Unlike smaller countries that can succeed with division because of population density, we don't have that luxury. Canada has succeed most in the times we've all had to compromise. It led to confederation. It led to western expansion. It led to a national railway. It led to a trans-Canada highway. It led to a Canadian identity. It led to Canadian health care. It led to repatriation of the constitution. It led to the charter of rights and freedoms. It led to rights for women, for recoginition the gay community were not freaks who were waiting to prey on our children, it led to recognition that we have two founding populations who have much to learn from each other.
What have recent, and what do modern politics bring to us? Marginalization of Atlantic Canada (unless we keep finding oil whereupon we will become quite important). A whipped up frenzy in Quebec that, somehow, the rest of Canada is "the man" and we are "keeping them down". If they really honestly look at the situation, if they think French is marginalized in Canada, imagine going it alone, floating in a sea of people who no longer need to accomodate an increasingly small minority. People in Quebec have been led to believe if they "choose" soverignty, it's just a "sign the papers and we're off" deal and everything remains the same. Naive in the extreme. I'll get hate mail for saying it, however, it is the truth. In the West, they've spent years whipping up the "east is out to get us" sentiment, with a great degree of success I may add. This ignores the fact there are things east of Ontario and Quebec, however we in the east are used to that. Ontario now is being whipped up with the cries of "we've fallen on hard times and everyone is ignoring us" which seems to be successfully catching on (welcome to the world of Atlantic Canadians, but not really). As soon as they can figure out a good reason BC should be pissed off at everyone else, the fracturing of the nation for partisan political gains will become something historians will marvel at for generations to come.
From the moment of confederation, one part of the country has received more of the benefit than another. As different resources become more important, economic activity can shift, fortunes can change, haves become have nots and vice versa. The only thing that will allow this vast, diverse, sparsely populated country to survive and thrive is to come together, to cooperate, to share our good fortunes when we have them and know we can depend on others to give us a hand up when it's our turn to need it.
While the politics of division work well for the sole purpose of gaining power, the polarization of the population will be the ultimate downfall. If you spend all of your focus on what divides us the ultimate result we be an inability to agree and where does that lead? Not where the builders of this country had ever envisioned. Not what I envisioned. But vision seems to now be something one should heap scorn upon.
When was the last time a leader had an idea or ideas that worked for Canadians from coast to coast? Who has tried to advance Canada above their own personal lust for power? If convincing people to vote for you to "teach those other bastards a lesson" works you can bet it's a tactic that will be used for immediate gain without a care for the long term consequences.
Maybe I'm alone in wanting a different Canada. Maybe we Do want to be like Americans, living in a polarized society where ideology means you should hate your neighbour and distrust everyone. It's not the Canada I grew up in and it certainly isn't the Canada I want to grow old in.
My kingdom for a visionary.
Politically, we've become all about the agenda of electability. As the freshly minted parliament shows, elections going forward will be less and less about issues and more about which campaign is safest. The winner is the team with the best short soundbites and the catchiest of catchphrases. We're a poorer people for it.
People talk about leaders. We don't have many. We have an assortment of the most popular guys in their individual parties, or the most powerful. When the liberal party attempted to advance a leader who may have been a leading thinker, he was villified and marginalized so badly he couldn't even get his message across during a campaign. If anyone believes this is a one-shot deal they're nuts. Once politics descends into the level of sport we will get increasingly bad government. We get the equivalent of the WWE, except the ticket costs us a hell of a lot more and we can't choose not to attend.
Because of managed, win-at-all-costs politics, Canada has slowly evolved (or devolved) into a group of angry regions. Because of political expediency, long standing grievances have been used as goldmines of support. In every region of the country, in modern elections, people bring up things that happened decades ago, maybe centuries ago. Truth and reality don't matter, it's how you manage the message. While, in the short run, this crap will allow you to gain power, it disregards the degradation of the natural things this country absolutely must depend upon to survive as an independent nation.
By geography, Canada is the second largest nation in the known universe. By population, we're California, dude. Unlike smaller countries that can succeed with division because of population density, we don't have that luxury. Canada has succeed most in the times we've all had to compromise. It led to confederation. It led to western expansion. It led to a national railway. It led to a trans-Canada highway. It led to a Canadian identity. It led to Canadian health care. It led to repatriation of the constitution. It led to the charter of rights and freedoms. It led to rights for women, for recoginition the gay community were not freaks who were waiting to prey on our children, it led to recognition that we have two founding populations who have much to learn from each other.
What have recent, and what do modern politics bring to us? Marginalization of Atlantic Canada (unless we keep finding oil whereupon we will become quite important). A whipped up frenzy in Quebec that, somehow, the rest of Canada is "the man" and we are "keeping them down". If they really honestly look at the situation, if they think French is marginalized in Canada, imagine going it alone, floating in a sea of people who no longer need to accomodate an increasingly small minority. People in Quebec have been led to believe if they "choose" soverignty, it's just a "sign the papers and we're off" deal and everything remains the same. Naive in the extreme. I'll get hate mail for saying it, however, it is the truth. In the West, they've spent years whipping up the "east is out to get us" sentiment, with a great degree of success I may add. This ignores the fact there are things east of Ontario and Quebec, however we in the east are used to that. Ontario now is being whipped up with the cries of "we've fallen on hard times and everyone is ignoring us" which seems to be successfully catching on (welcome to the world of Atlantic Canadians, but not really). As soon as they can figure out a good reason BC should be pissed off at everyone else, the fracturing of the nation for partisan political gains will become something historians will marvel at for generations to come.
From the moment of confederation, one part of the country has received more of the benefit than another. As different resources become more important, economic activity can shift, fortunes can change, haves become have nots and vice versa. The only thing that will allow this vast, diverse, sparsely populated country to survive and thrive is to come together, to cooperate, to share our good fortunes when we have them and know we can depend on others to give us a hand up when it's our turn to need it.
While the politics of division work well for the sole purpose of gaining power, the polarization of the population will be the ultimate downfall. If you spend all of your focus on what divides us the ultimate result we be an inability to agree and where does that lead? Not where the builders of this country had ever envisioned. Not what I envisioned. But vision seems to now be something one should heap scorn upon.
When was the last time a leader had an idea or ideas that worked for Canadians from coast to coast? Who has tried to advance Canada above their own personal lust for power? If convincing people to vote for you to "teach those other bastards a lesson" works you can bet it's a tactic that will be used for immediate gain without a care for the long term consequences.
Maybe I'm alone in wanting a different Canada. Maybe we Do want to be like Americans, living in a polarized society where ideology means you should hate your neighbour and distrust everyone. It's not the Canada I grew up in and it certainly isn't the Canada I want to grow old in.
My kingdom for a visionary.
Sunday 1 May 2011
Oh! Canada! Last Pre-Election Thoughts
We will probably all remember Canada's fourty-first election as one hell of a ride. What many thought may be a cakewalk for Stephen Harper or simply more of the same are, at this moment, shaking their heads and asking: What the hell happened?
It's not like anything earth shaking caused the campaign to change, in fact, it's entirely possible not much has happened at all. Maybe it has. As Monday progresses we'll get a better idea of how interesting the immediate results may be. Many things can affect the outcome of the election, however, the number one factor will be feet in the street. Will Canadian youth follow through on the strength of Rick Mercer, Nelly Furtado, and votemobs coast to coast? One telling factor may be voter turnout. People don't put a lot of importance on voting when they are happy. Angry voters make for exciting elections and sometimes surprising results. If turnout at advance polls reflects turnout on election day, Stephen Harper could have a heaping helping of trouble on his hands, or not, but we'll get to that.
Since this is my blog, it only reflects my thoughts, my opinions, but I always welcome your comments to give me food for thought.
I will admit, I'm stumped as to how all of this will wash out in the end, so, while it may be lengthy, I'm going to look at scenarios (based on my understanding of platforms/ideology), and, for my readers (especially the younger ones entering the fray) I will offer my analysis of what, in my view, your vote will buy you from the big 3. (Sorry Greens, I'm not leaving you out due to any bias, just because there just isn't enough support to envision a Green-led government)
Don't write off Stephen Harper's Conservative majority just yet. Yes, I believe it is still a possibility, and perhaps even a strong possiblity as much as I dislike, no, hate the thought. All it will take are a few all-out battles between Liberals & NDP to allow conservatives to squeak up the middle. Now you may think me a little more insane than usual, but hear me out. In 2008 Stephen Harper broke his own fixed election date law when he thought the coveted majority government was within his grasp. He almost pulled it off, but Harper didn't do it alone. Naive is what you are if you haven't come to the stark realization there is a movement behind Stephen Harper, the hardest of the hard right love this man because his unrelenting lust to remake the country in his image means he will abandon any principle to achieve his aims. In the last election, groups and individuals generally dedicated to a more American Canada, most notably the National Citizens Coalition, engaged in a campaign to manipulate the vote by shoring up support for the NDP in ridings where Liberals and Conservatives were in close races. It worked, well, almost. Nothing in my imagination makes me believe they would not, with a little more help and a lot more money, roll this program out nationally, in a big way, with the support of those who would benefit the most from Harper being able to fulfil his dream of making this a more cruel and heartless country for all, except those who benefit from his continued support.
With Harper in control of a majority, expect more of the same, only crueler, faster, and before you can say boogeyman, this country will not be the Canada you thought you lived in. The only interest in the economy Stephen Harper has is whether he thinks it can get him elected or not. He doesn't care if he has to give the most profitable corporations in the world billions of your tax dollars, he doesn't care that toadying up to US interests could cost your children 100 billion or more, those junk jets will be purchased and border security for the continent will be in US hands. Money is no object, Stephen Harper isn't interested in money, he is interested in ideology. His Canada does not incude people who can't take care of themselves. His Canada waves a rebel flag and throws tea into the harbours from coast to coast to coast to protest evil government interfering in your life, making you register your guns and fill out census forms and other such evils. For those of you expecting to see the end of medicare under Harper, hey, chin up, the other stuff will take a few years to do and continued medicare will help ease you through the transition as every institution you previously depended upon is not eliminated, which in many cases, requires debate in the house, just defunded. No money allotted in the budget. The program exists on paper only. When you get around to the next election, Conservatives will trumpet they are the party that "saved" medicare by increasing spending and people will say, yes, they did that, and now that everything else resembles the US, once you elect the saviours again, medicare will be dismantled the same slow, deliberate way, by defunding services we can "no longer afford to pay for", mostly because they've been buying your votes with barrels of your money given to groups and organizations who can help influence your thinking. Of course, none of us have that much money, so most of it will be borrowed and added to the debt of future generations, which, incidentally, Harper doesn't care about since he won't be around and his kids will fit that bracket that doesn't pay tax. He cares only about his legacy, as the Anti-Pearson. The Anti-Trudeau. The Anti-Canadian. Too many people have been lulled to sleep by the deliberate, brick by brick dismantling of Canada as we knew it. If you don't think the above is possible, just go ahead and let these people gain power in a way they can't be defeated on anything for several years. Take that as my personal warning.
Well, then, it's been shouted, let's all run out and support Jack Layton and we'll teach Harper a lesson and show those Liberals a thing or two, Great. Well, I might be warm to the idea of a more socially progressive government, heck, it's downright nice to imagine a government that has a clue there are a lot of people out there falling through the cracks, contrary to popular belief, through no fault of their own. Since the NDP has never governed the country (people will point to past provincial NDP governments but provincial to federal are wildly different ball games) we must examine them a little differently since there is no track record to fall back on. This involves looking at their platform, listening to what their leader says, and remembering what their ideology is.
Generally when one is going to pick apart any NDP platform, they will gleefully wade into the kiddie pool and go all kookoo on spending. Hopefully we are all old enough to accept the fact all of these people will spend money like running water where they need to in order to shore up their base support and attract new people if they can. Harper has no problem running massive deficits (approx 55 billion last year alone, a Canadian record) while promising lower taxes, and on top of everything else, spending around 50 billion on pet projects like jets and jails. I don't fool myself into thinking NDP spending will be any more out of control than Harper or Mulroney, I also don't fool myself that they can deliver on their promises and eliminate the deficit by 2016. Spending is not what continues to keep me from being able to believe the NDP is ready to govern, not that any spending is to be ignored, just that when it all washes out they'll end up relatively similar. What throws the gigantic stop sign, flashing red lights, red flags, red cards and screaming sirens off for me is a combination of ideology and what Jack has already said/mused about during the campaign.
For newcoming voters, consider the NDP the Anti-Conservatives. Years ago, this wasn't really the way it worked because Progressive Conservatives were right of centre and Liberals were left of centre and the NDP was the left option. When Stephen Harper orchestrated his political takeover, he moved the conservatives to the far right, centrists and red tories were squashed leaving only one right, the far right. The conservatives are the party of big business. The NDP is the party of the suckers who work for those businesses, and for other voiceless Canadians, which is good.
I looked at the strengths and weaknesses of the plans and ideas in the platform and overall, most of it is doable, some of it perhaps deliverable a little slower than anticipated, and some that will end up scrapped or just fall on its face. No platform ever gets enacted as is, top to bottom. While proposed NDP spending should and does ring some alarms, it pales in comparison to some of the things Jack has said that should make you walk into that poll and lay your x beside the liberal name.
Just when I thought, good for the NDP they are getting closer to gaining power. Polls are surging, things are looking up and then ideology came back to bite me on the ass. In the space of about 24 hours Jack had responded to questions about higher gas prices and talked about regulating them. He also talked about intervening to keep interest rates down. These two alone are not only difficut or nearly impossible to do but they hurt the larger economy by scaring off investment. If companies have momey to invest and a leader has been known to entertain the thought of intervening or nationalizing they will invest it somewhere safer. This doesn't tough on a big NDP promise that, if enacted, will bring us all a lot more trouble that it would ever be worth. This is the NDP "reduce your credit card payments" promise which would have to involve some kind of legislative change to enact. Legislation like this first will cause capital to flee, in other words, big shareholders at the bank will see a loss in returns if the banks are ordered to take less revenue and they will sell off those shares to invest in something that isn't decreasing profit margins. Banks, in turn would have less money to loan to Canadian businesses and families and additionally will have to raise and create all kinds of new fees for service and probably increase their percentage margins on loans and mortgages to make up the revenue shortfall to increase market confidence so institutional investors will buy back in. The money you save on your credit card will come back out and more in other ways as all of this has a ripple effect. Until they forsake the idea that government intervention in key economic sectors and the threat that industries may be nationalized must be removed from their ideology, the NDP is not ready to govern without substantial damage to the economy, not through spending as most insist, but by policies that frighten business and big investors and make them timid to invest. For me Jack is getting closer, but still not ready. The NDP has ideas and issues we must address, but done so cooperatively so the final product is effective without taking us to a place that has been shown to hamper some Euro-nations.
So this leaves us with the Liberals. While I am bamboozled about how they ran their campaign, at this moment in time, The Liberal party under Michael Ignatieff provides us with what we really need. A safe way to get rid of Harper without so radically changing econimic policy as to upset an apple cart that can't afford to be upset after the excesses of the Harper spending orgy. What the Liberals failed to get across in this election is they clearly are the party of the centre, both right and left of it. Liberals are more bent toward providing better social policy, but trying to do it in a way that doesn't derail the economy by getting too radical from a system that needs tinkering more than butchering. The best hope for Canadians at this time is for the liberals to get out the majority of their people who didn't vote last time. They also need some, or many, of those who are suddenly supporting the NDP without a clear picture of what that could mean to step into the box and realize for the good of Canada, at this point in time, they need to elect Liberals in an effort to keep Canada moving forward while we, as citizens, put all our efforts into working to change a system that is broken.
No matter what. Vote tomorrow. Delete the conservatives and let start to work together for a 21st century Canada that works together, better, for the good of Canadians and the world.
It's not like anything earth shaking caused the campaign to change, in fact, it's entirely possible not much has happened at all. Maybe it has. As Monday progresses we'll get a better idea of how interesting the immediate results may be. Many things can affect the outcome of the election, however, the number one factor will be feet in the street. Will Canadian youth follow through on the strength of Rick Mercer, Nelly Furtado, and votemobs coast to coast? One telling factor may be voter turnout. People don't put a lot of importance on voting when they are happy. Angry voters make for exciting elections and sometimes surprising results. If turnout at advance polls reflects turnout on election day, Stephen Harper could have a heaping helping of trouble on his hands, or not, but we'll get to that.
Since this is my blog, it only reflects my thoughts, my opinions, but I always welcome your comments to give me food for thought.
I will admit, I'm stumped as to how all of this will wash out in the end, so, while it may be lengthy, I'm going to look at scenarios (based on my understanding of platforms/ideology), and, for my readers (especially the younger ones entering the fray) I will offer my analysis of what, in my view, your vote will buy you from the big 3. (Sorry Greens, I'm not leaving you out due to any bias, just because there just isn't enough support to envision a Green-led government)
Don't write off Stephen Harper's Conservative majority just yet. Yes, I believe it is still a possibility, and perhaps even a strong possiblity as much as I dislike, no, hate the thought. All it will take are a few all-out battles between Liberals & NDP to allow conservatives to squeak up the middle. Now you may think me a little more insane than usual, but hear me out. In 2008 Stephen Harper broke his own fixed election date law when he thought the coveted majority government was within his grasp. He almost pulled it off, but Harper didn't do it alone. Naive is what you are if you haven't come to the stark realization there is a movement behind Stephen Harper, the hardest of the hard right love this man because his unrelenting lust to remake the country in his image means he will abandon any principle to achieve his aims. In the last election, groups and individuals generally dedicated to a more American Canada, most notably the National Citizens Coalition, engaged in a campaign to manipulate the vote by shoring up support for the NDP in ridings where Liberals and Conservatives were in close races. It worked, well, almost. Nothing in my imagination makes me believe they would not, with a little more help and a lot more money, roll this program out nationally, in a big way, with the support of those who would benefit the most from Harper being able to fulfil his dream of making this a more cruel and heartless country for all, except those who benefit from his continued support.
With Harper in control of a majority, expect more of the same, only crueler, faster, and before you can say boogeyman, this country will not be the Canada you thought you lived in. The only interest in the economy Stephen Harper has is whether he thinks it can get him elected or not. He doesn't care if he has to give the most profitable corporations in the world billions of your tax dollars, he doesn't care that toadying up to US interests could cost your children 100 billion or more, those junk jets will be purchased and border security for the continent will be in US hands. Money is no object, Stephen Harper isn't interested in money, he is interested in ideology. His Canada does not incude people who can't take care of themselves. His Canada waves a rebel flag and throws tea into the harbours from coast to coast to coast to protest evil government interfering in your life, making you register your guns and fill out census forms and other such evils. For those of you expecting to see the end of medicare under Harper, hey, chin up, the other stuff will take a few years to do and continued medicare will help ease you through the transition as every institution you previously depended upon is not eliminated, which in many cases, requires debate in the house, just defunded. No money allotted in the budget. The program exists on paper only. When you get around to the next election, Conservatives will trumpet they are the party that "saved" medicare by increasing spending and people will say, yes, they did that, and now that everything else resembles the US, once you elect the saviours again, medicare will be dismantled the same slow, deliberate way, by defunding services we can "no longer afford to pay for", mostly because they've been buying your votes with barrels of your money given to groups and organizations who can help influence your thinking. Of course, none of us have that much money, so most of it will be borrowed and added to the debt of future generations, which, incidentally, Harper doesn't care about since he won't be around and his kids will fit that bracket that doesn't pay tax. He cares only about his legacy, as the Anti-Pearson. The Anti-Trudeau. The Anti-Canadian. Too many people have been lulled to sleep by the deliberate, brick by brick dismantling of Canada as we knew it. If you don't think the above is possible, just go ahead and let these people gain power in a way they can't be defeated on anything for several years. Take that as my personal warning.
Well, then, it's been shouted, let's all run out and support Jack Layton and we'll teach Harper a lesson and show those Liberals a thing or two, Great. Well, I might be warm to the idea of a more socially progressive government, heck, it's downright nice to imagine a government that has a clue there are a lot of people out there falling through the cracks, contrary to popular belief, through no fault of their own. Since the NDP has never governed the country (people will point to past provincial NDP governments but provincial to federal are wildly different ball games) we must examine them a little differently since there is no track record to fall back on. This involves looking at their platform, listening to what their leader says, and remembering what their ideology is.
Generally when one is going to pick apart any NDP platform, they will gleefully wade into the kiddie pool and go all kookoo on spending. Hopefully we are all old enough to accept the fact all of these people will spend money like running water where they need to in order to shore up their base support and attract new people if they can. Harper has no problem running massive deficits (approx 55 billion last year alone, a Canadian record) while promising lower taxes, and on top of everything else, spending around 50 billion on pet projects like jets and jails. I don't fool myself into thinking NDP spending will be any more out of control than Harper or Mulroney, I also don't fool myself that they can deliver on their promises and eliminate the deficit by 2016. Spending is not what continues to keep me from being able to believe the NDP is ready to govern, not that any spending is to be ignored, just that when it all washes out they'll end up relatively similar. What throws the gigantic stop sign, flashing red lights, red flags, red cards and screaming sirens off for me is a combination of ideology and what Jack has already said/mused about during the campaign.
For newcoming voters, consider the NDP the Anti-Conservatives. Years ago, this wasn't really the way it worked because Progressive Conservatives were right of centre and Liberals were left of centre and the NDP was the left option. When Stephen Harper orchestrated his political takeover, he moved the conservatives to the far right, centrists and red tories were squashed leaving only one right, the far right. The conservatives are the party of big business. The NDP is the party of the suckers who work for those businesses, and for other voiceless Canadians, which is good.
I looked at the strengths and weaknesses of the plans and ideas in the platform and overall, most of it is doable, some of it perhaps deliverable a little slower than anticipated, and some that will end up scrapped or just fall on its face. No platform ever gets enacted as is, top to bottom. While proposed NDP spending should and does ring some alarms, it pales in comparison to some of the things Jack has said that should make you walk into that poll and lay your x beside the liberal name.
Just when I thought, good for the NDP they are getting closer to gaining power. Polls are surging, things are looking up and then ideology came back to bite me on the ass. In the space of about 24 hours Jack had responded to questions about higher gas prices and talked about regulating them. He also talked about intervening to keep interest rates down. These two alone are not only difficut or nearly impossible to do but they hurt the larger economy by scaring off investment. If companies have momey to invest and a leader has been known to entertain the thought of intervening or nationalizing they will invest it somewhere safer. This doesn't tough on a big NDP promise that, if enacted, will bring us all a lot more trouble that it would ever be worth. This is the NDP "reduce your credit card payments" promise which would have to involve some kind of legislative change to enact. Legislation like this first will cause capital to flee, in other words, big shareholders at the bank will see a loss in returns if the banks are ordered to take less revenue and they will sell off those shares to invest in something that isn't decreasing profit margins. Banks, in turn would have less money to loan to Canadian businesses and families and additionally will have to raise and create all kinds of new fees for service and probably increase their percentage margins on loans and mortgages to make up the revenue shortfall to increase market confidence so institutional investors will buy back in. The money you save on your credit card will come back out and more in other ways as all of this has a ripple effect. Until they forsake the idea that government intervention in key economic sectors and the threat that industries may be nationalized must be removed from their ideology, the NDP is not ready to govern without substantial damage to the economy, not through spending as most insist, but by policies that frighten business and big investors and make them timid to invest. For me Jack is getting closer, but still not ready. The NDP has ideas and issues we must address, but done so cooperatively so the final product is effective without taking us to a place that has been shown to hamper some Euro-nations.
So this leaves us with the Liberals. While I am bamboozled about how they ran their campaign, at this moment in time, The Liberal party under Michael Ignatieff provides us with what we really need. A safe way to get rid of Harper without so radically changing econimic policy as to upset an apple cart that can't afford to be upset after the excesses of the Harper spending orgy. What the Liberals failed to get across in this election is they clearly are the party of the centre, both right and left of it. Liberals are more bent toward providing better social policy, but trying to do it in a way that doesn't derail the economy by getting too radical from a system that needs tinkering more than butchering. The best hope for Canadians at this time is for the liberals to get out the majority of their people who didn't vote last time. They also need some, or many, of those who are suddenly supporting the NDP without a clear picture of what that could mean to step into the box and realize for the good of Canada, at this point in time, they need to elect Liberals in an effort to keep Canada moving forward while we, as citizens, put all our efforts into working to change a system that is broken.
No matter what. Vote tomorrow. Delete the conservatives and let start to work together for a 21st century Canada that works together, better, for the good of Canadians and the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)