The Revolution IS Televised

     Something's happening. It's far bigger than you ever imagined, yet it is only in its infancy.

     Revolution!!


     If you believe the simplistic mainstream media view, you might think it's all about a handful of oppressed middle easterners, and the origins can be traced back to a definitive event, the self-immolation of a young man who couldn't take it anymore. That view could fertilize all the crops in the world for an entire lifetime.

     Protests, whether they be violent or non violent, take organizational skills, and they take time. Protests, such as those we're seeing blossoming all over the world, do not happen spontaneously. Someone had to decide they had enough. They had to get together with other like-minded individuals & groups. They had to advance their ideas and find enough people willing to actually follow through and participate, they have to plan times and places to gather, and if they can do all that, they have to hope enough people show up to gather some momentum. After all, the mideast protests wouldn't be news if it was only two dozen people with hand lettered signs.

     If all of those things fall into place, and people see and believe there will be large numbers turning out, they begin to take on a life of their own, and they do. Most often, they are met with brute force from police, undercover agents and/or military force. I guess not many people remember Oka. They should be able to remember the G20 protests in Toronto, the largest mass arrest of Canadians ever. Period. Almost double the number arrested during the October Crisis, when then Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau used the war measures act to rout the FLQ (I'll also add most of those arrested were totally innocent, same as the G20). Not as extreme as some of the middle eastern dictators trying to hang on to their power and perks while their people suffer. Don't think they wouldn't go that far here, or in America, or the UK, France, any of the so-called civilized countries. Don't think that for a minute.

     I've never seen anything quite like what's happening today. This is coming from someone who has lived through the peace protests of the Vietnam war, the uneasy tension of the cold war, the fall of the Berlin wall and the collapse of the USSR as a major power. No minor events. I even watched the assassination of JFK and subsequent murder of Lee Harvey Oswald so we'd never know the truth. I still submit I never thought the world would become the mess it is today. Almost universally we are dictated to by the rich and the powerful. That's what the new revolution is about. As it was with the French Revolution, the poor and oppressed peoples have had enough, to the point where their lives are miserable enough they are willing to give them up hoping that things will change.

     You'd be best advised to pay attention. While the media would like to give you the impression this is only happening in a select few mideast nations who are rising up against their military backed dictators, nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, the people are tired of being dictated to by the rich and the richer, but there's a lot more to it. It's about youth who see a worse future or no future at all. Its about societies who forget their own people as they worship the twin Gods of greed and power. It's about more people who just can't make it, knowing that the greed of corporations, the rich, and the political elite continues to grow as more and more restrictions are placed on the commoner, as all but a small percentage of the population can truly enjoy what we work for.

     You see, it spreading. Yes, not only in the middle east, burgeoning revolutionary movements are growing in Greece, the victims are the poor and pensioners, while the rich have not bothered to pay taxes for years. It's happening in Spain, where it is absolutely vital the economy not fail, because while no country is too big to fail, Spain is too big to rescue, if Ireland fails, there will be problems, difficult but manageable, if Greece and Ireland both default, and Spain follows, place your head between your knees and kiss your ass goodbye unless you happen to be one of those few filthy rich elites.

     People everywhere are watching their way of life erode. While governments continually provide less services, prices are rising, wages are not, people are fed up that so few have so much and so many are left wanting. Last year the top fifty businesses in Canada had after tax profits over a hundred billion dollars. Maybe my math is wrong, but I see that as about 3 million dollars for every man, woman, and child in this country. Senior citizens are going to food banks, people are going without needed medications, they're losing their homes, their families, they're beginning to lose hope. With good reason. We are under attack by the governments funded by the corporations and the richest of the rich. They're raping the land, they're raping us financially, and people are tired of these Marie Antoinettes. People want governments that find a way to foster good business and ensure none of their citizens are left behind. Both are possible, but greed has us accepting every slash and burn overspender taking away everything and laying the blame on the victims.

     I don't just think it will happen in more countries, I believe it will be inevitable. People in the US are horribly divided, their economy is a mess, they are failing and can't even see it over then din of the two sides screaming at each other. Don't think Canada is any better. While the conservatives were able to gain a majority government with less than a majority of the vote, their smug arrogance and indifference to the pain of others will be their undoing. Ignoring the fact their actions are creating a bleak future for the youth of the country will do them in. People across the globe are awakening to the reality they are being screwed, and while politicians remain blind to the plight of the poor, to youth, and to the disenfranchised, the rest of us watch our standard of living drop year after year while the well to do, corporate elite, and politicos feast on the majority of our money, which we got by slaving for companies making massive profits and paying a pittance.

     People do not want to live like this anymore. They want a bigger piece of the pie. They want a fair share of what could easily be provided and the rich would still be very rich.

     Notice to those who live on a pedestal. I think you're watching the beginning of the end of doing things your way. I really do. I've been wrong before, but this feels totally different. You don't have to take my advice. Take your chances and carry on.

   

Let's talk pension

     I don't profess to be an expert on a whole lot of things, unless one can be an expert on general knowledge, of which my cup runneth over. Maybe I'm kind of a geek, but I have a never ending curiosity that I find has served me well as long as I can remember. Where some people enjoy other things, there is nothing that makes me feel better than learning something new. I find my most enjoyment in understanding complex subjects, which, by all rights, should be way over my head. So yeah, I'm a bit of a geek.

     I've had enough experience writing, giving speeches, broadcasting, researching and working with the public that I'm very comfortable with doing these things. I've also had my share of specialized training in presentation and facilitation, teambuilding, learning styles, conflict resolution, etc., that I can marry the training to the actual experience I have to help people understand complex issues on an "ordinary person" level. For that, I am thankful.

     That rambling intro over with, let's talk a bit about pensions. You're hearing more about them, and that will increase in the coming days and years. Since I wish I'd understood some of this when I was younger, I'll share the "ordinary guy/girl's guide to pensions".

     There are many different ways your money can be allotted in any pension, getting into all of those details would cloud what the most immediate issue you'll be seeing a lot of in the near future. I like to call this one "The fight of the century: DB vs DC".

     Why is there such a huge fight over what kind of pension you have, after all, most people don't even get a company pension. Shouldn't you be happy to have a pension of any kind? Most Canadians probably think this issue has nothing to do with them. I'll attempt to bring some clarity to this.

     The reason for the fight can be summed up with a simple comparison. If I were to offer you the choice of a $1000 bank account or $1000 credit on a slot machine, which would you think is best for your future, when you are no longer working. Agreed, those of us who have a pension plan are lucky and chances are we've had to fight for it, fight to improve it, and now, fight to keep it. I understand that's my problem, now, but my problem now may belong to your son or daughter in the future. We all want the best for our children, want them to have advantages we didn't, for most of us, it's what we live for. If you want your children and grandchildren to have a better future you should pay attention. If you have a hard time living on what you earn, what's the future for your children if you agree with lowering wages and reducing benefits? It's not only the public sector, they're just more noticeable. People with annual salaries and bonuses it would take you 20 or 30 years to earn are telling you the person on the bottom is overpaid and gets too many goodies.

     The idea is totally preposterous. Do you have an expense account? Company credit card, phone, car, and maybe even accomodations? You fly first class? I've never seen first class. I pay for those perks with my labour. Well, you say, they can be fired at any time, and all they leave with is their agreed upon "settlement" plus a generous severance, stock options, benefits, pension, yes, executives have it bad. How could you look someone in the eye and tell them this is fair. No union member is getting rich, even after working for a career, the best they can hope for is comfortable. A couple of years at the top executive levels of any large corporation or entity and you'll earn more than that 24 dollar an hour guy can in a lifetime and a half. That's the raw truth. To deny it is to fool yourself and leave the next, debt-burdened, generation to a lifetime of never knowing what it's like to make ends meet. It's that serious. Today's target is a pension, once that's taken care of there are other fish to fry. Benefits, wages, positions, and basic working rights we take for granted. Governments, and corporations, emboldened will take every inch of ground they can, at the expense of people today, tomorrow and possible forever.

     The are vast differences in the DB, or defined benefit pension, and the DC, or defined contribution pension. Anyone with a DB pension is going to fight to keep it. Here's why.

     Do you have an RRSP? I figure if you're reading this, you are not totally blind to what happened in the recent recession. Their RRSP, for the most part based on the stock market, tanked. I know people who lost half or more of the value of their retirement savings in a matter of months. One friend had 50,000 dollars in his RRSP (which is a DC pension) and had to start rebuilding with just over 22,000. The DC pension is a crapshoot. My friends with those pensions will never have what they thought they would for retirement, not because they spent it, because some very greedy bank executives decided to screw the biggest economy in the world almost to death. Not the bank tellers. The executives. If they could blame it on the tellers you bet your ass they would.

     In contrast, I admit I am one of the lucky people who does have a DB pension. There is a world of difference. While I watched the savings of 40 and 50 somethings around me disappear, my pension lost no value. Zero, zip, nada as they say. How is this possible? Structural differences. Period.

     Whereas a DC pension is at the whims of market forces (just like your RRSP) due to being invested in "the markets", the DB pension works like a bank account. The DC pension is that $1000 credit on the slot machine I mentioned above, if the markets go up, you could retire with a little or a lot more than planned, but the risk is there you could walk away with less or nothing at all. Even if we both make equal contributions to our plan and both expect to have $1000 dollars a month in retirement income, it isn't hard to imagine you retiring with $390 and I will still have the full $1000. With a DB pension, your funds are not gambled on the markets. Theoretically, your employer is required by law, to put your money in a safe place and pay you interest, just like a savings account. You can't take money out, they can't take money out. Mr Stock Market can't take money out. In the end, you still have the money your statement said you have. If you leave the company, they have to give you that portion of money, plus accrued interest, to invest in your own retirement plan. This is how a good, decent, human pension should work. Doesn't everyone want to enjoy themselves for whatever time they have after retiring? There's no greed in that whatsoever. None. All you are asking is the difference between a bank account and a slot machine. I'll take the bank account.

     Good luck.

The Riot

     One night, after a big event, a group of deplorable thugs took to the streets. The event in question had nothing to do with the riot directly, rather an organized group took advantage of thousands of people who, ordinarily, probably would never have participated, but in the fervor surrounding the events, and fueled by emotion, they did.

     A lot of bad things happened that night. Burning, looting, tons of shops had their glass smashed out, some to the brink of total destruction, and there was violence, senseless violence against innocent people, some of whom were just trying to protect the targets of the mob mentality.

     Some extraordinary things happened after that night. As if the riot itself wasn't bad enough, with its ugly "mob mentality" and terrible destruction of property, what followed was a "public shaming". I'm sure many of those involved in the public shaming took actions they may have lived to regret. I'm sure many took advantage of the situation to eliminate rivals or rid themselves of enemies by falsely turning them in to authorities in the name of revenge for some slight or another, and I am absolutely confident there were many who participated in the "shaming" of  many innocent people who only thought they were doing their "civic duty". The mob mentality of the rioters was eclipsed by the mob mentality of the "shamers". There is a lesson to be learned from the riot.

     The lesson we ought to have learned from it, is "two wrongs don't make a right". Caught up in the frenzy of the mob mentality a lot of innocent people and their families suffered greatly.

     Around 6,000,000 of them.

     We know the name of that riot. Kristallnacht. We ought to have learned.

Government? Or Continuing Criminal Enterprise?

     The title says it all. It doesn't apply just to Canada, but to all. This is going to be the shortest blog I've ever posted. Go to your search engine. Read about continuing criminal enterprises, pay attention to how they are defined, examine the actions of your own governments, then ask yourself exactly what I asked in the headline.

     You might be surprised. At the low end of the scale, enlightened.

The Vision Movement (Part 1)

     When the title of my post contains "Part "X"" in brackets, you know it's not good. I've often been known to make a short story long, yet I come by it honestly, having learned some time ago I often have to offer a detailed explanation when I say things, or do it repeatedly afterwards.

     Welcome, my friends, to "The Vision Movement". Currently 1 member strong but hopeful for growth in the future. The vision movement, for now, exists only in my head, however, fear not, there is plenty of room in there.

     This is intended to be the first in a series of what I hope will be evolving posts, and I'm counting on them being fueled and part of a fluid process, based on feedback from like-minded fellow Canadians.

     I'm unsure where it may lead, if anywhere, other than me expending the time and effort to try to elucidate my thoughts on a society that builds on the best of what we already have, changes things we have proven are outdated or not working, and provides some kind of cohesive plan going forward.

     The vision movement is not a political party (although I'd never rule out the idea it may have to become one), it's more of a meeting of the many minds who have come to realize government does not act in the interests of all of the people. Here, the opinion of the billionaire tycoon carries the same weight as the homeless guy that sleeps on the bench in the park. It's about inclusion and truth. It's about taking power and sharing it with everyone.

     This is not about being conservative or liberal or any other party. It has absolutely nothing to do with getting back at anyone, there's no in-your-face we win, simply because the vision movement is about the empowerment of people as equals.

     I do want to move forward with what I think is an important discussion. If I don't get feedback, if I don't get some interest, I'll chalk it up as another "at least I tried" moment in my life and move on. I guess it's really going to be up to readers whether there is a part 2 and beyond or not. Once I put the thoughts out there, I transfer it into your hands to decide if it sounds interesting to you, and whether you'd be interested in moving the concept forward or letting it die on the order paper.

     I don't describe this as a socialist movement, rather, this is my attempt at encouraging a societal movement. It's about honesty and reality, about dealing with the bad and the good, about learning powerful lessons from hundreds of years of democracy, a shared determination to keep the things that are good and important to us and improve them, conversely it is also about admitting our system is very broken, and it's time for a 21st century update to a more inclusive and sensible system. Our system is archaic and tradition may be nice and all that, but it doesn't mean we should go back to traditional outhouses any more than we should still be operating in a system largely unchanged for centuries.

     I subscribe to neither the all out "nanny-state" nor the notion that smaller government is always the best solution. Extremes are for extremists.

     I'm not out to "get" business or the wealthy. I'm never going to advocate the notion of "every man for himself, survival of the fittest" either. One thing I think I have learned is that we have, for over a century, alternately elected conservatives or liberals, few of whom have seriously provided much vision in my lifetime. It's been a series of wrongs, both sides clinging to their particular ideology which can be widely warped if it appears it may win them the election. No party exists today that is interested in delivering what I am looking for. Massive, radical change. Not for the sake of change, but for the sake of taking society to a place where we can build for the future, not cling to the past.

     How many times have you voted for someone you liked and respected and thought would make a difference, only to find when they do obtain power, do everything opposite to what they've preached or promised? I wonder how many times good, well meaning people of all political persuasions, have been elected with the idea they can make a difference once in power, only to rapidly have those ideas, and their spirit, crushed by a system designed to be run top-down. This is not what we deserve. It's what we have, and as long as we are content with occasionally changing the players rather than the rules, the game will continue. That is what our life has devolved to: a game. A game of politics, where one side or the other must win at all costs to advance their agenda, based solely on their ideology.

     This isn't a game. Politics should not be a spectator sport where some citizens win and others lose. It's wrong. It's long since passed its expiry date. It is long overdue, but the vision movement can make this change. Believe that you can, for we are all far more powerful than we will know, if only we explore our own power.

     Part 1 of the vision is the unwrapping and demystifying government. It's about being able to expect honesty, to expect a government that is dedicated to creating a society that others look to for inspiration. It's about public, real-time accounting to taxpayers for every penny spent. It's about coming to our senses, creating a Canada that doesn't have to choose between rich and poor, business and citizens, left or right, or any other divisions. Reasonable Canadians, whether they like to be pigeonholed into categories or not, would be able to agree that we can spend our money smarter, and recognize we are unique in our steadfast survival against overwhelming odds. The second largest country in the world by land mass, one of the world's richest countries, yet we only have the population of California, which, in any sense of the word is failing its citizens due to the same kind of politics we seem to be embracing.

     Canadians are determined, yet today, we've lost sight of why we are a country in the first place. We totally ignore an obvious historic reality: Canada as we know it was built through compromise and cooperation. Now everyone thinks they have some kind of irreparable grievance, because for the last several decades this is how elections have been won, by playing on why some particular part of the country or portion of the population has been horribly wronged and the only way to fix it is by backing your "Team" (sic) in the next election. News Flash: We are devouring our own flesh for the sake of bragging rights.

     Aside from dragging government and its cumbersome, tired mass kicking and screaming into the present (how else will we be prepared for a future?), the vision movement is about just that. Vision. Ideas that not only touch the lives of all Canadians, but build on the things that bring us together instead of always fostering a battle of the differences. Confederation was a vision to create a country. The coast to coast railway was a vision about expanding this country and tying it together. The Trans-Canada highway opened up a vast and beautiful country of opportunity to all Canadians, that also took vision. Our most treasured, and one might say, sacred visions, is our system of medicare which, while flawed, we hold dear to our hearts. The thing is, these are some of the monumental things we have done through compromise and cooperation. I've never given up on caring about Canada. It's not about me, it about my daughter, and your kids, and their kids and all the kids to come. I'm not going to suggest my vision is perfect, that's why I'm hoping for feedback. If I think there is interest, I'll explore some options for the kinds of national visions we should be thinking about. Things to shed our labels and for once, make us all proud Canadians.

     It isn't about winning or losing. It's about changing. It's about setting the table for the future. It's about something more than polling numbers and talking points and cronyism. It's one lone man who has devoted years of thought to what is wrong, why it's wrong, and trying to determine the path to effect change.

     So I need to know. Am I alone? Is there a will to build a dream?

We Can & Will. We must.

     This is a message of utmost importance. If you are one of the majority of Canadians who did not vote for Stephen Harper's Tea Party government, this is the single most important idea I could possibly try to spread. For this blog post, I'm not asking you politely to share it, I absolutely urge you to share it.

     Shit, meet fan. You two will be getting to know each other a lot.

     We've seen what the first short period of a Harper Tea Party majority brings us. The first act was the "in-your-face" appointment/reappointment of three loyal conservative losers to the Senate. That was Harper's first chance to tell the majority of Canadians "Fuck you losers, I'm the supreme ruler now and there is nothing you can do". Or is there??


     If anyone harbours any illusions as to the agenda this pseudo-dictator has, take off the rose coloured glasses, come out of the fog, wakey wakey, and all that good stuff. I always try to deal with truth in this blog, truth is ugly at the best of times for the most part, but truth is reality, it cannot be denied or ignored, so it's best to stare it in the face and do what has to be done.

     Anyone who pins their hope on the "Official Opposition" in the 41st parliament, you are seriously delusional and should you decide to cling to that hope, I wish you well in the new, republican Canada. If you think the mainstream media is in your corner, think again. I feel badly for your mental health if you buy any criticisms of the Harper Tea Party government put forward by all of those publications and broadcasters who enthusiastically endorsed this petty little man and his cadre of grinning robots. Even most of the media we used to be able to count on to act as a foil to this band of thieves, bullies and outright thugs have obviously found some reason to have a chill instilled in them. Perhaps there's a veiled threat to cut off access or in the case of CBC, outright de-fund the service. In any event, the voices of the majority cannot, under any circumstances, count on any of the usual avenues of society as we previously had enjoyed.

     The Stephen Harper Tea Party government has already reached a level of arrogance which would have made the late Pierre Elliott Trudeau seem like a wallflower. The little we have learned about the crooked dealings probably amount to maybe 10% of what has and is happening, yet, if half the cabinet was filmed taking part in the recent Vancouver riot, they would not only keep their positions, the Harper Tea Party government would shrug it off, refuse to talk about it, and I will guarantee the media would talk about absolutely nothing of substance and anything that may distract you from the continuing criminal enterprise that now has full control of almost every lever of power in this country (stand by, the supreme court will be the finishing touch). Once the supreme court has been stacked with Harper sympathizers, folks, you'd better have a fast grasp on what that means. No dissent in parliament. No dissent in the senate. No unfavourable rulings from the SCOC. Total, complete, unchecked power.

     The Stephen Harper Tea Party wants you to give up. They want you to believe there is absolutely nothing you can do. To many it may seem this is the awful truth. It would be a lot easier to just throw in the towel and submit to the dismantling of the nation we knew as Canada. If you can truly look south at the USA and honestly tell me that is the model we should be following, by all means, feel free to give up and do nothing at all.

     So, you ask, what the hell can we do? The answer is simple, yet very complex. The solution requires you actually do something other than complain about the horrors being visited upon us by this small minded man who wishes to remake this country in the image of America. The most polarized, indebted, mess of the global community. He loves it, wants to emulate it, and in his own words you can see he believes even they don't go far enough. If you didn't know Stephen Harper was a dangerous man, please take my word for it right now.

     Life can be funny. Lessons can be learned in the strangest ways. The biggest lesson I learned recently was from a little girl I don't even know. You may be familiar with her, a young lady by the name of Brigette LePape. A woman who realized, at her tender age, the seriousness of what faces the majority of Canadians right now. A woman who, knowing full well she could be putting herself in danger, knowing she would lose her job, and no doubt intelligent enough to realize today's Canadian media would villify, degrade, and otherwise malign her in every way possible (all of which came to pass I may add), stood in silent protest, peaceful protest, in a very visible place where her message could not possibly be ignored.

     The message I took from Brigette? Remember the teachings of Mahatma Ghandi.

     The one thing the media conveniently ignored, that not even a single supporter mentioned, is that by doing what she did, Brigette LePape became Ghandi for the majority of Canadians who will suffer under a corrupt and oppressive ruler.

     No matter what kind of slanderous, violent oppression he faced, Ghandi taught his supporters that civil disobedience without inciting violence and turning the other cheek when attacked, by not responding to the violence of the oppressors, it became 100% clear who the bad guys are. After all, if police and troops are sent in to remove silent protesters engaged in acts of civil disobedience, when they choose to use force, there is no doubt in the eyes of the world who is in the wrong.

     Whether you like the idea or not, the only way to fight against the people in power today will be by engaging in organized acts of civil disobedience. I don't condone violence, I don't encourage anyone to engage in violent acts against persons or property at any time. Nothing destructive is ever constructive. It is very important to take the lesson of Brigette LePape and her "Stop Harper" sign and ensure if you don't know much about Mahatma Ghandi (whom I refer to as the father of peaceful protest) you'd best do a bit of reading and be prepared to show the courage of your convictions.

     People who oppose the Americanization of Canada must take heed. The longer we wait to get organized the deeper in trouble we will be. We can't afford to wait out the mandate of the current mafia, the stakes are too high. We can't just sit around and complain, we must gather our strength so the world can see we do not support this government or their policies. We cannot allow this evil little man and his ilk totally destroy the reputation of this country. For your children, and their children, we have a duty. That duty is to use all possible peaceful means to Stop Stephen Harper.

     It's not too late. YET.

The Challenge of being a "Centrist"

     On the political spectrum, I consider myself a centrist. I don't subscribe to the views of any particular political party, but I make no secret of the fact, given our current choices I identify most closely with the Liberal Party of Canada. The point is, I can and will change my vote because I won't be loyal to a party, that would make me a partisan, leading to the need to defend things I don't agree with because of my affiliation.

     I wondered, if I'm not a partisan, am I an idealogue? I pondered the idea for quite some time, but I came to the realization in order to be an idealogue, I 'd have to subscribe to a single ideology, and when I take stock of my views on individual areas of policy, I realize I'm slightly or very liberal on some of the issues, yet somewhere in the moderate right on others.

     Since I can't seem to pigeonhole myself into either of the accepted political categories, I have no choice but to consider myself a centrist. Perhaps even, in the words of the sitting Prime Minister, an arch-centrist. I understand his feeling the need to demonize we centrists, there are a hell of a lot of us, a vast majority of us and should we ever find a way to coalesce our similar, yet diverse, values, Mr Harper has a massive challenge on his hands.

     Right now, arch-centrists like myself are agonizing. We're feeling a little alone in the Canadian political wilderness. The mostly moderate have come to the precipice. Backing the Conservative Party, even under a different leader is not within the realm of possibility. We prefer that our Canada is not "Made in America". Ditto for the NDP, we arch-centrists may have a sense of social justice, but not at the expense of taking policy directions that would hurt us on a wider global scale, we're just a little more pragmatic than that. Unless we are willing to wait a century, our X on the ballot will not be for the Green Party candidate, their name is an anchor around them, for a generation or more of us, the Green Party is inexorably tied to a lot of very suspect people in Europe and you can't call yourself the Green Party without claiming ownership of the origins, no matter how different you may be, your name is an albatross. By now, one would think the Liberal Party faithful would be standing on the chairs cheering as team Arch-Centrist marches into the arena, but hold your applause, we are seriously questioning whether you can deliver on the absolutely most volatile group of voters, that huge mob of Arch-Centrists. Perhaps the group most likely to influence the outcome of any kind of vote but far more difficult to please, or to fool, than any other voting bloc.

     I'm getting to know a lot more people of a similar sentiment. We've disengaged ourselves from narrow party politics, generally preferring to vote (or not) for the party that is advancing the platform that comes closest to our personal feelings. In the past it has generally meant we decided the outcome of elections by using our considerably powerful ability to swing a vote. We've had some close elections in the past, where we either had a tough time discerning which party had the better platform at the time, or the issues were such we truly were divided by which side of the line we sat on, red or blue. Orange just wasn't a factor, that was the reality and I remain unconvinced it is the new reality. I congratulate them on their success, I believe they absolutely must be heard in any Canadian debate, however I refuse to pass judgement on their performance in the most recent election. I spoke of volatility earlier and the NDP were the net beneficiary of that. The Quebec electorate faced a dilemma. It took a while, but mainstream public opinion changed on the value of sending members to the parliament of Canada who would never be in a position where they could actually advance their interests since it would be impossible to form government. Worn out by shallow pandering, power grabs, and plenty of corruption for over 100 years, Quebeckers, who have always shown themselves to be engaged, intelligent voters who understand what it takes to advance their particular interests and agendas and I respect them, even if we perhaps differ on our views of what would be best for Quebec and for Canada, absolutely hate Harper and have lost their trust in the Liberal Party as well. The difference between Quebeckers and non-Quebeckers, is, historically, they will go to the polls with a steely determination to deliver Quebec as a huge prize to a single party. Not unanimously, mind you, just overwhelmingly. In an election where everyone took the Quebec vote for granted, it was a perfect opportunity for a "carpe diem" moment, and Jack Layton's NDP team seized the day. They campaigned hard on Quebec issues and spent a lot of time in the Province while others made their courtesy visits as they criss-crossed the country. Blissfully ignorant because both parties are so used to being the only choice, they dismissed evidence something was amiss in Quebec. I don't envy opposition leader Jack Layton, he is going to have to try to do what no other person has been able to. Layton will have to figure out how to keep the Quebec base while growing in the rest of Canada, a balancing act I'm not sure his party is up for. Not that any of the current parties are up for it, at this time and place in our history. The volatility that vaulted the NDP to opposition status is very fragile, to put it kindly, and could just as easily come back to bite them, hard.

     Hence the dilemma of the centrist in Canada today. Quebec is a bit of a microcosm, not for the rest of the country, but for centrists and arch centrists alike. The difference outside of Quebec is we don't have anyone speaking to us we have a reason to want to commit to. While can all agree on our desire for social justice and a better country for the strong and the weak alike, where we stand in the centre still seems to be problematic. The dilemma faced by Jack Layton in Quebec is the same one, to great extent, as that faced by those who seek to define the centre. We are an extremely hard bunch to label. For the most part we are moderate in just about every sense of the world, however we do have some diverse things we are passionate about, but we aren't all passionate about the same thing, so we tend to fall to one side or the other, or not vote at all as it has become far to difficult to decide who to back. This is as delicate a balancing act as any. I believe there are plenty of people who can appeal the the innate moderate views of the centrists, while balancing the needs of those who still feel centrist but happen to fall father from the middle to one side or the other than the rest of the pack.

     I know what it will take to capture my vote. I have an idea I know how to capture more than just my vote/ Unfortunately, I've not found a politican willing to sit and actually take in why I don't consider any of them to be an extremely palatable choice. I guess if I call myself a think-tank or a consultant and charge a hefty fee for my ideas I may be taken a little more seriously by the people who would have me install them as ruler. Maybe that's the ticket, although, I suspect something far different.

    I suspect the party that will recapture the hearts and minds of the 60%'ers, the moderates, the centrists, does not exist at this time. Unless the Liberal Party gets the kind of earth moving massive change that will be required, they aren't it. The jury remains out as I am willing, for a short time, to give the benefit of the doubt, although judging from the attitude I've had from some Liberals, I don't think they understand 1970 left.

     As ludicrous as it sounds, it may be time for a party, from scratch, built by the massive percentage of Canadians wandering in the vast wilderness of the centre. Just as I give the benefit of the doubt as to the ability of Mr Layton to retain Quebec while building across the nation, and extend the same to the idea of the rejuvenation of the Liberals, I must also extend the same courtesy to the idea the party of the centre may not yet exist.

     My patience has lasted a couple of decades. It won't last forever. I suspect I am far from alone in my nearly unbearable dissatisfaction with the status quo. I know I am not alone in believing we can build a better Canada. The kind of Canada our veterans fought and died for. Not this Canada.

     You'll forgive my anguish, I feel as though I've lost my voice and can't find the right doctor to cure me.

Sorry Harper, Conservative values are American values.

     The latest conservative slogan is cheesy, and for their believers, the sheeple as I lovingly refer to them, it works. I'm talking about the new "talking point" which will be continuously rammed down your throat by every partisan hack in sight. Canada will be flooded with the "Conservative values are Canadian values" which would be okay if there were an atom of truth to the statement. This catchy little slogan will be picked up and repeated to people so often they will come to believe they actually believe it.

     It's no different than phenomenons like urban myths, or using viral video hoaxes as a marketing tool. Anything perceived to be true, is true, until proven different, but only in the case of people who are open minded. There are many people out there who think it is some kind of shame to admit when they are wrong. People who will continue to cling to absolute proven lies because they see it as some kind of defeat to accept they've been mislead. It's because of the sheer numbers of these kind of people that society continually takes one step back for every one or two forward.

     Almost all Canadians I've come in contact with are generally glad to be Canadians rather than Americans. Traditionally, there have been similarities, but also marked differences. Americans tend to be relatively boastful and highly jingoistic. They're known world wide as being rude, boorish, and overbearing. They have more braggadocio than the rest of the world's population combined. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of wonderful Americans, but the image of those people is never projected. Like the voice of moderates in Canada today, they are marginalized, however they've had to endure it far longer. American is known as a global bully, whether it is militarily or economically. The majority of Americans I interact with are shockingly inward looking, they believe, because they have been indoctrinated to believe since birth, the America is the greatest country in the world, which naturally means everything should go the way America wants it to go and if it doesn't, you take the chance of being bombed into the 12th century.

     Americans are the first to criticize repressive countries who openly control their populations, you know, countries where the leader's name is preceded by the word "general" or places you see with gigantic murals of the leader for life and massive military parades which serve two great purposes: showing off your might to the world, and reminding your domestic population who's in charge.

     The sole reason America can be such a vocal and sometimes violent critic, is because they have found a way to do the exact same thing without the bad optics. From birth, everything in America is about indoctrination. Waving an American flag commands a lot of attention, because even little children are taught to pledge their homage to the flag of their country, which, not incidentally, get the "G" word in at the end. From the time they are babies they are repeatedly told America is the greatest country in the world. As for the military parades, not required when you have made the military a viable religion. If you think I'm fooling, just watch any number of live events, sporting events, etc. The US Military is keenly aware of the value of having their "colour guard" appear on camera. No problem at all in arranging a fly past by some impressive aviation killing machines, or a display of military vehicles and weapons at your even or festival. They don't just have a single memorial for veterans, they have memorials spread far and wide because they are immensely personal and touch many lives. They remember veterans on several national holidays. No matter what the public event, you'll see two things. The flag, and men/women in uniform. This folks, is deep integration at its best. To the point where you are vilified if you even attempt to criticize even the most heinous actions of the military.

     Unfortunately, in this country, many people are still deeply confused over the conservative party. They believe they know what conservative values are, after all, for many, their families have voted conservative for generations. This was the coup of all coups for Harper and his small circle of friends and advisors. Keeping the word conservative to identify their party, and a carefully thought out logo which is purpose built to make former progressive conservatives believe this is still their party.

     Make absolutely no mistake about it. Stephen Harper is nothing like a progressive conservative. He sees them as weak, and soft on his agenda, however, in order to set his agenda in place he needs those people, or perhaps, past tense, he needed those people to get his majority. Why do you think he convinced his minions they "needed" a majority in order to have "stability" and get rid of the "shenanigans" going on in parliament. Nice line, people figured that's plausible, there have been plenty of badly run conservative governments in the past and we've survived them, what's so different about Harper's conservatives? Truth is, plenty.

     Stephen Harper is a republican. He only began to somewhat hide that when the time was right to wrest control of a much-weakened progressive conservative party, not because he cared about the fate of that party, he needed the brand name. That's it. Prior to his initial run to become PM, Stephen Harper made no secret of what he thought of Canadian values, especially when his audience was full of American ears. This man was unabashedly apologetic for everything Canadians held (and I hope still do) dear. He called Canada a "Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the word". He attacked everything from medicare to bilingualism to being a nation more partial to peace than war. All his words, not mine. I've never believed Stephen Harper had or has a hidden agenda. Until he became an important figure in Canadian federal politics he never hid the fact he believed that not only should Canada be more like America, but Canada should reflect a far-right republican America. Canada should be a country where, if you can't or won't survive on your own, too bad, hopefully someone will help you out but it would probably be better if you were dead. We should ensure our good friends, the Americans, have access to all of our resources, on their terms, as long as his backers would benefit financially from it. Governments should not run the country, corporations should. He'd love nothing more than an injection of good old convenient Christianity into our society as well, ergo, the slashing of funding for women's groups, because women should be a lot more like women in other countries, at home, having kids, married and staying that way even if you need a beating to know your place once in a while. Of course he never would have dropped that one publicly, but their policies are geared toward encouraging women to be quiet and most certainly out of the boardrooms of the country. One only needs to examine the "income-splitting" proviso promised when they balance the budget by cutting funding and programs for anyone who openly opposes them. Who will benefit? Not the people who really need help. Not single parents, or anyone with a family income less than $42,500. How many people are immediately exempted by just those 2 conditions alone? Mostly, Stephen Harper is all about government for the few, by the few, and fuck you.

     Because of the lack of foresight of the over 20% of Canadians who offered up Harper's coveted majority, I am going to take great delight from your anguish at what you've done. With 4 years of absolute power a lot of things can change, and they will. Too bad for you sheeple, you see, I'm interested enough in people and politics I've been preparing myself for this for a decade. I'll be fine. On the other hand, your family and friends are going to be hurt in ways you never bothered to think of because you see politics as some kind of sporting event, whereas I see politics as the jerks who run my life. I don't fear the Harper agenda because I know the Harper agenda. I generally don't wish anyone ill will, but I will say to the ignoramus' out there who didn't bother to understand what you were voting for, I hope the policies implemented over the next four years really put the screws to you personally, or at least to someone you care deeply about. It's what you deserve for your intransigence. It's the price you pay for ignorance. In four years the Canada you've lived in all your life, or the Canada you came to for a better life will not be recognizable. Stephen Harper promised that, many years ago. I have no reason to suspect he will not follow through. At the end, he'll still be rich and getting richer, you'll be screwed, and frankly, people like me will smile and say, it looks good on you.

     Welcome to America Lite.

     To Stephen Harper I say, conservative values are your values. You've openly expressed you hate the things that made us uniquely Canadian, now, for a time, you will get your way. By the time you're exposed to the willingly blind, you'll be gone, the damage will be done to a great extent, but you'll never be remembered as a great Prime Minister by anyone but yourself and your friends. Congratulations. You've proven Canadians are embarrassingly naive.

     To my fellow 60%'ers: Stop thinking about today and start thinking of how we are going to restore a once great and respected country. We'll have a lot of work to do. There isn't a shred of doubt in my mind that the political party that will be tasked with bringing Canada back does not exist today. That's just my opinion.

     Canadian values are Canadian values. They're not conservative values or liberal values or NDP values. No single party represents Canada or Canadians. I know the Prime Minister doesn't care, but I do. A majority of others do too, chances are we aren't going away.

Legalized Gambling: You're for it, even if you think you're against it.

     I admit, the title of the post might be a little confusing at first. By the end of this blog, you'll completely agree it makes perfect sense.

     One thing about humans, we can be fairly clever. Most of us know at least a little bit about an awesome array of things. If you stop to ponder, the human mind is mind blowing. We have the capacity to soak up an immense amount of knowledge, unfortunately, we are also using our brains differently just because of the vast amount of input coming in from a wide variety of sources. When we attempt to keep up with the highly charged world we live in, our minds compensate by trying to keep things simple in order to retain as much of the stimuli coming in. We're also a lazy bunch, often making decisions and judgments based on  too little information, not taking time to look deeper into anything that does not intensely interest us. This is the greatest danger to the human condition, the reason we rationalize irrational situations, create and pass on stereotypical views, and often subscribe to spin, and to be perfectly clear, by spin I mean cleverly crafted lies designed specifically to make you believe even the most implausible notions are true. We really aren't as smart as we think we are.

     All of that brings me back to my original statement. You are for legalized gambling, now matter how much you pretend to oppose it. It makes perfect sense to me, and here's why:

     Sure, you may oppose VLT's or betting on poker or perhaps, if you're really radical, those evil Tuesday night bingo games. This may lead you to believe you're doing the right thing, perhaps even that you are a heck of a good person wanting to stomp this evil from our society. You'd go to great lengths to oppose building a casino in or near your community because you're convinced all manner of evil will beset your neighbourhood, even though it's been proven untrue, we don't like to let facts get in the way. We love the moral high ground.

     I hate to burst your bubble (well, not really, but it's polite to say) but even if the person in the previous paragraph is you, you are in favour of, and participate in, the biggest legalized gambling scheme ever run. How do I know your secret? Actually it was pretty easy, I didn't have to peek in your window, hack your computer or steal your garbage to find out. I know you happily gamble day and night, because we all do.

     Now, just when you think I've completely lost my mind, let me draw your attention to how you gamble daily. Simple actually, you participate in the economy. We have to do a little bit of dot connecting here, since what I'm saying seemingly makes no sense, until you think about the underpinnings of the world we know. In our system, the capitalist western-style democracy, most everything we do is driven by the stock market, commodities markets, futures and such. If you don't think you're participating in gambling every moment of every day, I submit you must be a hunter-gatherer living in the cliffs of an undiscovered island and it would be impossible to read this.

     The stock market is legit you say. It's all honest and open and you can see what's going on every minute of every day you say. Really? You sure have a lot of faith, perhaps you've been blinded by the light. Trillions of dollars are gained and lost routinely ever day on the markets of the world. If you take more than a glance at how things work on a deeper lever, you'll realize unless you are against these markets it makes you very hypocritical to say you are anti-gambling.

     I like to use examples that are fairly fresh in the public eye, topical topics as it were. The example I'd like to start with to convince you I am telling the truth and it will all make a lot more sense when you finish reading is the fate of Research in Motion (RIM) makes of the Blackberry line of communications tools. If this isn't a good example of how our economy is a sham, I'm not sure I can find many better ones. Today, in a single day, RIM lost 22% of its market value. That means a lot of people lost a lot of money today. So, one would tend to think some kind of disaster happened to the company. What triggered such a substantial loss? Why is RIM talking about shedding jobs? Exactly how much money are they losing to be in this horrible position? One-fifth of the value of the company in a single day. WHAM!

     So why the huge drop? Here's some truth. RIM lost all that value today because they announced their earnings. Always an anticipated event in the gambling industry, oops, stock market. How big were their losses? $0. When RIM revealed they only made about 695 million in profits for the quarter (yes, for 3 months), and were downgrading their forecasts for the rest of the year. Because greed is the number one driving factor in all things monetary, so-called analysts will make "forecasts" (these are as reliable as weather forecasting, maybe bordering on earthquake predicting) of how much money they think a company will make, if the company does not do as well as their crystal ball said a few months ago, it triggers a selloff by traders who realize they might be able to make more money with their money buying part of some other company (until they miss the forecast). So the reason RIM lost so much value today is due to not being able to satisfy the greed of the money traders. The idea a profit of nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars in a three month period is just not good enough was all it took to cause RIM to haul out the typical answer to this type of market action, they are going to make a few thousand people unemployed in the hope that the market will see this as a positive way to increase those quarterly profits so the selloff will stop and RIM will not be another coming of Nortel.

     What makes it even more sickening is the unpalatable thought it can easily be manipulated. The authorities will tell you no, just like the housing and financial markets in the USA that caused the horrific economic situation the world is in, everything is regulated. Sure. It's easy to buy that. Easier than thinking about the alternative, that everything we base our every waking moment on is bogus. False. A gigantic ponzi scheme designed to keep the rich richer, and the poor out on their ass. All it took today to trigger a 22% loss of value in RIM was one shareholder, who held 2% of the stock in the entire company, selling off half of their holdings. If you've ever paid attention to stocks, you'll know a simple move like that will be noticed quickly and the knee jerk reaction is for others to get out before they lose all their money. This put everything at a tipping point for RIM. If they don't act to meet the whims of the traders, RIM will cease to exist. This means a company that could easily earn a couple of billion dollars in profit this year will have to put thousands of people out of work, a sacrifice to the Gods of the almighty dollar.

     People who have retirement savings should know exactly what I say when I point out the fact we are all dependent on legalized gambling. The recent economic turmoil meant your 50 thousand dollar retirement savings lost most of its value in a very short period of time. If you don't think that's gambling, I'd be interested to hear what you think gambling is. In fact, if you held 10 thousand dollars in RIM stock today, you only have 7800 dollars tonight, all because they announced a quarterly profit of only 695 million dollars. This is they reason why so many unions are fighting to keep their DB pension plans because their value is not tied to the stock market. Companies want to replace those benfits with the DC pension plan where all of your money is at the mercy of the stock market. Imagine being a couple of months away from retirement when the economy hits a slump. Suddenly you are facing the rest of your life, which you thought would be at least somewhat comfortable, living in poverty.

     This is what the rich want for you. This is what corporations want for you. This is what your government wants for you. All because we live our lives based on a huge lie. Because our future rests on the shoulders of the biggest legalized gambling scheme of all. The "free market" economy.

     Legalized gambling. No matter how much you oppose it, you're for it. Now my headline makes sense.

The Truth About Unions

     It seems, during an unusual period of unrest, a good opportunity to discuss the subject of...gasp...unions!!


     For the purposes of this dialogue, I'll feel free to assume those reading are not union members, however, if you do belong to a trade union or professional association I welcome your comments on my thoughts.

     When thinking about unions, I began to ask what the average person (who wasn't an avid researcher) would know about them. What would be the source of knowledge of the union movement (and the people who make it up) available to an individual? Someone not totally oblivious to things that happen in the real world, the one outside of Farmville.

     My opinion? Much of what we "know" (sic) is probably influenced by print, online, and broadcast media. Beyond that, what most people think they know about unions is secondarily influenced by other factors, such as: words and actions of Government, relatives, friends or others you know who belong to such an organization, or your own personal experiences (either in the context of you belonging or encounters with workers during a job action).

     Starting from that framework seems to be fair, it seems to be setting the bar fairly low but I'm sure those with a little (or lot) more knowledge will bear with me. At this point, my advice to any reasonable person would be: forget your preconceived notions of whether unions are good or bad and read my story of personal experience. I would greatly appreciate anyone who would leave a comment and let me know if this post at least makes you think about your perception when you finish reading.

     For the first two-thirds of my life, including just over half my working career, I never worked in a unionized workplace. I will freely admit I subscribed to a lot of stereotypical thoughts about unions and unionized workers. Words that would come to my mind were greed, dishonesty, laziness, nothing really very good but to this day, the majority of coverage of anything to do with unions or unionized workers continually portrays any worker(s) engaging in job action as the villain of the story. Think about the coverage of the current strike action being undertaken by members of CUPW, representing Canada's postal workers. Think about most coverage of work stoppages, whether they involve a strike action initiated by employees, or a lockout by the employer, and the first thing you will think about is the wage they make or out-of-the-ordinary benefits or pensions, etc. I think that's a true statement. I do not see or hear media coverage which discusses how profitable the corporation has been historically, I don't recall hearing many stories about how many people have been hurt in the name of those profits, or whether the employer has a history of treating workers poorly or tolerating intolerable behavior, etc. This is the first great sin of unions, greed, not real greed, but the appearance of greed because stories are always slanted that way, and to a great extent, anger and derision from those who have no ability to bargain with their employer to try to get fair compensation for what they do daily to help the company succeed. Corporate executives make huge salaries and topping it off by paying themselves hundreds of thousands, even millions in bonuses, none of them go without benefits and if they get fired they already have pre-arranged massive payouts to themselves and the other top execs on top of pensions you and I can only fantasize about, yet you can't get past the fact that union person makes 20 bucks an hour. Don't dismiss what I'm saying, just think about what people rant on about when someone does go on strike. I've certainly heard people say (numerous times) "Fire them all" but you never hear them suggest the management of the company be fired. How about "I'd work twice as hard for half the money" yet no one rants that if execs stopped collecting bonuses the company could improve pay and benefits and have money left to invest in equipment, training, and new employees. I seriously do not think I have ever heard anyone, in my entire life, lay the blame for angry workers on the management/owners of a company. Now that I've (hopefully) had a chance to let you see reality in the mirror, you may have more of an appetite for some real truth.

     At one time, I was very much anti-union. I admit to buying all of the standard criticisms above and probably many more. If you aren't organized, or never have been, it is easy to blame it on the workers, after all, executives aren't marching with crudely lettered signs, asking for wage increases when they make twice what you do. Sometimes you know union people who brag about sleeping at work or having a co-worker punch in/out for them when they were playing golf or any one of a number of fairly deplorable things. We fail to relate this to other, non-union workplaces which also harbour all kinds of bad or lazy workers. Chances are, you've worked with some of them yourself. This was the kind of information I had about unions, I was vocal in my opposition, at one time mounted a successful campaign to deny a union in a workplace where a majority of employees had signed union cards. I just knew they were evil and I didn't want any part of them.

     Anyone who has ever worked in media knows in order to advance in the profession, you have to haul up stakes and move on a fairly regular basis. When my wife died and I was left to raise my infant daughter, I decided it would not be in her best interests to be uprooted so I began to look outside of the industry and find something more stable, even though I knew it would mean I would earn substantially less starting out in a new field, it was something I felt I had to do. I eventually settled for a job in the transportation industry.

     When I first started my new job, it was quite a culture shock. The pay was relatively crappy, the benefits weren't great but the pension plan was good. I was hired along with a couple of hundred others when the company decided to consolidate several offices across the country into a single centre operating out of Atlantic Canada. Our first surprise was our first pay, when we found out we were being paid 65 cents an hour less than they told us at the "job fair" they held. I'm the type that rarely has issues in the workplace as I have no problem standing up for myself and I'm not afraid to tell them where to stick their job if need be.

     After a litany of problems with management and working conditions, a number of the girls at work were pursuing union certification. I was approached to become part of the organizing group but I was not in favour of unions so I declined. I also wouldn't sign a card, however, they managed to secure enough signatures to get certified and for the first time in my life I became a union employee. Once the certification was recognized, I thought about things long and hard and came to the conclusion if the union was going to run things I should get involved. Reluctantly I signed a union card and officially became a Teamster. I put my name forward as a shop steward and was elected by a wide margin. I initially did it for selfish reasons, if someone was going to be responsible for protecting my interests and negotiating remuneration and working conditions, I wanted to be part of it.

     Over the last 16 years I have been constantly re-elected to my position as steward, labour relations representative and negotiator. I now have an almost totally different view of unions, where I once assumed they were some kind of curse (because that is the overwhelming preponderance of propaganda tells us) I now realize unions do far more good than bad, and their flaws are no worse than those of the companies we all work for. From dealing with grievance procedures to arbitration to negotiations and conciliation sessions, I've been there. I've negotiated several multi-year multi-million dollar contracts and have never once recommended                 a strike. I've gone head to head in some knock-down drag-out battles with corporate vice presidents and directors, I've won some important battles on behalf of co-workers and put up with hard feelings and surreptitious punishment from management for things that never would have involved or affected me in any way, it's part of the job. I routinely have people who love me one minute and take a samurai sword to my back the next. I've been called every name in the book, alternatively despised by managers at the same time I've been accused of being on the company's side. It's a thankless job, but I've learned a lot and I'm no shrinking violet and accept the concept of anger needing a scapegoat.

     I'd like for a moment, before I go on, to stop for a bit of a reality check. This is where I want you to 100% honest with yourself. Put yourself into the frame of mind of what this blog post is all about. I'd ask you to consider my questions, answer them honestly, read the rest of the article and let me know in the comments section if you found this helpful.

     Tell me honestly you neither want nor deserve more pay. I think it would be rare to find anyone who would tell me they are completely happy with their compensation and a raise never crosses their mind. I don't know many people with a benefit package that just can't be improved upon. Perhaps I'd be willing to make a large wager that you would not turn your employer down if they offered to pay for your benefits. Not going out on a limb here to say if a company wants to pay part or all of your contributions to a retirement plan most people wouldn't get angry and refuse.

     Just considering those few factors above, I ask you, am I being reasonable in assuming (if you are being honest with yourself) you would agree with that paragraph? If you've been honest with yourself on those questions, here is another important one to think about, one I believe the honest answer will make you realize a re-think of your attitude toward unions is required.

     My question at this point is: How many times have you been angry due to employees taking a job action? How often in a labour dispute do you blame the unions, employees, or both? Be honest. Do you think it's reasonable to think all disputes are the fault of the employees? Do they never do anything wrong in your workplace? Can you say you have never disagreed with management? That you and your co-workers have been treated fairly at all times? Do you seriously believe because someone gives you a few dollars that anything and everything they say is right? More than anything, people get pissed off because the first thing they hear is a bunch of lazy bums who make 20 bucks an hour and have extra vacation and sick time and benefits are on strike, You will also be immediately given the impression it is all about greed, that every strike is about more pay and more benefits. Unions don't only have to battle for their members, they also have to battle to get a grain of truth reported in the media, and they are constantly fighting against the stereotypes we have been indoctrinated with. Generally, the only people who tell the truth about unions, are the unions themselves, and most of us have been taught or encouraged to see them as something mysterious and evil.

     Having spent half of my working life in non-unionized, mostly salaried positions, and the other half as an active member of a collective bargaining unit, I want to speak to you about the real truth. I'd like to think it is an unbiased truth as I have no difficulty taking care of myself when it comes to my choice of employment. Union or no union, I can be comfortable in either environment.

     You rarely hear any positive press about unions. People will hate unions even though unions are the one reason you don't have working conditions like people in third world or repressive countries. If workers had not organized and stood together how could you possibly think our lot in life would be any better than that of Mexicans or many Central and South Americans, Africans, Chinese and the litany of other countries where it's routine to work 72 or more hours a week to earn your 20 dollars. It happens routinely, daily, and again being honest with yourself, that's the reason big companies are shipping jobs to those types of countries. I don't mind if you blame this one on unions, I'm glad I don't have to survive on 20 bucks a week. All of the major gains in wages, working conditions and especially health and safety can be directly traced to the union movement and the everyday people willing to fight to have a say in their working conditions and a more fair share of the wealth generated by their hard work.

     The thing no one really seems to do a good job of explaining is the purpose of a union. Unions are about far more than money and goodies for all. When you negotiate a contract, money and benefits are the last thing you talk about. Most of your negotiating time is used dealing with the rules you live by. Once you have worked in a unionized environment, and especially if you participate in union affairs, you come to the realization it is a good thing for both parties when your workplace has an actual, enforceable rule book, just like pro athletes do! The advantage in my workplace is I know the rules I have to adhere to and I know what responsibilities the company has to me. If I don't know the rules, they are there, printed in a book where I can look them up or I can ask a steward for guidance.

     Clear rules are important. No one can make them up as they go along, and the same rules apply to people the managers like as they do to those who are not among the favourites. Even among workers there are people you like, those you're indifferent to, and others you dislike. Why would you think your humanity is any different than that of your managers? They're people too, and we all have our own tastes, opinions, and biases. There is absolutely no truth to the story you can't be fired from a union job. It is absolutely true it is more difficult to fire someone from a union job. This is not because corrupt unions are trying to protect bad people and slackers of all sorts, au contraire mon ami, the reason it is harder to fire someone from a union job is because the company must have just cause and be able to prove it. I have, in my capacity as a shop steward, dealt with cases where employees have been fired. I am satisfied the company had good reason to act as they did. No one gets fired because they're unlikeable, or they pissed the boss off, or any one of the dozens of reasons I have heard from people I know who don't have the protection of a union. Yes, we all work under the labour laws of the land, however, most people are almost completely unaware of the minimal rights they do have, and even less of those will actually exercise their right to file a complaint when their employer breaks a law by not allowing them to take breaks or not allowing a lunch period or even making them work "off the clock". After all, even if you have a 100% valid complaint and win your case, you can bet the first time you make a mistake your ass will be fired, and if that doesn't happen, they'll eliminate the position you've held for 15 years and lay you off while keeping the 2 teenagers and the boss' cousin who has been sleeping there for 5 years.

     The reason most companies do not want a union has nothing to do with excessive wages or benefits. Unions are just groups of workers who are just like any group of co-workers, the sole exception being they have a workplace where they don't operate under "every man for himself" rules. Companies do not want unions because it means they can't operate any way they feel like. When my friends share stories with me of things that happen where they work I can't imagine most of the crap that happens in all of the other autocracies on a daily basis.

     I'm not saying the union environment is utopia. I do, however, believe the good things about unions far outweigh the bad. In any workplace with more than a couple of workers you will come across some who are overachievers, others who consistently do a good job, some who are content to just be competent, and a minority who are lazy or dishonest or just don't care about their job or their co-workers. That is a false label used to great effect, in that it happens in your workplace and you can ignore it for years but the minute a union goes on strike it's because they are lazy crooks, or they've been locked out by their company because they are greedy and unreasonable people. Untrue, but these stereotypes are hauled out every time there is a work stoppage and people tend to agree because these kinds of talking points are always used after they publish the union wage which people always think is too much, ignoring huge corporate profits, large executive salaries and massive bonuses. The people who make hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars a year somehow become the victims of people who make something more than minimum wage.

     Do you finally see something wrong with the overall picture? I have a bit of a problem with corporations and the well-to-do having all the advantages in society. We cut their taxes and allow big corporations to salt away 83 billion dollars that the government insisted companies need to create jobs. Jobs for bankers? You will insult and put down ordinary people who would at least like a share of the profits they worked to produce. You are willing to spew hate at someone who wants an extra 2 bucks an hour spread over 4 years from a company that could easily afford to pay it and still enjoy multi-million or billion dollar profits. It is all a by-product of a decades-long propaganda war. Corporations v the little guy and for some reason, the corporations are made out to be the white knight and your next door neighbour is Atilla the Hun.

     The majority of union bargaining units have never had a strike or lockout. Union workers know that job actions are serious and don't make those decisions lightly. It's not like you're getting a paycheque or EI during a strike or lockout. You still have the same bills, so a majority strike vote and actually going out means most of the workers feel strongly enough about something to risk losing everything they've worked for if the stoppage drags on. I think a lot of the anger directed at unions has been exaggerated because most public-sector workers are unionized, the number of public-sector unions is large and diverse and pretty much guarantees there is always a group of people who provide a service or services your tax dollars pay for in a position where their old contract has expired (in this case the old contract applies until a new one is negotiated) or their current contract is soon to expire and they are actively negotiating. This gives the appearance "those government workers" are always on strike. This is also untrue, but I appear to be the only one mentioning it. People on the best days have difficulty understanding which services are provided by municipal government, which are provincial responsibilities, or what the federal government does. That means at any given time at one or more levels of government, someone could end up withdrawing a service that not only inconveniences all of us, it fuels the false notion government workers go on strike every time their contract is up. It simply isn't true.

     The next time you're about to go off on a worker because you are angry or envious of the compensation they receive, be honest with yourself and admit someone on the opposite side negotiated with those people and both sides have to agree and sign the contract to put the stamp on it to make it legal. I'd be willing to bet if your employer offered you the exact same rules and compensation as one of these unions you would not tell them it's too generous so you'd have to decline. You would take it. I'm positive you would. It seems odd you will forgive wealthy and famous people for almost anything yet be eternally angry at joe nobody because his job pays better than yours.

     Hopefully you'll begin to understand your anger is horribly misplaced. If you, by chance, happen to gain employment in a unionized workplace, you too will come to understand you've spent your whole life eating the bullshit corporations and the media feed you every time there is a labour dispute...Or maybe you like that taste in your mouth. The people you are hating on are your friends, neighbours, even relatives.

     The current government can vote itself all kinds of great raises and benefits and only work a couple of months a year. Owners and executives can take home millions of dollars every year and you bitch because someone makes a few dollars an hour more than you do. No unionized workers are getting rich, and if you think they should be the target of your nastiness, you should go take a look in the mirror because you will know what stupid looks like.

The Polarization of North America

     People don't usually want to talk about controversial subjects. That's fine, if you wish to hide from reality feel free to do so, just don't expect me to be shy when it comes to talking about things that are ugly realities in life. I really don't care if you agree with me or not, I'm interested in opening a dialogue or debate, or just getting you thinking.

     I've always had an interest in geopolitics, in societal makeup, in the interaction and reaction of populations and a tremendous amount of other geeky stuff. I'm not going to be one of those goofs who pretends to be an expert on anything other than my own opinion. I do my research, I think about things and apply them to what I've learned in life, I test my ideas and I'm willing to alter them if someone proves me wrong.

     No longer do I have the ability to muster any faith in government or the media to look out for anything other than their own narrow interests. Societies are proving neither can keep up. Social media and bloggers are fueling revolution and evolution worldwide. Communications technology has outstripped their ability to keep up in the real world where thoughts and ideas no one would have ever known of are routinely shared globally. Like minded people in Canada are finding each other the same way like minded people involved in African and Arab uprisings. As we become more connected the world gets smaller. The pace of change within our former trusted institutions has been overrun creating intense friction among competing ideas. As more people become unprepared to be ruled by a minority of elites, or to be dictated to by the controllers of wealth, governments will increasingly struggle to deal with keeping peace, not in some far off country, but in their own land.

     Apparently no one warned Governments and corporations of the dangers of globalization. They didn't imagine the possibility of opposition to their agenda being shared globally as well. Fail.

     If you, like I, still find the stomach to watch/read mainstream media and/or anything that broadcasts political things from any perspective, you may have noticed how they've been making light of Brigette LePape when she mentions the uprisings of the Arab Spring. If they really thought about it, they wouldn't scoff when someone says that. After all, how many people would think a wave of change would sweep the middle east in such a forceful and sustained manner, even at the cost of untold numbers of lives? A sea of change is upon us and for the most part, Governments are reacting the only way they know how, by trying to stop the will of the majority through violent means and superior armament. Human spirit is not so easily crushed, especially now, when we have all learned there are people across the globe who share our aspirations.

     That may be a lot of preamble on my part, but these are the most recent things that have pushed me to think a lot more deeply about the state of affairs in North America, and how our situation can both be compared to that in other countries across the globe, and how it differs. Lately I've been thinking much more about the serious ramifications of the situation we face on this continent. I guess this is where I get to talking about the kinds of things others don't want to. Hidden things are generally not good, protections on freedom of thought and expression have generally been the foil of the worst in society. When it becomes taboo to talk about things, those things will generally morph into the ugliest problems in society. History has proven this over and over and over. Racism, homophobia, sexism, sectarian violence, you name it and the ills of society we have tried to address were all at one time or another (or even today) subjects that are taboo to talk about. In this day and age we still suffer a culture of shame, blunted mostly because of open communication. I hope we can come to our senses before we reach the ultimate consequence of where I think we could be headed, and faster than I had previously considered when the fleeting thoughts initially came under my focus.

     North America is becoming increasingly polarized. While it is most pronounced in the United States, the pace of change in society no longer requires decades. If the previous election taught you absolutely nothing else, you must at least note that a sea of change can be executed before your very eyes. In 30 days the Bloc virtually disappeared from a map it dominated for 20 years, replaced by a roundly unknown group of candidates for Canada's traditional third party, the NDP. If you tell me you predicted that before the writ was dropped I will personally climb to the highest peak in Canada to declare you Canada's biggest bullshitter (or at least I am willing to die trying). I see the speed with which my country is becoming polarized as, perhaps, slower than that in America, but more mature than that of Mexico where their polarization issues are a bit out of step with those of Canada and the United States.

     In the last 20 years I've watched an increasing hardening of positions in our fairly like-minded societies on this continent. Increasingly, the wide groupings referred to as the "left" and the "right" are entrenching and becoming more and more antagonistic. Every time one or the other gets some kind of leg up it turns into the new bloodsport. No longer do we seem interested in finding common ground, only in blindly advancing the agenda we embrace. The deeper one side digs in, the deeper the other side digs in and I feel as though I am somehow watching a silent movie that explains the psychology that led to two sides digging hundreds of miles of trenches directly across from one another and bombing the shit out of everything like World War One. Both sides, not willing to give an inch of ground, fighting for their idea of what was right even if it meant destroying everything in their path. Willing to fight to the death over 3 feet of ground. Willing to fight to the death over the same three feet of ground, back and forth, over and over, for years. They both believed they were fighting for what was right. As we do today.

     We've been broken down into 2 groups, or so it would seem. No different than warring factions throughout history. As a self-described "centrist" I am recoiling in horror as I watch events unfold at an unprecedented pace. As I previously stated, it no longer takes decades for events to unfold. I've never been one of those melodramatic fools who seem to see every little issue as a reason to run off screaming like chicken little, but I have to admit I am wondering if we all ought not be even more concerned than we previously thought we should.

     I'm not talking about uniting the right, or the left. I'm crying out to unite the sensible before we have no choice but to take sides in this insane polarization of our society. It's not too late to call off the all-or-nothing attitudes that are rapidly entrenching themselves in public opinion in Canada and the United States. I blame a lot of it on lack of any kind of vision, but to say that's the cure all would be completely naive. All I know is if we do not find a way to force these two sides to find some common ground there is going to be a very predictable, yet highly unpredictable consequence. The two sides will turn on one another violently. I always believed civil wars happened in unsophisticated countries. Lately I've been forced to entertain the possibility it could happen here. Not Canada specifically, more of a pan-continental thing. When I first began to ponder this, even I thought it was crazy. I thought of every reason possible why it wouldn't happen, but they just do not align with the reality I see around me.

     I see people who try to talk sense being vilified by both sides. I've felt this myself when I have expressed my own views. As both sides entrench it becomes more difficult to remain in sensible territory. The most partisan vitriol has become the norm. No longer do people pay more than lip service to anything that looks like compromise. For both sides it has become a "my way or the highway" scenario. You're in all the way or you are the enemy. The intensely vocal minority on both sides, the truly unreasonable wackos, command almost all of the attention, which serves to perpetuate the idea you have to join the "good" side, depending on what you perceive as being good. Middle ground is becoming increasingly muffled and if we allow it to be snuffed out I shudder to think of what might happen when two groups of radicals who will disagree to the death duke it out, forcing even the moderates among us to choose sides or die, or perhaps worse, choose sides and die.

     Don't think it could happen here? Think I'm some kind of nut? Great, go back to the website of your favorite celebrity or sports hero or maybe check out a reality show. I'm sure every time societies reached a danger point people scoff at those who suggested there could be a bad outcome.

     I think we have a dangerous divide in North America, and I think it is deteriorating faster than many people realize. It's more convenient to ignore such an ugly possibility than it is to think about it, but if no one talks about it because it is uncomfortable, it will get far worse before it can ever get any better. I, for one, do not want to wait until it's too late to talk about it.

     We are so busy arguing over what divides us, we've forgotten what binds us together. We are not so different as to render us immune to violent division. It's hard work to compromise. Will we really allow history to repeat itself right in our backyard?

     I don't know. I do know I don't like what I see. Sometimes the bigger picture is so ugly I long for tunnel vision.

Just when DO we get MAD?

     I was about to blog about unions, when I became distracted by another thought. Actually, I was going to hold off on a new blog while interest was still high in several of my posts. I thank everyone who takes the time to read and discuss and share my blog, and put up with the multitude of errors (which I try to correct when someone points them out), and I enjoy the discussions that sometimes spring forth. I'll admit, I'd like to have more comments but above all, if you like the post, I've added a tweet button and there are sharing buttons below each post I'd appreciate you using them.

     There was no one post or article/broadcast that brought this on, it was a combination of 2 or 3 things I saw briefly that spurred the memory of something I'd been playing philosopher with (read:thinking heavily about).

     What I've been struggling with is the concept of angry society. There are many examples of it, and have been, for many years, in Latin America, Africa, recently and most visibly, Egypt, Bharain, Yemen, Syria, Lybia et al, and it doesn't stop there, it extends to Greece and Spain and there are many who have, as a society, come to the point where they are no longer prepared to put up with dictators and governments dominated by corporations who use greed to bleed citizens dry and when the shit hits the fan, the pompous bastards stand in front of you and tell you to pay for their errors and excesses. The corporations still make their profits and pay fabulous sums to people who do well (execs/shareholders) on the backs of people who work for usually less than a living wage, have no bonus or golden parachute, and are always employed at the the whims of those who stand to gain the most. Politicians don't cut back on anyone but ordinary working stiffs (like most of us) while keeping their own platinum pensions, generous pay and perks, office budgets and such. All the more hypocritical when in no time they'll be legislating postal workers back and disparaging people who do a far more difficult job than we think they do, who want to improve their working conditions and pay. You wouldn't want that for yourself? Of course you would. You bet the things being said and written will paint the workers in the worst light, and the people doing the bashing will fall into 2 groups. Those who don't realize without unions and the union movement, they might all be working for 2 bucks an hour, 14-16 hours a day, 7 days a week and if you got tired they'd fire you. The others will be those who have an agenda to make unions look villanous, because unions are people, and people are dangerous to the corporate and political agenda.

     Enough of that, the question I have been pondering is also the title of this post: Just when do WE get MAD???

     I've seen plenty of anger flying around over many topics. I believe we are so used to putting up with having our lives run by a bunch of people who have allowed wealth and power to so cloud their views, people who have had their hearts and minds so enveloped in greed they could care less about what happens to the other 90+ percent of the population that is not wealthy, we react like a beaten animal. Not much has changed since "Let them eat cake" with the exception they are a lot slicker at it now, people have memories that last 30 days, and apparently we are so used to getting screwed by this tiny percentage of elitists and their hangers on we will put up with any kind of injustice and we will, as an added bonus, reward these people more and more handsomely. Maybe some people will get angry and occasionally blow off some steam, but when do we reach that point where WE aren't going to take it anymore? When do WE hit the streets in large numbers and strike back at these arrogant oppressive politicians and entities? Will our peaceful protests be met with force if, say, 20 or 30,000 people showed up at parliament or the Governer General's residence to demand a fair share of the riches of the country for every single Canadian, rather than the top few percent? To demand that Government work for the people, not tell the people what is best for them. How long will you put up with the Kings in Government, and the Captains of Industry, bleeding you dry and blaming you for everything that goes wrong? This is it. This is how we are living. We are so used to being used and abused we have developed some type of sydrome.

     So have you no breaking point? You don't seem to care that a governemnt that has behaved at best, extremely questionably, secretively, has the worst fiscal record in Canadian history was rewarded for a worse than lousy performance with a majority so in this mandate, they will more than likely spend a quarter trillion of your tax dollars however they so desire and I guarantee if you disagree they will most heartily thumb their noses at you. In that time, if they do better than expected they will have also added close to, or upwards of 200 billion dollars in additional debt, borrowed from your children and their children. That alone should anger you beyond belief, at least the 60% majority who do not support this Government, but, you'll bitch, take it up the rear, and as a bonus they'll probably get another 4+ years because you just don't care enough.

     This isn't just about Government though. It's also a story of tolerating abuse at the hands of the gluttons. Greed is an overriding factor in the ruling of our day to day lives. Corporations rake in massive profits, and feel no shame in sharing 50 billion dollars among executives and shareholders while putting tens of thousands of average employees out of work in the name of "efficiency". This generally means you're now doing the work of 2 or 3 people, therefore increasing productivity, reducing costs, leading to more profits which are shared amongst...well...not you and your co workers. You'll bitch about it to co workers, friends, your significant other, but, it's not enough to make you mad. That takes committment. It's easier to just lay down, let them have at you until they no longer have use for you.

     I'm amazed how people will just take it. I'm even more amazed we seem to have reached a point where not only does a tiny minority of the population get wealthier at our expense, when they do things wrong it has become popular to actually flaunt the fact you have been or are getting screwed and since they know you won't do a damn thing about it, it's kind of fun they can rub it in and call you stupid and laugh at you, because somewhere along the line you've become accustomed to it.

     Just an example. The totally ficticious Giant Corporation of Canada has made 33 billion dollars in profit for several years in a row. One year, Giant Corporation has a 10 billion dollar loss. Obviously all those years of massive profit mean nothing, because the turnaround includes getting rid of half the employees, closing Canadian operations, shipping jobs offshore, outsourcing, and those executives will still get a bonus. Giant Corp. will also increase the price of their product but people will continue to buy it without blinking at the totally unethical, unsympathetic way business is done here. We don't seem to care. Only our children make us mad.

     Who cares about clear cutting forests? There's money to be made. Strip mines? There's money to be made. Mining and exporting deadly asbestos? There's money to be made. Oil company spills, oozes, gushes, emissions, excesses? There's money to be made. Who cares if the air is fit to breathe, if the water is safe to drink, or if we have enough viable land to feed ourselves? There's money to be made. We don't care, we'll look the other way becuase it's easy, it's simple to go along with industry propaganda and label environmentalists as some kind of flaky kooks and challenge any science that doesn't fit the agenda of there's money to be made.

    I'm just scratching the surface of this crap. We just take it. Keep taking it.

    I'm MAD

    When the hell will you join me.