BC Liberals, a tired, old, outdated platform

US Senator John McCain, when he was running for President last year repeatedly stated: "The fundamentals of the US economy are strong."
Canadian Prime Minister, before the Opposition forced him to come clean last winter, repeatedly stated the financial crisis in the US would not have a significant impact on the Canadian economy.
BC Premier Gordon Campbell, in his most recent campaign ads, repeatedly states our province will not be severely impacted by the global financial crisis, and that "BC is the envy of other provinces."
The common link between these three individuals is they all adhere to the policies of deregulation (making things easier for business), privatization of healthcare and social programs, and tax cuts.
Curiously, John McCain would eventually flip flop on deregulation, and towards the end of the campaign, start advocating for more oversight. Prime Minister Harper would take a similar tact, praising Canada's regulatory systems for preventing a total meltdown of the country's banking system. Only BC Premier Gordon Campbell has stuck to the deregulate, privatize and tax cut mantra.
US President Barack Obama, who soundly defeated John McCain for the office, refers to the policies of deregulation, privatization and tax cuts, as "rehashed, stale, tired, old ideas." And most of the worlds most respected economists agree. In fact, they have pinned the worlds current financial crisis on "deregulation, privatization and tax cuts."
All I'm saying is: British Columbians should be thinking about these things when we go to the polls on May 12.

RCMP should not relax recruitment rules

On Friday March 27, the CBC reported the Royal Canadian Mounted Police intend to relax their recruitment rules in order to fill an anticipated need for 2,000 more officers in the coming few years!
The report stated the RCMP are experiencing difficulty attracting new members, and that applicants with minor charges in the past, will now be considered for enrollment.
Among those expressing concerns about this plan is former Vanouver Mayor, one time Vancouver coroner, and ex-mountie Larry Campbell. Campbell’s major concern is the new rules are apparently not clear enough!
My concerns are much greater, and more widespread. And while I agree that a person with a minor conviction, such as possession of a small amount of marijuana, should not be automatically rejected, I do not believe this is the time for the RCMP, or any other police force, to relax recruitment rules.
In fact, if anything, police forces should be making their rules of recruitment more stringent, especially when it comes to education, esperience, psycological and aptitude testing.
One need look no further than the Braidwood Inquiry into the taser death of a Polish immigrant at Vancouver International Airport, or the tasering of an 82 year old in a nursing home, to realize there is a serious problem with police recruitment.
Clearly, from their testimony at the Braidwood inquiry, the four police officers involved in the Vancouver airport tasering are not the sort of individuals who ever should have become police officers. And despite police claims that tasering an 82 year old nursing home patient was warranted, any person who finds such an action justifiable, or necessary, should not be a police officer. One must wonder how police officers dealt with such situations prior to the advent of the taser.
While much ado is being made about whether or not tasers should be used at all, the real issue is the taser users, not the taser itself. Quite simply, it takes a finger to pull the trigger, and its the individual that finger belongs to, who should be put under scrutiny, not the trigger!
If anything, police forces in this country, and around the world, should be focussed on improving the quality of people they attract, not loosening the prerequisites. Anyone applying to become a police officer should have to clearly demonstrate superior skills and ability when it comes to issues such as honesty, mental stability, conflict resolution, emotional, mental an physical well being, social consciousness and personal integrity.
The real problem in policing is quality, not quantity. Relaxing recruitment rules will do nothing to resolve the crisis in policing, and may well serve to further exasperate what has become, by all accounts, a critical problem.
Another issue here is attracting the right personnel. With all that has gone down at the Braidwood Inquiry, and in other police related inquiries and lawsuits across the country, one can easily see why police departments are experiencing difficulty attracting good candidates. Who on earth would want to become a police officer at a time when the policing has become among the least trusted and respected professions in the country? To relax the rules now, only serves to deepen the mistrust and suspicion.
One of the first things that needs to happen, to restore public faith in the police, if for the police themsleves to do something to restore public trust. The bad seed must be sorted and removed, yes, but even more, the good seed must be identified, nurtured, and encouraged. Step one in that process would be for the police, especially the RCMP, to come clean. And it won’t be enough to simply fire the officers involved in the taser death at Vancouver airport. Moreso, there needs to be a total change in the “us against them” culture inherent in most police forces. To that end, every police force in this country needs to, without delay, open itself to public scrutiny and immediately put an end to the practice of self-investigation. When cops do wrong, the last people who should investigate them is other cops!
Another action that needs to be taken is to immediately require all potential recruits to have some sort of advanced education before qualifying for recruitment. One should have at least a BA in forensics, criminology, social work, law or other related field before qualifying. What’s more, preference should be given to those with even higher education, or a lengthy history in community service, combined with a degree. Such an action would of course require police forces to increase salaries, benefits and other renumeration, in order to attract the more qualified candidates. However, this is where quality over quantity comes into play. Better qualified police will reduce then need for more police!
Lets take the Vancouver airport incident as an example. One officer, with the ability to speak Polish, and some background in human psychology, would most certainly been able to resolve the issue there without the need for any force at all. Instead, four ill-trained officers, with no apparent cultural sensitivity, took less than a few minutes to unnecessarily kill a man who was simply frustrated, tired, and unable to communicate.
Another issue requiring urgent redress when it comes to police recruitment, is the source of the recruits. It is high time police forces in this country started recruiting officers from the communities where they will eventually serve. These recruits should be people who have garnered respect in thier home communities, and who have earned the trust of the people they will eventually serve. This is particularly true of the RCMP, who have engaged in a practice of cycling their officers out of the communities where they live every few years, much to the force’s detriment. The RCMP do this in order to prevent their officers from becoming to entrenched in the communities they serve, and to better enable them to assign officers to unpopular locations. But the real problem is in the quality of the recruits. If more well-suited individuals are recruited, then the RCMP won’t have to worry so much about their members becoming corrupted through entrenchment. If they are recruiting from the communities they will eventually serve, those recruits will be only too happy to serve where they live.
There’s an old adage; Sugar attracts more favourable results than vinegar. To that end, the police need to rethink the whole para-military approach to law enforcemnt that has become so prevelant over the past few decades. This is not to say we don’t need SWAT specialists, terror specialists, an organized crime units. However, there is a crisis in public confidence in policing that will not be resolved if the current focus on militarism persists. Police forces need to stop giving lip service to the concept of “community policing” and start actually practicing it.
When I was a kid, the cops in my hometown walked the beat. We all knew them by name, and they knew us by name. If your car broke down, they’d stop and help you get going again. If a woman was struggling up the street with a load of groceries, the beat cop would help her out. If there was dispute on the corner, the cop would do what he could to help resolve it. If the police are ever to regain public confidence, then they will need to begin to revert to practices that put them in touch with the people, and the people in touch with the police. Today, the police are feared more than respected. It should be the other way around, but it won’t get there until the police begin to do something to realistically change that perception. And of itself, such a change, would go a long way to helping with recruitment. When police once again become the servants of the people, the friend of the people, then people will once again become friends to the police. When police become people the people look favourably upon, perhaps the people will begin to view becoming police officers as a favourable profession.
Unfortunately, relaxing the rules of recruitment, while it may fill the seats at the academy, is only going to result in those seats being filled by people who really ought not become police officers. And that, my friends, is a scary thought.

Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You, Demand It!

It was the American president, John F. Kennedy, who said: “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” Those words have echoed for a generation. They are clever, and sound right, but are they?
Way back at the time of the Magna Carta in England, a group of noblemen rose up against their government, demanding it pay attention to the needs and rights of the citizenry. At the time, the King was the government. He made all the rules and the people had no alternative but to obey, lest they be imprisoned or worse. In fact, all the people were expected to do for their country, and the government was beholden to none. The King could do whatever he wanted.
Similar events occured in other countries, such as France. Many centuries later, in the American colonies, it was the same story all over again. When the colonists complained their government, led by King George, was ignoring them, not allowing fair representation, and ruling without regard for their rights, they too rose up. They were in fact demanding the government “do for them” and were quite sick of “doing for their country” while their country did nothing for them. In the end they formed their own country, a country that was “for the people, by the people.”
This latest slogan, in the years since, has become the founding phrase for democracies all around the world. It seems to fly in the face of what JFK said. In fact, democracy, at its core, is founded on the notion that a country, and its government, must do for its people, not the other way around!
Yesterday I was in a cafe where I overheard the young server complaining about people who are forever expecting their government to do for them. Its a common complaint. Anyone who is expecting their government to help them out is somehow a welfare bum, a miscreant, a ne’er do well. At least that’s what many of us have come to believe, but is it reality?
Seems to me the whole point of democracy is governence for the people, representing the people, by the people, not the other way around. Government, in the democratic system, is meant to represent the people against the power.
Today the corporations and the wealthy have replaced the king. And in democratic systems, the task of government is to balance the people’s interests against that power. Its the whole purpose of elections, to give the people a say in how they are treated by the power, and to keep the power in check. At least, that’s what is supposed to be going on!
Unfortunately, somehow, it is not what is going on. We have supposed democratic governments that spend the lion’s share of their time representing the interests of the power, corporations and industry, against the people. The current economic mess, and bailout plans, are a prime example. Banks, the auto industry, big corporations, the rich, are all being handed huge sums of the people’s money. Yet, if its even suggested that money should be going directly to the people, all of a sudden we hear cries of “socialism” as if it would be anti-democratic to help the people. Yet it is somehow okay to help the powerful!
Why is socialism okay for big corporations, but not for the people? Its a question no one can answer. We’re told its because the big corporatons create jobs, but all the evidence says otherwise. Every study ever done illustrates it is not the big powerful coroporations that create jobs, but small business! Small businesses run by the people are the primary sources of new jobs in every economy in the world. Big business is better known for cutting jobs, for moving jobs offshore, for polluting, for using tax lawyers to get around paying taxes, for reaping huge profits while cutting manpower. Yet our governments continue to bend over backwards to keep big business in business, while everyday people, and the businesses they operate, go under!
For all intent and purpose we’re back where we were when the noblemen launched their protest and created the Magna Carta. We’re in the same place France was, when the people stormed the bastille and overthrew their king. We’re in exactly the same place we were in the when the colonists climbed aboard the ships in Boston harbour and had themselves a tea party! Our government has become the servant of the rich and powerful and the mantra is: “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” We’re being called upon to go along with the premise that we should ask nothing of our governors, and gracefully accept whatever they decree for us.
We’ve been here before and it is not too difficult to imagine what will happen next. The king must capitulate or lose his head!
As much as I’ve been taught to honour the memory of John F. Kennedy, and I have, his creed reads more like golden rule of Fascism than Democracy! And it shouldn’t be a matter of asking what our government can do for us! The point is, the government, in a democracy, should be doing for us without us having to ask!
Perhaps we all need to ask what our country has done for us of late, before we go blindly asking what we can do for it. Our governments have stood by idly while we lose our jobs, while our health and educations systems deteriorate, while our houses are forclosed on, while our young men and women are sent off to fight unwinnable wars, while our environment is driven to the brink of disaster, while we pay more and more and more, for less and less and less!
No, JFK had it backwards. We should be demanding our country do for us what it is supposed to be doing for us. And if it doesn’t, then we owe it to both ourselves and our country to do the one thing we can do for our country! That is the thing the nobles did in England, the peasants did in the Bastille, and the colonists did in Boston. If our country won’t do for us, then we should change it!
Ask not what your country can do for you, demand it!

Bail Out the People, Now!

If I had a business and failed to keep abreast of the times, didn’t retool to meet customer demand, had poor customer relations, spent too much on perks for myself, and invested badly, then went under, would I get a bail out?
No!
So why is it OK to bail out banks and big corporations, that failed to do what they needed to do to remain fluid, but not the people or small businesses?
Politicians and CEOs will tell you its because bailing out big banks and corporations saves jobs. But does it really? Or does it just save those jobs for a little while, prolonging the inevitable?
Take the auto industry for example. Economists, environmentalists, and everyday people have been calling for more fuel efficient and alternative energy automobiles for decades now. Meanwhile, the industry has ignored the demand, accepted large grants and tax breaks from government, while rewarding their CEOs, moving jobs offshore, and reaping record-breaking profits! Now, in no small part due to their own folly, they’re going under, and government’s are clamouring to help them out.
Yet, no such offer is being made to people, who through no fault of their own, find themselves in dire economic straits. Both governments and big business bristle at the suggestion of bailing out private individuals, helping homeowners pay for defaulted loans, restructuring the EI system so people who paid in are better covered, upping social assistance rates for those on the bottom rungs.
“That’s Socialism” we hear them cry!
Why is Socialism OK for big banks, big auto, big industry, but not for the small guy?
And why is the media not asking this question? (Could it be because they are all owned and operated by the big corporations now at the public trough asking for bail outs?)
How much would it cost us to top up the annual incomes of people living below the poverty line? How much would it cost to cut cheques to people who are having difficulty, due to unemployment, making their mortgages? And what would be the result of putting the billions, were tossing at failed industries who continue to move jobs offshore and lay off workers, into the hands of every day people?
Would they not spend it paying down their mortgages, buying food from the local grocery, rebuilding their savings, education and retirement funds, investing in their local communities?
If anyone is going to be bailed out, it should be the people who have been victimized by big business and the banks, not the big businesses and the banks! And if we’re going to give money away, and go into debt for years doing it, that money should be going to where it can have the most positive effects, in our own communities. It should not be going to the individuals and businesses who, through their own folly and greed, created the meltdown in the first place.
Its time to end corporate welfare and bail out the people, now!

BC Liberals Gang Response Equals Social Bankruptcy

If all we need do, to effectively deal with gang violence, is hire new police and prosecutors, and build a few more jail cells, then why didn't our provincial government go ahead and do just that when economic times were good.
Could it be because our Attorney General and Premier have seen the results of similar practices in the USA, and know more police, prosecutors and jails will do no good?
Why waste money on efforts that do no good? Unless, it is politically expedient to do so.
The announcement today, by the BC Liberals, is designed only to appease a frustrated public, who desperately need to see something being done. Sadly, it also speaks to the ever more apparent bankruptcy of ideas and strategies in the Campbell government.
Ending gang violence will require a multi-pronged solution, involving not only law enforcement and justice, but social and economic measures. Before it will end, we will have to remove the impetus that drives our young people into gangs in the first place. The effort will not only need to be long term, but perpetual.
We cannot continue to pour all our political and economic capital into mega projects, tax cuts, bailouts and deficits, while ignoring the very real life tragedies of poverty and wholly inadequate social services.
What we need more than anything is fresh ideas and strategies that work. Unfortunately, we won't see either of those things until we start electing people who are actually in possession of such qualities.

Saving Canada Newspaper Industy

When was the last time you picked up a newspaper and read anything new, controversial, or different?
These days, it doesn’t matter if you’re getting your news from TV, radio, or the papers. Its all the same stuff. You can pick up a Toronto Star or a Vancouver Sun and read all the same stuff, from the same perspective, with all the same subjects.
Is it any wonder people have abandoned the newspapers for sources like the internet, where one can at least get another side of the story?
Most papers in this country now go at the news from one particular angle, business! Reporters no longer ask how events affect people in their home communities. They ask how it affects business! It may come as a surprise to many of our modern day editors and publishers, but not everyone is interested in the business perspective.
The other major issue is what I call “mob mentality.” Take politics for example. All the reporters are gathered in one place interviewing the same people. Heck, some of them don’t even bother to ask their own questions. They just stick out their recorders and later transcribe all the same questions and answers.
When I was a kid I recall how folks would wait outside the St. Catharines Standard offices waiting for the paper to be printed. Sometimes they’d be pushing each other aside just to get copies when the paper was finally delivered to the box. Once people had their copies, they’d step aside and start reading, then the debates would begin.
It would be the same scene ten miles down the road in Niagara Falls, where a whole different set of stories and perspectives would be covered. Most folks would in fact buy The Standard, The Niagara Falls Review, and the Welland Tribune, just so they would be up to date on all the different news, from all the different little towns in the region. When they wanted a wider perspective, they’d go buy a Globe and Mail, a Hamilton Spectator, a Toronto Star, or even a New York Times.
Nowadays it doesn’t matter which of those papers you buy, one is as good, or bad, as the other. And the same picture on the cover of the Globe is more than likely going to show up in the Standard. Why buy more than one, when all the news and perspective you’re going to get is in one?
In my opinion, you can blame it all on the Blacks, both Conrad and David! Conrad began the process, buying up over half of the papers in the country and homogenizing them to the point where they all looked, smelled and tasted the same. David has taken it one step further, nearly eliminating any sort of news at all (especially local), and focussing the giant share of the papers’ content on advertising. These days you can get as much local information from a “Buy and Sell” as you can from most traditional newspapers.
Now, the industry seems intent on carrying through on their slow suicide by laying off their reporters and photographers, relying even more on the news wires and centralized information sources. With less reporters and photographers, local papers can no longer cover their own courts, police beats, neighbourhoods. Sadly, this results in less and less people turning to the local papers for information, mostly because there’s no new information in them.
This has a domino affect on advertising too. People stop reading the paper, and advertisers realize no one is reading the paper, so they stop advertising in it.
Sadly,this whole scenario is also starting affecting radio and TV. It no longer matters which radio or TV station you tune in. The news is all the same, and so is the opinion. Pretty soon, all we’re going to need is one national paper, one TV station, and one radio station.
But its not all doom and gloom and there is a solution. One example is right here in the West Kootenay. Out of New Denver BC there is a fledgling little paper called “The Valley Voice.” Its not well written, the photos are often grainy and out of focus, and it doesn’t have a lot of flashy ads. However, when that paper hits the street, everyone in the region makes sure to pick it up!
Why? Because there’s news in that little paper that can’t be found anywhere else! The opinion pages, at least two or more full pages every issue, are full of local voices, and the editorials are entirely from a local perspective. What’s more, the publisher of the paper is not entirely focussed on the bottom line. He’s not trying to make a million. His bottom line is producing a rag that people will read, while earning him a modest living. And the biggest threat to his business comes not from a lack of readership, but from big conglomerate, widely circulated, papers that suck up the lion’s share of advertising dollars from large corporations and government sources, and control the source of paper and ink. To him, the failure of these big sheets is good news, because when they finally go under, he will be left standing.
All this considered, if we really want to salvage the newspaper industry in this country, it is imperative the newspaper industry go back to its roots, and begin delivering news people want to read, the news going on down the street, up the block, and around the corner.
The solution is not in laying off reporters and photographers, but in hiring more of them to cover the stories in our home communities. Moreso, the resolution to the current problems in the newspaper industry is not to be found in more coroporate control.
Newspapers were invented for no other purpose than to give a voice to the people. For as long as they were the voice of the people, they thrived. In modern times newspapers have become parrots for big business and government. Therein is the real issue. To survive, they must once again become the place the people turn to hear what their neighbours have to say.

What the Liberals Must Do!

Short of somehow talking the Conservatives into accepting a major amendment to the current budget, I don’t see how the Liberal Party can accept it.
Such an amendment would have to include removing the clause calling for the sale of federal properties and corporations, upping the entitlement period and payment schedule for Employment Insurance, financing current inter city construction projects, and taking a giant leap towards the introduction of large scale fuel efficient and sustainable power technologies, to name but a few items.
Other items include large scale green infrastructure improvements, a no nonesense environmental police, overhauling the countries social welfare and education systems, huge funds for metropolitan and rural transit, and nationalized daycare.
But glueing an amemdment to the budget is not the Grits only issue.
A major concern for the Liberal Party is their standing as the official opposition. Should they vote in favour of the budget, as is, or without significant amendment, they themselves will be the party propping up the minority. They will be in a coaliton with the Conservatives!
What happens then? They can no longer argue against the government, because they already gave the go-ahead. Nor will they be able to argue economics, because they will have already approved. What’s worse, in the long run, they would capitulating and saying to the voter, ‘this government has it right.’ That would be one heck of an endorsement for Stephen Harper to have in his pocket going into the next election.
Really, the decison Liberal Leader Ignatief faces today, is not whether to reject the budget or not, but to decide who he wants to climb in bed with! Does he go for the new improved more cuddly Mr. Harper, or does he stick with the parties he’s already arranged a pre-nup with?
I would suggest, if he turns his back on the pre-nup, and either holds his nose and curls up under the Tory blue sheets, or decides to refrain from voting, he will soon be wearing spectacles and studdering in Franglais.
Then there’s George Bush’s big buddy Steve, with his Winnie the Pooh smile, soft belly, and surface warmth. Underneath, he’s still the same old good old boy. Like a whale in a barnyard pond he is. Flopping this way on the Senate, flipping that way on the deficit, flapping around with his PR department, flayling about with his leaks and never speaks. For all his sudden amicablity, he continues to go after womens equity, the CBC, the arts and tax cuts.
Does anyone really believe this guy will give Iggy the chance to change a thing? Is he really going actually agree to equal pay for equal work, for help to fix the ceiling over adding a rec room, to keeping the CBC in tact and properly funding it, to alternative energy, to cleaning up the oil sands? No, if anything, the big Pooh Bah is more likely to try to find a way to co-opt his main opponent. He’ll give, but not too much.
And that will put the slim gym Ignatief in another predicament. Does he settle for less. If he does, once again, he will soon be wearing spectacles and studdering in Franglais.
Whatever the Liberals do is bound to be unpopular in many circles. Its a catch-22 in so many ways.
Perhaps it comes down to the rules of order. Parliament is set up in a manner that not only allows, but encourages coalitions. The voters haven’t moved much in years. If another election were held, we’d likely be right back where we are. With no one at the top really wowing the masses, that’s unlikely to change. Mr. Ignatief’s question then becomes, “who can I work with?”
There is one other question, that must be considered. Would Mr. Ignatief like to be Prime Minister of Canada by this time next week?
I think he would! And it may be his only chance!

Building Sound Infrastructure

As we move forward into times of environmental concern and economic difficulty municipal governments need to reassess how they've always done things, and start adopting methods that encourage more environmentally friendly, and less expensive modes of transport.
In the past, the priority has always been to get the cars and trucks moving. But with more and more people being asked to leave their cars at home, and more and more out of economic necessity, being forced to leave their cars at home, municipal governments need to begin accommodating the move away from the private automobile, and towards public transit, bicycles and feet!
Its not just the municipalities that need to pay attention, but the provincial and federal governments as well.
We're hearing a lot about how the feds and provinces are going to put money out for infrastructure, partly to encourage job creation, and partly to provide the people with safer more efficient transport.
But I have to wonder if governments are really paying attention. What good will rebuilt roads and bridges be if the people can't afford to drive? Further, what good will fixing up the roads be if they still don't accommodate cyclists and walkers?
The old adage "build it and they will come" springs to mind. If we build and maintain safe cycling routes, more people will use them. If we build walking paths that are easy to negotiate, and actually go where people need to go, more people will use them. In North America we're entirely focussed on making it easy for cars to go from A to B. The result is, everyone (almost) has a car. In turn, the fact everyone has a car is contributing big time to global warming and environmental destruction. Perhaps if we begin to build infrastructure that makes it easier for people to get around without using their automobiles, they will make use of it!
In Europe for example, most people own bicycles. More people use trains and bicycles than cars. The result is cleaner more people friendly cities and towns. The other result is healthier people. Europe has nowhere near the problems with medical issues, such as obesity, as a direct result of the fact that more people walk, cycle and use alternative transport. Perhaps its time we here in North America pay attention.
We keep hearing how we need to move away from our dependency on oil. Well, one way to achieve that is to move away from out dependency on the personal automobile. More people walking, cycling or using to public transit to go to and from work equals less people burning oil or other resources, such a bio fuels, which are not as environmentally friendly as they may seem.
If we are ever going to successfully combat environmental collapse, and save ourselves from economic ruin, then we need to make it easier for people to use alternative and less expensive forms of transport. One place to start, as I've said before, is to adopt new methods of dealing with things, like heavy snowfall, to make it easier for walkers and cyclists. The second place to start is to demand that our governments include infrastructure such as cycle lanes, walking paths and public transit in their planning and finance.