willbillyblog

BC Liberals, a tired, old, outdated platform

2009-04-25T09:56:00.000-07:00

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

2009-04-03T12:07:00.000-07:00

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!

2009-02-19T11:23:00.000-08:00

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!

2009-02-16T11:19:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-14T10:32:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-06T11:50:00.001-08:00

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!

2009-01-27T17:14:00.000-08:00

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

2009-01-27T12:32:00.000-08:00

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.

Polygamous Persecution is "Right" Thinking

2009-01-09T11:25:00.002-08:00

Earlier this week two men from a Church of Christ polygamist sect in Southern British Columbia, Bountiful, were arrested on charges of Polygamy. This group has been the subject of numerous investigations in past, including accusations of child abuse. None of those investigations has ever produced a conviction partly, authorities claim, because of a lack of witnesses willing to speak.
Let me be clear, if there is child abuse going on in Bountiful, the perpetrators of it should be prosecuted. However, for the BC government to go after people in the community for polygamy, because they failed to successfully prosecute child abuse allegations, smacks of deliberate persecution.
Every day in Canada courts subject parents to court ordered polygamy. How many folks do you know who are supporting more than one family? I know of several men and women, right here in the small town where I live, who are supporting more than one family, often families they themselves are virtually estranged from. It seems, our courts are willing to allow people to finance more than one wife, husband and family, but our justice department has an issue with a man being married to more than one woman! It seems a might hypocritical.
I also know of several unmarried people, who have multiple partners, support more than one family, and contribute to more than one household. And I can't count the number of people I know personally who are engaged in more than one "love" relationship. Yet I know of no instance where any justice official is prosecuting these people for being involved in more than one relationship.
So why are we going after the folks in Bountiful?
Our top provincial solicitor, Wally Oppal, says it is because "right thinking" British Columbians are against polygamy! This raises several questions. First and foremost is, who gave Wally Oppal the right to decide for other people what is "right thinking?" And who says these right thinkers are right?
From polls I've seen, most people don't care if the folks in Bountiful are participating in polygamy, although they do have grave concerns about allegations of child abuse, and want the government to focus on that issue.
Wally Oppal also states he wants a ruling from the court as to whether the BC law against polygamy is constitutional. Meanwhile, most constitutional experts, including two who have previously advised the government, say the law is not constitutional. But that's apparently not good enough for Mr. Oppal! Why?
Why is the BC government spending taxpayer money pursuing a court ruling on an issue most agree is unconstitutional? Why is the BC government focussing on the issue of polygamy, when allegations of child abuse are not being pursued?
Is this an example of "right thinking"?
Perhaps what Mr. Oppal means by "right thinking" is "right" politically. Perhaps what he really means is "right wing" thinking, which persecutes anyone, or any activity, the political right finds strange or foreign or different!
Unless someone currently living in a polygamous relationship in Bountiful comes forward, with a complaint they are involved in a polygamous relationship against their will, then the government has no business taking this issue on, period!
If however, Mr. Oppal's intent, is to prosecute polygamy as a means of getting information on allegations of child or spousal abuse, then he is off base. Basically, if this is his intent, then he is engaging in deliberate persecution. If the issue is abuse, then that is what he should be prosecuting, not polygamy.
Mr. Oppal's other argument, that he is pursuing these charges, to prevent abuse of children and women, is also hypocritical. He represents a government that has cut services to women and families in need, has cut welfare for single mothers and low income families, has done nothing to create housing for the poor, and has failed miserably at decreasing the incidence of child poverty in this province. If Mr. Oppal's intent is to help abused women and children, then why isn't he lobbying his party to do something about these issues in the greater population?
The issue of polygamy predates modern marriage by many centuries. Even our most ardent Christians must acknowledge that a majority of their biblical heroes were engaged in polygamous relationships. And besides, even if marriage is between "one man and one woman", as the right so often contends, what business is it of the government to get involved? The marriages in Bountiful are between the men and women involved, and as far as I've heard, none of the women involved are coming forward saying they want out, and when they have, they have left!
Meanwhile, there's the whole issue of religious freedom. Who is to say the government has any right at all to involve itself in the tenants of any religion? No one! In fact, our charter of rights and freedoms prohibits it!
Personally, I'm appalled by this government's "right thinking" and think it may be time for the voters to elect a few "clear" thinkers to replace them.

Senate Reform Not On Harper's Agenda

2008-12-28T10:13:00.001-08:00

A while back I received a comment on a piece I wrote about the need to do away with the Governor General. The writer, someone calling his or herself, the Radical Monarchist, argued that having the GG saves us from the unelected senate.
Personally, I don't know how anyone can argue that having an unelected appointee as head of state is better than having an elected head of state. Then again, these days, common sense doesn't seem to play much of a role in political argument. What seems to matter more is the ability to complicate issues to the degree that people just give up trying to figure things out, and accept the status quo, because its easier than fighting the status quo. "Acceptance", these new age pundits tell me, is the "key" to peace.
To follow the logic through, if a man is beating me about the head with a stick, I am better to just let him, because it will bring me peace quicker than fighting back will! To be fair, the argument makes some sense. If I just let the man continue beating me, I'll likely be dead soon, and there is some peace in that!
Way back in history, when I was a bona fide member of the media, I rode the Reform Party campaign bus in the days of Preston Manning. One of the main arguments Preston and his boys were beating like a dead horse, Stephen Harper included, was the need to reform and elect the Senate.
Now imagine, if Manning and his crew had succeeded in actually reforming and electing the senate, and based it on modern senates around the world, where not only are the senators elected, but the voter is given the opportunity to elect a chair, or president, of the Senate. If that had happened, Mr. Harper would have had to take his request for prorogue to the Senate, instead of to the stylin' lap dog he himself appointed to the GG's chair! Chances are, if he'd done that, he'd have met with the same response he would have won if he'd asked Parliament for the prorogue!
Yes folks, that means we'd now have a Liberal-led minority, with Mr. Harper in opposition!
Mr. Harper's claim, that he is merely trying to restore some "balance" to the Senate, and has chosen "reformers", is just more of the infamous double speak we've come to expect from him.
What Mr. Harper is really trying to do is increase the number of like minds in the Senate, so he can have his future legislation "rubber stamped", just as previous Liberal governments were able to do!
(Yes, I can hear the pundits on that side of the aisles crying, fair is fair, they had it their way, why shouldn't we?). But herein is the problem. The old way didn't work. It ultimately led the way for the formation of the Reform Party, and for their eventual co-opting of the Conservative Party! And if things continue as they are, it will lead to a similar amalgamation on the other side!
Mr. Harper earned his place in Canadian politics by appearing to be some sort of freedom fighter. He was going to end the legacy of entitlement in Ottawa. And one of the ways he was going to do that was by overhauling the Senate and making it elected! Now he has power, what does he do? He reinforces the status quo by stacking the Senatorial deck!
Conservative spin doctors are now explaining that Senate Reform would require too much work, that it is in fact, next to impossible to achieve. So, they say, we should work within the system that is already in place, but that's not what Mr. Harper was saying before he came to power, is it? Before he came to power Mr. Harper was saying it should be reformed, in no small part, so future governments could not stack the deck as he has now chosen to do!
There are some in this country who would like to do away with both the Senate and the GG. The NDP want the Senate abolished all together, and that's partly what keeps me from ever becoming a member of their party.
What really needs to happen, is Canadian governance needs to start reflecting Canadian political reality. Canada is unique in the world, with its large land mass and small population (for most countries it is the other way around). What we need is a system of representation that mirrors the Canadian reality.
For me, the solution is simple. First, we fire all current Senators, and the GG. Then we elect a new Senate, with every province and territory having equal representation in it, say five Senators per province and territory. That's five seats from each of the 13 provinces and territories, that's 65 seats. Then, we elect a President of the Senate, from the masses. Someone to chair the upper house and to occupy Rideau Hall, in sort of a domestic head-of-state role.
Doing this would result in several savings for the Canadian people. First, and most obvious, the number of senate seats would be pared dramatically, so we'd have to pay a lot less in wages, salaries and pension benefits. Secondly, it would give every province and territory equal voting weight, so the Regional District of York would have the same number of votes as Regional District Central Kootenay, thus balancing the population based parliament, against the rural land mass, and sparsely populated regions. Thirdly, no parliament or Prime Minister, would ever again be able to manipulate the GG, or to use an unelected official to prevent him from losing his job, or forestall the day to day operations of the house.
Perhaps the greatest benefit of all, would be the final end of the Monarchy in our democracy. Monarchy is the antithesis of democracy. It is the BIG roadblock that keeps democracy from being truly democratic. As long as the Monarchy, and its unelected emissaries are the de-facto heads of our government, we will never truly be a Democracy. We will always be subjects, under the rule of others, and not citizens of a truly free society.
Mr. Harper's recent Senate appointments do little more than bolster the notion that Canada remains a fledgling society, unable to control its own destiny, and in need of the oversight and discipline of our "betters." His actions stifle our freedom, not endorse or encourage it.
What's more, Mr. Harper's most recent actions should clearly demonstrate to all the old Reform Party supporters that, the new boss is the same as the old boss they worked so many years to get rid of!
Change does not come through the same old action. Change requires change, and Stephen Harper is changing nothing. The Emperor doesn't have new clothes. He's simply wrung them out and put them on again, and anyone who ever went out and bought a Reform Party membership, because they believed it was time for a new type of government, should now be seriously considering sending the Emperor to the cleaners!

Tory Dog and Pony Show

2008-12-28T10:11:00.001-08:00

When Stephen Harper prorogued parliament a few weeks ago, I thought we were all going to get a break from the dog and pony show in Ottawa, not.
You all know what a dog and pony show is, don't you? That's where someone tries to sell you a dog dressed up as a pony. The seller claims its a pony, and though it appears a little small, it is quite capable of plowing the fields and giving the kids a ride across the barnyard! Then, when you get it home, you find out its good for little more than snapping at the postal worker's heals, eating food scraps, and leaving little piles all over the lawn.
Since the Governor General granted Mr. Harper's Christmas present, at the expense of Canadian taxpayers, he has trotted out his finally dressed up dogs. The pooches are hybrids, Great Danes of sorts, but more akin to Greyhounds, busses not breeds.
These mongrels have been trotted out in two separate bands. One constitutes his "Economic Advisory" committee, their resemblance to real ponies so poor he is letting his good bud, Finance Flaherty, walk them down the kennel path, and his new "Senators", who are fearless, yet once anti-senate leader says will restore the balance in the "upper" house.
All mutt analogies aside, lets look at what the PM has done. In the midst of an economic crisis, perpetrated by billionaire financiers, chubby bankers and land developers, he has marched out a bunch of billionaires, bankers and land developers to save us all!
Then there's the senators. Does anyone out there remember Harper's old plan to do away with the unelected senate? Now he claims this bunch are reformers! Well, if they're really reformers, then why are they accepting appointment and not demanding they be elected?
Is anybody else getting this?
Now, to switch metaphors in mid stream, it appears Mr. Harper is going to stop the bank robbers by putting them in charge of security at the bank! Or, so to speak, throwing our countries economic future to the dogs! On top of that, he's appointing people to the senate who don't believe in the senate. Its like the Vatican appointing a Muslim pope!
Then there's the critters themselves.
First we have Mike Duffy, a St. Bernard of sorts, with a healthy girth, who made his living since I was a teeny bopper, presenting "unbiased" reportage of the goings on in parliament to the Canadian public. This is a guy, who since the days of Mulroney, has told the Canadian people that Ottawa has done right by them. He's been there, in the scrum, since Mulroney sold out the railway deal, opened the borders to "free" trade, and drove this country into debt deeper than his own esophagus. And Duffy has been faithful, like any good dog, the Man's best friend, all along, lapping up the table scraps tossed to him by successive governments for so long, his waistline has earned him the new name, Stuffy. He looks like a big old gelding, but really, he's nothing more than an aging, overfed, corporate mutt.
Then there is Nancy Greene Raine. Once a hero to us all, for propelling herself down a mountainside in France at break neck speed back in the '60s. She claims to have been a "Liberal" in her youth. A liberal recipient of great fanfare. Now she says, because she's older, she's become more "Conservative." Fact is, since she's become a billionaire ski hill developer, she's become more attached to governments that disregard things like "environmental policy" and favour development despite the long term cost. That's the trouble with aging Liberals, they lose their balance while sitting on the fence, and depending how much gold they have stuffed in their pockets, tend to fall off the fence on the right hand side! To be fair, perhaps Mr. Harper misunderstood what the Canadian people were telling him when they said they wanted him to be more "green." Once sleek and fast, Ms. Greene-Raine, has become an aging giant poodle, with failing insight.
Then there's Jimmy Pattison, the billboard king of the Coquihalla. A bulldog in his youth, Pattison is best remembered for two things. One, in true Social Credit pedigree, as a used car salesman who used to fire his least productive salesmen at the end of each month. His other claim to fame was as the CEO for EXPO '86, that big corporate orgy that cost the BC taxpayer nearly 10 years of economic hardship. Yup folks, he's the one who sold us the big beef bone that turned out to be a tainted chicken wing. While he barks a good howl, old Jimmy really is nothing more than a yappy Chihuahua, allowed to tear the stuffing out of the pillows because, when he's busy doing that, at least he's quiet.
The list continues. There are French Poodles, hairless pointers, some pinchers, a Shepherd or two, even a big web footed Newfoundlander, along with the odd mutt, but the point is, while Mr. Harper, and his kennel man Flaherty, want us to believe he's showing us around the stable, but his ponies are not ponies. They're dogs, Conservative lap dogs dressed up in fine saddles with blinders on their eyes. They will, like good pooches, go where directed, fetch what is tossed to them, and sit when instructed to sit.
In short, Mr. Harper's ponies, like all well fed dogs, are out to please only their master. And to anyone who thinks they will do anything but please their master, I have one things to say to you.
"Congratulations, you've just bought a pony! Careful it don't bite you!"

Harper's Intentions

2008-12-06T10:34:00.000-08:00

The question I'm not hearing, but want asked is: Should an unelected official be able to overrule the majority of parliament?
The answer seems obvious.
That said, I've been racking my brains for two weeks trying to figure out what Stephen Harper, the normally sly and masterful manipulator, is up to with such crass and blatant attacks on issues like Women's Equity, Campaign Finance, and Public Sector Unions. It seemed an odd approach from a Prime Minister who earlier pledged to work with the opposition.
My confusion was only increased when he responded to news of the coalition by raising the specter of Quebec Separation instead of bringing forward a revised economic plan.
All my befuddlement ended today when the Governor General set a precedent, throwing the issue of Monarchy into the already full mixing bowl, and granted the prorogue of parliament! It is now clear to me what Mr. Harper is up to.
Always a divide-and-conquer manager, it is clear to me our Prime Minister is out to wholly obfuscate matters to the point where things boil over and get out of hand. Why, I'm not sure. Perhaps he knows his only hope of ever achieving a majority is to throw Canadian society into such chaos the people opt for the strong-arm approach of a law and order party!
Should we be questioning the role of the Monarchy in our federation? Yes! But if we're going to fear anything, it ought to be Mr. Harper's intentions!

Time to Reaccess the Role of the Monarchy in Canada

2008-12-06T10:31:00.000-08:00

Perhaps now it the time to finally discuss the role of the Governor General in our governance. We have a non-elected official protecting a Prime Minister from facing a confidence motion. It amounts to the Queen interfering with the legislative process in this country.
Unelected officials should have no say in how parliament does its job. Now is the time to ask if we really want a government that can be directed by unelected officials. I say no.
If there ever was an argument for finally abolishing the monarchy and moving towards a republican style of democracy, it is now.

Vancouver Sun biased in favour of Harper

2008-12-06T10:29:00.001-08:00

A recent editorial from the editors of the Vancouver Sun, on the current kafluffle in Ottawa, suggests that Canadian voters gave Mr. Dion the brush off in the last election.
That's not quite true. What Canadians did was make it real clear to Mr. Harper that the Canadian people are not prepared to give him a majority, and want the checks and balances a minority provides.
If Mr. Harper isn't willing to operate as a minority leader, make concessions and cooperate, then perhaps it is time the other guys get a chance before we're thrown into another election.
The Sun editorial also suggested Mr. Dion he should give his "head a shake" for proposing a coalition
I think it is the editorial staff at the Sun who need to give their heads a shake.
One of two things is happening. Either Stephen Harper does not understand how the parliamentary system within a constitutional democracy works, or he is trying to pull the wool over the average Canadians eyes.
In the parliamentary system if the majority of parliament have lost confidence in the governing minority, they are obligated to do one of two things, either force an election, or form a coalition to govern in place of the toppled minority.
The Governor General has an obligation to ensure workable government. After two dysfunctional minorities in a row, the option of asking the opposition to form a coalition is well within her mandate.
More people voted against Mr. Harper then for him, in fact, the majority did! That makes his ongoing argument, supported by the Sun Editorial Board and other mainstream media, that the people selected him to be Prime Minister, or that the people gave him an expanded mandate (because he picked up a few extra seats), pure nonsense.
The majority of Canadian voters selected the opposition, so if the opposition can form a coalition, then it is they who should govern. This not a crisis! It happens in parliamentary systems everywhere. In fact, parliamentary systems are designed with minority rule and coalitions in mind.

Harper ignorant of parliamentary system

2008-11-29T11:33:00.001-08:00

One of two things is happening. Either Stephen Harper does not understand how the parliamentary system within a constitutional democracy works, or he is trying to pull the wool over the average Canadians eyes.
In the parliamentary system if the majority of parliament have lost confidence in the governing minority, they are obligated to do one of two things, either force an election, or form a coalition to govern in place of the toppled minority.
The Governor General has an obligation to ensure workable government. After two dysfunctional minorities in a row, the option of asking the opposition to form a coalition is well within her mandate.
More people voted against Mr. Harper then for him, in fact, the majority did! That makes his ongoing argument that the people selected him to be Prime Minister, or that the people gave him an expanded mandate (because he picked up a few extra seats) is pure nonsense.
The majority of Canadian voters selected the opposition, so if the opposition can form a coalition, then it is they who should govern. Its not a crises, it happens in parliamentary systems everywhere. In fact, parliamentary systems are designed with minority rule and coalitions in mind.

New Sign On BC's Political Road

2008-11-17T12:36:00.000-08:00

I know one fellow who is probably not sleeping so good these days. He works in Victoria and lives in Point Grey.
All across the province this past Saturday, voters, though their numbers were small, came out against the status quo, and nowhere is that more obvious than in the election, almost by landslide, of left leaning councils in the province’s two major cities.
On top of that, in most jurisdictions across the province, voters have chosen to toss out their incumbent mayors and councils. While some moved right, most went left.
It may be that we here in BC have finally caught the “change” wave coming out of America. Or it could simply be that, historically, here in BC, we have a penchant for changing lanes every eight years or so, but the sign for the provincial government is clear.
“Dead End.”
For eight years the Socred-Come-Not-Quite-Liberal-Liberals, under the direction of the drunk driving Premier Gordon Campbell, have coasted to victory with their mantra of develop, develop, develop. Only when it has suited their electoral favour have they shown any sign of willingness to consider social and environmental issues. In the process, they’ve clearly become the government of the well healed.
Trouble is, all of a sudden, thanks in part to the global financial crisis brought on by link minded leaders in the USA, the well healed are becoming the minority. No longer is it just the poor and homeless who are against the trickle down theories of the provincial government, but they have now been joined by the “soon-could-become-poor-and-homeless” majority.
For years now the well healed in this province have been shielded from the struggle so many of the less well healed have been facing. In the course of time the provincial government has been able to take a “do-as-little-as-possible” approach to the concerns of the province’s struggling. They have been able to do little things, like give disabled people a $50 a month raise in benefits, and make themselves appear civic minded, or institute a carbon tax, that really only works in the cities, and make themselves appear environmentally consicious. When push has come to shove, they’ve been able to appear concerned about economics by issuing rebate cheques, or issuing minor tax cuts to the middle class.
But all of a sudden, there’s that sign again: Dead End.
For many of us, those with decent forsight, the sign has been visible for some time. It was there from the moment these guys came to office. The good news for us, and not so good news for the current government, is that they are finally seeing the sign. That’s what happens when you’re busy playing with your toys while driving. You miss the important road signs, until you’re either on top of them or whizzing by at too fast a speed.
If Gordon Campbell and his crew are going to keep driving, they are going to have to do a U-Turn on some pretty major issues, or they are going to find themselves over the same cliff they drove off way back at the end of the Vander Zalm era.
Not only are they going to have to do a U-Turn, but they are going to need to put the brakes on, do some serious shifting, and give the toss to some of those folks who’ve been riding for free, before they can successfully turn this car around.
Trouble is, it seems, we have an insomoniac drunk driver at the wheel, and those folks getting the free ride are some of his best friends. They are, afterall, the ones who gave him the car and its keys. They aren’t going to take kindly to him pulling over, dumping them, then heading back to town to pick up those of us he’s left behind. Worse even, not many of us are going to be willing to hop in with him. So, if he’s not really careful, he’s going to find himself all alone driving off a cliff, and everyone is going to be glad to see him go!
All metaphor aside, Gordon Campbell and the Liberal Party of BC, need to wake up, apply the brakes, stop a moment to get their bearings, then turn this car around. They are going to need to do something very real and tangible about healthcare, homelessness, the environment, poverty and a whole range of issues they’ve been ignoring while on their eight year joy ride.
And lets not forget, four years ago more than 50 percent of this province’s voters made it clear they wanted electoral reform, and favoured proportional representation. In other words, while they were willing to give the premier the keys, they wanted him to take a different road all together. He hasn’t, and its led him to where he is today, facing down that new sign.
“Dead End.”
If I were him, I don’t think I’d be getting much sleep either. I only hope in his insomnia, he isn’t too drunk to read.
Then again, I’d just as soon watch him go over the cliff! Afterall, he’s never offered me a ride.

The mouse likes the cat (Harper happy about Obama

2008-11-17T12:34:00.000-08:00

Sure he does!
Last week, Canada’s Prime Minister, Steven Harper, made much hullabaloo about how happy he was to see Barack Obama become president-elect of the USA.
Caution: Don’t be fooled again! Mr. Harper is about as happy to see Obama take the presidency as most of us would have been to have Sarah Palin one heartbeat from the Oval Office!
First of all, Stephen Harper is a Conservative, no, a right wing ideologue, who loves the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and is against the whole concept of government funded health care, or anything else. Barack Obama on the other hand, is a moderate Liberal, intent on creating a healthcare system with strong governmental controls. He also wants to renegotiate NAFTA!
Based on those two points alone, Mr. Harper’s assertions, that he is pleased with Obama’s election, is nothing more than polite double speak, the sort we’ve unfortunately come to expect from our leaders.
When we really shine a light on the differences between Harper and Obama, the lie shines through. First, Democrats tend to be more protectionist than their Republican counterparts. As a result, and a rule, Republican administrations tend to be more lenient and cooperative with Canada. Then there is Iraq! Obama wants out of Iraq. Harper argued vehemently in favour of joining the US in Iraq! As large as the issues of healthcare and war are, there are many other differences between how these two leaders see the world. I will not take the time to list them now, it could take weeks.
Perhaps the more important question is not whether Mr. Harper likes Mr. Obama, but what Mr. Obama thinks of Mr. Harper.
Let’s remember, Mr. Harper once called George W. Bush, and his gang of “New World Order” cronies, a “light unto the world.” It wasn’t long ago that former Vice President Al Gore, a Democrat and supporter of Obama, was accusing Mr. Harper of being aided, financially and otherwise, by right wingers and industrialists from the US! Then there is Mr. Harper’s long history of lobbying and support of right wing causes in the US and the world. These are just some of the differences of opinion and belief systems that put Mr. Harper and Mr. Obama in direct conflict with one another. The two, although not direct opposites, are about as similar to one another as dogs are to cats. While they may both have four legs, keen senses of smell, and furry coats, they are not at all alike, and the chances of them getting along, are slim to nonexistent.
And here’s the worst part of it: Mr. Obama is a man who does his homework. He’s going to have a book on Harper, and be well briefed on the Canadian PM’s positions on everything from hot dogs to missile shields. He will understand that Harper is a political adversary, one with a forked tongue and a penchant for low brow politicking. If he is worth his salt at all, then any association he has with Mr. Harper will have, at its core, a foundation of mistrust. The two will have conflicting positions on most issues. For Harper, it will be like dealing with a brighter more communicative, and far more secure in his position, Stephen Dion. For Obama, it will be like dealing with George W. Bush, minus Bush’s colloquial language style.
When it gets down to it, Mr. Obama is not going to like Mr. Harper at all, to the point where his famous ability to reach across the aisle is going to be seriously impaired. Sure Obama will reach out, and do everything he can to work with the Canadian PM, but he’s going be about as comfortable with Harper at the table as Jesus was with Judas at the Last Supper.
The relationship between these two leaders, from the outset, despite the rhetoric, is going be, at best, uncomfortable, and that’s before the issue of the current economic crisis even hits the agenda!
America is in its worst economic crisis since the days of FDR. As a result it will be inwardly protectionist on a level we’ve never witnessed before. Neither men are going to want to see homegrown industry relocating to the other’s domain, and will fight any legislation that has the portent to hurt their own industry. If it comes to a fight, Obama is going to mop up the street with Harper’s pallid pink and abundant flesh.
He is also going to recognize that Mr. Harper’s support here in Canada is at best, soft like his belly. Obama will see Harper for what he really is, a desperate politician fighting for his political life with a minority of support. Tie that in with their political differences, and it will be in Obama’s best interests to frustrate and stymie the Canadian PM at every turn. While they may remain polite in front of the cameras, and across the diplomatic table, in private the relationship is going to be about as amicable the one, nearly 50 years ago, between JFK and Deifenbaker, only worse.
When Mr. Harper said all those nice things about Mr. Obama last week, he was doing what politicians are predisposed to doing, lie through their teeth. He was also doing something else we’ve sadly come to expect from him, trying to hitch a ride on the popularity of the new President’s coat tails. He won’t get far.
In my opinion, Mr. Harper would have been better off to take a hard line. It would have been wiser for him to express his disappointment, and challenge to the new president on his assertion to renegotiate NAFTA, on protectionism, Arctic sovereignty and any number of other issues the two will disagree on. He should have taken an aggressive stand, and made the new President come to him with the olive branch. Instead, he will now be the one who is challenged to back up his rhetoric with action. It is Harper who will now have to come forward bearing the olive branch, which, in very real terms, will be like the mouse going to the cat pleading, “please don’t eat me!”
Truth is, the mouse knows it is trapped, that’s the only reason it is playing nice. The mouse is clever, it knows niceness is its only hope. Trouble is, the new cat is a lot smarter and far more agile than its predecessor.
In the end, Mr. Obama, in true cat fashion, will let the mouse play a while, maybe give it a bat once in a while when it begins to wander out of reach, but when the crunch comes, and it will, that mouse is going to be toast.

Don't dance on the tables quite yet!

2008-11-05T13:27:00.000-08:00

I remember a November night way back in 1972 when I sat in my Dad’s yard listening to the US election results on a transistor radio. I’d gone to Ontario to visit my family at the time, and was missing my friends in BC. As it became clear Richard Nixon had won, hands down, my longing to be with my friends grew more intense. It was a dark day for them, and for me, and I wanted nothing more than to be with them, commiserating in the fact a war monger was being returned to office.
Last night I thought of those friends again. I haven’t seen many of them in decades. In fact, I only know where one of them is today. Some are dead, most have moved on with their lives. I’m sad the ones who have passed on did not live to witness what happened last night. A man of colour has become President of the United States. They would have been pleased.
We grew up watching and listening to Martin Luther King. He was a hero to many of us. In those days we witnessed first hand how people of colour were treated. Images of “white only” signs were splashed across our TV screens. While most of these images originated in the States, we knew too well that people of colour were also prejudiced against here in Canada.
In Grade Six we had a teacher who was black. His family had come north to Canada on the Underground Radio. This man was a decent teacher, not a great one. Perhaps the thing that really stood out about him was, he wasn’t much different than most of our other teachers. Still, we’d fuss over him, and often pay more attention in class then we would other teachers, but it wasn’t because he was a better teacher. It was because he was a different colour.
I was eight years old when Martin Luther King gave his “I have a dream” speech. At the time I was living in a foster home in Brantford Ontario. My foster parents at the time were pretty keen on keeping up with the world, and we’d all sit down after supper and watch the evening news together, often American news. They were also devoted Christians, members of the local United Church congregation. Each Sunday we would diligently attend both Sunday School and regular services, and we all took our teachings quite seriously. Hearing King’s rumbling resonant voice, I was convinced the man was a prophet. The words, “judged by the content of their character, not the colour of their skin” reverberated with me.
With the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States, part of Mr. King’s prophecy has come true, but perhaps it is time we once again refer to the warning in his words. That warning is: The colour of a man’s skin has nothing to do with the content of his character!
Barack Obama is not Martin Luther King! He is the son of an African and a middle class white woman from Kansas. Barack Obama is not a church minister. He is a Harvard educated lawyer and former president of the Harvard Law Review. Mr. Obama is not even a civil rights leader, but a former Illinois state senator, and a one term US Senator from Illinois. Barack Obama isn’t a socialist, a communist, or in any sense a radical. He is a moderate liberal with exceptional organizational and communication skills.
The election of a man of colour to the highest office in America is truly a historic event, and may well indicate that America, a racist country, has finally begun to look beyond skin colour. However, the election of a moderate liberal to the presidency really is nothing new. Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, FDR, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Carter and several others were moderate liberals. The only real difference between some of them, and the new president, is skin pigment, and people should not forget that.
While the election of Obama does indicate a change in US social conscience, it does not represent any drastic political change. And while it does demonstrate the American electorate’s desire to move away from the far right policies of the fledgling Bush administration, it does not mean a radical change in American political history.
Another thing for people to consider here is, while Obama and the Democratic Party did well in the electoral college, the popular vote only changed by a few percentage points. Almost as many people voted against Obama as voted for him. And while voter turnout jumped, almost as many new voters voted against the Democrats as voted for them. This was not a giant step to the left or right. It was a half step back, not a giant leap, away from the ideology of the past eight years. In fact, all things considered, the election of Barack Obama may well be considered a referendum on George W. Bush, more than a marked endorsement of the end of racism in America.
One of the more poignant moments in the election coverage last night, for me anyway, came just after Mr. Obama made his acceptance speech from Chicago. As Obama, Biden, and their families, stood on the stage waving at the crowd, a camera scanned the audience. There in the midst of it all stood former ML King supporter and Democratic presidential contender Jesse Jackson, openly weeping. Clearly, after his years of working with Mr. King, his decades in the civil rights movement, and his repeated attempts to end the culture of racism in the US, he was overjoyed to see a person of colour finally accepted. It was an emotional moment.
However, I found myself wondering, if Jesse Jackson had been the Democratic nominee, would the result have been the same. Somehow I doubt it. Mr. Jackson, for all his integrity, visibility, character, expertise, drive and qualifications, could not have won this race. In the minds of middle America, he would have been too radical and, I dare say, too black to have ever been elected to such high office! The election of Barack Obama does not signal an end to racism in America, it simply indicates that race is less of an issue than it once was.
It the truth be told, Mr. Obama would never have been elected if he’d preached a radical agenda. Had he come out against all war, and not just the war in Iraq, he would not have been elected. If he’d come out with a plan for universal healthcare, paid for by the state, he would not have been elected. If Obama has advocated welfare reform and argued for a guaranteed annual income, he would not have been nominated by his party, let alone elected nationally. If Obama had argued for wide spread strengthening of equal opportunity legislation, John McCain would be the President-elect of the United States! Chances are, if Obama had chosen black man, Jackson for example, to be his running mate, he would not be in the position he is in today.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m as happy as anyone to see a person of colour elected to the presidency. The election of Obama clearly indicates that America has finally begun to view people according to the content of their character over the colour of their skin, but America has a long, long, way to go. Even with Obama at the helm, America is still the biggest threat to peace in the world. It remains an authoritarian superpower with a penchant for world domination. For all intent and purpose, Americans still be believe they are the biggest, the best, the most beautiful, and America still wants everyone else in the world to be just like it. America still has the most bombs, the most guns, and still meddles in the affairs of other countries. It still incarcerates more of its own citizens than any other nation on earth, and yes, it remains a racist country.
Yes, there is a change in America. Just as their is a change in a toddler when they break free of mother’s arms and take their first steps. America has a glow about it today, not unlike the glow on the face of a child who has walked a few steps for the first time. And yes, there is reason to celebrate, to be happy, to cheer them on.
However, taking a baby step in the right direction does not make a child a marathon runner, and like a runner in a marathon, America still has a long way to go, and no one really knows for sure if its up to the challenge.
The signs are good, and I will cheer them on, but it will be a long while yet before I do a victory lap, or go dancing on the tables.
Good start America, now where do we go from here?

How McCain lost

2008-11-05T09:49:00.000-08:00

John McCain would not have been a bad president. Contrary to Democratic spin, he would not have been another George Bush.
While he would have kept America in Iraq and Afghanistan, at home, McCain’s policies would have been far more liberal than projected. Remember, he would have had a predominately Democratic legislative wing to deal with, and any hardcore Republican policies would have been seriously tempered.
In retrospect, McCain’s strongest argument against Barack Obama was experience. It was an argument that had wings, and would have mattered when people went to the polling booth. Would have, until he chose Sarah Palin as his running mate. Regardless of all that’s been said about Palin, the one thing she really did to the McCain campaign, was remove the “experience” argument from the debate.
Had McCain chosen a more experienced running mate, perhaps a woman such as Elizabeth Dole, or someone from the middle, such as Joe Liebermann, or a former governor with more experience, a la Mitt Romney, the experience quotion would have remained in play.
Unfortunately for McCain, he chose inexperience, and ideology, catering to the hardcore right of his party, instead of reaching into the middle. The moment McCain made that decision, he also eliminated another major component of what made him attractive as a candidate. That component was his status as a “Maverick.”
John McCain gave into pressure from the Republican base. Mavericks don’t give in!
John McCain also gave in to the Republican base when he chose to run a “dirty” campaign. When his surrogate, including the Governor of Alaska, starting throwing around names like William Ayers, questioning the Illinois Senator’s religion and family origins, red-baiting, and patriotism, he lost something he’s always had throughout his many years in the Senate. That thing was his ability to reach across the aisle. When you start calling people “commies” and questioning their patriotism you don’t exactly encourage them to work with you.
When McCain laughed with the woman who called Hillary Clinton “that Bitch”, instead of challenging her, he alienated almost every woman who has ever been called by that name. When Sarah Palin did not respond to members of her audience when they shouted racist slogans, or called for Obama to be assassinated, the electorate, or many of them were sickened.
John McCain went along with his base because he thought it would win him the election. Once in office, I’m sure he meant to pursue the same policies and legislation he has championed his entire political career, including protecting the people from overt political intrusion by government. He would have sought money for education, and done what he could for the environment. In foreign policy, he would have chosen moderate secretaries of state and defense. The judges he appointed would have been less ideologically driven than those appointed by Bush.
John McCain would not have been George Bush. But when he picked up Bush’s team, and spouted Bush policy, and chose a VP George Bush would love, and began the politics of division, the real distinction between him and Bush became indistinguishable.
In the end, the only person to blame for John McCain’s failure to become President of the United States, is John McCain. A metaphoric gunslinger all his life, this time he shot himself in the foot, and injured feet don’t win marathons like this election has been.
John McCain could have gone down in history as a great president. Instead, he will be remembered for a failed campaign that was wrought with some of the most divisive politics and disturbing negativity ever.
The good news is: The Bush Era is over. Finally.

Hoping for Change

2008-11-03T12:53:00.000-08:00

A wise old woman once told me, “if it looks, smells and feels too good, it probably is!”
Her words come back to me every time I hear the name Barack Obama!
As much as I’d like to see change in America, in its approach to the rest of the world, and in the way it treats its own citizens, and as much as I’d like to believe the rise of Barack Obama signals such change, I’m skeptical.
To be sure, its a great campaign the man has run. His response to the onslaught of false accusation and bigoted commentary has given me hope. I find his cool calm, and great charm, heartening. However, I have also noticed a few things that lead me to believe he’s not quite what he appears to be.
At the Democratic National Convention in Denver there were some rather nasty confrontations between protesters and police. These events were not widely broadcast by the media. In fact, they were buried in the avalanche of “good news” coming out of the convention.
In one particular incident a “Code Pink” protester, a young woman, was smashed across the face with a billy-club wielded by a Denver policeman. The cop called the woman a “bitch” as he knocked her bleeding to the ground. This event was emblematic of what was going on outside the confines of the convention centre.
After viewing the clip, I wrote to the Obama campaign and asked if they were aware what was going on out in the street. Pointedly, I asked if the Obama campaign supported such actions by police, and if the candidate supported the right to peaceful assembly and civil disobedience.
Mr. Obama’s campaign wrote back, but made no mention of the incident I reported to them. Instead, they asked me for a campaign donation!
When they failed to address my concern, I wrote back again. Again, they responded, asking for a donation, making no reference to my concerns. For weeks after, my mailbox was full of mail from Mr. Obama, Mrs. Obama, vice-presidential candidate Joe Biden, and even the campaign manager David Plouffe. Nowhere in any of these mailings was there a mention of the anti-American activities of the Denver Police, but every single e-mail asked for a financial contribution.
Now, I am quite aware the Obama campaign at the time, and through out the course of the election, must be receiving a lot of mail. It must take them weeks sometimes to get around to reading it all. But months have gone by and I’ve still not received any mail from them that in anyway addresses the content of my original letter. One would think, with all the money the Obama campaign has received, some of it would be used to address the mail, and to respond to any questions being asked. Had they, at any point, by any means, responded directly to my expressed concern, then I would have been encouraged to believe that Mr. Obama’s message of “hope” and “change” was, on some level, genuine.
My second concern arose when Mr. Obama gave his acceptance speech in a Denver football stadium. Much ado was made of the set design and Roman style columns used as a back drop. Clearly, a lot money and construction went into the set design for that event. ‘Is this an example of what Mr. Obama will do with any extra money he should come into?’ I asked myself. Later on, my concern that Mr. Obama would use financial contributions frivolously was reinforced when he spent several millions buying a half hour block of TV time, just ahead of a World Series baseball game. To me, the man just looked like another politician, using his surplus cash to make himself look good, if not extravagant.
The third issue that leads me to feel a tad ‘queasy’ about the potential of a President Obama comes through the ‘reverse-negative’ campaigning style employed by some of his surrogates. On web pages such as John Amato’s “crooksandliars.com” great hay has been made of Mr. Obama’s opponents age, wealth, personal life, and physical frailties. While it is true Mr. McCain has run a filthy campaign, full of lies, innuendo, race baiting, red baiting, smears, and outright misrepresentation of fact, I do not believe such activity should necessarily excuse any similar activity by the Democratic faithful. It is like Martin Luther King Jr. argued, we do not change behaviour by engaging in the same ruthless actions as our enemies. Moreover, when we stoop to level of our enemies, we make ourselves no better than them.
I wrote to Mr. Obama’s campaign about that too, and received the same response I’d received before. They did not address my concerns, but made sure to ask for a donation!
All this said, I find myself inclined to believe Mr. Obama is simply another politician who has found a way to win people over. He’s no Martin Luther King! Then again, he has not claimed to be! Barack Obama is a centrist, not quite Liberal, member of the US Democratic Party. While his tax policies do tend to favour the middle class more than the wealthy, they also do not infringe too much on the top five percent of Americans who are wealthy in the extreme. He’s not going to hit the elite too hard, just skim a few more dollars from the cream atop their jugs. Its not like he’s going to strip them down and give their expensive loafers to some poor kid in the Bronx. The hue and cry that Mr. Obama is somehow a “Socialist” is a total misnomer. He’s talking about redistributing some of the wealth, not all of it! In fact, most of America’s top five percent are barely going to notice the difference, and when it all comes out in the wash, neither are the lower 30 percent. Most of them will still not be able to afford rent, let alone college educations for the kids.
About the only real difference an Obama presidency would make is in the selection of more moderate persons to sit on the US Supreme Court, but that can be said about any Democratic administration. To be fair, that’s no small difference. However, the choice of more moderate justices, over ideologues, is the norm, not the exception, when there is a Democrat in the White House.
Another aspect of change under an Obama led government will be its course in foreign wars. That said, anyone who thinks the election of Mr. Obama means there will be a pacifist peace-nick in the White House is delusional! Mr. Obama, while making it clear he wants out of Iraq, has also called for ramping up the war in Afghanistan, and for hunting down Osama bin Laden, no matter where he is! Most experts believe, if Osama bin Laden is alive, he is in Pakistan. While he’s not said so much directly, Mr. Obama’s rhetoric would indicate he is prepared to send US troops and/or operatives, into that country!
We must all remember the US economy is based on oil, and an oil based economy does real well when there’s a war going on. While Mr. Obama speaks of alternative energy, and energy independence, the US market is years away from bearing fruit from such development. While working on alternative energy sources, they will need to keep their economy buoyant, and the easiest way to do that will be to keep US industry busy producing and replacing the hardware required for war. Mr. Obama is not about to make himself a one term president by declaring peace and tanking the US economy at the same time. He’s way too clever for that.
All in all, while an Obama Presidency will mark a change from the ideologically driven Bush administration, in most areas his ascension to the executive wing will mean business as usual. While the rhetoric will be less warlike, and the willingness to compromise more apparent, America will still view itself as the most beautiful, biggest and best. It will still use its economic mite to get its own way, and its military power as an intimidation tool. The rich will still ride around in limousines, and the poor will continue to fall through the cracks. Much of the middle east will still be on fire, and the environment will remain endangered. Protesters will continue to be beaten with billy clubs, and the children of low income working people will continue to fill the ranks of its armed forces.
But there will be one difference, and it will be stark and noticeable, and it will give hope to people everywhere. The man standing behind the Seal of President of the United States will not have pink skin!
Over the past few months, while this contest has continued, we’ve all witnessed some of the worst bigotry, racism, stupidity and ignorance since the dark days of the 1960s civil rights movement. We’ve watched as national presidential and vice-presidential campaigns have stirred up some of the ugliest notions, opinions and divisiveness ever to see the light of day. For many of us who remember the dark days of the ‘50s and ‘60s, its been like a 24-7 horror show, a flashback to a bad trip we’d long ago tried to forget. The word “nigger” has been rebirthed and regurgitated onto our TV screens as if it were fair comment. We have been reminded, day in and day out, that the horror of degradation and nullification are not behind us, but bubbling just below the surface, ready to rise to the top and be unleashed.
We’ve all watched as an apparently legitimate political party, and its leaders, have not only enabled, but encouraged, the ranting and ravings of a lunatic fringe to be visited on our children and ourselves. In many ways these past months have been a nightmare relived, to the point where a lot of us are expecting a repeat of the dark events of the 1960s when people like Martin Luther King were shot dead for their courage. Even I, a political junkie of the first order, find myself afraid to turn on the TV, the radio, or my computer, for fear of the bulletin announcing we have gone nowhere these past 40 years, that we’re on a tread mill, not a path to the mountain top, that nothing, absolutely nothing has changed.
I hope it is not so. And for that reason alone, if I were an American citizen, despite my skepticism, I would be voting for Barack Obama.
Its not because I believe Mr. Obama will change the world, or even the United States. Its not because I believe Mr. Obama is any less or more a politician than his opponents. Most certainly, it would not be because of his party, or his policies. I would vote for Barack Obama because his election, quite simply, would mean that something in America has changed, that America has finally taken the first baby step we’ve all been waiting so many years for it to take. I would vote Barack Obama for hope. Hope that there will finally be change, even if I don’t really believe such change will come.
Barack Obama, if elected, will be a middle of the road president. He will appoint a few moderate chief justices, reform some tax law, and, if the force is with him, withdraw from Iraq. He will not bring peace to the world, save the environment, end racism, hunger, or poverty. The rich will grow richer and the poor poorer. America will continue to be mistrusted and loathed in many parts of the world. In many ways, it will be business as usual, but there will be one difference, and it will be a difference that keeps hope alive.
It will appear to the world that America has changed.

Harper-Baird Approach to Good Neighbourliness

2008-01-15T10:22:00.001-08:00

I’ve noticed a lot of Harper supporters, writing to local newspapers and in blogs, pointing out that some folks in the environmental movement can be perceived as hyporcites and therefore, their concerns about the Harper envirnoment no-plan should be dismissed.
They suggest that because some pro-environment folks, such as David Suzuki, who apparently likes soybeans, and Al Gore, who runs a lot of lights in his mansion, can be viewed as hypocritical, we should ignore the issue of climate change. These letters also support the Stephen Harper position of "wait and see" and "lets make the other guys do something first" approach to saving the environment.
Since when do Canadians wait and see what the rest of the world is going to do before we take the lead?
Had that been our approach to world affairs there would be no United Nations, no peacekeeping, no insulin, no telephone, no English ruled England (WWII), and no Canada Arm, to name a few things the world would be without if Canada always waited for other countries to pull up their socks.
Well written as some of these letters are, they are no more than a very clever way of shooting the messenger instead of hearing the message and taking responsibility.
Contrary to what these neocons have to say, our Prime Minister and his ministers took a very un-Canadian position at the recent conference in Bali. What's more, their approach to the environmental crisis we are now facing does nothing but exasperate the problem.
Lets put this in perspective.
What if I refuse to clean up my yard until my neighbour cleans up his?
What if that neighbour refuses to clean up his yard until I clean up mine?
Will either of us clean up our yard?
Then, when our neighbours see that neither of us are cleaning up, and decide they too will hop on the "I'm not cleaning up until they do" bandwagon, what's going to become of our neighbourhood?
The Harper-Baird show in Bali was an embarrassment to all Canadians, and clever plays on words in newspaper editorial pages and right wing blogs do no more to change that than the Harper-Baird plan does to fix the environment.
BTW: If I go digging around in these winger’s private lives, will I find some contradictions and hyprocracies?
We all have them. Would you like to be judged on yours?

What if? A new year's questionaire

2007-12-30T16:12:00.000-08:00

What if

What if George W. Bush is actually the reincarnation of Neville Chamberlain? That would certainly explain his penchant for “preemptive” strikes!

What if Dick Cheney is actually as he appears to be? Be afraid, be very afraid!

What if Stephen Harper is actually who he appears to be? Yuk! Barf!

What if Santa is actually Satan and the spelling of his name is just a typo? If the red suit fits, wear it.

What if the thing we think is the moon glowing at night is actually a gynecologist's headlamp and this world a birth canal?

What if we could live forever? Would we really want to?

What if Jesus were to actually return in some sort of great parade out of the sky to judge us all? Would you be shitting in your boots too?

What if we carpet bombed with rice instead of munitions? Would those foreigners like us any better?

What if we actually did stop building, and selling, weapons? Would we have to worry about weapons of mass destruction anymore?

What if everyone who was elidgible to vote actually voted?

What if we found out the world was going to end at midnight tonight? Would we treat one another any better?

What if, instead of spending billions on weapons, we gave every man woman and child in the country one million dollars? Would that make our national debt worthwhile?

What would happen if we all actually did make love, not war?

What would happen if we actually did, as John Lennon suggested, Give Peace a Chance? Will we ever know?

What if Jesus already did come back, and we did the same thing to him again already? Are we in trouble yet? Apparently no one knew who he was back then either!

What if we did make all our cars and other machines run on wind, air, water, hydrogen, biodiesel and anything but oil? Then could we let the folks in the middle east be?

What if we ignore global warming and conduct business as usual? Will Stephen Harper be proven correct?

What if economics were actually more important than everything else? Would this still be a beautiful world?

What if the private sector really could, and was committed to, providing services to the public? Would we even need a government?

What if employees were actually considered to be a company’s most important asset by the company?

What if one person could actually change the world? What would you do?

What if you vote actually does count? Will you ever bother to find out?

What if the subconscious is actually the concsious, and the conscious the subconscious? Who are you in your other life?

What if the dream state is reality and this is the dream state? Is yours pleasant or a nightmare?

What if we actually do control our own destinies? Where are you going?

What if the world is really as George Bush says it is? Would it be worth the bother?

What if Martin Luther King, John Lennon, Bobby Kennedy and Mahatma Ghandi had survived? What do you think they’d have to say today?

What if there had been a red under every bed? Would things be any different?

What if freedom really exists? Well, does it?

What if love really is all you need? Would you pass some on?

Spare me the JFK-style Bhutto hype

2007-12-30T16:11:00.001-08:00

It amazes me how quick we are to take up the government position on this murder and blame it on Al Queada (which really does not exist as an international entity but is a term used to describe several loosely knit or unconnected groups who for one reason or another have a bone to pick with the powers that be), or the Taliban.
I wonder what happened to the presumption of innocence, or is that just reserved for those of us in the west?
I also wonder about the concept of hard evidence. What happened to it? I've not seen, read or heard, anything that conclusively ties either the Taliban or the so-called Al Queada to this incident. It reminds me of the WMD argument that sent the US guns ablaze into Iraq.
In fact, based on all I've read and watched this past two days, I'd have to say the arrow points towards either Bhutto's opposition, or the Pakistani president.
The opponent, Sharif, is the one who really stands to gain from this action. With Bhutto gone, he stands to win big time. I'd say he looks like a likely suspect.
And if it is true the current president of Pakistan is as power mad as he's made out to be, then removing Bhutto potentially works in his favour too. It will be understandable now, according to many of our western pundits, if he were to crack down and cancel the coming election.
The big loser in all this is America. Bhutto was their candidate, her very presence back in Pakistan as a direct result of work by Condoleeza Rice and the Bush Administration. So I would suggest that rules out American involvement.
As an aside, I wonder how many people who are outrightly praising the slain former Prime Minister actually know much about her. Are they aware of her American ties, the fact she attended university there, and lived a good part of her life in the west.
Do they know about her government and the many charges levelled against it, some successfully prosecuted?
And what do they know about her party? Without a good deal of cooperation from the current President, and backing from the US, Bhutto would not have been able to get anywhere near the Prime Ministerial office in the upcoming election. She is being praised in death as having been the potential savior of Pakistan, but was she really?
I don't mean to diminish in anyway the woman's courage or conviction. Clearly she believed she was doing the right thing, and her death is truly and sad and troubling thing for Pakistan and the world. However, getting back to my intial point, I am very disturbed by some of the rhetoric I'm hearing and reading, and by the fact that both the people and the mainstream media seem to be going along with what they are being told, instead of digging and insisting the real truth be told.
If you feel bad about Benazir Bhutto, then it seems the proper thing to do would be to demand from our leaders, and the media, they get to the bottom of the vicious crime, demand an autopsy, demand independent investigation, apprehension and prosecution.
Most of all, I want to encourage everyone not to necessarily believe what we are being told by people who weren't there and did not see what went down.

Baird on the outcome in Bali

2007-12-16T14:45:00.001-08:00

First, John Baird does everything he can to undermine any sort of
firm commitments on Climate Change in Bali, then he laments the
agreement that was achieved set no firm limits!
As I remember it, the Conservatives campaigned on the idea of doing
things differently than their predecessors, instead we discover that it
is business as usual, double speak and spin, double speak and spin.
The current government of Canada is an embarrassment to Canadians,
and are quickly becoming the laughing stock of the civilized world.
When do we get to vote again?

What's Wrong With the RCMP

2007-12-14T12:53:00.000-08:00

As jobs go, becoming a member of the RCMP is a relatively easy task. It basically require six months training, Then poof, you're a mountie!
At very least members, or those folks wishing to become members of Canada's national police force, should have to already possess a BA in some related field, or have at least a couple years experience in social service, criminology, law, or some other field of expertise before being accepted at the RCMP academy.
As it is, just about anyone who passes a fitness test can become a cop. As a result, we end up with folks who have little or no experience, outside the six months basic training, being put in difficult situations they are not trained to deal with.
I would also suggest the RCMP training needs to last at least two years, and involve training in first aid, law, martial arts, cultural sensitivity, and a variety of other studies.
What's wrong with Canada's police?
The simply answer is, quite correctly, they are not properly prepared for, and many are not properly suited to, the job they have undertaken.