Another Loss for the Average Person

More and more, Canada is becoming a place that is very hostile to the average person - Mr. and Mrs. Lunchbucket. If you are not uber-wealthy or uber-poor, if you are not one of the current group of fashionably worthy, you are forgotten, and worse, you are being marginalized even as the paycheck you earn is used to help everyone but you.

Yesterday, yet another example. The B.C. Supreme Court dismissed charges against three people camping in a Victoria City Park. Based upon a B.C. Supreme Court decision, apparently, you cannot now prohibit people from camping in public parks if there aren't enough shelters in the community.

So, Mr. and Mrs. Lunchbucket, afer you go to work eachday, tend to your own and your children, now if you go to take your children to your local park that you pay to create and maintain, well, you may need to share it with the homeless, with those who in many cases are aggressive, angry, perhaps abusing substances of some type. Yes - a lovely day in the park for you and your family.

You see - you, as a tax-payer in your community, you don't matter. Doing the "right thing", taking care of yourself and your family, means nothing to the powers that be - more and more, your right to a safe and comfortable community is being eroded in favor of those who, frankly, contribute nothing. Absolutlely nothing. And if you don't like it - well, you're going to have to build more shelters. Where I come from they call that a shake-down.. but hey, that's just me.

There is good news.. if you're going to the Olympics, pack a tent! Go set up in Stanley Park, sure, it will be rainy, but, compared to the rest of Canada, it will be quite pleasant - and best of all, it will be free! Don't worry if there are no bathrooms, I'm quite certain that the next decision will be that you can defacate where ever you wish if the city doesn't provide porta-potties within 20 paces of wherever your tent is parked. And hey, if the kind-hearted have their way - soon, they may be handing out free heroin as well - so next you know, Stanley Park will be party-city for heroin shooting homeless. Woohoo.. of course, you'll never want to take your children walking the sea-wall again, but, a small price to pay to encourage socially irresponsible behavior.

As, little by little, we whittle away the negative impact of stupid life-decisions, we in fact encourage them. One can only marvel and the kind of world we'll create for our children's children.

..and I always thought the idea of politics was to have an honest plan, and let the voters decide if they approve.

Well.. a few Conservatives are somewhat upset with the "sell-out" of ideals evident in the current budget. The response of many, is sadly predictable:

"A political party’s first and last job is to get elected."

-Stephen Taylor - A Blog on Canadian Politics

Really? And I always thought the idea was to have a plan based upon conviction, articulate it to the public, and allow them to choose if they agree.

The problem is that there is a sickening truth to the suggestion that you can't get elected based upon an honest conviction. Canadians don't want reality.. they want fantasy.. they want a life free of difficult decisions, where the state will always wipe your nose for you.. and, in the end, they get what they ask for, they get a middle-of-the-road government, whether it's Conservative or Liberal, who will never stick to conviction if the risk is losing power.

Well, I say screw that. A huge part of the current finanical crisis is the refusal to tell people what they need to hear - and instead, they were told what they wanted to hear.

Everybody wanted to own a house - so the government in the U.S., both Democrats under Clinton and Republicans under Bush, said, "Ok, so let everyone buy a house - ignore whether they can pay for it or not, prices will always go up, don't worry, be happy."

Investors wanted to be able to leverage themselves, not just 2 to 1 or 3 to 1, but 30 to 1, to take advantage of the never-ending double-digit investment returns in the market - I mean, even though I'm Lehman Brothers and I'm leveraging mortgage security 30 to 1, it's not like there's any risk, is there - I mean, mortgages are like cash in the bank.

GMC, Ford, and Chrysler kept selling cars that people weren't buying, while over and over again, they were getting the shit kicked out of them by Toyota, Nissan, Honda and others.. but did they take the hint? Did they change their marketing and production strategies to account for a changing world and domestic market? No freaking way - keep doing things they way we always have, don't worry, be happy.

And now - in Canada - while the economy suffers, and belt-tightening should be the rule of the day - do Canadians say, "Ask me how to help"? No - they moan and cry, "What are you going to do for me?".. the budget doesn't do anything to increase unemployment benefits, it doesn't do enough to pay someone else to look after my children, it doesn't do enough to pay for my education..

Message to the Canadian Public: If you demand weasels, you are going to get weasels. A poster on my last blog told me to "grow up" - I guess that meant - sell out. Well, no, I'm not going to "grow up". I'm going to continue to demand something better, and in my own involvement in Provincial politics, I'm going to continue to try and influence to make things better.. and if I never grow up, on my death-bed, I can say I tried to do the right thing. And as a legacy, that's good enough for me.

The New Budget: Affirming Everything Wrong with Canadian Politics

You know, as a Conservative blogger, it seems the job of arguing with the Liberal and NDP left never ends - countering baseless complaints and comments with the facts that so frequently get ignored in their zeal to create a socialist utopia.. but, today, after considering the budget, next time a Liberal or NDP talks about political double-speak coming from our Conservative government, well, I'll have nothing to say.

"I know economists will say well, we could run a small deficit but the problem is that once you cross that line as we see in the United States, nothing stops deficits from getting larger and larger and spiralling out of control."
- Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Oct. 6)

Yes - I know the party line - the recession hit harder than we anticipated, so, our plans had to adapt, and all that.. but, deep down, we all know what really happened, so let's not be coy.

Harper tried to pull a power-play, seeking to use the financial crisis to withdraw political funding - gambling that the Liberals were so decimated, that they would never force an election over the issue, and never in a million years, imagining the formation of a left-coalition.

Well.. we know how that turned out - so, in a move that I would have thought could be accomplished by no one but the Liberals, our government did whatever it took to hold on to power. End of story. If anything thinks Harper would have produced this budget if he held a majority, they are dreaming. This budget is a lifeline to hold power. And that is not only disappointing, it's sad.

The Reform Party, for all its warts, held promise at one point. It was a party formed to try and change the "business as usual" culture in Ottawa, and when Harper succeeded in becoming the PM, well, there was a small glimmer of hope. That glimmer today has faded to black.

Politics in Canada is sick and broken. And don't look elsewhere for an answer. The formation of the coalition of the power-hungry is no less an act of power-greed than the current Conservative budget.

As a Conservative - I would have welcomed Harper falling on his sword - saying to the Canadian people - I know you won't like this, I know this will no doubt result in either another election or the coalition, but I prefer to govern based upon conviction, not based upon the desire to hold power at any cost.

As it is, Harper will no doubt survive, for a while. He'll continue to hold he wheel of a bus that we all know is going to crash anyway, and no doubt, he'll be blamed for a world economic collapse that he didn't cause and couldn't fix - and the Liberals will get elected.

Daveberta, on his blog yesterday, commented that if he didn't know better, he would have thought the Liberals were in government after seeing the budget. Good call Dave.

At the end of the day, if you don't stand for something as a leader, well, who are you? That's the question I have for our leader today.. Mr. Harper, who are you?

Budget 2009: Where from here?

Well, it appears that the Budget will pass, thought Michael Ignatieff is being coy, suggesting that he's going to "sleep on it" before deciding, on Wedesday - what the Liberal response will be. However, with the Liberal party still in some dissaray, and recent polls showing 60% of Canadians want the budget passed - it would be possible political suicide for Ignatieff to vote against the budge and risk an election.

So - if in fact I'm correct, well, where do we go from here? Will massive spending really change the economy? Here's a hint: nope.

Canada's economy is, unfortunately, a relatively minor player in the world economy, and unless the U.S. economy begins to kickstart, we're not likely to see much improvement here. Now - if oil price rise, that would certainly help B.C., Saskatchewan and Alberta - and to some extent Newfoundland - but Ontario and Quebec will continue to be in difficult times until the U.S. improves - and it's anyone's guess as to whether Barack Obama, and his flurry of changes will be good or bad. Somehow, I think his apparent "commitment" to reduce C02 is probably going to just stagnate any gains that stimulus spending might have created.

GMC and Chrysler alone are probably good as dead.. consider the plan of spending billions of dollars to help them out, and then capitulating to California, and other states, demands, to ramp up emission controls - certainly going to kill the sales of SUV's, Trucks and larger cars - the only advantage the big 3 hold over Toyota, Nissan and Honda. Might as well save your money, and offer nothing to bail them out, letting them die a dignified death.

Hard Answers to an Easy Question

Devin Maxwell and I have been trading thoughts (and, more recently some insults..well, at least I've been receiving same) regarding the whole Omar Khadr affair.. and while the discussion has, at times, been a little heated, it has allowed me to more deeply consider the whole thing - and I have come to some acknoweldgement that not all is well with the American response to Khadr from day one.

But, aside from all of the rhetoric and hyperbole that flows both ways, here is my fundamental question - the answer to which I admit I don't have:

If a group of Canadian soldiers is attacked by an enemy group - for example, Taliban or Al Qaeda, and, the attack comes from a position of cover (which would, one suspects, normally be the case)such that we cannot in any sense identify any of the attackers individually. If, as a result of the battle, we suffer the death of a Canadian soldier, and members of the ambush group are captured, what do we do with them?

- do we hold them as prisoners of war, and if so, do we hold them in Afghanistan or bring them back to Canada, and for how long?
- do we turn them over to the domestic (Afghan) authorities, and let them worry about it?
- if we hold them, are we obligated to have hearings to determine which of them actually caused the death of the Canadian soldier - the reality being that such proof is an impossibility?
- does the process change if the captured party is a minor?

I'm open to your thoughts. This is Omar Khadr. This is probably a large number of Al Qaeda terrorists - and other persons committing war crimes (see current hearings at the Hague against Thomas Lubanga, who is alleged to have commandeered large numbers of children to commit genocide in Eastern Congo).

We live in a world were bad and evil people do exist - and difficult decisions do need to be made. How would you make them?

Omar Khadr - do you want him on a plane next to you?

Ok - so Devin Maxwell, and other Liberals (since they were voted out, that is, but not before) are very concerned that we repatriate Omar Khadr.

Be careful what you wish for. What the mainstream media doesn't really seem to want to point out, is that quite clearly Omar's family were a family of Islamic extremist terrorists.

While, prior to his death, Omar's father was constantly denying ties to terrorism, continually alleging that he was simply a "charitable aid worker" - since his death, the story appears to be quite clear that he was a high-level associate of Osama Bin Laden, and his sons were trained to be Al Qaeda terrorists - including Omar.

See this short http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/story/2009/01/true-to-qaedas-cause.html, that starts with an interview of Omar's brother, Abdurahman Khadr:

We are an Al Qaeda family you know, we had connections to Al Qaeda.. my family in Pakistan, they will never admit this at all.. Why? Because they are totally.. you know, they are what they are and they deny it, they’ll never admit this.

The clip also includes videos of Omars mother and sister, affirming the desire of Omar's father to be "martyred" and to die at he hands of his "enemies" (read: us).. and similar sentiments by Omar's older brother.

My question to Devin, and others - do you want to share an airplane with Omar?

Why are troops in Afghanistan?

Well.. the discussion continues with Devin Maxwell over at Maxwell's House, over whether or not we should be overly concerned with Omar Khadr. In fairness to Devin, the fact that we can have this discussion and debate is a testament to what makes our country great - so while I disagree with him, I find the exchange of opinions in a relatively respectful manner to be a wonderful use of the internet and the blogging process.


Anyhow - last response from Devin posed the question, "May I ask you and Roger why you believe our government has sent young men and women to Afghanistan to die?"

Good question - one that deserves a response and a reminder.. and I have responded thusly:

Why our government sent soldiers to Afghanistan? Oh - I don't know - let's start with the Khadr's good friend Osama Bin Laden - and his quest to murder innocent people all over the world who stood in the way of fundamentalist Islam. Let's start with the vision we all shared of planes crashing into the World Trade Centre, the Pentagon and into a field in Pennsylvania..

Let us pause for a moment from considering Omar Khadr's plight to think about the last thoughts of those in the planes and the buildings that lost their lives that day.

But don't stop there.. look to the plight of the Afghani people themselves - go look at http://www.rawa.org/wom-view.htm, where they describe the situation for women under Taliban thusly:

"With the coming to power of Islamic fundamentalists in 1992, women’s right to full participation in social, economic, cultural and political life of the country was drastically curtailed and later on summarily denied them by the Taliban. Under the latter, women were totally deprived of the right to education (all girls’ school were closed down), of the right to work (all women were ordered to remain in their houses and employers were threatened with dire consequences for taking up female employees), of the right to travel (no woman could venture out of the house alone and unaccompanied by a prescribed male member of the woman’s immediate family), of the right to health (no woman could see a male doctor, family planning was outlawed, women could not be operated upon by a surgical team containing a male member), of the right to legal recourse (a woman’s testimony was worth half a man’s testimony; a woman could not petition the court directly – this had to be done through a prescribed male member of her immediate family), of the right to recreation (all women’s recreational and sporting facilities had been banned, women singers could not sing least their female voices ‘corrupt’ males, etc.), and of the right to being human (they could not show their faces in public to male strangers, they could not wear bright colored clothing, they could not wear make up, they could only appear outside their houses clad head to foot in shapeless bags called burqas, they could not wear shoes with heels that click [least the clicking sound of their feet corrupt males], they could not travel in private vehicles with male passengers, they did not have the right to raise their voices when talking in public, they could not laugh loud as it lures males into corruption, etc. etc.)

This incredible list could be carried on and on but does not in itself constitute the whole of the tragedy which has engulfed the better half of Afghan society. Women are looked upon as war booty, their bodies are another battleground for belligerent parties. Atrocities in Bosnia pale when compared to atrocities in Afghanistan, but unfortunately for reason which it may not be appropriate to go into in this context, the world community neither heard nor cared about what was going on in Afghanistan. "


I guess it's your call Devin - would the world have been a better place if we had just left well enough alone?

Personally - I think that allowing Taliban and Al Qaeda a power-base in Afghanistan would have been a mistake and that armed intervention was necessary - but again, I'm a "bad guy" for having those thoughts.. but even Ignatieff understands, in his writings, that in dealing with terrorism, violence often needs to be met with violence.

I guess that's a call for all of our consciences, but.. again, I'm ok with what our government and others have done to battle the sickness of extreme Muslim fundamentalism.

Don't Lose Sleep for Omar Khadr

Well.. today I'm doing a two-fer on SFL.

I had opined on Maxwell's House, in response to a blog by Devin Maxwell, the failed 2008 Liberal candidate for MP in Halifax Citadel - suggesting that PM Harper should be "ashamed" for not doing more for Omar Khadr, that, well, "nope, not losing any sleep for poor Omar."

Devin suggests that says more about me.. and I suppose it does - in so far as I worry more about the families of those who have been killed by terrorists, than I do about terrorists who are alive and, relatively, well in this world. So color me a bad guy.

Well.. after that minor sharing of views, Devin devoted a full blog to make his point that I should "check my DNA" if I'm not losing sleep after viewing the "evidence" of improper conduct of our government relative to poor Omar.

See his "evidence" here, here, here, and here - decide for yourself.

Anyhow.. not being one to shy away from a debate - particularly with fellow legal counsel, I responded on the blog:

Still not losing sleep.

Let's start with the background.

It is not like Khadr was randomly picked up off of the street. He was at least present -and quite clearly participating, in a battle between U.S. armed forces and Taliban or Al Qaeda terrorists. That is a fact.

I do note from his affidavit, that he has very detailed and clear information about his time in Gitmo - but offers up nothing to explain or even deny the allegation that he is a murderer who killed a U.S. medic. That he was trained, and shown in a video making improvised explosive devices - which type of devices have been the vehicle of death for many of our Canadian soldiers.

Now - yes, his affidavit makes numerous allegations - some of which suggest he was mistreated, and some suggesting he was in fact tortured.

Personally, while I'm not going to have too much personal sympathy for a terrorist who is tortured, I believe the real problem with torture is it demeans the country who is authorizing and practicing it, as it is hardly consistent to suggest that terrorists using violence to obtain their own ends is wrong, but when it's to obtain our ends, it's ok. I will fully acknowledge that.

However - was Khadr tortured? Clearly, we know Khadr is to some degree lying. That is a certainty. For him to state that he has no information or knowledge of "anything related to Islamic extremism or Al Qaeda" is, well, completely unbelievable considering he was at least present, if not complicit, in the murder of a U.S. Medic. What - did he trip and fall into the midst of the battle? Please.

The other two affidavits - frankly, I can't even see their relevance. Firstly, there is a transcript of an interview where Harper says, basically, that he was going to follow the lead of the Liberal government and not interfere with the prosecution of Khadr, but would seek assurances he was treated humanely. Now - the reporter makes the statement, twice, that the Canadian government "knew" Khadr was being tortured.. which is probative of, well, nothing.

Finally - the cross-examination transcript - which, at the end, illustrated, nothing. CSIS attended on two occasions, interviewed Khadr, and basically found that he had given very inconsistent information regarding his involvement with terrorists - most recently, suggesting that he had no involvement or information, and that any evidence to the contrary was given under duress or torture. Problem is - the prior evidence is much more consistent with the fact that he was present and participating in a terrorist exercise.

Now - let's take a closer look at the Khadr family, shall we.

Omar was born in Canada in 1986 - however, he never grew up here. The Khadr family took advantage of Canada for medical care, and apparently for Omar's birth - and then essentially returned to Pakistan and Afghanistan because they did not "approve" of our culture. It appears clear that Omar's father was a close associate of Osama Bin Laden and his brothers were all trained in Al Qaeda - and they continued to reside in Pakistan or Afghanistan until 1992 - when his father - while plotting and planning to harm western interests - clearly felt comfortable enough to return to Canada to obtain medical care when he was injured in Lowgar, Afghanistan - where he recuperated - only to return to Pakistan, being killed in 2003 during a raid on Al Qaeda and Taliban - Omar remaining in that part of the world until he allegedly killed a U.S. Medic.

Video captured at the location of the battle allegedly discloses that Khadr was shown being trained in, or making IED's.

There it is.. the Khadr's are a family of terrorists - who were in Canada when it was convenient to utilize our health care system - and returned to Pakistan and Afghanistan to wage their war on the west.

I fully support the notion that torture is wrong - and if in fact Khadr was tortured, while I find that offensive - I'm still not losing sleep, and I would not for a moment feel that would either justify or excuse what he and his family were involved in.

The soldiers in Canada who have been murdered. The innocent people murdered in the 9-11 terrorist attacks. The many, many innocent people killed and tortured by Islamic extremists around the world by people like the Khadr's deserve perhaps a little more attention of people like you, Devo, but then, their lives are expendable or can be ignored - because they really don't help you make your point that our government is somehow "bad", because, amongst other things, they don't do enough to help terrorists who happen to be born here. (And, by the way, if you're going to attack Harper, well, you have to lump in with that the government under Paul Martin and in particular his Minister of Justice, Irwin Cotler - who, in a move that only a Liberal could be so hypocritical to try to pull off - did nothing for Omar while he was Minister, but yet complained loudly, and filed formal documents, seeking Omar's repatriation - AFTER his party was voted out of power.. what, Irwin, somehow the idea just came to you after you lost your job?)

Perhaps we could get a few thoughts on that subject, Devin, namely, why Irwin Cotler and Paul Martin did nothing when Omar was first arrested and placed in Gitmo - and only came to his defence when the Liberal party was in opposition.

The Khadr affair is complex and difficult - however, the notion that he is a "victim" belies the reality that so many terrorists are also "victims" as much as Omar - and unless we wish to put down our arms and allow their continued sick and murderous tactics to continue, some blood is going to be spilled by these so-called "victims", and, again, no sleep will be lost here over it.

Culture of Entitlement Strikes Again: $2.4 million and $420,000.00 per Year Isn't Enough After Shacking Up for 6 years

Well, the culture of entitlement continues - and one waits with baited breath to see how our Supreme Court of Canada will respond to the challenge.

As reported in the Globe and Mail, apparently, a very wealthy Quebec businessman lived in a common-law relationship with a women for 6 years, had three children with her, and then broke up in 2001.

Far from being a "deadbeat dad", he gave her a $2.4 million home and has been paying $420,000.00 per year, in "child support".

So - what's the problem - well, it isn't enough apparently.

Yes - apparently, she has trouble getting by on her $420,000.00 per year, in her fully paid for $2.4 million home - and is seeking an additional $672,000.00 per year in alimony, and an additional $50 million for her "contribution" to the relationship.

The curious thing, once you get beyond the unabashed greed of the woman, is the battle of the two obnoxious titans - being the Province of Quebec, where human rights don't necessarily apply (see the notwithstanding clause used to prevent free non-French expression) battling the hugely biased Supreme Court of Canada, who feels quite comfortable in making the law up as it goes to "legislate" on social issues, particularly as concerns the so-called "inequities" of marital (and non-marital) unions between men and women.

How will this play out?

Well - as a matrimonial lawyer, I have some concern over the clear mispresentations made by the lawyer for the wife, Anne-France Goldwater, who has made the following comments:

- Goldwater suggests that "provincial courts across the country recognize splitting assets between former common-law spouses after a relationship ends";

Well now, that's not true at all - there is no legislation in Alberta, and I'm advised, in Ontario either that recognizes any right to division of assets in common-law relationships - any such claims must rely upon common-law principals of "unjust enrichment" - generally, that the woman contributed to the assets - before any compensation can be given her. There is no entitlement to division of assets resulting from the relationship itself.


- Goldwater suggests that the woman's access to money is helping finance a court battle for "the million or so women in Quebec who have no rights.

Well, that is completely untrue as well - as our own Supreme Court of Canada has even affirmed - women (and men) all over Canada, including Quebec, have rights. They have rights not to live with someone who won't marry them. They have rights not to have children with someone who won't marry them. They have a right to not sleep with someone who won't marry them. Last I checked - there was no suggestion that he drugged her or somehow coerced her to have relations with him, or compelled her to live with him.

The answer is quite simple, really - "no, I don't choose to live with you if you don't choose to commit to me by marriage."

It would be nice if the Courts, and their own lawyers, stopped showing such a glaring disregard for the ability of women in particular to order their own lives. Over and over again - as we review the evolution of family law in this Country, we are greeted with the same refrain, effectively, that women are too stupid and disabled to possibly understand how to organize their own personal affairs - and require the Courts and their lawyers to correct their bad decisions as if they were two year old children.

Let's show more respect for women - they know what marriage means - and they have the ability to say "no", just like men do. If they don't - well, seems to me perhaps $2.4 million and $420,000.00 per year is a reasonable "hardship" to endure for agreeing to live with someone without a legal commitment.

Dont you think?

"Green Stimulus" - I'm Good with That..

Four former Prime Ministers issued a statement yesterday calling upon the Harper government to impliment a $41 billion "green" stimulus package in his budget.

The four PM's - Kim Cambell, Joe Clark, John Turner and Paul Martin - issued the statement yesterday calling on the measure to help the economy and the environment at the same time.

Ok - before you think I've lost my marbles and have gone all "Algorian" - my thoughts are this:

a) I'd rather put money into an emerging market - energy efficiency - than a dead one - auto manufacturing by GMC and Chrysler in particular;
b) While I haven't bought into the Al Gore global warm..err.. "climate change" scam, world energy dependancy upon mid-east oil continues to give leverage to a part of the world that should never have leverage - and efforts to reduce that dependancy in the world is a good thing;
c) Beyond that - reducing pollution, real polution, not CO2, is a wonderful investment, so efforts to invest in recycling, wind-power, efficient mass-transit, and such are a great way to encourage the economy while taking care of our water, air and land.

Here's the rub, though. I have significantly more respect for the thoughts of John Turner and even Paul Martin than the best examples of failed conservative politicians in our lifetime - Kim Campbell and Joe Clark.. go figure.

So - anyway, Prime Minister Harper - take the opportunity to show some statesmanship and take the advice - and in the bargain, if you want to cut funding for the auto industry, won't break my heart at all.. why throw taxpayers dollars down a sink-hole of failure, when you can use that money to help the broader economy, and help the environment in the bargain.

Day 1 in the Obama Presidency: His Greatest Challenge - His Own Supporters

Today Barack Obama will be sworn in as the 44th President of the United States of America - and today, he will commence what will be, in many ways, the most thankless job in the known world.

Already we see on so many fronts the challenges to this new President coming from, of all places, the left. That will be his biggest challenge. The special interests, the lobbies for gay rights, for women's issues, for social welfare reform, all of those groups will make his life difficult.

Why? Because those groups do not wish to live in the real world. Those groups do not understand that the problems that face a president are broad and complex and that a President must answer to all of his citizens, and in fact, the world - not just to their own small special concerns.

Where will his support come from? Well - oddly enough, it's been coming from the right. Mitt Romney yesterday was quoted to be approving of President Obama's efforts to solicit input from all camps - which is paramount in our troubled economic times. Our own PM could take a lesson.

So - as this historic day unfolds - a small request of the left - do not kill the goose who could lay your golden egg. Allow him to truly be the transformative President he shows promise he could be, without seeking to shackle him in your imaginary world where money grows on trees and the problems of a country can be set aside to answer the special interests of a small minority.

Answers, Blame, the world needs to get "real" in the middle-east..

Ok. I'm going to say what many others only think. The horror and the tragedy of the Holocaust does not entitle Israel to just do what it pleases. I see Israel in the light of "today", which doesn't allow them a free pass based upon their "yesterday". For a country of dispossessed to deny the right of other dispossessed to find their own peace of soil to call home is hardly, well, compassionate or even consistent.

However. And this is a big however. When certain fascist leaders living on your doorstep vow to kill and exterminate you, including seeking to acquire and use nuclear weapons, well, history does allow you to be cautious. When the number two man in Iran suggests that Israel is an "appendix" that needs to be removed, well.. one does allow their mind to wander back to another psychotic dictator who also wanted to get rid of the Jews.

So - pardon me if I have some sympathy for Israel's response to Hamas.

And - is it any surprise - that when Israel declares a unilateral cease-fire, Hamas continues to launch another volley of rockets, before, like a child who must get the last word, they suggest they will also cease fire.

But - a cease-fire is a cease-fire, and after the killing of so many innocents in Gaza, it is hopefully a small piece of the puzzle in establishing peace in Gaza.

Or maybe not.

And then there is this zealot.



The "rose colored glasses" of political correctness are putting us all at risk. We need to see what is going on in the middle-east and in fact globally as it really is. What the Germans did in the 40's was real. It required a unified global response. What is going on in Gaza, in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, in Iran, in Iraq - is real, and it requires a unified global response. And I'm not suggesting a military response - though there are times, as Michael Ignatief writes, when "violence needs to be responded to with violence." I'm talking about the sort of broad global response similar to what happened to South Africa during Apartheid - but stronger. A commitment to put global peace ahead of personal comfort and convenience. Purchasing no oil from middle-east theocracies, including Saudi Arabia and particularly Iran. A global banishment of those who will not allow religious freedom within their own borders and who seek to infect their own fascist agenda on others. A global banishment, which includes cessation of trade, and cessation of travel and immigration. Until a people truly accept being a full participant as a world citizen, they shouldn't have the rights of citizenship anywhere else but in their own sick little world.

The world cannot sit idly by and allow fundamentalist fascist Islamic theocracies to continue, as the cost is simply too great - not only for the Jews and for Israel, but for everyone, including the innocents in Gaza.

Rules for Some.. ..so Eat Veal and take Two Cars to Work Today

This morning we wake to news that the former President and CEO of Syncrude had his house burned down after molotov cocktails being thrown into the house, where he lived with his wife and children. While there is no evidence yet as to who committed the crime, speculation is that it may be the work of environmental terrorists - following up on several bombings in British Columbia of Encana Oil and Gas Equipment.

Have you heard much about these bombings in the MSM? Didn't think so - neither did I - apparently, the notion that the environmental extremists are resorting to terrorist activity in our own country isn't nearly as interesting as Jack Layton and his crew threatening to charge someone they invited to a conference call for taping the call..

Which leads to a very interesting point.. so often, the left is mewling and moaning about some intrustion on their "rights" - you know the ones I'm talking about, rights of freedom of assembly so they can disrupt G3 summits, rights of freedom of expression when they want to picket while on strike, blocking the free access of others to buildings, and so on and so forth.. but, at the same time, they have no difficulty spiking trees, creating great risk of injury to forestry workers, bomb research facilities for using animals, bomb oil company property - and now, probably, a former oil executive's home.. and that's just fine, thank-you very much.

You see - the ends always justify the means to these people, becuase, well, they are on the side of "good" don't you know - at least according to them.

My solution - whenever you hear of some ignorant or in fact terrorist stunt, go out of your way to do exactly what they don't want you to do. Eat nothing but veal for a week.. buy an S.U.V., or you and your spouse take two cars to work.. buy some seal-fur boots.. send a message to these nutjobs that, well, we can use the market to make a point too.. following up on Stephen Harper's advice, now would be a good time to put some money into Encana shares.

Oh - and keep shoping Save-On and Overwaitea.. tell Loblaws and Superstore to take their "green" bags and stuff 'em.

The Grease from the "Good" and Loblaws

Loblaws - also operating as Superstore and Real Canadian Superstore has become very adept at using the left side of the political spectrum in a manner which could only be described as greasy in the extreme.

Firstly - they have announced in Ontario that they will be charging 5 cents per plastic bag - with a portion of those proceeds going to fund the World Wildlife Fund (WWF).. and thanks to a blog post from Blue Like You, they and the WWF have been exposed for the hypocrites that they are - and I am joining Blue Like You in calling for a boycott of all Loblaws and Superstores.

The point is that they will be charging significantly more than market price for a product - and then using PART of that charge to go to the WWF menagerie. So - YOU pay way more than it costs Loblaws - they profit, and then they get to sound like good "green" citizens on your dime - even though they're making a profit off of it. Nice game, if you can play.

Never mind that WWF has been shown to be just another hypocritical "green" lobbyist -as shown here - proposing a trips for high rollers costing $64,950.00, resulting in a massive "carbon footprint" (14 TONS of CO2) for each passenger in 25 days, a footprint 3.6 times the annual global footprint - which, I suppose, doesn't count when its the "good" people leaving the footprint - like, oh, say, Al Gore.

Of course - in Alberta, they've been over-charging for plastic bags for some time - and compound it by not having any clerks do bagging - letting the customers do that on their own. They also are a user of the now somewhat ubiquitous "coin deposit" shopping carts. Why? Because reducing costs by hiring fewer employees makes them more money - which is fine - but then, don't give us this "concerned corporate citizen" crap - when your service is a joke compared to competitors, prices aren't actually appreciably better - and the net result is just more profit and less jobs.. though I'm sure they don't need the jobs in Ontario these days.

Oh - and on that point - if you really want to get into the heads of how "do-gooders" like Loblaws and their partner, the UFCW, really care about employees - how about this post. It would seem "good citizen" Loblaws and "good advocate of labour" the UFCW did a little "deal" where Loblaws paid the Union 1.35 million dollars, the Union sold their members short, all so Loblaws and the Union could jointly pressure Wal-Mart. Talk about your unholy alliance.

Note the quote:

Loblaw officials know the best way to fight Wal-Mart is to slash its own operating expense, the bulk of which are made up of labour costs.

Shop at Save-On or Overwaitea - no "coin op" carts, they hire employees to bag your grociers, prices are competitive, and no charge and hypocritical scam over plastic grocery bags.

Filed under "Make Me Puke".

The Sky IS falling - but not economically, just socially.

We live in an interesting time. There is a certain fear permeating the Canadian public right now - in light of current economic stresses, and many newspapers seem to almost take joy in pointing out the falling economic sky in Canada.. but is it really that bad?

Look at employment rates, for example - yes, unemployment has risen, which is very unfortunate for those who are part of that rising statistic, however, compare current unemployment rates to those as recently as the recession of 1981 and 1982.. current unemployment rates across Canada are 6.6%.. compared to rates in 1981 and 1982 of 13%. I graduated law school in 1985, on the tail-end of a terrible economy, when law students couldn't get jobs, where at interviews, firms would tell you up front that they were hiring 7 and keeping 1. Try starting a family in that climate. My firm, right now, would love to hire a decent first or second year lawyer to do family law - if you're interested, fire me an email - but the reality is that the economy isn't bad enough to lure students of some quality to smaller cities like Lethbridge, Alberta.

Is the sky really falling?

I spoke to a very bright financial professional in Minneapolis on Friday - and after some discussion we came to two conclusions.

Firstly - there should be more heads rolling. Those financial "experts" who bought into securities ratings for mortgage securities on the assumption that they COULDN'T fail - well, they were greedy, and stupid - but not so stupid that they didn't know the massive risk they were taking in leveraging those securities on a 30-1 basis.. that is not simply stupidity - that is fraud. And people who secure payment to themselves, by being deceptive and reckless with other people's money - well, I think that's fraud, and some of those people should be sitting in jail with Conrad Black.

That should make all the lefty types happy - the notion that capitalism is to blame.. but it's not capitalism, it's greedy people. It's the same type of people who apply for handicapped income support when they are not truly handicapped, it's the same type of people who ask doctors to sign a statement saying they are disabled to obtain disability insurance when they are more than able to work - it's PEOPLE. People, left to their own devices, cannot be trusted. It's simple as that - we need checks and balances for everyone - for business CEO's, for banks, for governments, and for the broader public in areas like income support.

The moral compass of society is broken. The notion of "right and wrong" is being eroded away an a pace that we haven't seen since the fall of the Roman empire, in favor of a moral relativism that everything that's good for ME must be "right" and only things that are bad for ME must be "wrong". Some suggest that the lack of religious faith is the cause - I'm not so sure about that.. I think it's a little broader than that - I think that the family, as the core example and educator of a child's moral compass - is broken. Part of that family used to be going to Church together on Sundays - but it's not just that.. it's also families having dinner together on Mondays and Tuesdays and every other day of the week - discussing what is happening in their lives - giving a constant beacon to the children where the lines or right and wrong are drawn as they judge those at the table for their errors, and those outside their home.. allowing children, almost by osmosis, to understand inherently that there is a "right" and there is a "wrong".

We are leaving our children's moral compasses to chance - to be guided in the school system, to be guided on the playing field where children spend the other 10 or 15 % of their waking hours.. places where the odds of true moral guidance are somewhere between slim and none - and then we ask, "why" when fraud becomes a way of life for so many.

This leads the second point regarding the current economic meltdown - that it's overdue, that ultimately the lesson is worth the pain.

When so many in society have been raised in this culture of entitlement, where everything should be provided to everyone - it's probably a healthy thing when economic reality sets in and says, "nope". You can't have everything you want. You over-extended yourself? Well, too bad, we're taking your house. Your cards are maxed out on trips and other luxuries you didn't need and now you're getting laid off? Well, too bad - file bankruptcy.. You can' earn 20% per year on your investments which have now lost 30% in the last 6 months.. too bad, invest in GIC's and Term Deposits for one or two percent - buy a revenue property, rent it out.. there is no more easy money - and that's a good thing - no - that's a great thing.

The steady and sound moral and financial guidance of our grandparents will be something of value this coming decade methinks - many will have to lean on family, not government for support - and in so doing, they will have to deal with the "told you so's" - and maybe that's all for the best.

The sky is falling - but the real falling sky is the social structure that allowed for the falling of the financial structure and like a house being re-built - it's the foundation that needs to be shored up long before anything else.. as without that, it's a house of cards just waiting to fall again.. and pardon me, but I'm thinking that a national effort at assuring all children are placed in daycare from the crib is not a good plan to shore up that crumbling family structure.

Polygamy Charges Filed in Bountiful: Canadian Judicial Integrity on Trial

Winston Blackmore, 52, and James Oler, 44, both spiritual leaders in the colony of Bountiful -- near Creston, about 500 km southwest of Calgary -- were arrested Wednesday morning and charged with polygamy following a nearly three-year investigation, as reported in the Edmonton Sun today.

So - there will be a trial - but for me, as a lawyer, and I would suggest for the citizens of Canada - the true trial will not be whether some fringe religion should be able to have polygamous relationships - it will be whether the Courts in this Country will do two things:

a) render a decision consistent with their numerous decisions on gay marriage - in which case, an acquittal will result;

b) render a decision that does not discriminate against a Christian religion (as fringe as it might be) while ignoring the same acts in Muslim families and in non-religious polyamorous relationships.

The case law commencing with recognition of protection against discrimination for homosexuals, later resulting in recognition of the right of gay marriage - explicitly does not rest upon the question of whether or not such unions were beneficial or damaging to the participants or the broader society.. and more recently, cases have also ignored the question of whether or not such relationships were beneficial to their children.

Thus - to be consistent - it will be very difficult for the same Court that rendered the EGALE decision, which allowed for same sex marriage, to turn around and deny the right to polygamous marriage based upon factors that were clearly not determined relevant in EGALE.

Further - the case now before the Court ignores the reality that polygamous marriage exists in Muslim families in Canada and in non-religious polyamorous relationships. Should the Court ignore that reality - it will signal what many on the right have been saying for some time - that there are different rules in this Country for Christians and Non-Christians.

You can attack the fundamental beliefs of a Christian and in fact sanction them for those beliefs (Boissoin) - but you will not allow for attacks on non-Christian beliefs (Levant, Steyn).

As a spectator in this ridiculous decision of the B.C. Attorney general, I am looking forward to the case - as it will be a no-lose from my perspective. Either I will be proven correct in my analysis, and they will be acquitted - or I will be proven correct in my more likely assumption, that the lack of integrity in our Judicial System will, in fact, permit a conviction.

Will be interesting. Indeed.

Oh - and I couldn't help but laugh at the asinine quote of B.C.'s attorney general - "I don't believe right-minded Canadians want (polygamy) to exist," he said. You remember receiving that questionaire didn't you? You know, the same one where the Governments asked us "right minded Canadians" if we thought same-sex marriage was a good plan.

Judicial System Gone Mad: Paying Support for Children of Wife's Affair

I'm a Divorce lawyer. I have seen some excellent changes in the law in the last 24 years.. particularly in the area of regulation of child support. However, this being said, there has been a creepy sickness invading the judicial process over that time that lawyers refer to as "palm tree justice". This is where Judges ignore the long-term ramifications of their decisions to so what is "fair" in the case before them..

Today - yet another example of this Judicial ignorance, reported here.

Seems, after a divorce, a woman wanted to increase support being paid by a husband for twin children, and wanted to restrict his ability to see them.. the Husband, smelling a rat, sought a DNA test, and sure enough, discovered the children were not his - they were born of an extramarital affair the wife had 10 years earlier. What did the Court do with this? You guessed it - ordered increased and continued ongoing child support.

Now - I can tell you, at law, the Husband could have compelled the Wife to a least seek support from the actual father to, at worst, share the burden - problem is, the Wife couldn't "remember" who it was she was having sex with.

Think about that. He paid support, faithfully, for several years, being ignorant of his Wife's infidelity, and upon discovering that he had truly, at law, been defrauded throughout that time, the Court rewarded the Wife for her conduct - gave her a free pass.

Think about that again. The reasoning of the Justice was that the Wife's conduct shouldn't impact on the children. So - the message, which the Judge completely ignores thinking about - is that if you are a woman, and you have an affair, the proper thing to do is to lie about it, pretend it is your husband's child, and commit fraud.

Nice.

There is an illness infecting the quality of marriage in this Country - and it is not same-sex marriage - no, not at all - it is the continued efforts of our Courts to make asinine decisions which discourage marriage at all, which discourage and demean the value of marriage to society by sending a not-so-subtle message - particularly to men, that marriage is a minefield that is best left alone. Or - at very least - not to be entered into to have children, and not to be entered into with a woman who is not at least as financially secure and able as you are.

I have, in fact, advised many clients who approach me for pre-nuptial agreements with women who have children or women who are weak financially, that they are truly playing a dangerous game of roulette by entering into the relationship at all.

The unfortunate reality is that close to 50% of all marriages end in divorce. If you are a man of some means (and I am being intentionally gender specific here because cases allowing support from women are truly an anomaly) by entering into a marriage with a woman in a weaker financial position, you are truly putting yourself at a 50% risk of a long-term ongoing financial obligation to a woman, even if the fault for the marriage breakdown is completely hers. Think about that. She has an affair, she leaves, and you get to pay alimony.

I am sympathetic to the children in this case - they are truly victims of a deceitful woman - who, no doubt, is very aware of who their father is, but will never let that be known to secure her own financial interests. And the Ontario Courts think that is just fine, thank-you.

Kinda makes you scratch your head and go, hmmm.

One-Sided Rules - It's No Wonder The War is Being Lost

Currently, we are seeing a great deal of one-sided criticism of Israel for the current conflict in Gaza. Meanwhile, Hamas is executing it's own citizens without trial of any kind, is building bunkers and firing rockets from schools and hospitals - taking great care to assure that news cameras are available to show the "attrocities" committed by Israel when they respond to Hamas rockets.

We may recall videos of Muslim terrorists beheading captors, hanging murdered Americans from bridges or dragging their bodies through the streets during the Iraq conflict.

Closer to home - after being ambushed by cowardly, insane, Taliban terrorists, a Canadian soldier is now being charged with second degree murder. The allegation is that after a Taliban terrorist was mortally injured in the battle, and after he was then disarmed, Capt. Robert Semrau then shot him. The evidence, as reported so far, is that no one saw him shoot the terrorist - one person heard two shots, another person saw him fire his rifle in the direction of the terrorist. The body was not recovered - there is no evidence that the shots, if fired by Semrau, actually hit the Taliban terrorist.

So - here we are - in a conflict where only one side is asked to fight by the Marquess of Queensberry rules, where only one side is constantly attacked by the press, and we wonder why we have difficulties in resolving these conflicts.

Ask yourself this - if, during the second world war, we had this sort of left-oriented criticism and, in fact, control over our combatants - would they be speaking German in London and Paris today? Would Japan have been vanquished, but for Nagasaki and Hiroshima? There is no doubt, none, that in today's left, politically correct climate, there would be an uproar - President Truman, Winston Churchill, and W.L Mackenzie King would no doubt have been prosecuted for war crimes - while the media would no doubt be apologizing for Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito.. downplaying their attrocities..

Did Semrau shoot an unarmed Taliban terrorist? Perhaps.. and if so, I suppose, he should be convicted. Will I lose any sleep over the incident. Nope. This war - which, be certain, is going on all around the world right now, is being fought with one hand tied behind the backs of western combatants - there are rules for us, and none for them.. perhaps it's time to send Jack Layton to Kandahar, to pick up arms and stand to protect not just the innocents of their world - but our own freedom in this world. Yes - Jack, and other terrorist appologists - you walk into that nightmare,and you "play by the rules".. and then if you make it back, well, THEN I'll listen to your complaints over Israel and Canadian Soldiers.

Indeed.

Canadian University Fascism Continues

Well, the march of fascism in our Canadian University Community continues - some time ago, my blog referenced Carleton and Queen's University and later, included University of Calgary as exhibiting what could only be referred to as fascist tendancies - seeking to inhibit free thought and expression.. and today, it continues.

The National Post today posts an article where, now, CUPE president Sid Ryan, is calling on a prohibition of any Israeli academics on any Ontario campus. Nice. So - idiot Sid Ryan feels so confident in the moral high ground of Hamas that he feels safe in prohibiting Israeli academics from teaching or researching in Ontario.

Yes - and I'm sure he'll be including a motion to bar any Muslim professors as well, following up on acts of terrorism that have been ongoing, almost unabated, for decades. I mean, clearly, it is acceptable to tar all people with the same brush - assuming that you even agree with his position on the Gaza conflict.

Why stop there? Why not prohibit all Germans unless they post a condemnation over Nazi acts, prohibit Russians unless hey appologize for Stalin, prohibit, well, all people unless they appologize and commit to stopping global warm.. err.. climate change.

Each day, in this country, we happily allow fascists like Ryan to slowly impose their own brand of fascist thought control under the supposed umbrella of "doing good".

Time to step up and say no. Time to hand this Ryan guy his head on a platter and to fire his ass.. think that's going to happen? Not in Ontario it won't. Note: the Nazi's started by doing "good" for their people too. Indeed.

Sorry, John Rambo can't help in Gaza

The conflict in Gaza right now is horrendous, truly. And, if you were to poll the parties in conflict, you would find it completely impossible to obtain anything approaching a balanced, rational response.

Today, the chief architect of Hamas, continued with terrorist invective:

Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar exhorted Palestinians to fight the Israeli forces and target Israeli civilians and Jews abroad.

"The Zionists have legitimized the killing of their children by killing our children. They have legitimized the killing of their people all over the world by killing our people," Zahar said in a grainy video broadcast on Hamas TV.

Unfortunately, the invective and hyperbole has carried over to bloggers in Canada.. Ezra Levant has been teeing off on James Curran, repeatedly calling him an "anti-Semite" for taking a pro-Palestinian attitude in his recent blogs, and, in response, many postings on James' blog have been teeing off on Ezra as a "bigot"..

All of it ignores the complexity of a truly horrible conflict - and the refusal of the broader international community to dirty it's hands by getting directly involved to resolve the conflict.

The buzz-word in the MSM and on liberal (small "l") blogs is a complaint over the "disproportionate response" by Israel.. in other words, "yes, we understand that Hamas has been firing scores of rockets into civilian areas, destroying homes and schools, but, your response has to be, well, measured. Yes - I know Hamas is storing weapons in mosques and firing rockets from areas abutting hospitals and homes, but, well, gee, you just can't be dropping bombs on those people. Can't you just hire John Rambo to sneak in and dispatch only the bad guys?"

Sorry - this is the real world, and it's ugly and it's difficult. And when a government condones terrorism and use of civilian shields as a tactic to avoid response to their own violent acts - well, either we, as the international community need to back off and allow a country to defend itself using all means necessary (can you say Hiroshima?) or we need to roll up and sleeves and step in directly.

And this is a broader concern - it goes far beyond Gaza. It includes the Iraqi conflict, it includes the Afghan conflict - it speaks to the difficulty of responding to a concerted terrorist exercise. This is not like the wars of our grandfathers - where the enemy fought with identifiable armies. Because even should the international community step in, you can be certain that there will be factions in the extremist Muslim community who will seek to continue the violence.. and the international community - particularly countries with a significant Muslim population - will need to be unified in responding to this.

As the Americans have learned through massive mistakes in Iraq, a war against terrorists is not a war that a conventional army can easily respond to. The real enemies are, in fact, not Iraqi insurgents or the Afghan Taliban or Hammas - the enemies are Saudi Arabia and Iran and other states who harbor and support the agendas of the extremists. And to respond to this, we are going to need to have an open and honest dialogue - the kind of dialogue that people like the CHRC don't want us to have - that there may in fact be theocratic issues that need to be addressed. That we cannot support theocracies of any kind. That there can be no respect for a state or for a religion who seeks to impose religious views upon others.

And this includes any desire on the part of Conservatives or Christians to instill "Christian" standards upon our western populations.. we can't oppose one theocracy and seek to instill another within our own borders.

Anyhow.. my drivel for the day.. think about it.

Happy New Year!! ..and other meanderings

Ok - so I've been awol for a week or so.. so sue me. I happened to have a wonderful holiday, refused to watch the news, so have no idea whether Harper or Ignatieff or the other also rans did anything wise, stupid, noteworthy or not. Somehow, while sitting on top of Big Mountain in Whitefish, Montana, with a foot of fresh snow, the political world didn't rate highly in my thoughts.

But - now I'm back, and so, today - the first post of 2009, is a compendium of meanderings.

Firstly - I am officially declaring the University of Utah Utes as the National Champtions of NCAA Division 1 football. I'm quite certain that the "Searching for Liberty" poll will get substantially more respect and press than the Coaches Poll and USA Today..

Screw Florida and Oklahoma. There is one undefeated team in the United States, and it is the University of Utah. They beat Alabama, Oregon State, TCU, Brigham Young - all more than decent teams.. and the fact that they don't even have a sniff at the so-called National Championship game is a massive joke. (Sorry politicos, but it's my blog and I'll talk about what I want).

Here's the rub - it's greed that is the cause. The big conferences in the U.S. don't want to give up their guaranteed massive paydays to allow more access for non-BCS teams and so, the deck is stacked going in. Hence the reason for anti-trust and anti-combine legislation. Sure I'm conservative - but I don't think that business is necessarily any more trustworthy than organized labour - that's why we have rules, and checks and balances.. unfortunately, the US congress has so far determined that there's nothing wrong with "fixing" the national college football championships to earn schools a cool $17 million or more per bowl game.. here's the tally to EACH school:

BCS Championship, Ohio State vs Louisiana State, $17 million

Orange Bowl (BCS), Virgina Tech vs Kansas, $17 million

Rose Bowl (BCS), Southern California vs Illinois, $17 million

Sugar Bowl (BCS), Georgia vs Hawaii, $17 million

Fiesta Bowl (BCS), West Virginia vs Oklahoma, $17 million

..so, it's not just that the BCS is stupid and inept at determining the "National Champions".. it's that it is fundamentally dishonest. While Congress gets all hot and bothered over steriods these last few years, they ignore the significant cheating going on over a massive amount of money being handed out to schools that, well, are fixing the rules to their own advantage. Such is the BCS. So - congrats to Utah - and this cowboy will not be watching Florida v. Oklahoma.


North of the 49th.. way to go Team Canada Junior Team - awesome game against Russia in the semi-finals - looked dismal until Eberle scored with like 5 seconds left.. woohoo..

Which leads me to a couple of observations.. why is it that fans are so enthralled with non-professional athletics? Sure, the big events, Superbowl, Stanley Cup, World Series.. all have massive audiences, but true sports fans have a special place in their heart for College sports and Junior Hockey.. and, without being too naive, I think it's the purity of it. Sure - there are problems, but still, fundamentally, it's about the play for the win, not the cash concept.. doing your best to succeed, just because.

And that leads me to the next point, which is actually a political observation (finally?).. why were so many enthralled by the Barack Obama election? Sure - it was pretty historic seeing a man of color voted in as President of the U.S., but it was more, it was at least the myth, if not the reality, of a politician doing his best, "just because". Of a politician just trying to "do the right thing".

Remind you of anyone in Canada? No - I didn't think so. Deep down, in your heart of hearts, whether you are blue, read, yellow, green or whatever.. do you sense that your leader is simply there to "do the right thing"? If we are truly honest with ourselves (which is no mean feat I've discovered in this blogging world) the debacle over the last month showed nothing honourable in any party in this country - all, essentially, focussed on acquiring or retaining power - and saying, "screw the public interest" one way or the other..

I, for one, have become very jaded by opposition parties posturing for the press, doing nothing but complain without adding much of anything constructive to the dialogue.. and more recently, using the excuse of the Conservative economic plan to try and create some mindless "alliance" for no real purpose but to get power that wasn't granted them under our current parliamentary system.. and not to leave my own party out, I have become just as jaded with the Conservative focus on obtaining and retaining power at any cost - and the almost total refusal to truly consider non-partisan efforts to answer what are some current massive problems in this Country.

So - as the New Year starts - I'll be looking for politicians who step up, who at least indulge us with the myth that there might be some who do see themselves as being elected, not to just work to get re-elected, but to do something real and positive. To do the right thing. I'm not holding my breath.