Conservatism.. doesn't mean closed-minded.

I read a couple of interesting articles in the New York Times yesterday. (Yes, Conservatives can, and should, read something other than the National Post.. I listen to CBC Radio occasionally as well.)

The writer, Nicholas Kristoff, penned two articles that I think make some very valid points that are worth considering and putting in the back of your mind for future reference.

The first, "The Daily Me", is a bit of an advertisement for mainstream media, but it makes a good point - which is that if we are not careful, and only read news we like and blogs that we agree with, we become polarized and as he points out, "The danger is that this self-selected “news” acts as a narcotic, lulling us into a self-confident stupor through which we will perceive in blacks and whites a world that typically unfolds in grays."

"So what?", you might ask. Well, firstly, if you don't read or consider the views of those with whom you might disagree, how can you engage them, and others, to fully discuss your counter-position. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, by ignoring views of others with whom you disagree, you become close-minded, narrow, and daresay, less intelligent. Do you seriously think that any sane, intelligent person could acquire any useful world view by watching Rush Limbaugh 24/7?

I found it interesting, because, I think I've been thinking that for some time. You might note that on my blog recommendations are some liberal or soft liberal sights, including James Curran, Red Tory, Daveberta, and Galloping Beaver.. I even have a green site, "Green Light".. along with more typical conservative blogs. I read them all - keep my mind open, and form my own opinions which may or may not support the "party line" based upon what I believe - not based upon what someone else tells me to believe. I encourage that sort of thing - it's liberating.

The second column of Kristoff that I also found enlightening was "Learning How to Think". The point of his article is that we need to be wary of so-called "experts", as often, their predictive abilities are virtually no better than random guesses, and, that in particular, the more "famous" an expert is, the less likely they are to be accurate. (Can you say, "Inconvenient Truth"?)

The point, at the end of the day - you were given a brain for a reason - use it. The world and the problems we face are often complex and not as "black and white" as we are often lead to believe - so, spend some time critically considering so-called "experts" and spend some time reading, and considering, views other than those on "our team".

Collaborative Law - Shameless Self-Promotion - in the interests of families and children..

Call to all Bloggers.. support Collaborative Law and Collaborative Practice!

Today there was an article in the Globe that is certainly going to raise some eyebrows regarding Family Law, and specifically, custody of children after divorce in Canada. As reported in the Globe and Mail, recent statistics of "Parental Alienation Syndrome" suggest that mothers are more likely than fathers to engage in parental alienation - where one parent "systematically brainwashes a child into hating the other parent".

The report also suggests that notwithstanding this data, the Court is less likely to direct counselling for women than men in alienation cases.

As a family lawyer for some 24 years, I guess I'm not shocked by these findings, though, with the statistical sample, it's difficult, I think to make these generalizations regarding gender - however, it does point to an inescapable reality - that the anger and bitterness in Divorce is a cancer than spreads to the parent's children if left unchecked.

Here's the self-promotion and what "grinds my gears" today.

I'm the Vice-President of the Association of Collaborative Lawyers of Alberta, and am also on the editorial Board for the International Association of Collablorative Professionals newsletter, "The Collaborative Review", and as such, I am a huge promoter of "Collaboratve Law" or "Collaborative Practice".

For those who may not have heard of this - it is a negotiation process where lawyers who have obtained training in mediation or "interest based" (non-confrontational) negotiation, must sign a contract with their clients that, among other things, disqualifies the lawyers from ever going to Court for their clients. Yes - lawyers designed a process where they, and their clients, are required to resolve their differences respectfully, without any possible recourse to the Court process.

Often this negotiation includes a "team" approach where the parties also hire a "child specialist" to help the parents learn what is needed to help their children.

Here's the part that "grinds my gears" - to this point - our Law Society of Alberta and the Alberta Law Foundation is more or less unsupportive of the process. Currently, the Alberta group is completely self-funded, and does it's best to "get the word out" on their own dime - and when we approached both the Law Society of Alberta and the Alberta Law Foundation - well, they were less than enthusiastic in their support - the Law Foundation providing "zero" dollars to support a process that, throughout the U.S., has shown great promise in helping people find a civilized way to move beyond one of the most painful processes in their lives.. particularly when they have children.

So - as we see Globe articles on the carnage which divorce can visit upon children - be aware that there is a growing group of committed lawyers who actually want to do something that helps people resolve problems respectfully, and in a manner which gives their children a chance at a happy future where divorce does occur. Unfortuantely, the Law Society of Alberta and the Law Foundation would rather spend hundres of thousands of dollars to help people go to Court through legal aid and their recent "pro bono" (free lawyer) initiatives.

For more information on the Collaborative Process, links are here:

http://www.collaborativelaw.ca

http://www.collaborativepractice.com

If you would like to complain to the Law Society of Alberta or the Albera Law Foundation - feel free to contact them here:

http://www.lawsocietyalberta.com/contact.cfm

http://www.albertalawfoundation.org/Contact/index.html


If it pisses you off, like it does me - feel free to contactt

Those of us in

Barak Obama.. Change you can.. what? oh, not so much change I guess..

I'm not sure what to make of Barack Obama. He is a gifted orator for sure, and that's not a trivial matter in difficult times - a leader who can inspire hope, in an of itself is a major asset in motivating people to work through adversity.

However, more and more it becomes apparent that the job of government is not easy and that the mistakes that Bush Jr. made, that the Democrats suggested were so simple to correct, well, aren't so simple..

Today, Obama announced a further 4,000 troops being sent to Afghanistan, on top of the 17,000 troops he recently added. In discussing why he did this, he made the following statement:

"The United States of America did not choose to fight a war in Afghanistan. Nearly 3,000 of our people were killed on September 11, 2001, for doing nothing more than going about their daily lives. Al-Qaeda and its allies have since killed thousands of people in many countries. Most of the blood on their hands is the blood of Muslims, who Al-Qaeda has killed and maimed in far greater numbers than any other people. That is the future that Al-Qaeda is offering to the people of Pakistan and Afghanistan –- a future without opportunity or hope; a future without justice or peace.

"The road ahead will be long. There will be difficult days. But we will seek lasting partnerships with Afghanistan and Pakistan that serve the promise of a new day for their people. And we will use all elements of our national power to defeat Al-Qaeda, and to defend America, our allies, and all who seek a better future. Because the United States of America stands for peace and security, justice and opportunity. That is who we are, and that is what history calls on us to do once more."

Ok. Here's a first. A conservative saying, increasing military presence in Afghanistan is a mistake. Mr. Obama - you had it right the first time - a gradual withdrawal is the proper policy - as embarrassing as that may be. Yes, similarities with Vietnam will be raised, validly, and hopefully, the U.S. will learn from their mistakes in Vietnam, in Korea, and Iraq.. you can't impose change, you can only subtly support it where it is already coming from within.

As I've opined before, I think the war can't be won, because there isn't broad enough support of the people of that country. If a people truly don't accept the Taliban and Al Quaeda, they will, eventually, revolt and do the job that we're trying to impose upon them presently. The problem, as with so many misguided government initiatives, is that we want the McDonald's answer. We want it now - and sometimes, change and progress are evolutionary processes that have to find their own time. The Soviet Union did not fall because of military force, contrary to what the Reaganites try to suggest - it fell from within, it fell because they failed to deliver what their people needed - hope.

That being said - I can hardly wait to see how our Liberals and NDP parties react to the recent comments and plans of Obama.. I'm sure they'll be twisting themselves into pretzels trying to reconcile his plan with their own. Can the left speak out against the Obamasia? It will be interesting.

Indeed.

Newfoundland is Closed for Business - Investment No Longer Welcome from this Conservative (?) Government

Megalomania: (from the Greek word μεγαλομανία) is a historical term for behavior characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, genius, or omnipotence — often generally termed as delusions of grandeur or grandiose delusions. It is a Greek word ,"megalo" meaning "very large", "great", or "exaggerated" and "mania" meaning obsession thus combining to denote an obsession with, either in the form of irrational perceived need for, or preoccupation with one's own estimation of having and/or obtaining, grandiosity and extravagance (especially in the form of great fame and popularity, material wealth, social influence or political power, or more than one or even all of the aforesaid) and accompanying complete desirous and bombastic abandon; a common symptom if not the key diagnostic feature of megalomania. It may be a symptom of manic or paranoid disorders.

Danny Williams: see above.

Flying under the radar this year has been the recent decision of the Province of Newfoundland to expropriate assets from AbitibiBowater. Because the pulp and paper company determined that one of their plants was not viable - well, Danny Williams decided they shouldn't get to keep the assets that they were entitled to in the Province, and passed legislation allowing for expropriation of their assets.

It would appear we have a little Fidel Castro in our midst. In a move worthy of the Cuban dictator, Williams essentially said, "if you don't play the game MY way, I'll take your assets away."

Should we care, here in Alberta, or elsewhere?

Well, seeing as there were rumblings that Barak Obama would try and dismantle NAFTA, it may not be a good idea to now wake the sleeping giant by effectively stealing assets from an American corporation doing business in Canada.

Beyond that - how do you like that message? Business investments in Canada ARE NOT SAFE. WARNING! STAY AWAY! INVEST YOUR DOLLARS ELSEWHERE!

In our economy, it would seem highly suspect to be sending a message that we are not a place to do business. But such is the way of Megalomaniacs. They are blinded by power and delusions of grandeur and the harm that they will bring on their own citizens, well, that is irrelevant to the stroking of one's own ego, isn't it.

How can we be so certain he has lost his mind? Well, when the NDP applauds you, you know you are doing something seriously wrong, witness these comments of NDP Leader Lorraine Michael:

"And what we have before us today is an opportunity to do something that is precedent setting because finally lands that had been ours and had been given away are back. The potential is to have them back in our hands where they belong, in the hands of the people of this province."

Danny Williams is an embarrassment, not only to Conservatives, (can he seriously even use the word without choking?) but an embarrassment to all of Canada.

Funny Conservatives?.. well, this Conservative is a joke.. does that count?

Yesterday I was blogging about the dearth of conservative political humour, some opining that we need to be able to laugh at ourselves to have a sense of humour - pointing out that there aren't many funny feminists or environmentalists..

Well, did you hear the one about the Ontario Tory who tried to break into the Liberal Party's website?..

Well, it's not actually a joke - though it's fair to say that the Tory staffer caught with his "fingers in the keyboard" is a joke. Uh.. ever hear about Watergate dumb ass?

Funny how things sort of tie together, isn't it? As I commented on my blog yesterday,

anyone who is a zealot, by definition, loses their own sense of humour.. and while it seems trivial, if we are not careful, conservatives have a certain zealot lobby that we cannot allow a great foothold, at risk of alienating the massive middle - who vote, variously, NDP, Liberal and Conservative.. but who don't want to see extremes by any party..

Think about that for a moment.

When you talk to a fellow conservative, are they a brain-using, considered Conservative - or are they a zealot, who decries everything any other party does as evil and wrong, and ignore all failings of their own party? If they fall int he later category, they're apt to hurt the party in the long run.

Watergate is about that kind of conservative. The kind of people who think that they are so certain of the "necessity" of their party being in control, that the ends will always justify the means.

Newsflash. They don't.

As I suggested when Stephen Harper decided to load up the Senate, I would rather lose an election with conviction that win an election without any. In the long run, that is what will create a party Canadians can believe in, a party who will get elected and stay elected - not based upon some slight of hand, but based upon honesty and hard work.

The Canadian public is starved for leaders they can believe in, leaders who stand for something, leaders who accept blame when it's due them without equivocation or excuse. Will we see that from the Conservatives in Ontario? Who's staffer was he or she? I would like to see some serious acceptance of responsibility by the Conservative member of the Ontario legislature under whose authority this took place - ideally, a resignation.

Take my MLA.. please..

Are there any funny conservatives?

Well.. as many bloggers are aware, Canada has been besmirched by a bunch of clowns on Fox News.. for those of you who haven't seen it, here's a copy of the clip:



The leftish side of the spectrum is, as one might predict, up in arms.. but the reality is that they should be happy. The real "victims" of this moronic diatribe are the conservatives.

I, for one, am so tired of Fox News and their ignorant, stupid rants - tarring conservatives as a whole as stupid knuckle-draggers.. I've said it before, but we cannot allow the identity of the party to be abducted by the extremely stupid.

Ok - while I've had enough with the irrelevant questioning of Minister Goodyear's position on evolution - the question has to be asked, uh, Steve - how the hell do you appoint a Minister of Science who is either so simple that he doesn't believe in evolution - or, more likely, is so concerned over the reaction of the simple fundamentalist Christian vote that he can't just say, "of course I believe in evolution".

Trust me. I know many, many, conservatives. They are most often very bright, considered, sensitive people who happen to believe in less government encouraging more independance. Better yet, some of them actually have a sense of humor - not like these "fart joke" officianados on Fox News.

Where are the Jon Stewarts and the Bill Maher's of the right.. guys who can laugh at liberal sensibilities, but aren't afraid of poking fun at their own political beliefs where it's warranted.

Don't tell me about Dennis Miller - his rants are, well, just that.. what ever happened to P.J. O'Rourke..

"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."

Alberta.. ironically, under stress because the Government isn't Conservative.. enough

So, in reviewing economic forecasts for my home province of Alberta, it comes as no suprise that Alberta is taking a bit of a beat-down these days as oil prices have dropped and the global economy shrinks.

Que sera - we ride high when things are good, we hunker down and work through it when times are less good.. no panic for this Albertan who recalls when he graduated law school in 1985 and jobs were scarce and interest rates for student loans and homes were astronomical comparatively.

My point.. the Province is in a pickle because, well, they weren't conservative.. enough.

When times were good - perhaps to do the right thing, perhaps to appease the angry masses, the Province increased pay for civil servants to levels making them the envy of all Canada, and most of North America. The Alberta government increased it's spending so that, when I assisted in the 2004 election, I could look our electorate in the eye and say, "contrary to Liberal complaints, we spend more, per capita, on education and health care than any other Province in Canada."

That's a fact. The big, bad conservatives opened the bank as the debt began to dissapear, and the irony is, the achilles heal of the Alberta Government, health care and education, were the largest recipients of government largess and the least appreciative.

I'll tell you a story.. I'm knocking on doors, and I walk up to a home in a nice local neighborhood, beautiful house, large curving driveway, brand new SUV in front.. and as I knock on the door, it's answered by a teacher. Now - I'm happy to chat with anyone - they don't have to support my party, even when you talk to people who disagree with you, you learn things, you know?

Problem is, this teacher was an ass. "I'm a teacher, and if you think I'm going to listen to anything you have to say after what Ralph Klein did to education, you're dreaming". Ok - no problem - have a nice day.

Hmm. What the PC's did to education?

Here's something I discovered as I looked into it - because it bothered me, and I'm no kool-aid drinking conservative. It appeared that for all our money, we still had class-size issues. How could that be? We pay more for education than anyone - how can we still suffer disproportionately-sized classrooms?

Well - when I later spoke to a former School Trustee - this is what I discovered. As more money goes to the Boards, the demand for use of that money by the teaching profession goes to.. wages. And as the vast majority of the increased budget went to make Alberta teachers the highest-paid educators in North America.. there was no money for new teachers to reduce class size, no money to improve facilities to the extend needed, no money to improve books and materials.

And now. Well, we're in a shrinking economy - but we have these wage contracts that obligate us to continue with these high salaries - and what are the odds that those same teachers are going to consider a wage cut?

But hey - we can't blame the teachers - they just asked for it - the Government is the body who gave it to them. They allowed the ATA to whip-saw individual school boards, the ATA essentially bargaining on a Provincial basis with boards who were limited to their local budgets. The government could have, and should have, said "no". We'll bargain provincially. We'll agree to reasonable wages - commensurate with the rest of the country - and no more. Because we knew that the economy would eventually cool, and when it did, we'd be saddled with these contracts. That would have been the truly "conservative" thing to do. But we didn't, c'est la vie.

And now? Well, we live in interesting times, and it may well be that the labor peace that was purchased at a heavy price will need to be, well, tested for the sake of budgetary responsibility. That is, if we're truly being "conservative".

Welcome to the Greater Toronto Area - where the evil thrive and the good go to jail..

Ok.

So, I start my week, if it was possible, being even happier that I don't live in the greater Toronto area. It appears that the GTA is a great place to be a bully and a thug.. but not so good if you're a bright kid trying to succeed.

As reported in the Toronto Sun today, after being threatened and harassed throughout high school - with neither the school or police offering any refuge, Rob Scorcia felt his life was hardly worth living. He was depressed, he contemplated suicide.. after raising complaint after complaint, the thug would be suspended from school only to return and continue his intimidation and threats - egging Rob's car and his family's cars.. and still, no refuge, no credible support for Scorcia.. the final straw coming when the bully called Scorcia's mother and said:

"How would you like your throat slit?" ..how would you like your throat slit ear to ear?"

Scorcia finally snapped. He grabbed a pellet gun, and found the bully and threatened him, telling him to leave him and his family alone.

The result - predictably in Toronto - a charge and now conviction for using an imitation handgun in the commission of a robbery. And a minimum one year in jail. And a conviction that will follow him for the rest of his life.

What came of the bully that the Ontario Crown so ably defended.. well, it appears that in his second day of college this year he was charged with sexual assault on another female student.. and another charge of robbery after kicking and spitting on another male student, demanding his property.

Just a thought - without in any way minimizing the importance of reducing domestic violence - if you think that the Courts, the Police and the Crown would have tolerated this continual history of harassment and threats where it a domestic situation - you're dreaming.

Again - our Country, and in particular, the lovely pink left side of the Country in the GTA shows that the problems of the decent, the extreme "normal" in society have no lobby. Maybe Rob should have said he was gay. Maybe then someone would have taken notice. Too bad, he was just a bright, motivated young white male. Sorry Rob, we have no government program to support those who take care of themselves.

Here's a thought - I've noticed a few firms in Toronto who seem to enjoy showing the good they do with their pro bono (free) work.. perhaps one of them might step up and help Rob and his family..

Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP - they seem very committed to many causes - perhaps they could spend a few hours helping out an atypical cause - people who normally ask society for nothing.

McCarthy Tétrault - they profess that "on both the national and local levels, we support a number of civic, health and social causes that contribute to community building and improvement" - maybe they could use their efforts to help someone who needs help, but who falls in a demographic not typically addressed by charitable work - the average, normal, contributing members of society.

How about the University of Toronto - founder of Pro Bono Students Canada.. maybe they could lend a hand?

Maybe someone could undertake giving Rob a hand on his appeal and, while they're at it - how about a negligence suit against the High School he attended for failing to just expell the loser bully at the first opportunity, and perhaps the Police for failing to exercise the same dilligence I'm sure they employ in protecting women from domestic violence and harrassment?

Ignoring the Heroes

I've been a lawyer for about 24 years, and in that time, I've seen some stuff. I've seen the best in people and I've seen the worst. Most of my work now is as a family lawyer, but I've been in the trenches, arguing for and arguing against child welfare authorities, I've acted as defence counsel in an assortment of criminal trials, including young offender matters, I certainly don't know everything, but I've seen some stuff.

And what I've seen is this:

We give way too much attention to those who least deserve it.

At both extremes..

We are much to obsessed with Britney Spears and J-Lo, with Labron James and David Beckam. These people do almost nothing for society, really. They aren't curing cancer, they aren't saving lives.. and yet, we, and the media, fill our heads with their lives.

At the other extreme - we are obsessed with taking care of people who do everything they can to screw up their own lives, and do next to nothing themselves to fix those problems. We have massive government programs to "fix" problems that people bring on themselves every day. Single mothers who have children with guys who, any idiot cold have told them, were pathetic excuses for partners who would never satisfy their children's needs financially or emotionally. The drug and alcohol addicted who could clearly have made a choice long ago to say "no thanks", but who chose to become addicts. I haven't met a person yet who became addicted to cocaine or heroin who didn't try it at least once before they were hooked.

Oh - yes, I can hear it now.. "they had difficult lives that led them to that, easy for you to judge.." Maybe so.

But - I'll tell you what. For every child molester who was an abused child - there are a hundred abused children who aren't child molesters. For every drug addict from a broken home, there's a hundred from the same or worse backgrounds who chose not to become an addict.

I did some work a couple years ago, acting as counsel for Child Welfare in a disputed situation regarding children allegedly being abused in a home on the Piikani Nation Reserve.. and what struck me as I travelled out to Brocket each day, to interview witnesses, and then prepare and attend the trial - was just how many excellent people are out there. People we don't see in the news, people who come from a very difficult situation in society - who overcome and succeed.
I shouldn't be suprised I suppose, and that, perhaps, speaks badly of me for not expecting that - and while I do appologize for this subtle racism on my part, the point it illustrates is this.

Why aren't we paying more attention to the people in society who do the right things?

Why is it, exactly, that the great middle, the lunch-bucket crew, those who toil in anonymity every day to tend to their lives and their families without government programs holding their hand, without recognition of any kind outside of their own homes - why is it that we just take advantage of that, with nary a thank-you - and then go on worshipping the stupid and the profane?

We want to encourage society to be functional, we want to, I would hope, create a society where people tend to their own needs, where they reasonably can - and yet, we encourage just the opposite.

We send a message every day that we exist to protect the stupid from their own stupidity. So - the point becomes, "why not be stupid"? Why not marry and make children with the worst possible partner? There's someone who will bail me out, no?

Why not leave home, hit the streets and become a heroin addict - you become a sort of "tragic hero" in the east end of Vancouver.. you know, the sad "victim" of society.

I'm not going to give them more publicity by using their names - but those massive losers at Columbine who were "bullied" and then decided to kill innocent fellow students - they ulimately got the post-mortom attention that they didn't deserve during their lives, and deserved less after they died. But we gave it to them.

Maybe we should take a different tact. Maybe we should start publicly recognizing the great middle. Maybe we should start saying "thank-you" to the middle class men or women who just do what they are supposed to do. Care for themselves and their families.

And maybe we should give the losers in sociey the recognition they deserve - don't make them some mythic tragic heroes.

Lady - if you're on your fourth child of four different fathers - you're a tramp and a dredge of society. I don't feel badly for you, stop making assinine and irresponsible decisions. As Chris Rock so aptly says, "Lady, put down the dick".

Buddy - if you're slapping your wife around - we don't care that your father beat you - you're a coward and a loser - and if you're not willing to financially support your children, well, I hope your family is embarassed to acknowledge you. If they aren't - they're just as big a bunch of losers.

Let's stop appologizing for the massively stupid and useless and start paying more attention to the big middle - the winners who aren't on a Wheaties box, but who, dammit, keep society going every day - billions of "average people" who collectively, matter so much more than Hannah Montana and Kanye West.

The most needed government program - something for those who don't need any government programs.

"Progressive" Conservative Observation..

So.. I'm sitting for a few beers last night.. with some friends, including Duane Ens and Kevin Ronan.. and the topic of my last blog comes up, and after they amuse themselves at my expense, we start talking about politics.

Duane styles himself a "conservative".. but deep-down, we're quite sure he's wearing pink underwear, and, sure enough, he points out that we should be thankful to the Liberals under Paul Martin and Jean Chretien for taking the reigns on holding off bank mergers and grappling with the CPP deficit issue.

My thoughts on that point - I'm not sure that merger was going to change the way we regulate banking in Canada - though, perhaps, if the merged banks had more international clout, they may well have become more involved in the U.S. mortgage meltdown.. who knows?

At about this time, another lawyer joins the table, a Liberal supporter.. and his comment is that, like I, he has also become somewhat disillusioned with the political process.. and his comment, which surprised me - was that we needed a "progressive" "conservative" government.

His meaning - not that he wanted Bryan Mulroney back - but that we need a fiscal conservative and a socially liberal government.. which, I agree with.

The history of conservative politics in Canada is, I think, miss-understood. The decimation of the Progressive Conservative party after Mulroney has little if anything to do with socially conservative policies as it had to do with:

a) the GST;
b) the selection of neophyte Kim Cambell, as a leader.

Suddenly - the party was in disarray - and rather than reach out to someone who could cross the divide, as the Liberals are seeking to do under Ignatieff - the hard right started it's own party, the Reform Party. For a period, "progressive" conservatives stayed away - and the Liberals had their way with things..

As centrist Conservatives could hold their nose no longer, they returned and supported the formation of the "Conservative Party".. the social conservatives getting continued support to oppose the massive Liberal pressure to immediately accept gay marriage - while the Liberals threw other, much more significant and important issues under the bus to respond to this small, but very vocal, minority.

So - where does that take us? To today.

The Liberals, thankfully, continue to evolve (yes, I believe in evolution) into a party of the special interests.. a party who ignores average Canadians, and who seeks to "save" small and vocal special interests.


However - at the same time, the Conservatives are a government with an over-representation of socially backward conservatives, and an under-representation of truly fiscal conservatives.. which, if we don't correct it will be our downfall.

There is no stomach in broader Canada for the politicization of abortion in this country. Gay marriage is a fait accomplis - and as such, there is no longer any power in the "social conservative" lobby. They are done.. like the dinosaurs in Drumheller, they need to be buried and fossilized as studies in history.

If the Conservative party wants to consolidate it's power base - and to make inroads in Quebec and the GTA, they need to return to the idea of a "Progressive Conservative" government - a government who understands the obligations we share the protect and support the less fortunate, but a government which is aware of the need for individual freedom and liberty - a government who encourages initiative in this time of economic re-birth. A government who will adopt sensible - not hysterical - responses to environmental issues. A government who will send a message to all citizens in Canada that you are truly welcome here.. and we won't do that if we appease a small, but very vocal, minority.

Liberal Bloggers.. please tell me you have something more.

Well, the media has been abuzz with the question of whether or not the Minister of Science, Gary Goodyear, believes in evolution.

Is the Minister Goodyear a died-in-the wool creationist?

My answer is I don't have the first damn clue.

Maybe he just doesn't like to have to answer irrelevant questions from some obnoxious reporter. And maybe he believes, as most Christians do, that evolution does occur, as all science, as a creation of God.. and maybe he doesn't believe in evolution at all.

I'm an educated man, but I'm afraid I can't speak intelligently about the deep personal religious beliefs of Gary Goodyear - but then I don't think in Canada we are in the habit of putting others beliefs up to ridicule unless they've first done something to warrant that.

What I do know is that our Country is in the midst of a crisis of massive economic proportions, a crisis leaving real men and women without jobs and income to feed their families.

Now, are questions of "evolution" the questions that Canadians expect the Liberal opposition to be asking?

Please tell me that you have something more, desperate Liberals.

Our Country is in a crisis affecting real people's lives.

Please tell me our loyal opposition hasn't pinned our citizen's hopes to pointless "evolution" complaints.

Please tell you have something more than a question of whether men came from monkeys.

Alberta Government Taking Green Initiative

As reported in Greentech Media today, the Alberta government has announced an $8.3 million investment in producing underground gasification of coal - a cleaner burning alternative to generate power - which may also prove to be capable of facilitating carbon dioxide capture.

As reported by Greentech Media:

Fredrik Wass

Alberta’s government invests in clean coal project
Today at 1:49 PM

The first and the deepest. The government of Alberta is putting $8.83 million into a Swan Hills Synfuels underground coal gasification project.

The project will be the first of it’s kind in North America and the deepest in the world so far, reaching deeper than 1,000 metres below the surface, according to Calgary-based Swan Hills Synfuels . It’s a $20 million project hoping to demonstrate that it would be possible to manufacture clean synthetic gas from coal resources in north-central Alberta.

The technology is more or less like cole mining without a mine. Instead of an open pit you dig wells in the ground reaching down to the coal resources. Then you inject oxygen and saline water turning the coal into synthesis gas. Among Swan Hills Synfuels’ competitors are Laurus Energy, a Houston-based company that borrows technology from the former Soviet Union to do almost the same thing. (see Coal Mining Without the Mine). Scotland is funding a similar project.

The investment from the government of Alberta is done through Alberta Energy Research Institute (AERI) and the coal seams are also expected to be used in future carbon capture and sequestration processes, after the coal is turned into gas.

“Alberta has had success with coalbed methane and cleaner coal technology is part of our overall climate change strategy.” said Alberta’s Advanced Education and Technology Minister Doug Horner, in a statement.

The syngas produced from the underground coal resources can be used for pretty much the same purposes as natural gas: power generation, gas for home heating, hydrogen, methanol and transporation fuels. It can also be used for pre-combustion carbon dioxide capture.

According to AERI the method of undergroand coal gasification poses no risk to shallow fresh groundwater since the depths are below 1,000 metres. And being underground it’s more enviromental friendly compared to traditional coal mining or coal gasifications methods, but of course not near as clean as solar or wind power.

Watch and Listen.. who's at fault, Bush and Clinton, and the vested interests of Wall Street

Ok.. if the Liberals and Conservatives could sort of stop bickering amongst themselves, and perhaps consider the above interview, it might become apparent that the economic meltdown is not us, it's "them".. government and their financiers.. Wall Street.. AIG and their ilk.. rather than buy their assets - the government should force them to write off their bad debt that they shouldn't have incurred in the first place.

Same goes here in Canada for GMC and friends.. they put themselves in this position, we didn't. Let the market do it's job - without prejudice nor favor by government. If they can cook a deal with organized labor that is mutually beneficial without government bailouts, great - if not, well, let them go. The market will, eventually, fill in the gap.

Canada, by and large, has been economically responsible, whether under Liberal or Conservative governments, but we're tied to this huge sick animal called the U.S.A.

As we see the bickering going on between Republican and Democrat talking heads south of the border, we realize that, in fact, the American public is being sold a bill of goods - and under Obama, it's business as usual - which is not to credit the Republicans, as the biggest criticism of Obama is that he has no intention of curing the cancer that existed under Clinton and then grew even greater under Bush.

Open your mind to understand Global Warming.. err, Climate Change..

The welfare of our economy, and, at the same time, the potential welfare of our planet, are too damn important to be ignored. That being said, instead of getting good science and well-thought out information, we get 30 second sound-bites and completely dogmatic fear-mongering.. leaving the average Canadian completely dazed and confused.

What makes it worse is when the so-called experts are caught with their pants down.

Witness the recent advice that that the IPCC has been misleading the public regarding it's claims on the effects of global warming:

IPCC external reviewer Dr Madhav Khandekar says the UN body has exaggerated the costs of global warming:

Using unpublished work to bolster claims of escalating economic costs while ignoring peer reviewed studies which document otherwise is an unacceptable and unscientific practice…

The exaggerated claim of GW impacts by the IPCC has led to a distortion of the reality of climate change and its future impact. The earth’s climate has changed and is changing continuously, a fact accepted by most climate scientists on both sides of the present debate. Is the present climate change deleterious to human societies? Are there beneficial aspects of climate change that have been overlooked? Do adverse impacts outweigh beneficial impacts? We do not have all the answers yet. There is a definite need to carefully analyze climate change impact on world-wide human societies. The IPCC assessment is far from objective and needs to be critically re-assessed.

A link to Dr. Khandekar's report is here.

Does this mean we should ignore completely the potential that we are contributing to climate change in an unhealthy way? No. What it means is that, perhaps, we should be aware that political interests and environmental extremists are not giving us the "straight scoop" and that we need to question the stuff we're fed.. from both sides.

The IPCC is a body of the U.N. There so many countries belonging to the U.N. who would benefit greatly from the transfer of wealth contemplated in Kyoto that one might look upon their work with some skepticism. One might question the "broad scientific acceptance" of IPCC findings when one has regard to the fact that 80% of the members of the IPCC have no climate study credentials at all.

The chairman of the IPCC is in fact, and economist. (Did I mention the economic agenda of the IPCC?)

It's now common knowledge that the catalyst for Al Gore's Nobel Prize, his "Inconvenient Truth", is in fact, conveniently, UNTRUE in so many respects that it can't be shown at schools in England without a disclaimer.

That being said - is it a bad idea to reduce our carbon footprint? No - reducing pollution generally can never be a bad idea, and reducing our dependance upon a resource that creates so much conflict in a certain part of the world, and which is a depleting resource anyway, can never be a bad idea. Just try and avoid the hysteria that people like David Suzuki and Al Gore try to foist upon you.

The Misguided Drive to "Security"

I was recently re-reading a book by my favorite author, Hunter S. Thompson, a collection of his letters, called, "The Proud Highway: Saga of a Desperate Southern Gentleman, 1955-1967", and was struck by a letter he had written while he was still in high school for God's sake, a boy of 18.. long before he became the originator of so-called, "Gonzo Journalism", decades before he coined the phrase "fear and loathing".. yet, in his letter, is the blueprint of all that came later, and, perhaps, the key to all that is wrong with politics today.. but more on that in a moment - for now, I just share with you Hunter's thoughts as an 18 year old, entering adulthood..

Security
by Hunter S. Thompson (1955).


-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Security ... what does this word mean in relation to life as we know it today? For the most part, it means safety and freedom from worry. It is said to be the end that all men strive for; but is security a Utopian goal or is it another word for rut?

Let us visualize the secure man; and by this term, I mean a man who has settled for financial and personal security for his goal in life. In general, he is a man who has pushed ambition and initiative aside and settled down, so to speak, in a boring, but safe and comfortable rut for the rest of his life. His future is but an extension of his present, and he accepts it as such with a complacent shrug of his shoulders. His ideas and ideals are those of society in general and he is accepted as a respectable, but average and prosaic man. But is he a man? has he any self-respect or pride in himself? How could he, when he has risked nothing and gained nothing? What does he think when he sees his youthful dreams of adventure, accomplishment, travel and romance buried under the cloak of conformity? How does he feel when he realizes that he has barely tasted the meal of life; when he sees the prison he has made for himself in pursuit of the almighty dollar? If he thinks this is all well and good, fine, but think of the tragedy of a man who has sacrificed his freedom on the altar of security, and wishes he could turn back the hands of time. A man is to be pitied who lacked the courage to accept the challenge of freedom and depart from the cushion of security and see life as it is instead of living it second-hand. Life has by-passed this man and he has watched from a secure place, afraid to seek anything better What has he done except to sit and wait for the tomorrow which never comes?

Turn back the pages of history and see the men who have shaped the destiny of the world. Security was never theirs, but they lived rather than existed. Where would the world be if all men had sought security and not taken risks or gambled with their lives on the chance that, if they won, life would be different and richer? It is from the bystanders (who are in the vast majority) that we receive the propaganda that life is not worth living, that life is drudgery, that the ambitions of youth must he laid aside for a life which is but a painful wait for death. These are the ones who squeeze what excitement they can from life out of the imaginations and experiences of others through books and movies. These are the insignificant and forgotten men who preach conformity because it is all they know. These are the men who dream at night of what could have been, but who wake at dawn to take their places at the now-familiar rut and to merely exist through another day. For them, the romance of life is long dead and they are forced to go through the years on a treadmill, cursing their existence, yet afraid to die because of the unknown which faces them after death. They lacked the only true courage: the kind which enables men to face the unknown regardless of the consequences.

As an afterthought, it seems hardly proper to write of life without once mentioning happiness; so we shall let the reader answer this question for himself: who is the happier man, he who has braved the storm of life and lived or he who has stayed securely on shore and merely existed?

Ruminate upon THAT for a moment, if you will. Consider it. Are we, as Canadians, simply aspiring to "security"?

Do we really wish to live, shackled by the need to have the state "protect" us, and keep us safe, from others, and worst of all, from ourselves? Those on the left, and now, on the right, will give us a vision of utopia, a life free of risk and pain.. or so they say.. but what would such a life give us?

As a society, more and more, we refuse to "face the unknown regardless of the consequences".

Those who profess religious faith, upon being asked, "If God is good why is there evil?", and their response, typically, is "Without darkness, how would we know light.. without evil, how would we know good?"

Maybe so, and if so, how can we be "secure" when there is no longer any "risk"?

The public has become so conditioned to be risk-adverse, to be afraid of the unknown, that more and more we demand that our politicians give us "safety", give us "security".. and more and more, they deliver. However, as the saying goes, there is no free lunch.. so, ask yourself, what is the cost?

Don't get me wrong - government has a duty to provide security - to those who cannot provide it for themselves. To children of abusive homes, to the disabled, to the infirm.. but then, it should end. There was never a promise that life should be easy, in fact, were it so, it would hardly be worth living.

Be careful, Canadians, what you wish for.. as, slowly but surely, you are seeking to build your own padded cell, three squares a day, no nail-files, shoe-laces or belts, thank-you.. and you will be very secure. Indeed.

Canadian Courts.. and the decline of Freedom in Canada

Canadian Lawyer magazine published an article this week regarding two of the front-line lawyers fighting in the arena of free speech v. hate crime, Doug Christie and Richard Warren.

In the article, which is, arguably, somewhat neutral, it outlines the basic history of the two lawyers and provides their basic comments respecting why they do what they do, a copy of it is here.

In reading the article, I came across a note regarding a libel suit that Warran won over Paul Fromm before the Ontario courts, who directed damages of $30,000.00 payable by Fromm. Because I have children just starting University, and would rather use $30,000.00 to help them as opposed to helping Warran, I won't re-state the comments that the Court found were libelous, but you can read the decision here.

My point in this posting? Well, what struck me as I read the decision is that, in my opinion, Fromm's postings were, more or less, the sort of things we see on the internet everyday, people blogging from one side or the other regarding their point of view respecting those for or against state sanctioned censorship.. and what is frightening, truly, is how relatively innocuous the comments were that resulted in a judgment.

We have, in Canada, a mainstream media who refuses to ask the hard questions, driven more and more to simply reflect the lowest common denominator of Canadian intelligence, and the only people that truly engage our minds, and raise the level of debate, are the bloggers.

This decision, if you care to read it, sends a very unhealthy message to bloggers and to the broader society. It says, effectively, if you have strong opinions about public figures (and it would strike me that Richard Warman, if nothing else, has put himself out there as a "public figure") you cannot criticize them.

The legal standard of libel is whether your comments might "tend to lower a person in the estimation of right thinking members of society, or to expose a person to hatred, contempt or ridicule." Well, sorry, but isn't that so often the point? That our elected representatives, and their agents, are often engaged in conduct which is worthy of contempt and ridicule - and if we can't criticize that, well, we might as well be living in Cuba or North Korea.

I'll not review the totality of the decision, suffice to say it find that the comments were defamatory and that they were not saved by the concept of "fair comment".. and if you care to read it, you will, I'm sure, agree that the decision is terrible. It is one of those decisions which I, as a member of the legal profession, am embarrassed to acknowledge. While it gives lip-service to the concept of "fair comment", the ease with which the Judge skims over the defence and dismisses it with the most trivial of examination is shocking.

The irony should not be lost that the very point that Fromm was making was, essentially, vindicated by the recent impartial review of the Human Rights Commission which suggested, quite clearly, that Section 13, Mr. Warman's close friend, should be repealed as being a dangerous tool which may be used to improperly limit freedom of expression.

We are approaching a truly dangerous time in our society. We are in the midst of a movement towards state-controlled speech in a very real, and demonstrable sense. It is interesting that during a recent meeting discussing limitations on similar legislation in Alberta, when I stood up to suggest that some amendment to the legislation was required, I was initially booed and criticized - one commenter suggesting that the limits I was suggesting "have no place in his Alberta".

However, my point was stated thusly.. the current legislation limiting so-called "hate literature" prevents the expression of any statement which may tend to expose an "identifiable group" to "contempt". And recall that truth is no defence.

Think about that. You cannot, under Canadian Human Rights legislation, make any statement, even if true, which might expose an "identifiable group to contempt".

Now - answer this.. when Aboriginal citizens in this country exposed and in fact sued to be compensated for the horrible injustices inflicted upon them by the residential schools operated by Catholic or Anglican churches.. is there any argument that such truth exposed the Catholic Church to contempt.

When CUPE and other protesters in Canada currently are suggesting that Israel is practicing genocide and are an "apartheid regime".. is there any argument that such statements expose Israelis and, in fact, Jews, to contempt?

Perhaps more subtely, when Michael Ignatieff suggests that the BQ are "people who want to split the country up", is he not perhaps exposing Quebecois to "contempt" by the rest of Canada? I'm not sure about you - but when the leader of the Liberal party tells me the Bloc are trying to split up my country, it doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy for the citizens, clealry francophone, who support them, n'est-ce pas?

I started this post by referring to Canadian Lawyer magazine's discussion of the issue, and, as stated, it is fairly neutral in terms of it's attitude regarding Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Shame on them. As a publication representign lawyers, as members of a profession that so often is the last bastion of freedom in a society, shame on them. They should know better.

Don't Let the Door Hit Your Ass on the Way Out..

So, Chrysler threatens to leave Canada.

According to the Montreal Gazette, Chrysler is demanding that unions drop labor costs, the government loans them $2.3 billion, and they obtain "resolution" of a tax dispute with Revenue Canada, which has resulted in a $500 million lien being placed against their Brampton plant.

Very, very interesting.. Chrysler allegedly has been "transfer pricing", where they sell Canadian goods at below market price to their U.S. division.. paying less tax in Canada.

Very, very interesting.. Chrysler agreed to union demands such that their workers are receiving "all in" benefits of $75.00 per hour.

Soooo.. we're going to rip off the tax-payers of Canada in favor of the U.S., we're going to agree to improvident union demands.. which obviously has a trickle-down effect for other manufacturing businesses, and now, they're making threats to induce a government loan?

When my son was young, he used to ask me what make cars were as they drove by us.. and I used to say to him, "Here's a clue - if it's really ugly and stupid looking, it's probably a Chrysler."

I didn't know that comment extended to their management.

Uh, buh bye.

Ontario: Struggling under Tweedle-Dumb and Tweedle-Dumber

Ok. So I'm not crying tears for the GTA and the crushing economic failure on Bay Street.. but, truthfully, I think it's tragic that so many in Ontario are losing their jobs. To some degree, I suppose, it can't be helped..

But witness the recent goings on in the legislature - with Tweedle-Dumb, Dalton McGuinty, and Tweedle-Dumber, Andrea Horwath, going at it yesterday - and you realize truly why they are in such trouble.

As Ontario's Liberal government continues to flounder under its' own inertia, the even less able NDP "puts their feet to the fire", with this challenging question posed by Horwath..

"They've worked hard, but now they worry about keeping a roof over their head and food on the table. With all of the tools that this government has at hand and has at its disposal, how could the premier let this happen?"

How could this happen? Are you really that galactically stupid? Seriously?

Ok.. well, to start with, there is a global economic meltdown - you may not have noticed that as you were busy.. uh..

- trying to get the government to address the polygamy issue

- opposing cleaning businesses being able to obtain government contracts;

- opposing child-care businesses

- fighting evil fitness clubs

- basically, doing everything but find ways to help businesses succeed.

Beyond that,well, more or less you got what you wanted. Businesses were saddled with taxes, labor costs, and other beaurocratic restrictions that cost them heavily.. and then, under the weight of the illusion that business can always pay more, well, oddly enough, they failed.

Think about this for a moment, Ontario in paricular has voted in Liberal governments, NDP governments, Liberal Federal governments.. all of which are less than hospitable to business interests - which is fine if that's your goal - but then why the shock when business begins shutting its doors?

This is the point.. as business becomes more attuned to certain realities - that a healthy and happy labour force improves production, labour still is living in the past. They refuse to understand this simple principal:

Them is Us.

While it is almost beyond belief that one should have to state the obvious, ignoramouses like McGuinty and Horwath don't understand this simple reality:

As business fails, so does labour. When a business shuts down, workers lose their jobs.

For those in the Liberal and NDP parties, read that and repeat it - but if you still don't get it, don't worry, you'll get many more examples in Ontario over the next year or two that will drive the point home.

At the tragic expense of the great middle who have been so sadly let down.

More Corporate Welfare - and the great expense to average Canadians

I was reading, with some ennuie, a story in the Star today about the recent deal between GM and the CAW. Something caught my eye, however. Buried in the article was a comment that failure could ultimately cost more than the bail-out because tax-payers would be on the hook for pension shortfalls under Pension guarantee legislation.

Huh? Pension guarantee?

So - I checked it out. The U.S. does have pension guarantee legislation, which is completely ironic - you know, land of the free, the last bastion of pure capitalism and all that.. and, by and large, big business is able to offer lovely pension packages, backed up by government guarantees.

In Canada - well, in January the Quebec government announced a guarantee of defined benefit plans in Quebec.

Ontario already had and continues to have the Ontario Pension Benefits Guarantee fund.

So what?

Well, I have a small business. We have to pay a competitive wage with government and large business for our staff needs. How would you feel, however, if while trying to compete in the labour market, government and large corporations had a major advantage over you that YOU had to pay for?

Think about that. Government and large corporations have these lovely defined benefit pension plans - which, in theory, the business and the employees pay for. However - for government pensions, and for private pensions in Quebec and Ontario, those great plans (that no small business in Canada can offer their employees) are backstopped by the government.

So - when the CAW and GMC are spending money and making demands that would make the average Canadian blush, when they collectively put themselves in a mess such that the business is going bankrupt - they basically put a gun to the taxpayers heads, and say, "pay us or else". Or else what? Or else you are going to be on the hook for our unfunded pension liabilities of course..

Nice.

But - it's worse. You see, a recent study has suggested that when the government guarantees private pensions, the corporations reduce their contributions to assure pension solvency.

Nice again.

If we, as taxpayers, offer to guarantee their pensions, firstly, they tend to worry less and reduce their funding.. and when the shit hit's the fan, they get to use that guarantee as a blackmail tool against us.

Consider this for a moment, and then think about these facts:

Small business accounts for 98% of all businesses in Canada.

Small business accounts for 30% of Canada's GDP.

Small business employees 48% of Canada's labour force - and 15% of Canadians are in fact self-employed.

Small business is the backbone of this Country, it accounts for almost 1/2 of over-all employment, yet, as the credo of this blog suggests, those of us in small business are a "diminishing band of yesterday's refugees".

Yet - if I can't make a go of it, or the auto repair shop down the street is up against the wall, or the small home builder can no longer balance his or her books and get's ready to call their employees and tell them that their jobs are no more - you know what the government will do about that? Nothing. One half of Canada's workforce relies on small business - 1/2 of which will go bankrupt inside of three years.. and the government couldn't care less. Which is the way it should be. You take the risk, and if it turns out, the profit is yours, and if it doesn't, the downside is yours too.. I don't want my neighbor to help pay for my losses if they occur. But - and here's the point - don't ask me to pay for GMC's losses and backstop their lovely pension plans that neither me nor my employees will ever see. Don't ask me to worry too much when Air Canada is going under.. millions of jobs are silently lost every year in small business, and we go on.

Life will go one when GMC shuts down.

This is the price of a free enterprise economy - don't put more weight on the back of average Canadians, particularly small business, when the same protections aren't going to available to them, to the auto repair shop down the street, to local home builder.

Sentencing of Father of Girls Who Froze to Death - 3 Years in Prison - A Good Start

A couple days ago, I posted on the tragic death of Ashley Smith in an Ontario jail, and I suggested that we should have some inquiry as to how she got to the position she was in - which might include having a good hard look at how she was parented.

Well - today, Christopher Pauchay, the Saskatchewan man whose two young daughters froze to death when he took them into a snowstorm while he was drunk was sentenced to three years in prison.

While I would have liked to have seen 5 years, the maximum in the circumstances, it was much better than the suggested sentence of house arrest coming from his community sentencing circle.

If we seriously wish to help our society get beyond many of the social ills we see today, we will welcome this message and say, "enough". You cannot abuse and neglect your children - and if you do, there will be a price.

Were it up to me, I would include provision that such offenders be sterilized, as, sadly, it would be no shock to see him sire a few more children after his release. Oh, and while we're at it - perhaps he should be sharing a cell, and sharing sterilization with the children's mother, Tracey Jimmy, whose contribution to the death of her children and the neglect of yet another child was illustrated in this paragraph of the story:

Jimmy said when she first met Pauchay, she knew he would be the father of her children. She cried as she described her happiness when she found out she was pregnant with their first baby. She wept as she said that their third child, with whom she was pregnant at the time of Kaydance and Santana's deaths, has been taken from them by social services. The baby was removed from their care after an incident eight months ago that resulted in assault charges and a restraining order against Pauchay.

The only person who knows what she's going through is Pauchay, she added, and they aren't allowed to live together.

"They took away my (main) support," she said.

So - let me understand this - you not only took back this son-of-a-bitch who killed your two children, but, apparently, you allowed him back into your home and allowed him to apparently put your newborn at risk - to such extent that the child was taken from you.

Nice.

Three years is a good start - and if we're serious, we will charge the mother for child neglect along with him. And if anyone posts a blog suggesting that we investigate the "state" for their responsibility, well, then you might as well consider yourself complicit in the horrible deaths of these two children as well..

As the quote goes, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Let us stop with the excuses for all of the evil we allow to exist in this world. There is right and wrong - and for every disadvantaged aboriginal person, there are so many coming from the same difficulties who do the right things, who overcome their disadvantage, who fully love and care for their children - do not insult them by seeking to excuse Pauchay and Jimmy. They deserve no sympathy - reserve that for their poor children.

Saskabush North American Hot Spot for Jobs

Well, according to CNN and the Vancouver Sun, Saskatchewan is the employment "hot spot" in North America, referencing a Conference Board of Canada report released Tuesday that forecasts the province will lead the nation in GDP growth in 2009.

The first line of the article is "Take that, Alberta".

As an Albertan, I find that sort of amusing, like we would be offended by another Province succeeding. Are we, as a society, really that shallow?

As much as the politics of Quebec annoys the hell out of me, I would be doing cartwheels if they were no longer a draw on the rest of Canada.

Similarly, as Saskatchewan and Newfoundland improve their Provincial economies, I think most right thinking Albertans welcome their success. As our Premier has attempted to illustrate to the rest of Canada - we're all in this together - I mean, even Michael Ignatieff is at least giving lip service to the idea of success in one Province benefitting us all.

So, "take that?" - well, yes, we will take that, and say, "good for Saskatchewan".

Oh, by the way, did I mention that Saskatchewan has found it's success under a conservative government?

Ashley Smith's Death in Jail - Why Isn't there a FULL Public Inquiry

Once again the Canadian Media have found another cause to fire up headlines of righteous indignation, being the recent death of Ashley Smith at Grand Valley Institution for Women at Kitchener, Ont., in October 2007.

As we have heard, Ashely died after strangling herself to death - and much has been said about the fact that guards apparently watched her do it - not intervening until after she was unconscious and after some delay before efforts to revive her failed.

In response, Howard Sapers, a Correctional Service Investigator, has issued a damning report about the failure of Corrections Canada to adequate address the needs of the mentally ill, and about Ashley Smith's treatment in particular.

The criticism is, probably, well founded - though one does get almost physically ill with the obvious and expected response of the Liberal pack of dogs, who salivate at every opportunity for criticism of the government, ignoring the glaring reality that the conditions were, in fact, created directly under their own watch and the Conservatives simply inherited an already broken machine. Oh - and lets also not ignore the reality that her death occurred under a Liberal government in New Brunswick - so much for the "kinder, gentler" party of the weak and oppressed.

My question - why not a full inquiry? What was the exact nature of Ashley's illness, why didn't provincial authorities intervene before she got in the criminal justice system, and, more to the point, what were the circumstances that lead to her problems in the first place.

In the past, I have been a lawyer with significant experience in representing young offenders and parties involved in the Child Welfare System, including acting as counsel for Child Welfare themselves - and in my years, the most glaring absence in the system is the complete failure to assess parental responsibility for the problems of our youth.

Were Ashley's parents complicit in this matter? That is something I would like to know. That may be a cruel and unfair implication - but experience suggests, more often than not, troubled children are the product of parents who fall down on their job to give their children the love and care hey need. Now - in fairness to Ashley's parents, sometimes, children have congenital difficulties that even the best of parents could not over-come.. and this could be the case with Ashley. However, if we're going to have an "inquiry" and start handing out blame - let's have a full inquiry.

As discussed in my earlier blog respecting the death at Kicking Horse resort, as a society, we constantly avoid asking the hard questions regarding personal responsibility. We love to attack the faceless state who, almost always, is responding to a situation where someone has failed to respond to their own obligations as an individual member of society.

Some years ago, I recall acting for a young offender. He was a difficult young man, and, to be honest, I got to the point where I was angry with his attitude of confrontation and anger - he could have been Ashley Smith. His offense was not overly serious, but he had already amassed a significant record, and it was apparent that he was going to be incarcerated in a youth facility for a short period. As I readied my case for a sentencing hearing, I asked his mother if she could attend showing family support - and her response was "no". She told me she had enough and she "couldn't give any more". Well, as I reviewed the pre-sentence report, I discovered to my horror that this boy had a very troubled life. His mother was what could only be called a complete failure as a parent. One man after another assumed residence in her home, often abusing her and her son, until one day, another of the mother's boyfriends was left to tend to her son - and on that day, the man decided to hang himself. He hung himself from a door frame - and at that point, this young 9year old child tried to hold him up - he stood there, vainly trying to hold this man up, and cried, and sobbed, and watched this man die.

I read that report and cried. I have tears on my face even now as I write this, some 20 years after the fact.. and as this young man was placed into the care of the state for a short period, after Court adjourned, I spoke with the Crown attorney, and said, "there is someone who should be going to jail today, and isn't that child."

Man.. using "Ignatieffisms" against Liberals themselves is more fun than.. well, watching the coalition fail!

I enjoy reading Liberal blogs occasionally. Some, like James Curran, are actually interesting and help understand the weaknesses in our own views as Conservatives.. others, well, they're just painful.

So - today I happen upon a rant by Red Tory called, "The Depraved Insanity of the Right", complaining ad nauseum about a National Post article regarding our position in Afghanistan.

Well, I couldn't help but give my two cents worth:

Well.. first of all, in fairness, no less an authority on world affairs than Michael Ignatieff himself has pointed out that the "Michael Moore-style left" has undermined the noble goals of the U.S. seeking to spread democracy under what he calls their "pseudo-Marxist realism". As Ignatieff also points out in his New York Times article, "THE AMERICAN EMPIRE; The Burden":

..it remains a fact -- as disagreeable to those left wingers who regard American imperialism as the root of all evil as it is to the right-wing isolationists, who believe that the world beyond our shores is none of our business -- that there are many peoples who owe their freedom to an exercise of American military power. It's not just the Japanese and the Germans, who became democrats under the watchful eye of Generals MacArthur and Clay. There are the Bosnians, whose nation survived because American air power and diplomacy forced an end to a war the Europeans couldn't stop. There are the Kosovars, who would still be imprisoned in Serbia if not for Gen. Wesley Clark and the Air Force. The list of people whose freedom depends on American air and ground power also includes the Afghans

..

Of course.. he could be wrong, I mean, as explained in his book, "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness", Dr. Lyle Rossiter points out that true liberals are really dealing under a form of mental illness..

'splains it all.

Harper on CNN: Canada, Allies will not defeat the Taliban

Well, our Prime Minister appears to be truly maturing on the world stage.. after a great meeting with President Obama, which left most Canadians (other than kool-aid drinking Liberals) very impressed with their interaction, he has now been speaking in the U.S., again to very positive reviews.

Yesterday - the Globe Reports that Harper stakes his own territory, beyond Obama's shadow, stating on CNN that Canada and the Allies will never defeat the Taliban through military action. As reported in the Globe and Mail:

"Frankly, we are not going to ever defeat the insurgency," Mr. Harper said, more than seven years after the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan toppled the Taliban regime. Canadian troops have been fighting and dying in Afghanistan since 2002, but this is the first time the Prime Minister has explicitly said defeating the Islamic extremists can't be done.

Mr. Harper, in an interview with CNN's Fareed Zakaria, said that despite sending thousands of soldiers to Afghanistan and suffering more than 100 troop deaths, the "success has been modest" and any gains made could be lost.

"We're not going to win this war just by staying," Mr. Harper said, and pointed to the long history of Afghan insurgencies successfully driving out foreign invaders - including the Soviet army in the 1980s and the British a century earlier.

Hmm.. where have I heard stuff like that.. oh yeah, in my blog on Feb.26, a week ago:

In Canada - rather than fall into the camps of "get out of Afghanistan now" or "pursue the establishment of a democratic Afghanistan state" - perhaps we need to do the same. Why are we there? And even if our goals are valid and laudable -are they realistic? I suggest they aren't - sadly, there is insufficient political will of the Afghan people themselves, insufficient support for the ideals of gender equality and free expression.. and as such, we need to see the world as it is, not as we wish it were.

If Harper can check his temper and his ego at the door.. he is developing a sensibility that shows vision. He is perhaps becoming the leader that Canadians have been waiting for, someone with a domestic and a world vision beyond simply appeasing his constituents.. rest assured, hard core Liberal kool-aid drinkers will just call him a flip-flopper, and hard core Conservatives will perhaps see him as weak.. I think, for once, we have a leader who is telling us, and the world, how it is - not how we wish it was.

Finally.

Liberal Advertising...err.. I mean Canadian Press News.. and the Justified Ass-Kicking Coming to Ignatieff

Well, this morning my post was somewhat critical of Conservatives apparently gearing up for war with Ignatieff, rather than spending their effort helping our country.

And, to their credit - some posted that perhaps this was a Liberal trick, facilicated by their friends in the MSM. My last post questioned this suggestion.. but perhaps I spoke or wrote too soon.

Now - 1 hour ago, we see a second article, again in from the Canadian Press, suggesting that "Liberals predict Tory attack ads would backfire".

After reading both articles, I have made the following observations:

a) The only named sources for either articles are Liberals, being Michael Ignatieff, Bob Ray and "he who shall remain nameless on this blog";

b) Sources coming from the Conservatives are described thusly,

"Conservatives say..",
"Two government officials say..",
"..said one government official",
"..said a government insider",
"..Tories say",

c) The follow up story, on how we should be getting ready for Tory attack ads that will surely backfire, features, prominently, Bob Rae and Ignatieff's nameless one who is "on deck to run the Liberal war room".

Upon further reflection, it is, in fact, very apparent that the Liberal Party, no doubt broke and unable to pay for advertising, has induced some MSM clone to run their drivel to "create" a story to help soften the blow that Liberals themselves know is coming - what, truly, will be a horrendous attack on Ignatieff, an attack that in many respects will be justly deserved, most certainly including the expected commentary that:

1. Michael Ignatieff is a Canadian of convenience, having spent the great part of the last three decades living elsewhere, and, apparently, referring to himself as "American". When asked about it by Peter Newman in a Maclean's interview published on 6 April 2006, Ignatieff said: "Sometimes you want to increase your influence over your audience by appropriating their voice, but it was a mistake."

2. Michael Ignatieff loves/hates Israel - take your pick - In August,2006, Ignatieff said he was "not losing any sleep" over dozens of civilian deaths caused by Israel's attack on Qana during its military actions in Lebanon. Ignatieff recanted those words the following week. Then, on October 11, 2006, Ignatieff described the Qana attack as a war crime (committed by Israel).

3. Michael Ignatieff is a great supporter/opponent of the War in Iraq - take your pick - Ignatieff was a prominent supporter of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. Ignatieff stated that "The United Nations lay dozing like a dog before the fire, happy to ignore Saddam until an American president seized it by the scruff of the neck and made it bark."

There was a time where he appeared to be a good Republican, at one point stating "The Michael Moore-style left conquered the Democratic Party's heart; now the view was that America's only guiding interest overseas was furthering the interests of Halliburton and Exxon. The relentless emphasis on the hidden role of oil makes the promotion of democracy seem like a devious cover or lame excuse. The unseen cost of this pseudo-Marxist realism is that it disconnected the Democratic Party from the patriotic idealism of the very electorate it sought to persuade."

Of course, later, as the war lost favor, his attitude changed and he became an opponent of the Iraq war, suggesting his initial (very strong and clear) views were errors of judgment, by presenting them as the commentary of an academics and intellectual, as "generalizing and interpreting particular facts as instances of some big idea". In politics, by contrast, "Specifics matter more than generalities".

4. Ignatieff opposes/supports the use of extreme measures to combat terrorism - take your pick - in his writings, Ignatieff has suggested that western democracies may have to resort to "lesser evils" like indefinite detention of suspects, "coercive interrogations", targeted assassinations, and pre-emptive wars in order to combat the greater evil of terrorism. Again, as he has become esconced in the Canadian Liberal hegemony, he has distanced himself from such statements.

5. Ignatieff is an Elitist who shows little regard for the common person - The measure of Michael Ignatief was illustrated in his derision and dismissal of Ukranians seeking an independant state as evident in the comments in his book, "Blood and Belonging" where he wrote, “Ukrainian independence conjures up images of embroidered peasant shirts, the nasal whine of ethnic instruments, phony cossacks in cloaks and boots, nasty anti-Semites. Going further and stating that “My difficulty in taking Ukraine seriously goes deeper than just my cosmopolitan suspicion of nationalists everywhere. Somewhere inside, I’m also what Ukrainians call a Great Russian, and there is a trace of old Russian disdain for these ‘little Russians’”.

As Ukranians lobbied and protested for the establishment of an independant state, Ignatieff wrote of his annoyance: "I remember expatriate Ukrainian nationalists demonstrating in the snow outside ballet performances by the Bolshoi in Toronto. 'Free the captive nations!' they chanted. In 1960, they seemed strange and pathetic, chanting in the snow, haranguing people who just wanted to see ballet and to hell with politics. They seemed fanatical, too, unreasonable. Hadn't they looked at the map? How did they think Ukraine could ever be free?"

Ignatieff is a conundrum.. an enigma.. at one point (and perhaps at present) I saw Ignatieff as a closet neo-conservative, who sees his best opportunity at obtaining power being through the vehicle of the Liberal party. Certainly, a review of many of his thoughts and opinions seems to support that - however, truly, one cannot trust anything he says.

As a Conservative, even if he is a cossack in sheep's clothing, in many respects, I have concerns that he may be too right of Stephen Harper - if you believe half of what Ignatieff writes. Even as a conservative, the last thing we need is some misguided notion of a new "Manifest Destiny" in the west, to quote from Ignatieff's own views of the U.S., "The 21st century imperium is a new invention in the annals of political science, an empire lite, a global hegemony whose grace notes are money, free markets, human rights and democracy enforced by the most awesome military power the world has ever known."

Really.. uh.. suddenly he makes G.W. Bush look, well, humble..

Conservatives missing the point.. at their peril

So - today the CP reports "Tories drop the gloves on Ignatieff, prepare attack ads", which report goes on to state that

"The Conservatives are scouring hundreds of hours of videotape as they prepare to pummel their key rival Michael Ignatieff with attack ads leading up to the next election."

Memo to Stephen Harper:

Canadians are in the midst of the worst economic melt-down since the depression, thousands are out of work - and the message that your biggest concern is keeping your job is a message that will not play well come next election.

While Michael Igantieff is touring around western Canada, at least giving lip service to the need for a unified national approach to dealing with our economic concerns, which will require reasonable support for Alberta's economy, our Conservative government is busy making mud pies to throw at Michael Ignatieff.

Ok.. I'm not naive, I know that the day after the last election, all political parties start getting ready for the next election - however, that doesn't mean you have to be so stupid as to advertise the fact that you appear preoccupied with it.

GET YOUR SHIT TOGETHER ALREADY.

Deal with the business of taking care of the country, and ignore the urge to start campaigning until, well, there is a campaign. If your spin doctors weren't a bunch of ignorant morons, they would see that Canadians don't want an election, they want answers to their problems.

Part of the mistake last election was calling it in the first place after you said you wouldn't do that.

Do your job - let the Liberals force the election, and when they do, you can say, "See - all they are concerned with is getting elected - while we're trying to get the country back on track, they're playing politics". But somehow, as per usual in this country, politicians are more concerned with getting elected than doing their job.