What's wrong with Canada..

Ok. Today I'm brought back down to earth a little bit. I still think Canada is the greatest country in the world, but, if we're going to target a problem.. look no further than our Human Rights Tribunals.

Apparently, when you see someone acting as a letter carrier, who, after appearing to deliver mail to a house, goes back to that same house.. if as a police officer you stop and politely ask him for identification to make sure it's not someone simply "acting" like a mail carrier, you are a racist.

Ontario's Human Rights tribunal says so.

And they say it doesn't matter if you didn't mean to be racist, even if your action is unintentionally racist, you are being a racist.

Yup.

Read about it in the National Post here.

I am no neophyte to dealing with police. As a lawyer, I have seen the good and the bad in my day, and have a good enough relationship with some to have had some conversations over a beer that suggest that some officers have some issues regarding race or gender. And some lawyers have issues, and some teachers have issues, and some bricklayers have issues.. etc., etc., etc.

That being said - is THIS officer guilty of racist conduct because the complainant FELT discriminated against?

My advice to Metro Toronto Police, and Boston Police, and, perhaps police all over is this:

Stop arresting or investigating visible minorities. Look the other way. Unless you see someone actually and clearly committing a crime, you had best just keep on driving by. If you hear broken glass, and see someone running hell-bent down the street shortly after, just waive as they pass you unless they are white. Actually, don't bother asking questions if they are white either, because they might be gay. Or Jewish. Or Handicapped. Or a member of the NDP.

Just as Canadians are quietly allowing our Federal government pass criminal law legislation which has questionable benefit and which continues to encroach upon our fundamental freedoms, so we can be "safer", at the same time, we're telling our police, "We want to be safe, but not if you have to offend someone."

So. Officer Shaw - you get paid by the hour, not by the arrest. Don't put yourself in a position like this ever again. Arrest people who you SEE committing an offence. Actually, never mind, because even if you THINK they committed an offence, you know, someone like me, a lawyer, might help them get acquitted, and then, well, you're faced with having arrested someone who was "innocent" and, well, you could be called on the carpet to be accused of racism, or sexism, or anti-Semitism, or some other "ism".

Better yet to drink your coffee, eat your doughnuts, and look the other way.

At least in Metro Toronto. Or Boston.

What's Right with Canada?

Ok. Shifting gears today, just because I'm in a good mood.

I was listening to CBC this morning (yes, Conservatives can appreciate some CBC.. at least on the Radio)on the way home from the pool, and was struck by a musician who was saying that there is a lot of negativity in Calgary lately, and he found himself sticking up for the city. His comment that resonated with me was, "Every city is what you make of it."

Hmm.

If some struggling musician can see the positive in Calgary, it sort of struck me that having been so very blessed to be born into Alberta, having had the opportunity of receiving a pretty good education, well, I perhaps should take stock of what's right in my native Country as opposed to writing another blog about something that is pissing me off.

So. My top 10 of what's right in Canada.

1. The incredible physical beauty of our geography is, simply, breathtaking. Having grown up on the steps of Waterton Park and a stone's through from Banff, having lived in Vancouver for three years.. one perhaps takes for granted the magnificent beauty of this Country;

2. The diversity of our culture. My brother has lived all over the U.S., and while I love visiting, there is a certain "sameness" of the citizens there.. which perhaps gives them their patriotism, but, having loved to travel abroad, I appreciate how Canada has welcomed new immigrants to retain their culture, giving us a wealth of cultural experience without our own country;

3. We have universal health care - imperfect as it is - with a tax rate whether Conservative or Liberal which is seriously competetive with our American neighbors who are going to be deeply hurt by the cost of now implimenting some form of health care reform;

4. Contrary to what recent Conservative policy would suggest, we have relatively safe streets to walk on. I have walked in downtown Atlanta, have walked in downtown Vancouver, and there is no comparison, trust me. Statistics prove it out, which I think has to do with our relatively strong social safety net (regardless of what the NDP suggest) and a relatively fair and equitable criminal justic system;

5. As questionable as our politicians sometimes appear, I feel the power of special interest in Canada has no where near the power they do in the U.S. - which is a good thing. While improvements can and should be made, our government is still relatively transparent, and the power of money is not nearly as influential in Canada as elsewhere. Witness the conflict between Ed Stelmach and the Oil Industry in Alberta. He may or may not have "got it right", but there is no question that the largest lobby in this Province in no sense "got their way";

6. We do not idolize athletes and entertainers to the extent that they are elsewhere. In Canada, we have an appreciation for the everyman which I think is somewhat unique. I think that bodes well for our society - though it is a constant source of consternation for professional sports franchises in this Country and for Olympic athletes seeking funding. At the end of the day, I think Canadians understand, "it's just a game". And that's healthy;

7. We have demonstrated an ability to disagree with others on political or religious issues in a non-violent and relatively respectful level. We do not have citizens blowing up federal buildings or stockpiling weapons, and the concept of reasonable discourse as compared to use of force to resolve disagreement is deeply ingrained in our cultural identity;

8. We have a high degree of respect in the world for being willing to give a hand, without asking to leave the imprint of our cultural or political ideals on those who we give help to. There is no suggestion, anywhere in the world, of Canadian "imperialism";

9. Our politics, for the most part, is moderate and relatively constant. The differences between Liberals and Conservatives, while real, do not swing our country from extremes like other countries when the government changes hands. This bodes well for business in the country, and provides reasonable security to those investing from outside of our country.

10. Hockey. Not the Wayne Gretzky, Sidney Crosby hockey.. but the mom and dad getting out of bed at 5:00am to get their kids to the rink hockey. It's a great a wonderful sport - and translates into the most decent and relatively well behaved professional athletes in all sports.

So - that's my list - feel free to add your own!

Via's Strike.. and who cares west of Winnepeg?

Via Rail - the darling of central Canada, has been on strike, but apparently, the strike is now over as the parties have agreed to binding arbitration regarding their dispute. And those west of Winnipeg say, "who cares?"

Other than as a rare nostalgic experience of days gone by, for the most part, Via Rail has no relevance to Western Canadians - and yet, our Federal government has already poured millions of our tax dollars into this venture, which, essentially, is of practical use only in Central Canada.

What I found particularly curious as I casually followed this non-event, is the extent to which central Canadian newspapers treated this as a significant problem.

The Globe and Mail reported, for example, that "The strike had paralyzed train passenger traffic across the country and forced Via to issue ticket refunds to thousands of customers."

Well, not really. To suggest this has had any broad effect outside of Central Canada is disingenuous. According to a CTV report, "up to 85 per cent of its business is between Quebec City and Windsor." And we in Alberta should care about this strike, why?

Consider for the moment, as reported on CNEWS,

Via Rail's finances are dependent on federal subsidies. Ottawa provides an average of $170 million a year in operating funding to Via. Last year's total increased to $214.2 million.

Ottawa also earmarked more than $400 million in this year's budget for capital upgrades and station improvements..

So, as a taxpayer outside of the Quebec/Windsor corridor, I'm supposed to continue subsidizing this white elephant? Why? If it's not a truly "national" program, sell it to the private sector - or, if it's not truly saleable, hand it off to Ontario and Quebec and let the citizens who use it, pay for it.

No - I'm not another Western Canadian complaining about being alienated from Canada's power centre - if I wanted to live in Montreal or Toronto, or Ottawa, I could. And I'm not another conservative using this as an opportunity to criticize the union. I'm just illustrating that there is a massive, federally funded enterprise, which really, is not in any sense a "national" organization.

So, as Via resolves it's current labor issues, I say, sell it. The idea was broached earlier this year, to some consternation from certain NDP and Liberal supporters complaining of us "selling off" our identity. My $.02 Mr. Harper - Via has nothing to do with my sense of Canada - so sell it. Let private business worry about the Via engineers. A true "conservative" government knows that government has no place doing business, particularly where it is in no way a "necessity" to Canadians on a broad basis.

Required Viewing for Political Bloggers.. "Gonzo: The Life and Work of Hunter S. Thompson"

It's no secret that I'm a fan of the later Hunter S. Thompson. One of his quotes is the figure-head of my blog, so, it should come as no surprise that I enjoyed a recent viewing of the documentary, "Gonzo: The Life and Work of Hunter S. Thompson".

However - as I watched the documentary yesterday, what struck me was not so much the humour and mayhem that Thompson created, which I've always enjoyed, and nor was it the deeper political insights which he created out of the chaos of his "Gonzo Journalism".

What struck me was the sadness of his death, and the realization that Hunter, at his core, was a romantic. While his writings were caustic and abusive, the implicit message in all of his writings was that society can be so much more than it is, if we can just get rid of the bastards who are constantly screwing it up.. most commonly, from his perspective, coming from the right side of the political spectrum.

However - Hunter was not a flag-bearer for the liberal or progressive movement. He loved guns, he loved football.. and his disdain for the fakes and the phonies was no less evident for those in the Democratic party than it was for Republicans. His observation, however, was that the Republicans were just more infected.

Maybe he was right.

But it is significant that after his death we hear kind words and compliments from Jimmy Carter and from Pat Buchanan.

They saw what, if we looked close, we all saw.

That Hunter S. Thompson hungered for a government who was accountable, for a government who was honest and engaged. And after watching George W. Bush win two elections, well, it just became too much. And I'm not convinced, if he were alive today, he'd feel much solace with the election of Barack Obama.

I've commented on this before, but I think it bears repeating. Those of us who put our thoughts on the line in this burgeoning blog world, at our core, are probably Hunter Thompsonites, whether we agree with his obvservations or not. We write, because we have a romantic notion that the world around us can be better than it is. Otherwise, why bother writing at all?

I commend fellow bloggers to watch this movie - and if you haven't read "Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail '72" or "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas", to follow up your viewing with a read of those two books in particular.

While "Fear and Loathing: On the Campgaign Trail '72" is perhaps most clearly political, in my mind, his finest political statement, which perhaps encapsulates the reason that he, ultimately, took his own life, is in "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas", in what has become known as the "Wave Speech":

Strange memories on this nervous night in Las Vegas. Five years later? Six? It seems like a lifetime, or at least a Main Era — the kind of peak that never comes again. San Francisco in the middle sixties was a very special time and place to be a part of. Maybe it meant something. Maybe not, in the long run . . . but no explanation, no mix of words or music or memories can touch that sense of knowing that you were there and alive in that corner of time and the world. Whatever it meant. . . .
History is hard to know, because of all the hired bullshit, but even without being sure of “history” it seems entirely reasonable to think that every now and then the energy of a whole generation comes to a head in a long fine flash, for reasons that nobody really understands at the time — and which never explain, in retrospect, what actually happened.

My central memory of that time seems to hang on one or five or maybe forty nights — or very early mornings — when I left the Fillmore half-crazy and, instead of going home, aimed the big 650 Lightning across the Bay Bridge at a hundred miles an hour wearing L. L. Bean shorts and a Butte sheepherder's jacket . . . booming through the Treasure Island tunnel at the lights of Oakland and Berkeley and Richmond, not quite sure which turn-off to take when I got to the other end (always stalling at the toll-gate, too twisted to find neutral while I fumbled for change) . . . but being absolutely certain that no matter which way I went I would come to a place where people were just as high and wild as I was: No doubt at all about that. . . .

There was madness in any direction, at any hour. If not across the Bay, then up the Golden Gate or down 101 to Los Altos or La Honda. . . . You could strike sparks anywhere. There was a fantastic universal sense that whatever we were doing was right, that we were winning. . . .

And that, I think, was the handle—that sense of inevitable victory over the forces of Old and Evil. Not in any mean or military sense; we didn’t need that. Our energy would simply prevail. There was no point in fighting — on our side or theirs. We had all the momentum; we were riding the crest of a high and beautiful wave. . . .

So now, less than five years later, you can go up on a steep hill in Las Vegas and look West, and with the right kind of eyes you can almost see the high-water mark — that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.

I suppose Hunter kept waiting for another wave than never came, and then just got tired of waiting.

Are the rest of us doing the same? Watching for a wave that will never arive.. despondent over the failed "experiment" of the 60's? Or, to take a modern perspective, as we watch the great new hope, Barack Obama, struggle with even the members of his own party to establish meaningful health care reform, should he fail, should a new generation admit defeat and take that as a sign that there is no hope?

I think not.

I think that, whether the Liberals want to admit it or not, the Conservatives today are not the same as those of our father's generation. With very few exceptions, we welcome equality for women, for visible minorities - we may differ on the means to accomplish that, but the ultimately, our goals are not as disperate as some would suggest.

Witness the struggle of Michael Ignatieff to gain momentum.. the ultimate problem is there is not enough to distinguish Conservatives and Liberals for him to gain relevancy.

Society, like it or not, is an evolving mechanism. What works, continues, what fails, doesn't. Sometimes these changes move too quickly for small 'c' conservatives and too slow for small 'l' liberals, but the changes are inevitable.

So - take a moment to watch the documentary, read Hunter's books if you haven't already, and have hope.

Welcome to the new political reality..

Boutilier out of caucus.. and Alberta is better for it.

It's funny how whenever a leader disciplines a member of caucus, there is always a hue and cry about the lack of freedom of party members to speak their mind, etc., etc., and Guy Boutilier is no exception.

Ever since he was dropped from Cabinet following the last election, he's been acting like the spoiled child who demands to take his ball and go home when the game isn't being played "his way".

So - now the "friends of medicare" are hailing him as a martyr to the cause of Albertans who need to take a stand against the government, all because the PC caucus decided to delay the building of a nursing home in Fort MacMurray.

As Albertans, perhaps we should recall the days of Don Getty, the days of a hospital in every town, village and burg in Alberta, to understand that everyone can't have everything, particularly when we are in a serious recession. There is nothing wrong with championing your constituency, however, once that decision is made, once your team has determined the belts that need to be tightened, you don't then go public and continue to whine and moan about how unfair your government is.

Seriously.

What did he expect?

I have not agreed with everything our government has done. I believe they could have supported party resolutions at our last AGM to amend the "hate speech" provisions of the Alberta Human Rights Act. However - when a "Conservative" (maybe look that word up, Guy, you don't seem to understand it) government says that, in the midst of a recession, dragging Alberta into a deficit which we worked so hard to get out of, we need to tighten belts and some projects will not proceed at this time, you say, ok, I understand. And you do your best to explain it to your constituency. And if they don't get it, if they vote you out, well, que sera.

See how much they get accomplished voting in another Bridget Pastoor. (If you would like a list of all the good things she has done for my constituency, trust me, it will not take long.)

So - the petulant Guy Boutilier is turfed from caucus, those who already hate the government scream "See, See.. Stelmach is a dictator, vote him out, vote him out."

Meanwhile, the adults say, "well done". Such is life when you need to make difficult decisions. Guy can take his ball and go home, but the match will continue. The tough decisions will be made. And those who are either so naive or so irresponsible as to believe that everyone should get what they want, all the time, well, they can go play their own game, thankfully, without getting to use my tax dollars.

Visas for Mexican and Czech Visitors.. short sighted policy change

Jason Kenney, Minister of Immigration, announced yesterday that Mexican and Czech visitors to Canada will now require visas, as opposed to the previous practice of allowing visitors to enter with Passports alone.

The justification for this move, according to Kenney, is to stem the tide of improper refugee claims clogging the system - according to Kenney, there have been 9,400 claims since 2005, 90% of which were found to be meritless.

His point, in some respects, is well taken. The abuse of refugee claims costs taxpayers millions of dollars and, in the bargain, slows legitimate refugee claims markedly, forcing those truly facing persecution to continue to live their lives at risk while those abusing the system clog up the cue.

The solution, however, is not to decrease travel from legitimate visitors and businessmen, and, at the same time, provoke a response which may in due course result in Canadians being forced to obtain Visas to travel abroad.

The solution, in my mind, follows up on the reasoning behind the current "safe third country" policy, which, at it simplist, suggests that there are certain countries (United States) where a refugee cannot arive from to claim refugee status. Barring some exceptions, if you enter the U.S. from another country, and then pass into Canada, you cannot claim refugee status here. Period.

Of course, Amnesty International is all offended by the "safe third country" rules, mostly because, like many do-good socialist organizations, they don't have to pay for the implimentation of processes without such rules. But I digress.

My suggestion to the Minister - disallow refugee claims from the Czech Republic and from Mexico. Period. End of story. While there are those who may be in difficult situations in those countries, the suggestion that those countries, broadly speaking, are areas where those of certain ethnic or religious beliefs are suffering persecution is without substance.

Canada is a land of amazing opportunity and freedom, and there is no shortage of countries in this world where there is legitimate persecution and government abuse of their own people. Clear the cues of borderline and completely illegitimate refugee claimants from countries who are broadly recognized as free and democratic with a functioning independant judiciary. The immigration lawyers will just have to find other things to keep them busy.

Somewhere, Nelson Mandella is shaking his head..

Nelson Mandella, "I'm sharing the Order of Merit with who...?"

Hey, apparently there is a fire sale on the Queen's Order of Merit!

In the greatest devaluation of an award since Morgentaler was given the Order of Canada, today it was announced that Jean Chretien was awarded the Queen's Order of Merit yesterday - sharing that award now with Mother Theresa, Nelson Mandella, T.S. Eliot and Florence Nightingale.

What?!?

Yup, this is no April fools post - it's true. Queen Elizabeth II, clearly feeling the effects of the advanced stages of dementia, awarded Chretien the Order yesterday.

Every paper in Canada today has the same question, "Why?"

The little guy from Shawinigin was a lackluster Prime Minister, just slightly less inept than Joe Clark, however, where he did excel was in the area of bringing his party, almost single-handedly, into disrepute by being at the helm of the Adscam fiasco. Anyway you cut it, he has given Canada nothing of positive distinction, and, at he end of the day, his shoes will always carry the stench of having walked through the Adscam debacle.

Mr. Small-town cheap makes it big.

It's an embarrassment to all Canadians.

And, sadly, it truly cheapens the award for those who truly deserve international recognition, people like Nelson Mandella, Mother Theresa, T.S. Elliott and Florence Nightingale. On behalf of all Canadians, I apologize to them for this inglorious offence.

Reason enough to remove any vestiges of connection between Canada and this pointless Monarchy.

"Keeping it Real" with Monte Solberg..

Ok, after making fun of Michael Ignatieff this morning (it's just too easy!), in fairness, it's perhpas more important today to take a shot at a Conservative who has it coming.

As many are aware, Diane Ablonczy recently came under criticism by Conservative MP Brad Trost, for her decision to provide federal funding to the Gay Pride Week in Toronto this month. A Conservative may well question, in general, the need to sponsor festivals and so forth - though, from all accounts, from a financial point of view, it was money well-spent. However - Trost was not criticizing her from a fiscal perspective, he was speaking to "Life Site News", one of those far-right groups who want to institute a theocracy in Canada, a la the Ayatolla in Iran, except with shiney-suited preachers.

According to the article, Trost was quoted to say: "The pro-life and the pro-family community should know and understand that the tourism funding money that went to the gay pride parade in Toronto was not government policy, was not supported by - I think it's safe to say by a large majority - of the MPs. This was a very isolated decision."

If the Conservative Party of Canada is to grow and adapt, the time has come to be unabashadly critical of these religious zealots like Trost. His kind has to go. Period.

As I've pointed out (in defence of Doctors rights not to perform abortion) freedom of religion must include freedom FROM religion. The anti-gay, anti-abortion lobby is, at it's core, a theocratic movement, and has no place in a free and democratic society that advocates separation of Church and State.

Former MP Monte Solberg came to Ablonzy's defence in his blog yesterday, stating,

"The bottomline is that after all the years Diane has contributed to building the conservative movement in Canada she deserves better then to be ratted out by a colleague on an issue that is a complete loser for the party."

Just as we demand that Muslim leaders speak up when Islamic Extremists seek to instill their warped view of religion upon others, so to must we, as Conservatives, speak up to those attempting to do the same thing in our own party.

Trost is a troll. Pure and simple. And should be treated by our PM as such.

Republicans for Ignatieff.. wish I had done this!

In past blogs I've touched on many of these similar "values" supported by Michael Ignatieff, but, sadly, I didn't have the panache to actually put together this tongue-in-cheek website..

Check it out: Republicans for Michael Ignatieff

Well done.

The only thing that could be added is a big picture of Michael's gob on the jumbo-screen in Times Square, with a caption "Michael brings his campaigns Americans!".

What passes for news in Canada after Jacko finally gets buried..

Apparently the media has been running amock with the earth-shattering news that PM Harper may not have eaten the communion wafer given to him during Romeo Lablanc's funeral.

There are video's of the "incident" if you wish to watch it online.. I won't link it here, becuase, in my mind, it's all but irrelevant.

Except to this extent. One might recall how the media was quick to corner and harass Stockwell Day on his position on abortion, but felt comfortable in completely avoiding the same harrasment of that noted good Catholic boy from Shawinigin, Jean Chretien.

So, here's my question.

What are the odds that the so-called journalists and bloggers who are all a-Twitter over this, who are so concerned over the extent to which Stephen Harper shows respect for strict Roman Catholic doctrine.. will now walk over to speak to Michael Ignatieff, and say, "Hey Mike, we know that you're not a 'church guy', but certainly, you must be onside with Catholic ideology, unlike that ne'er do well, Stephen Harper.. so, tell us, what's your position on abortion?"

Yeah, I'm not holding my breath either.

Michael Jackson.. and the cult of the modestly talented..

Is it just me, or is there something peculiar about how the modestly talented seem to attract a cult-like following that doesn't seem to be attracted to the truly gifted?

I mean, let's be serious. Ignoring the likelihood, firstly, that Michael Jackson was a pedophile, beyond that, can we truly understand the fixation on his death? I mean, CNN might as well be called the "Michael News Network", with both CNN and Headline News basically reporting on nothing but Michael, 24/7.

His music was catchy dance music. I admit to owning a copy of Thriller. I also own a copy of "Relax" by Frankie Goes to Hollywood - pretty much just as deep. Yet, upon his death, we see a Country, and a world, in hysterics. For what?

By all reasonable standards, Michael Jackson couldn't hold a candle to John Lennon. Yet when John Lennon was murdered, while there was certainly a collective sadness for his passing - there was nothing approaching the insanity we see today.

And, if we look to similar cultural events, we have to look to, well, Elvis, Lady Di, Marilyn Monroe.. see a pattern?

To be truly "cult worthy", it appears, you have to have nothing exceeding modest contribution to the world. The real contributors, the people who truly transform the world, don't obtain that sort of frenzied attraction, and perhaps that's just as well. I'm certain John Lennon wouldn't feel the need to have JNN 24/7, his legacy is safe in his music, which will stand the test of time far beyond anything Michael Jackson did in his short, bizarre lifetime.

Another civilian shot dead after Barrie officers stabbed

A man was shot dead seconds after stabbing two Barrie police officers during a confrontation yesterday near the busy Bayfield Mall. Full story here.

This is why I oppose the use of tasers as a suspect control devise.

Were tasers used here, while the officers may not have been stabbed, quite certainly, the suspect would be alive and breathing today, getting ready to probably mount some sort of insanity defence, but most certainly would be sucking resources from the governement in terms of detention costs, legal defence costs, psychological treatment costs, and on and on..

Get rid of tasers. More out of control suspects will be shot and killed.

And I'm good with that.

The Edmonton Journal.. helping the cause of ignorance and stupidity.

Headline today in the Edmonton Journal:

Is climate change behind drought?

Read the article here.

Now, I don't want to get embroiled in the whole global warming/climate change debate. I happen to find irritation with both extremes, as do many reputable scientists as I have discovered, and sit somewhere between the doomsday chicken-little crowd, led by David Suzuki (he of the massive bus tour, spewing CO2 out as fast as he can) and the absolute denialists.

I think the science suggests it's possible that man is having an impact on climate, but technology is still too limited to say that with certainty, and if so, is seriously deficient in predicting the extent of that impact and the inter-relationship between other factors and climate change, including the changes in the sun itself. But that discussion is for another day.

What I found annoying in the extreme is the complete absence of anything in the article which could even remotely be taken as support for the premise of the article itself.

It's as if the writer just makes the assumption that "everyone knows" that there is a suggested connection between global warming and drought conditions.

Thus is the way of news, and, unfortunately, politics - which relies for the most part on the maintstream media doing it's job to assist the public in making decisions regarding matters of public interest.

Read the article.

It's pathetic.

Aside from any discussion of the issue of global warming, in just referencing the issue of drought generally, the article boldly instructs it's readers:

..some weather experts say: "We haven't seen the worst of it."

This is a newspaper, these people are supposed to be professionals - this is not some hamfisted, home-made blog site. And yet, one might ask, "Who are these experts who say "we haven't seen the worst of it?"

Go ahead, read the article - there are no named experts, no sources for the supposed "facts" being reported.

And the moronic effort at "reporting" continues.

..there is a disturbing trend here that meshes with predictions from climatologists who fear we're headed into more and more climate trouble

Ok, again, what climatologists are you referring to, and what are the so-called "predictions" you are referencing. Surely, you can't just print an article, not an editorial opinion - but an article, making factual assertions without any attributed source, can you?

Apparently, in the Edmonton Journal, you can.

Shall we further examine the abundant folly apparent in the article?

Well, after making the defensible statement in the lead in to the article that, "Nobody can point with any authority to global warming as the culprit," only a few paragraphs later, the article apparently ignores it's own foundation, and goes on to assert that our farmers ARE victims of global warming.

Apparently, they forgot their first point - and, again, point to nothing, no source at all, to make the assertion that global warming has caused or even contributed to the drought.

This is what passes for journalism in this country. This is where so many citizens obtain their information, upon which they then make decisions at the ballot box.

Following up on yesterday's blog, this is a travesty. So many who read that article will make the logical assumption that it must have some factual basis to support it. And, even if you believe the connection posited by some extreme global waring advocates, it's not as if the article provides the source of such assertions to allow you to use the article in any defensible manner as something to truly bolster your cause.

Such is what passes for journalism today. Such is what forms the basis of our citizens "educated" decisions when they enter the voting booth.

As quoted from James Travers yesterday, in addition to the suggestion, "Don't just vote, think." I supposed we have to add to that, "Don't just read, read critically."

James Travers, he of the MSM, get's it right.. Politics is Stupid and is Broken. So what's the answer?

James Travers, of the Toronto Star, of the hated "maintstream media", pens an article this morning on "Why Parliament Hill's Gong Show Goes On". I wish I had written it - see the article here.

It's harsh and it's utterly true. And, for the most part, it's non-partisan. Travers hits on how parliament, and politics, has gone sideways in this country, touching on hyperpartisanship, lack of accountability, and hidden amongs all of his points, is, in my opinion, the source of it all - our collective ignorance.

As he points out:

Happiness here is reducing complex problems to a bumper sticker. "Do the Crime, Do the Time" resonates, but it doesn't make Canadians safer any more than cutting the GST made us noticeably richer. Keep it simple, stupid, is the rule, not the exception. So stick this on your subsidized Suburban: "Don't just vote, think."

Personally, I think this is at the core. At a Canada Day barbecue yesterday, I was fortunate to have a conversation with a few people who I would consider relatively bright and relatively non-political. The discussion was with respect to teaching kids about how to use the internet, and the one comment was that the major task was to teach your kids "critical thinking". That not everything on Wikipedia is necessarily true, and you need to look into it deeper to understand the truth.

Swiffer floor cleaner will not kill your dog.

Seriously.

And while the discussion wasn't political, per se, we did talk about global warming, and how little we really know about it, even though a few of us, myself included, have spent a lot of time reading up and trying to understand it.

Such is the bane of our political situation - the collective ignorance of the electorate. And it's not just collective ignorance, but, it's laced with a healthy dose of arrogance and partisanship to boot. Think about that combination.

When most of us go to vote, the little conversation going on in the back of our brain is something like this:

"I haven't really taken the time to examine and understand the issues that are important to me in an objective way, but I don't need to. I am quite certain that I DO understand them, because, well, the people that think like me all agree, and my party also has nice little soundbites in their election propoganda that confirms my way of thinking, so, I know I'm right, and those bastards on the "other side", well, THEY are the ones who are truly ignorant."

This is how politics works, for the most part. We talk with like-minded people - the "Blogging Tories" all go to eachother's websites and rather than discuss things in a critical fashion, we collectively attack Liberals and their thoughts and ideas (see my own blog from time to time).. and, when we do stroll into Liberal blogs, we do so, not to engage, but to insult.

Not to be left out, the Liberals do much the same, and while they talk about ignorant and fascist conservatives, morons like Canadian Cynic through profanity and epithets around like confetti, making no real point whatseover, but, apparently, becoming very popular with their little crowd.

And no one learns anything.

No one stops to say, "maybe I'm wrong".

No one says, "What if my party is making a mistake?"

I've had a difficult year with my son, which many parents do with 17 year old's, and this past winter, as we were shopping for a graduation suit, he was having some stress about this and that, and I said to him, "90% of our problems usually are brought on by ourselves. Becuase of that, if you always think about what SOMEONE ELSE is doing wrong when you have a problem, you are likely missing 90% of the answer, and will probably continue to be unhappy. So, my advise, whenever you're upset, START by asking yourself, "what have I done to contribute to this situation?"

My son, I am proud to say, has had a tremendous turnaround in this past year, is entering University in the fall, and is working full-time helping younger children from difficult homes. He has since that conversation, parroted that piece of advice to me a few times, and, I think, he seems happier, and more centered. The credit goes to him - but, I think, he has taken to heart some of my advice, and I think it's done him well.

Such is, perhaps, the start of a solution to the partisan stupidity in Canada. Maybe, spend a little time, asking "what I am I doing wrong? What is "my party" doing wrong? Do I really understand the problem - and what are other politicians saying on this point - and do they have a point?

I'm far from perfect. But, I do spend some time on Liberal bloggers sites, and more than not, I discuss and debate, rather than attack and insult. Try it out. It doesn't hurt, and you might learn something.

Happy Canada Day!

This past year, I planted a new maple tree in my yard. It stands there, unassuming, buffeted by Southern Alberta winds, and while it bends, it doesn't break, and, I know, that slowly, and surely, over time, it will grow to be something strong and beautiful.

Such is my maple, such is my Country.

Happy Birthday, Canada!