Principles? We don' need no steenkin' principals..

William Jefferson Clinton.. my mentor.

Recall this, back in June of 2008:

"A senior adviser to Obama's campaign told reporters it's an "open question" whether oil produced from northern Alberta's oilsands fits with the Democratic candidate's plan to shift the U.S. sharply away from consumption of carbon-intensive fossil fuels.


"If it turns out that those technologies don't advance . . . and the only way to produce those resources would be at a significant penalty to climate change, then we don't believe that those resources are going to be part of the long-term, are going to play a growing role in the long-term future," said Jason Grumet, Obama's senior energy adviser."

Now, today, from The Times:

Drill baby, drill: Obama opens up America’s coasts to oil companies

President Obama took a gamble with the environment and his political base yesterday, opening up 167 million acres (67 million hectares) of coastal waters to oil drilling, in an attempt to limit America’s dependence on foreign energy and to win Republican backing for a stalled climate change Bill.

In a reversal of policies that have protected American shorelines since the Exxon Valdez disaster in 1989, Mr Obama paved the way for a new energy rush off the US Atlantic and Gulf coasts by allowing exploratory drilling for trillions of cubic feet of natural gas and oil reserves that could exceed eight billion barrels.

The Dirty Little Secret that Hillary Clinton Doesn't Talk About

Would I lie to you?

Well.

Look at Hillary Clinton, all full of herself and whatnot.

According to the Globe and Mail today, "Hillary Clinton has taken issue with Canada's signature G8 initiative on maternal mortality, arguing that any effort to improve the health of mothers in poor countries must include access to abortion."

Take a good look at the above chart.

And consider this. 

Russia and the United States both provide full access to legal abortion.

Ireland and Poland, because of their close ties to the Catholic Church, severely restrict access to abortion.

That's a fact. 

And the above chart is not from some pro-life propaganda, it is data taken directly from the World Health Organization report on Maternal Mortality in 2005, based upon Estimates developed by WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA and The World Bank.

And consider this chart as well, showing changes in infant mortality rates in Poland since 1960.

Since Poland went from relatively unrestricted access to abortion, to severely limiting abortion after the fall of communism, not only have infant mortality rates not increased, but they have continued to decrease.  Clearly, massive improvement to maternal and infant health can be accomplished without bringing abortion into the equation.

What conclusion can be drawn from this?

Well, the suggestion that "any effort to improve the health of mothers in poor countries must include access to abortion" is not only false, but demonstrably so.

Now.

No pro-life advocate am I - as a soft libertarian, I am pro-choice and would vote against Stephen Harper in a moment if he sought to make abortion in this country illegal. 

But, the facts are the facts... and as is so common with Hillary and her progressive friends, the message is "don't confuse our agenda with facts". 

The other conclusion to be drawn - Hillary Clinton is either stupid and ignorant of her own country's failings, or she is just dishonest and chooses to ignore reality where it doesn't suit her agenda. 

I'll put my money on dishonest, but I'll hedge with a side bet on stupid.

Dear Government. Please do less.

Is it me, or does society seem to be shifting in a not-so-healthy way?

From self-reliance and independance, to self-indulgence and co-dependance.

What, exactly, is it YOU want from government?

Rather than engage in partisan rhetoric about why your team is better than my team, with generalized defences or complaints about what our teams do, what do you want the Government to do that it isn't doing?

Personally, I would like to see them do less, so I've penned them this little letter:

Dear Government:

As it is, I think we, the citizens of Alberta and Canada are truly blessed.  We have medical care for everyone, and while sometimes, it takes a little while, and sometimes mistakes are made - I don't expect perfection and I am grateful that as a society, we have agreed to all pay for a system which provides care to all of us.

Now - that being said, I realize that as a human being, I'm imperfect.  I realize that I may choose to eat or drink things that I may regret later, and that may, in fact shorten my life.  That's the beauty of freedom and having free agency.  Please don't take that away from me.  Please stop trying to run my life - I've had about enough of you treating me like a child, making new laws on a daily basis because they are in "my best interests".

Let me skin my knee and put the band-aid on myself.  Please don't offer to wipe my nose for me every time it runs.  Give me the respect and the opportunity to succeed without your hand on my shoulder.

If I choose the wrong spouse or create children without forethought - let me learn to live with the consequences of that - otherwise, I'm apt to just keep doing the same thing again, and again, and again.

And please stop using MY children as an excuse for your interference in my life.  If I'm not beating my child or causing direct harm, keep your hands off of them - they are, after all, my children.  I don't give a good God damn what Hillary Clinton says, the "village" is not raising my children - I am.  And if I choose to impart upon them my own religious beliefs, I would appreciate you staying out of my business and not "re-educating" them when they get to school about YOUR view of morality, thank-you. 

Last I checked, the idea that our state is governed under the "Divine Right of Kings" died off sometime in the 17th century.  So please stop with the arrogance that YOU know what is best for all of us, admit that, most often you are just as stupid and flawed as the rest of us and therefore, shouldn't really be in the business of running our lives at all.

Thank-you for keeping Order, for building roads, for providing health care..  and now that those services are established, take a break.  We don't need you to justify your existence by constantly coming up with new laws and new programs.  Leave the rest to us.   Sure - we'll screw up from time to time - but that's what people do.

We are human, we are flawed, but the freedom to make mistakes and grow is what makes life worthwhile. 

Please don't take that away from us.

Yours truly,

The Citizens of Alberta and Canada

More Lawyer Whining: Welcome to Canadistan

..that government of the people, by the people,

for the people, shall not perish from the earth? 

Guess not.

Well.

Here's the story:

Guy gets charged with sexual assault on a 6 year old child.

Guy lies to Legal Aid in order to obtain a tax-payer funded lawyer (see my earlier blogs about wiping litigants noses).

Shortly before trial, Legal Aid (miraculously) discovers that Guy lied, and cuts him off.  Tells him he's on his own.

Lawyer seeks to withdraw.

As reported in the Edmonton Journal article:

"The judge ordered her to stay on the case because it was close to trial and he was worried that the accused, if he went ahead and acted as his own lawyer, would try to cross-examine the child victim."

Supreme Court of Canada affirms that decision. 

Justice Rothstein wrote (for a unanimous Court) as follows: 

"What is the role of a court when defence counsel, in a criminal matter, wishes to withdraw because of non-payment of legal fees? Does a court have the authority to require counsel to continue to represent the accused? In my opinion, a court does have this authority, though it must be exercised sparingly, and only when necessary to prevent serious harm to the administration of justice.

(Full text of the Decision is here)

Shorter version:

The Administration of Justice is important, but not important enough for the state to pay for it.  While the Judge's, the clerks, the Prosecutor are all going to be paid for having to partake of this little venture - you dear lawyer, will not. 

Nice.

Welcome to Canadistan.. the Brave New World.

Dear Ottawa: THIS is how a civilized society works.

Allan Rock.. apparently a big advocate of the notion that

"He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future."

Google it.

So.

Ann Coulter arrived at, was protested against, and spoke to those who wished to hear what she had to say in Calgary last night.

While I'm a stone's throw away, I couldn't be bothered to attend. She has nothing to say that has even a passing value to me.  So, I chose to stay home and go to a local political meeting where we talked about the problems of senior housing and the closing of our local cytology clinic.

This is how civilized society operates.

People can say what they want, others can peacefully protest their words, and yet others can just choose to ignore them.

Of course, this wasn't Ontario and the University of Ottawa.

You know the University of Ottawa.  The same university where President and author of the wonderful Liberal gun registration program Allan Rock degregistered student Marc Kelly for, well, basically speaking his mind, and then had the police arrest the student union President Seamus Wolf for "causing a disturbance by swearing" when, in response to the action, Seamus said, "fuck this".

Ottawa. 

Watch Calgary and take notes.

Of course, with Allan Rock as President of the University of Ottawa, you can bet those notes would be in crayon.

Ozlem Sensoy: Free speech is not for YOU!

The Beating of Reginald Denny:  Don't worry, he's white.

(Opening Caveat:  I don't like Ann Coulter.  I think she is either a simple-minded ignoramus, or, more likely, a side-show huckster who just likes saying stupid things to stir up controversy, and, in the bargain, make herself more money.)

Sometimes, the best way to make a point is to allow those who oppose your opinions to simply articulate theirs.  To allow them a pulpit to demonstrate, clearly and loudly, just how wrong they are.

So.

In response to why the University of Ottawa has embarrassed themselves and the rest of our country by not allowing THEIR GUEST, Ann Coulter, to even speak, I turn not to Ann Coulter, or Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh, but to the Vancouver Sun and its guest commentator, Ozlem Sensoy.

Ozlem Sensoy is assistant professor in the faculty of education at Simon Fraser University, wrote a column in the Vancouver Sun justifying why Ann Coulter was, in her opinion, quite properly denied the right to speak.

Unlike some, I very much welcome the free expression of ideas contrary to my own, even when they are ignorant and small-minded.

So, please, take a moment to follow the link and read the article.  I would like anyone reading my thoughts to assure that I have not taken Ozlem out of context or misstating his premise, which, essentially, is this:

Free speech for people like YOU should not be protected.

Free speech for people like ME, should.

Follow her argument so far?

Ok.  So I over-simplify.

The opinion of Ms. Sensoy is that because the dominant society already holds the advantage over those who struggle against it, that speech which perpetuates that dominance should not be subject to the same protection as speech which works to erode that dominance.

As Sensoy states:

The "isms" words (racism, sexism, anti-semitism) refer to power relationships that are historic and embedded, and these relationships do not flip back and forth. The same groups that have historically held power in the U.S. and Canada continue to do so.

I see.

So, her argument goes, that if speech is seeking to "affirm" inappropriate societal attitudes, what Sensoy refers to as her "isms", then it is undeserving of being allowed a platform.  Lest I be alleged to be exaggerating his point, I will quote her directly:

Perhaps we should have a discussion about the degree to which we experience and foster "free speech" in the West.


Whether it's humorous "jokes" about Muslims taking flying carpets instead of airplanes, or "real" remarks calling for the deaths of abortion doctors and condemning gays and lesbians, all speech is not free, neutral and deserving of utterance. You can't just say whatever the hell you want.

The old "yelling firehouse in a crowded theatre" response.  Problem, however, is it confuses direct harm with indirect harm.. which so much of modern progressive thought does. There is a world of difference between asking people to kill an abortion doctor (or a Democratic member of congress) and telling stupid racist jokes.  There is a line - but that line is not "where I say it should be."

What Ozlem ignores is the same reality that she complains about.

That supposed "moral authority" cannot equal "right".

To illustrate, take the example of certain communities in the U.S., which prohibited speech which, in their opinion, incited violence against others.  Those people, in their opinion, sought to stand firm against their oppressors, and sought to restrict speech and demonstrations that they felt sought to affirm the power of the "dominant society" to marginalize themselves and their culture.

In Alabama.

In the 1960's.

Resulting in the arrests of non-violent protestors in Birmingham in 1963, including the arrest of one Martin Luther King, Jr., who wrote his famous "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" as a result.  In King's letter he writes about the necessity of speaking clearly, but peacefully, against those things which he so strongly fought against.  King at no point suggests that those who oppose him should be muzzled - only that his right to speak, to protest, should prevail - even in the face of laws which say otherwise.

Sensoy writes as if her judgments are beyond reproach - and perhaps her motivations are.  However, when addressing such an important and fundamentally necessary component of a free society as "free speech",  we cannot leave its protection to the whims of the degree to which the dominant society believes they are worthwhile or seeking to align with "proper" goals for groups that "they" think are being oppressed.

To use a more obvious analogy - if an innocent black man is beaten because of his race, it is no less offensive for an innocent white man to be beaten because of his.
 
The right to speak cannot depend upon the caprice of some amorphous moral judgment about "rightness".
 
Were that the case, Martin Luther King Jr.'s Letter may never have been written, and his "Dream" may never have been shared.

"First thing, let's kill all the lawyers"

Following up on a post last week, regarding the efforts on the part of government, and in fact, our own law societies to minimize the use of lawyers, ironically, I received a letter from my local Bar Association seeking to have me sign a letter to the Alberta Government seeking to demand greater availability of non-lawyer assistance for family litigants.

My growing realization is that the Government find lawyers an "annoyance" and would prefer to be able to organize society without the impediment of those trained in "speaking their language" to make them accountable.

As such, my response:

I'm far from seeking to "shoot the messenger", so while we may disagree on the point in issue, it’s not personal. However, the Lethbridge Bar Association – if it intends to pursue a political effort, should at a minimum seek to advise it’s members in advance of those intentions. I have about had it already with the Canadian Bar Association failing miserably in its efforts to actually represent the profession as a whole, as opposed to the misguided but loud minority who feel it appropriate for us to apologize profusely for having spent tens of thousands of dollars to pursue an education and then have the temerity to expect to be paid for providing the skill that we paid so dearly to acquire.

At face value, who can question the motives of those who seek to help those less fortunate than ourselves?

However - particularly for those of us who practice family law, I think the implications are of great concern, and both the well-intentioned in the LBA and our own Law Society appear to be oblivious to the implications of what “access to justice” may mean for our profession.

In Henry IV, part 2, there was a simple-minded criminal, Dick, who was seeking to overthrow the King in some anarchistic or libertarian effort to allow everyone as much ale and food as they might desire. Of course, to do that, he joked,

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

Why would he say that? Well, there are two interpretations – one is on a surface level that Dick was simple and figured without lawyers, everything would be easier. We wouldn’t be wasting the “skin of an innocent lamb” to make parchment. Who needs “rules” for society to operate – keeping in mind that Dick was basically a thug and a criminal who found the law an annoyance. The other, darker and deeper implication is that, in order to overthrow the authority of the state, to take control, one must first remove the impediment of laws and justice.

Think about that for a second and consider:

a) The efforts to “simplify” access to the family law area by the introduction of “fill in the blank” Family Law Act forms;
b) The efforts to provide non-lawyer assistance to litigants to help fill in those forms;
c) The efforts to assure that lawyers are unnecessary to collect support, and, now, to review support under the new MEPS maintenance recalculation service;
d) The efforts to expand, rather than police, the use of paralegals to represent parties in the system.

If practicing “law” is truly something that can be done without a law degree, one questions why we renew our memberships on an annual basis. One questions why we bother to go to 7 years of university. If “representation” is a matter of filling in blanks and then sending people off with 5 minutes of advice, well, why is it that, frequently, it takes ME six months, and demands from the bench for cross-examinations and voluminous and detailed disclosure, in order to vary support – whereas the suggestion is that anyone can just fill in a form with MEPS and have some clerk with no educational requirements at all to do the job without the need of a Judge at all?

Lest this be considered a “self-serving” position, well, I would only suggest with some lack of humility, perhaps, that I am not likely losing a single client to these efforts. My own clients, typically, have enough at stake that their investment in legal representation appears to be a necessity to them – as opposed to a luxury.

However, I recall the last time I volunteered for the Legal Guidance clinic having a woman come into see me regarding a maintenance review, earning $76,000.00 per year as a nurse.

I’m thinking, Scott, she could have retained counsel quite certainly. I am thinking that with advice of the Legal Guidance office and with a little help from the FLIC (Family Law Information) office, she quite clearly would have been assisted in taking decent paying work from one of our own members. Her barrier to “justice” was not financial, other than in the sense that if someone is going to “give it away” she was prepared to take it. It was after that evening that I declined further volunteering in the program.

The Law Society of Alberta is not made up of young lawyers who are scrambling to make a living, repaying student loans, and seeking to establish a clientele. It is made up of seasoned, experienced counsel, who left those days long ago, and who have the luxury of being noble about allowing clients who can’t pay $5,000.00 retainers to run their own litigation on the taxpayer’s dime.

For younger lawyers, such as you, Scott, I would be concerned indeed with the idea that, perhaps, our government and our own Law Society, is complicitous is assuring that, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”

We are an annoying bunch, us lawyers. We stand up against the might of the state when no one else will. We see through veiled efforts to deceive our clients by their spouses, we challenge them where they seek to hide income and assets in a way that the FLIC office and a bunch of “fill in the blank” Family Act forms cannot possibly respond to. Better we honestly and fairly value our efforts and say, what we do cannot be replicated by some administrative effort to fill in the cracks with some crumbling mortar that just increases the mess – which in fact is what so much of the “access to justice” is.

It is an effort to simplify the complex and, will have two impacts which are ignored:

a) It will remove food from our lawyers’ mouths; and
b) It will deceive the public that what we do is easy and simple – when we all know it is not.

I would prefer to not facilitate demeaning what we do as a profession by replacing lawyers with paralegals or civil service employees, and I would prefer not deceiving the public that resolution of their problems is easy.

Beyond that, I have two other questions for those who support the tenor of the letter you drafted:

- Where, Scott, is the Lethbrige Bar Association when the Collaborative Lawyers seek support? Not to pay us, personally, one thin dime – to simply help us communicate the idea of “collaboration” to the world?

- Where, in fact, is our Law Society of Alberta, when the Collaborative Lawyers say, “Help us help people resolve their problems outside of the system.”?

I can tell you how much support we have received to this point in time.

Zero.
Nada.
Zilch.

Not a damned thing.

And it’s an embarrassment when Alberta, which was the pioneer Province in Canada to embark on the effort towards Collaborative resolution has completely ignored the process, both at a government level and at the law society level, yet, we spend literally millions of dollars per year on a ham-fisted effort to pretend that lawyers are either unnecessary or should work for free.

When I attend international conferences every year and report the extent to which our Province has utterly and completely failed parties in the Collaborative process, compared to the significant effort of so-called “red neck” states like Texas, they just shake their heads.

And so do I.

Rgh.

So.

If you, as a taxpayer, have a concern with government spending your money to help people, poorly, to argue amongst themselves, well, you might want to write your own letter to your MLA.  Regardless of the self-interest of lawyers being paid for what they do (sorry), the profusion of effort to help more people get to court easier and cheaper, costs the tax payers MORE money, not less.

Japan.. and Kyoto.. say, "Sorry Charlie"

Hey.. Charest.  How 'bout a little help?

Remember Kyoto, Japan.  You know, about 1.5 million people on the island of Honshu.

Very concerned a while back about environmental issues.

Well.

Maybe not so much.

We read today that in response to the decimation of the Bluefin Tuna, a U.S. proposal to ban their export was soundly defeated at the U.N.  According to the Toronto Star:

A U.S.-backed proposal to ban the export of the Atlantic bluefin tuna prized for sushi was rejected Thursday by a United Nations wildlife meeting, with scores of developing nations joining Japan and Canada in opposing a measure they feared would devastate fishing economies.

Reaaaaaaaly?

So now Japan is onside with Canada.. where it suits their "ECONOMIC INTERESTS".

Beyond that, the developing nations of Africa are also on board.. where it suits their "ECONOMIC INTERESTS".

Here, in Alberta, we are supposed to smile as we lose our jobs, because, well, it's for the good of humanity.  Even as we struggle to fully understand the true impact of carbon on our environment, the call is for Alberta to do without.  For Alberta to suffer for the good of everyone else.

Except when you want a little maguro with your rice.

The world can do without energy, without driving cars.. but, by God, we will not tolerate a reduction of our sushi stock.

Where is Jean Charest, by the way?  Why isn't this pompous windbag at Doha, Qatar, deriding our fishing industry and our country as a whole for not jumping on board with the ban on Tuna Exports.   I guess he's too busy exporting asbestos to developing nations - trading in lung cancer.

The hypocrisy is so thick, it makes you gag. 

Lung cancer - no big deal.

Killing off tuna - no big deal.

Making our winters a little bit warmer by a degree or two.  BIG DEAL.

Whatever.

It's become sooooo tedious, almost makes me want to puchase a big V-8 uber-SUV.

Oh.

Wait.

Already did that.

Will you fix my car?

(Caveat:  I am a divorce lawyer by profession.  Take everything I say in that context.)

Go over to the court house in your local community.  Spend some time watching what's going on. 

I'll give you a birds-eye view.

In the area of family law (where I work), scores of people seeking to "fix" their problems, filing documents, arguing with Judges and their former spouses or partners, generally, being miserable and unhappy, because they aren't getting "Justice".

And, more and  more, these people are on their own, in court, without lawyers.

Why?

Well, the Courts, right up to the Supreme Court of Canada, moan about how expensive lawyers have become and how the "average" person can't afford a lawyer anymore, so lawyers need to do more free work, "pro bono", Courts need to provide more help to those who don't have lawyers, and our laws need to be tailored to the lowest common denominator so that EVERYONE can come get their slice from the Justice Pie.

Problem is - our law societies, our judicial systems, are all selling the same magic beans for the same magic beanstalk... that if only we can serve all of you, everything will be alright.

Oh.  And remember my blog about the woman at the Burger King who called 9-11 because she didn't get the right burger?

Well, combine the two.  More and more citizens who have an expectation that the state should be responsible for making everything better.. and a judicial and legal system which is complicit in selling them on the same illusion.  That if you have a problem, the state - the judicial system - will make everything alright.

Problem is - it's a lie.

The courts don't make everything ok...  honestly, courts and lawyers, often enough, make things worse.

Yet - what do we hear, over and over again?  We need to make the courts MORE accessible to people in dispute.  We need to make it EASIER for people to get themselves in front of a Judge.

The buzzword is "Access to Justice".

The problem?  There is no "justice" - at last not as most people understand it.  "Justice" for them is everything being "fair".  And, most often, no one walks out of court feeling it was "fair", and almost uniformly, at least 50% of people walking into court, walk out thinking it was very UNFAIR.

But - under that illusion, the Alberta government has enacted new forms that are basically fill in the blanks, so every idiot with a complaint about their ex (wife, husband, girlfriend, boyfriend, whatever) can get themselves a piece of the justice pie.  The Law Society of Alberta and, in fact, the Courts themselves, pressure lawyers to do more free work (pro bono) to also help people get a piece of that pie.

And most often, it's more about retribution that justice anyway.

And it's very, very expensive.  Judges, court clerks, court houses, security, and the whole infrastructure behind it, cost our government massive dollars.  As per the 2010 Alberta Budget the Justice Department operating costs this year will be over $442 million, climbing to over $500 million by 2012.

Why?

Well, at it simplest, to help stupid people clean up their messes.  Mostly.

Individuals, businesses, people who find themselves in some sort of mess, go to the lawyers, or at least the Court system and say, "fix it please".

Which is fine... if they are paying for it.

But imagine for a moment, if some couple drove up in front of your house, and then got out of their car and beat the living crap out of it.  Breaking windows, pulling off their mirrors, scratching and denting the body.  And finally, when they have done so much damage that the car won't even run anymore, they walk up to your house and say, "fix my car, now".

Yeah.

Now you're getting the idea.

And it's happening every day, all over Canada.  People are beating up their relationships, engaging in what can only be described as the most ignorant and ludicrous of behavior, and then, they are walking up to your homes, with their hands out, and saying, "Ok, taxpayer, now fix it."

My response.

Go fix you own car.

P.S.

I know, already, I'm going to hear, "What about the victims of abuse?"

Well.. it's kind of like the person who sees a sexy looking car, with fat tires and chrome rims, but doesn't bother to check under the hood.  I'm still not fixing your car.  Take a little more care in picking your next one.

Broadening the "Safe Society" Discussion..

Yesterday, I was on a bit of a rant about Rob Nicholson's latest installment of the Conservative answer to the Gun Registry.

Some comments responded in a manner which mirrors how many of us think, on the surface about crime.

When we experience crime or we see crimes occur, we want retribution.  Of course we do.  When my truck window was busted out, when my golf clubs and cds were stolen, if I could have caught the punk, I would have kicked his ass.. and then advocated for about 5 years in jail.

That's normal.

And when the crime is more serious, its normal for all of us to feel the same, even when it doesn't happen to us personally.

But "how we feel" is not necessarily the best basis upon which to enact legislation.

We don't ask murder victim's families to sit as Judge and Jury on the trials of the accused - for obvious reasons.  Because in the pain and anger of loss, they are likely to make irrational decisions, helping no one, including themselves.

As much as well all want safe streets for ourselves and our children, we want the criminal justice system to be a rational and reasoned response to crime.

The recent Conservative crime bills are not that.  They are not backed by research or reason - and just as with the Gun Registry system, they are being brought forward because they buy votes.  No other reason.

Look at the U.S. example.  They kill more of their own citizens than any othe developed western nation in the name of "justice", yet, their streets are anything but safe.  Their "three strikes" laws apply with heartless severity, yet, their streets are anything but safe.  Why?  Do you think it's becasue of their gun laws?  Maybe.. if you're some mindless Liberal partisan in the GTA. 

It's because the roots of crime and the answers to crime are not at the end result.  They answers are at the front end - in our social support and in how we deal with young people in trouble.   In Canada - we show more compassion to those who struggle, including young offenders, and we do more to say, "you are a member of society, you are "one of us", so act like it."  We do our best to hold them accountable AS A MEMBER OF SOCIETY before we take them away from it.  And more of them DO overcome.  Not all, but many.

Of course we don't read about them in the paper.  We don't read about how so-and-so was charged and convicted of selling drugs, and a few years later, is a University student, well on their way to being a valuable positive contribution to society.  That isn't news. 

In the big picture, our criminal justice system works just fine.  It isn't perfect, but no system is.  Bad people go free and reoffend. Innocent people get convicted and spend time in jail.  But, in the big picture, it works.  Not always.  But most of the time.

The better response - support our parents to be better parents.  Don't pay them NOT TO LOOK AFTER THEIR CHILDREN by a national daycare program.  Don't use the criminal law to prevent people from using reasonable force to correct their children.  Help prevent child abuse and the epidemic of fetal alchohol syndrome. 

In the U.S., as a crime is committed, they say, "You aren't one of us, you aren't worthy of compassion, we don't care about you."  And, as we interally "banish" these people from our society - they learn not to care.  Our rules don't apply to them.  And then, they commit crimes.  Because we depersonalize them, they depersonalize us.  And they steel our stuff, and they mug us, and sometimes, they kill us.  Because they aren't a member of "our world".  And if they don't matter...  we don't matter.

If I truly felt that Rob Nicholson and Stephen Harper BELIEVED in the responses they are touting, I would be even more pissed off, because, well, that would make them stupid, and not just self-interested.  I expect self-interest in a politician, but I can't abide stupidity.

So let's assume that Rob Nicholson and Stephen Harper KNOW that there is no rational basis for the enactment of their crime legislation, they just want to sell votes.

I've heard this song before.

Alan Rock, and the Liberal crew, knew and know, full well, than the gun registry will not reduce crime or make us safer.  They know that - yet they spend millions of dollars of our taxes to impliment and support it anyway, for one reason - because it appeals to their base.  It buys them votes.

Stephen Harper - you are better than that. 

I hope.

The New Paul Blart.. and this Writer is Considering His Options

The New "Paul Blart" Mall Cop

I like Stephen Harper.  I really do.

I like his slow, but steady move in responding to our national issues, I like his deliberate responses to foreign policy issues, and I much prefer the rational approach to policy that was occasionally somewhat lacking with the Reform Party.

However.

The Harper approach to criminal law reform is, well, ignorant pandering to public fear instead of responding rationally to social reality.

Minimum sentencing laws.

Internet eavesdropping laws.

And now they want to disclose the names of young offenders involved in offenses, and allow use of information regarding earlier incidents which young offenders were not convicted of in sentencing.

This is the Conservative version of the gun registry.

Laws which will increase taxpayer costs (though, in a sly way that won't be as easy to identify as the gun registry) and do absolutely nothing to make us safer.

How will it increase cost?  Well, now, we will be encountering separate court applications dealing only with whether or not names should be disclosed.  A judge, two lawyers, a court room, a couple court clerks, all being paid for carrying on a pointless application to satisfy public voyeuristic desires, and nothing more.

A little reminder for Mr. Harper and, more specifically, for his Justice Minister Rob Nicholson:

"Conservative" generally refers to opposing unnecessary change.
"Conservative" generally refers to reducing the involvement of government in the lives of citizens.
"Conservative" generally refers to reducing government cost.

The current "tough on crime" efforts of this government fail on all counts to support true Conservatism.

This is change without purpose.
This is increased government action in our lives, without purpose.
This is increasing government cost, without purpose.

While I'm not about to vote for Michael Ignatieff... if the government continues to waste my tax dollars, on another somewhat disguised "gun registry" type of voter appeasement, there will be no further donations to the Conservative Party of Canada by this member, and I encourage you to do likewise and to pass that message on to your MP.

The only saving grace for the Conservative Party is that the Liberals have no leader and no plans. 

That won't last forever.

Partisan Politics.. Revisiting "Us" v. "Them"

Alright.

So, time for a non-partisan moment.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to be voting for Michael Ignatieff anytime soon, but sometimes, in our zeal to support the party we believe in, or in our opposition to the party we don't, it is easy to get distracted from problems beyond party politics.

Think about this for a moment.  In the U.S., both the Republicans and the Democrats supported billions of dollars in aid to be paid to businesses that, essentially, had failed.

In Canada, the Liberals and NDP demanded much the same, and the Conservatives complied with nary an eyebrow being raised.

And, still, Canadians and Americans have lost jobs by the truckload.

The "stimulus" funding larglely went to significant government projects, which, by and large, resulted in contracts to significant corporate entities.

Beyond that, in both the U.S., and now in Ontario and Quebec, the government has become a guarantor of large corporate pension funds, and obviously is a guarantor of the civil service pensions - see Teacher's Retirement Fund in Alberta.  

Not my employees retirement plan, mind you - we're only a small business - much like any plumbing or electrician business.  When our RRSP plans lose 40% in a year, no one blinks, and the tax payer certainly isn't asked to back up te losses.  Yet when I'm hiring, I get to compete with government and big business.

Here's someting else to think about.  While we're being sold a bill of goods that some business is "too big to fail" like, say, GMC, or in the U.S., A.I.G., here's a slice of reality:

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.

At the same time, 70% of small business owners have a net worth of less than $500,000.00, and some 41% have a net worth of less than $100,000.00.

These businesses are not likely cutting cheques for $10,000.00 each year to the Conservative or Liberal parties of Canada, or any other party for that matter.

So, while we enjoy the partisan give and take on the blogs, while it is great sport for Conservatives and Liberals to poke fun and raise questions about eachother's political agendas, it is probably appropriate to stop the partisan arguments occasionally and refocus.

Who is "us" and who is "them"?

It may not be who you think.  It may not be the guy on the other side of the political spectrum, it may well be the large corporate donor that you are supporting. 

Consider this fact which I blogged about some time ago.

During the most recent U.S. Presidential elections, when looking at overall political donations from the financial services industry (see A.I.G., Lehman Bros., et al) and when looking at the overal political donations from the defence industry..   surprise!! .. more money went to the Democratic party than the Republican party.

We need to be wary, myself included, that we don't lose sight of the possibility that, for conservaties, "them" may be the same free enterprise types that we seem to support.

Capitalism is a fine concept - but it has it's drawbacks when it's allowed to improperly influence government, or when it's practicioners are not forced to live with the natural results of their failure..  so, perhaps today, shop with a local business eschewing Wal-Mart or Superstore. And the next time you are told a business is "too big to fail", perhaps respond that maybe the business is just "too stupid to live".

Canada's Liberals.. down at the end of Lonely Street

Will "Liberalism" become the new Panda of Politics?

Interesting.


The Star reported on Friday that Canadians are tending towards Conservative values.

However, before us Conservatives start patting ourselves on the back, it would be wise to review the results with some due consideration that what we are talking about is a somewhat incrimental change with respect to centrist voters, who now are more likely to support conservative values than traditionally liberal values.

They support smaller government involvement in our lives, and the "supremacy" of family.

However - as we have seen with the polls, their vision of government is somewhat pragmatic and is not dogmatic.

In other words, their support could quickly shift should they lose faith in the path of the government or should they believe that the gap between their centrist views and more agressively conservative views is too great.

This is probably where I sit, to a great extent.

My aims are not to tell other people how to live their lives - and as such, more traditionally social conservative views have no value for me in government when it comes to issues such as seeking to prevent abortion or seeking to turn back the clock on gay marriage.

I would suggest where these Canadians sit is a healthy place - a place where individual liberty and responsibility is pre-eminent in their minds and should be pre-eminennt in the minds of our government.

As suggested in the poll results - an "incrimental approach to change".

What else does it suggest - well, I would surmise that national daycare is a policy which could well spell the same sort of results for the federal Liberals as did the "green shift".

I might suggest that Canadians do not oppose a government who supports giving a hand to those who need it. They are offended, as taxpayers and as citizens generally, where the government seeks to give support to those who have no need for it - particularly where it suggests greater estrangement of children and their families.

As the article states:
Let's keep it that way.

The left is a very lonely place to be right now in Canada.

Alberta's Royalty Review.. no Magic Pill

Yesterday our Premier, Ed Stelmach, announced amendments to Alberta's oil and gas royalty structure, essentially a review of the royalty changes implemented before the world economy collapsed and oil and gas prices fell dramatically.

The verdict?

Well, having spoken to the Premier on several occasions, my impression is that he is truly a sincere man who wishes to do his best to assist our Province in moving through difficult times.  Of that there is no doubt.  So, in that regard, I know that hearing of people losing their homes, and their businesses, in the difficult economy has struck a chord with the Premier and that the government response is an effort clearly to soften the blow of world economic difficulty which, while not the fault of the Alberta government, was also not the fault of the oil and gas industry. 

Many Albertans fail to understand that one in seven jobs in this Province is directly related to the oil and gas industry.  They see assistance to oil and gas only in terms of the direct benefit to oil companies and the people they employ.  They don't see the jobs in the service industry.  The hotels where workers stay, the restaurants where they eat, the auto dealers who sell them trucks, the home builders who build their homes, he stores where they buy the things they and their family needs.  They fail to see the massive amount of money donated every year to charities from those in the oil industry.

Now... in reviewing the article in the Calgary Herald describing the changes, it appears that even the leader of the Wild Rose Alliance, Danielle Smith, has a positive reaction, stating that she believes the government has listened to the industry - though, as a one trick pony with a party formed almost solely in response to the original royalty changes, she does have to put party spin on it, sort of a "why did it take so long" qualification.

As a Conservative, I think the move is prudent, considering the economic changes faced in the industry, but far from overly generous, and, having regard to the frantic spittle coming from Calgary as appearing in the comments to the article, it appears the change has thrown a monkey wrench into those hoping for a Calgary dominated political party.

The Progressive Conservative Party is a party of Albertans from Indian Cabins to Coutts, Alberta.  Calgary is important, no question, but they are important just as Edmonton, and Red Deer, and Medicine Hat, and Fort McMurray, and Grande Prairie, and High Level, and Taber, and Canmore and Stavely, and Wetaskiwin and every other community in Alberta are important.

The industry leaders know a supportive government move when they see it.

"The signals have been sent and the issues that have been addressed by the announcement (Thursday) are a very significant, positive step toward moving forward," said David Collyer, president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the industry's primary lobby group.

Will this answer be some "magic pill" to return Alberta to the prosperity it enjoyed a few years ago?  Hardly.

But Albertans, REAL Albertans, aren't expecting easy.  They're willing to work through the hard times, and appreciate a hand up..   and those who are still complaining, well, fair enough.  Go ahead.  Vote for someone else - that's what democracy is all about.  The government's job isn't to make everyone happy.  It's to just do the best they can in difficult times - and I, for one, am happy we have a considered and compassionate response to Alberta's needs from one Edward Stelmach.

Well done.

..the Problems of a Few Little Ducks

Did you see the picture of the dying Swann?

David Swann and Brian Mason are all up in arms because the Premier of Alberta apparently didn't spend hours and hours wringing his hands over some pictures of ducks covered in goo.

I have a more important question to put to the Liberal and NDP parties in Alberta:  Have you looked a the picture of your parties mired in the muck and drowing in obscurity because you can't articulate any plan or vision to capture the attention of the Alberta electorate?

Albertans, perhaps unhappy that money is no longer flowing like water from our taps, are clearly expressing some discontent with the current government.  However, much to the discontent of David Swann and Brian Mason, their support isn't moving left.. it's moving farther right.  To a partry which has no plan at all. 

David Swann's response should be to gather input from Albertans and determine the nature of their discontent and seek to create a policy responding to those concerns, in hopes that he can deliver something the people want. 

Nope.

Pictures of ducks.

That is his grand effort.

Pictures of ducks.

And the Liberal polls continue to flatline.  Albertans continue to send the message that LESS spending from our government is needed, not more. 

Sure.  The media loves it - in part because the Premier's failure to read their sensationalist pictures no doubt offends their egos, but the people could care less.  They are worried about their jobs.  They are worried about what their retirement will look like.  They are worried about whether health care in the next decade will still be available for everyone when needed.

I have a picture for David Swann, it's a moving picture, in black and white, surrounded with a soft evening fog.  And it has a dialogue accompanying it:

David - the citizens of Alberta need real ideas.  An if you don't come up with some pretty quick, you're going to regret it. 

Maybe not today. Maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of your life.

Where you're going, the people won't follow. What they need, you refuse to be any part of. 

Look, David, I'm no good at being noble, but it doesn't take much to see that the problems of a few little ducks don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.  

Maybe someday, you'll understand this.  Now, now.. well, no one's looking at you kid.

Fade to black, as David Swann wanders away, lost in the fog.

The "Evoke" Game - Are YOU Up for Saving the World?

So.

Interesting little webproject - "Evoke".

It asks people to join and engage in a "game" which requires them to put their mind to solutions to broad world problems, to create a sort of facebook-style page for themselves and then move through a series of challenges requiring them to become quasi-comicbook "heroes" by providing creative solutions to their "missions". The project is funded by the world bank, and, it's aspiration is to collect innovative ideas to attack real world problems.

While, no doubt, the project will be larglely populated by those on the political left, I think the idea is quite interesting - enough to induce me to sign on and take a whirl at it.

My first mission was to review some "secrets of social innovation" and to find ONE that appealed to me, and to suggest why I felt it would help "save the world".

As a conservative, it was no great suprise that the recommendation, or "secret" that appealed to me from "Innovation in Africa Tips" was: 

3. Embrace market mechanisms (Giving stuff away rarely works as well as selling it.)

My response or reason for identifying with this was:

I hate to say it, but without reality born from some notion of market forces, large-scale change in my opinion is unlikely to take place. We can certainly motivate large groups for short-term emergencies (see Haiti), however, for lasting change, to ask a farmer, for example, to give away his produce without some form of compensation is not likely to occur.

That being said, we can be innovative in what we see as "value" being exchanged for products, and money is not necessarily the only currency.

Looking at my own situation, if I could see broad support for peaceful change in a society, that would be a "currency" that could motivate me to trade service or goods for "peace". May seem pie in the sky, but isn't that the point of this.. to think outside the box?

Perhaps this might seem very "pink" to my fellow conservatives, but it just struck me that a website asking for postive ideas, and focussing on the REALITY of those ideas is a refreshing change from the usual "complaining about the OTHER guy" that seems to dominate blogs and political discussion in general.

Fire. Them. All.

Hmm.

So, a group of 2nd grade school children in Los Angeles just had a sudden, joint, idea to write letters to their governor, whose name they either don't even know or don't know how to pronounce.

Seriously.

A group of teachers and their administrator decide to start the political brainwashing early, and enlist these children to help them. 

If I were the Governor, I know the response I would have.

Fire. Them. All.

Watch this video and then realize just how important Bill 44 in Alberta actually is to give parents the right to prevent abuse of their children by teachers.   If I had a nickle for every time a teacher sought to impose their own misguided notion of what is "proper political opinion" upon me from when I was in Grade 1 right up until I graduated University, I would be a wealthy man.  This sort of indoctrination of young minds is offensive in the extreme..   and yet, there is currenly an ongoing effort to stop the armed forces from showing up at career days in High Schools to talk to 17 and 18 year olds about their future plans.

Go figure.

Big Brother is real, but in today's society, he and she wear a smiley face, and explain to our little children how their views are "in our best interests".

Indeed.

Success Through Failure - Only in Canada

In a not-so-suprising report, released last week by the Winnipeg based Frontier Centre for Public Policy, it is disclosed that the result of our supremely flawed federal equalization program is that successful provinces are penalyzed for their success, and failures are being rewarded.

In the report, detaiedl in an article in the Vancouver Sun, here, it is reported that when looking to availability of doctors, nurses and teacher-to-student ratios, "have not" provinces are fairing better that their wealthier neighbors who, to a large extent, are paying for those services.

What isn't discussed, however, is the "double-whammy" that success brings.

It works something like this:

1.  Your province reduces it's deficit, operates a business climate that is welcoming investment, and, in the result, succeeds in establishing a stable and healthy economy;

2.  Other provinces (i.e. la belle Province, Quebec) effectively ignore the responsibility to improve their own economic climate, discouraging investment through unconstitutional, bigoted "cultural purity" imperatives, and, as a result, show ongoing and neverending failure economically;

3.  Our Federal Government then does the unthinkable.  It penalizes the success and rewards the failure, by directing successful, hard-working Provinces to cough up their profit and redistributes it to the lazy, stupid kid in the corner, Quebec;

4.  Here comes the double whammy.  Because of their success, the successful provinces are prevailed upon by their civil service and health care industries to pay them much more than similarly situated professionals in the failing provinces (Quebec, in case you forgot).  To illustrate, here is some data I have gathered relative to the areas referred to in the Frontier Centre report:

Family PhysiciansSalaries: (see: http://www.discoveryfinance.com/national-average-income-for-medical-doctors-canada.html)

Alberta  - $267,000.00
British Columbia - $228,000.00
Ontario - $211,000.00
Quebec- $171,000.00

Registered Nurses Salaries (high end of payscale - see: http://www.registered-nurse-canada.com/nurse_salary.html)

Alberta - $73,948.88
British Columbia - $69,380.06
Ontario - $75,543.00
Quebec - $57,959.15

Teachers Salaries: (high end of payscale - see: http://www.education.gov.ab.ca/FactsStats/teacherpaid.asp)

Alberta -$74,126.00
British Columbia - $70,284.00
Ontario - $73,472.00
Quebec - $63,527.00

5.  As a result of their "failure", Quebec enjoyes lower teacher-student ratios, more doctors and nurses per capita, and lower post-secondary tuition.

The moral of the story?

To succeed, to work hard, in Canada..   apparently makes you a rube.  The smart move is, apparently, abject failure.

Problem is, eventually, under this system, we will all fail.

And then where will we be?

Pssst.. Want a Great Investment Tip

So.

If you're wondering where to invest these days, with the market bobbing up and down like a trainer at seaworld, I have a great tip.

Minority interest in a new Ontario "Supercorporation".

Yup.

Here's the scoop.

You can own a non-controlling interest in an Ontario corporation that will be in the exclusive hands of the people who:

a) Wasted $1 billion in the eHealth debacle;
b) Never say no to union wage demands; and
c) Want to guarantee the value of the employee pensions, but, oddly, not your investment value for YOUR retirement.

The bottom line?  This company will be run by Dalton McGuinty, will assure that employees continue to be paid more than market value, will assure that grossly inflated pension values continue to hamper business success in a difficult economy, and will be structured to assure that private investors will never be able to exert any control over the operation of their corporation.

According to the article in the Star today:

"You would put all the assets inside a shell and then issue shares on that shell. That way there's still an element of public ownership," a Liberal insider said Friday.

"Then, perhaps one-third or slightly less than half of the shares would be sold. There would be foreign ownership limits, no single shareholder would be able to own more than 5 per cent, and the shares wouldn't just be sold to institutional investors," the source said.

Selling a minority share of the new holding company could bring in anywhere from $18 billion to $25 billion, a massive cash bonanza for a government saddled with a record $24.7 billion deficit and facing re-election in October 2011.

"It would satisfy the left because you would still have unionized workers at these publicly owned entities and it would satisfy the right, which always wants to privatize things," the Liberal said.

"The only downside is if the market doesn't react positively to it."

Where do I sign up?

While I was away..

Sorry to my readers for my absense..  took a break out of the country for a week, and I come back and it's like, well, bizarro-world.

Let me understand this.

The Conservative Government wants to change the wording to "Oh, Canada" to make it more"Gender Neutral"?

Really?  A matter of apparent urgent national importance, which, no doubt, will strongly appeal to the Conservative base.

And a new budget is unveiled that promises several more years of budget deficits (this coming from the "There will be no deficit" crowd.

Really?

Uh, Minister Flaherty..  low taxes are only ONE reason that business will invest in Canada..  another reason might, just might, be a stable economic platform that allows reasonable long-term predictability.

In a nutshell, here is the problem with the current incarnation of "Conservative" in Canada.

They are simple-minded in the extreme and see things a day ahead, instead of a decade ahead.  Long-term planning and ramifications are nowhere to be found, and I suggest this is due to two principal factors:

a) The unhealthy hunger for the "Holy Grail" of a majority government; and
b) The over-abundance of simple thinking conservatives who prefer to make major decisions based upon their "gut" reaction than a prudent review of the facts before them.

The "law and order" amendments to the criminal code will be largely pointless in actually reducing crime, and, in fact, may have the opposite effect and, in the bargain, increase federal spending on jails, enforcement and funding an alread over-burdered judidicial system.

The notion that if we "lower taxes" they will come, ignores the reality that, if I'm going to invest in a Country, I'm unlikely to do that if what I'm looking at is an uncertain government with a tenuous hold on power, who, if it is lost, is likely to change hands to a government which will make short work of those lowered taxes anyway.. oh, and in the bargain, even in the short run, running up continuing budget deficits that create questionable predictability for things like education and health care- which, believe it or not, MATTER to business investment, particularly in fields where an educated and healthy workforce is essential (can you say "diversifying our economy"?)

The ongoing bungling of the Afghan non-issue is also endemic of this simple-minded malaise.  Look, take your lumps, release the stupid documents - or at least refer the matter to an actul sitting judge for a definitive ruling.  We all know the game we're now going to see played out.  If the Conservatives don't like Iaccabucci's ruling, they'll withhold his recommendations or selectively apply them.. if they do release the recommendations, the Liberals and NDP, like braying dogs they are, will still whine and complain.

Better to "man up" and get it dealt with, up front and directly.  If some heads roll, if Peter McKay ends up with his cajones in a sling, big deal.  The party is bigger than one man.

The swing vote in Canada, the great centre of non-dogmatic citizens who vote with their brains and not according to some simple-minded ideology, is at stake.  And if Stephen Harper and his crew aren't careful, they are going to surely usher in the new Prime Minister of Canada, Michael Ignatieff.

And I will post a massive "I told you so" right here.

And then start buying Krugerrands.