Color me shocked and amazed. By ratio of over three to one over the next highest recipient in Canada, the biggest complainers over their lot in our federation are also the biggest benefactors - Quebec.
Go figure.
Now.
Who does that make the charitable donors?
Alberta.
British Columbia.
Saskatchewan.
..and now, Newfoundland.
Aside from the charity inherent in the equalization process, how do we stack up with respect to charitable donations in general? Do les Quebecois "pay it forward"?
After being the largest, by far, benefactors of their fellow Canadians generosity, do our neighbors in la belle province pass that generosity on when it comes to charitable donations themselves?
Those who receive the most, in turn, are those who give the least.
Perhaps our Quebec neighbors will counter, "Of course we pay less to charity - because we have less to give."
Problem is, in response to this suggestion, they will be quickly shut up in embarrassment over the generosity of Manitoba. A "have not" province in the equalization scheme, they nonetheless are the largest contributors to charity as a percentage of their income in Canada.
**sigh**
Quebec..
You may now recommence your tirade about just how "hard done by you are".
Just thought I'd put it in perspective as we enter the new year.
The new provincial motto should perhaps change from "la belle Province" to "la radin Province".
For those of us with children, or who were once children ourselves with siblings, we can probably identify with the notion of pointing at others in an effort to avoid our own responsibility.
When mom or dad admonished us for the state of a messy bedroom, the urge to point to a siblings room and say, "But theirs is much messier than mine" is an attractive response - but clearly inappropriate.
And that urge continues as we enter adulthood. Arguing with an officer over a speeding ticket by pointing at motorists who were going faster than we were with impunity seems to make abundant sense.
But it doesn't.
And as responsible adults, when we are parents or when we are not the ones receiving the ticket, we know that we are responsible for our own messes and it is no excuse to say that someone else's mess is worse.
So it goes with politics.
The answer to many of our own current political dillemas cannot be "but they are worse."
Torture of prisoners.
Pollution of our environment.
Removal of fundamental human rights to oppose terrorists.
Why? Because the failure to do so allows us to creap forward on that slippery slope from good towards evil.
As posted earlier, so often when we see evil being done in the world we find it easy to dismiss it by using concepts of "them" versus "us".
Does this sound vaguely "progressive"? Maybe so. But in my mind it is fundamentally conservative. Because at it's core it obliges each of us to the highest standards of personal responsibility and independance.
It challenges each of us to do the right thing without the heavy hand of the state forcing us to do so. When we ask for "less" government - the corresponding obligation is "more" individual responsibility.
So.
As we move forward into the new year, for those of us who consider ourselves conservative, one might suggest that we challenge ourselves to do our best to clean up our own rooms before we point to the mess in our brother's or sister's room.
If we believe, truly, that charity begins at home - then we had best demand of ourselves that we do our best to help our neighbor instead of waiting for the government to compel us to do so. If we oppose costly, inefficient and high-handed government efforts to combat racism and discrimination - then we had best be prepared to take that responsibility into our own hands. Treating our neighbors as equals regardless of their personal characteristics - and stand against those who do otherwise.
If we find ourselves frustrated with what we perceive as "ideologues" on the left listening and considering our point of view - begin first by listening to and understanding their point of view. Better yet, perhaps seek to define our similarities and points of agreement before immediately attacking points of difference.
Consider that all of us would prefer a better world for our children.
Consider, at this time, whether you are Christian, Muslim or have no religious faith at all - the suggestion that each of us seek out to establish, "peace on earth, good will toward all men."
Today's post is a long rambling exposition of my thoughts leading to the year end, and leading into the coming New Year.
To begin with a Political Lesson from Monty Python's Holy Grail:
"Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses."
How do we know that?
Well, ask Czar Nicholas II, ask Louis XVI, as George Washington.. history is replete with the conversion of autocracy to government by the people through revolution.
The result - in the last century, a conversion to government by democracy.
But we are seeing cracks in democracy as the epitome of governance.
Because, to many, the mandate of government isn't a mandate of "the masses" at all, but is a mandate of special interests.
Oil. Banking. Minority Rights. Environmentalists.
More recently, a loud and increasingly powerful third world collective known as the "United Nations".
The result - an angry and disengaged citizenry - epitomized in another odd popular culture reference.
How about Marshal Mathers.. "Eminem".
Perhaps the most significant music figure of the last decade, Eminem has built a following by expressing anger and rage at being dispossessed from power and authority over his own life.
A white man who doesn't matter.
But it's not his whiteness, nor his maleness which appeals.. it's his representation of more and more members of a society who feel that their hopes and dreams don't matter very much to the society around them.
But what we are missing, more and more is that "them" is "us". We're all feeling dispossessed and a little lost. Witness recent debate over the U.S. tax laws with big business, the Wall Street demons, being heard to say, "We don't think the President is listening to us." If they don't feel they are listend to.. what does that say for the bricklayer in Brandon, or the grocery clerk in Kamploops?
And this universal sense of being dispossessed has a dangerous offspring - terrorism and anarchy.
And here's the thing.
The typical response of the hard right to stiffer penalties and stronger enforcement misses the point entirely.
Terrorists, obviously, aren't impacted by the threat of harsh penalties - even death.
And with respect to enforcement, sadly, terrorists aren't three-headed monsters amenable, in the long run, to detection before their heinous acts. They often look like normal, everyday people.
Witness the recent suicide bomber in Sweden. Married, with three children - he had a bachelor degree in sports physiotherapy. Until shortly before his death he was described as easy-going and friendly. Just like you and me.
Well, maybe you.
With respect - our current response to terrorism is akin to treating an Ebola patient. By the time we recognize the symptoms of the illness, we're actually too late - the answer, truly, is seeking out the cause of the infection.
In that report, in describing what makes a terrorist - it advises "that their violent acts stem from feelings of rage and hopelessness engendered by the belief that society permits no other access to information-dissemination and policy-formation processes.”
Does that feel a little bit like you and me?
Think about that for just a moment.
Terrorism is the response of the dispossessed. Not to by any means condone it - I continue to be of the belief that our condemnation of those who choose to take the law into their own hands needs to be strong and unequivocal - it is nonetheless important to ask ourselves this fundamental question:
Do I feel that I matter?
The answer to that question is complex - but I'm thinking it DOESN'T lie in creating yet another special interest group. It lies in breaking them down. In erasing the lines that we seek to draw between aboriginals, and women, and homosexuals, between the rich and the poor - the polarization of society will only increase alienation, not diminish it.
Which isn't the same as ignoring need.
Imagine the various interest groups in society as hungry individuals. You have a five men and five women.
Of those men, two are caucasian, one of whom is gay. The other three men are black, asian and hispanic. Two of the men are Muslim, one white, one black.
Of the women, three of them are black, one is caucasian, and one is hispanic. The caucasian and hispanic women are Catholic, the two of the black women are Muslim and one is an atheist. Two of the women are lesbian.
The men are aged 18, 28, 29, 47 and 68. The women are 17, 23, 25, 49, and 71.
Now.
Those people are marooned on a desert island for six months - but the island has a natural store of food and water that will allow them to survive - but just barely. And to harvest the good and water will take some effort to climb a mountain to get to a fresh water spring, to capture ground birds, and to harvest coconuts.
Ok so far?
Problem is that while, objectively, we know what their needs are - they don't. They are all afraid of not having enough water or food, and all have two perceptions:
a) That they may need more water and food than the others; and
b) The the others may not treat them fairly because of their differences.
Now - ask them. In determining the allocation of resources, how important will it be to assure that we create individual lobby groups? Are these people more or less likely to be able to cooperate for their common good if we break them into separate voting groups?
And what would those groups look like?
Would the lobbies be based upon race? And if the black members gather to advocate on their own behalf, being an historically oppressed minority - what would the likely response of the rest of the group?
Or maybe they will choose to lobby based upon age - with the "under 30 group" being the dominant force.
Will they group based upon sexual preference, or religion?
If you were elected the governor of the island - would you see it as helpful to create special meetings to isolate and discuss the interests of the women - excluding men from the meetings.. followed by the special meetings of the Muslims.. followed by the special meetings of the homosexuals.. and so on.
I'm thinking not.
Yet that's what we do.
We allow government to coddle and respond to oil companies, and bankers, and immigrant groups, and gay rights organizations and so forth.. and the rest of society - the massive majority of the rest of us, black, white, gay, straight, men, women, Muslim, Christian and atheists alike, who don't have the direct ear of Premiers and Prime Ministers - feel like we don't matter.
Time to say "no" to politics as usual.
Time to seek out politicians who don't play the game the same old, same old way - and to seek out people who are genuine - who advocate for their constituents, not for the people who make the most noise or who offer the most political benefit. The consequences of continuing the "game" are very, very negative.
Are there politicians like that out there?
Well, word to people who might consider politics as a vocation - "if you build it they will come."
1938 "Man of the Year" - Seeking to "Ensure basic moral standards"
Colonialism and Imperialism.
They are nasty words these days, reminiscent of the British Empire's efforts in subjugating other nations to provide Britain the benefits of those nations' resources at the expense of those nations peoples.
And while many of us look upon colonialism as a practice of bygone days - what we don't realize is it continues to happen today.
Here.
In Canada.
And I'm not talking about issues of the rights of indigenous people - I'm talking about the rights and interests of all Canadians.
How so?
Well.
Canada's federal political system strikes a balance between Federal powers and Provincial Sovereignty, originally set out in sections 91 and 92 of the British North America act. The federal government is given authority over certain prescribed powers and the Provinces are given authority over others. And in many respects, each Province is a nation unto itself - with the right to assert the interests of its citizens without interference from not only other countries, but without interference from the federal government.
But the problem is, more and more, we see the federal government seeking to assert colonial powers over the provinces.
The details of the decision are not particularly important - but the attitude of some Judges, notably that of the Chief Justice, Beverley McLachlin, are important.
In a minority decision (thankfully) she suggests that the federal government should basically do anything it likes under it's authority over "criminal" law. To quote her:
"Parliament has a strong interest in ensuring that basic moral standards govern the creation and destruction of life, as well as their impact on persons like donors and mothers," wrote Justice Beverley McLaughlin, whose group would have upheld the entire act as a federal power.
"The act seeks to avert serious damage to the fabric of our society by prohibiting practices that tend to devalue human life and degrade participants."
Really?
I'm sure the British had similar rhetoric in mind when they created the British Empire.. "we're simply seeking to ensure basic moral standards over these countries to assure the welfare of their citizens.
Canadians should consider this when we hear people like Michael Ignatieff spout off about national daycare and control over transport of natural resources and the like.. because in many ways the effort of the federal government (read "Ontario and Quebec") is a colonial effort to seek to dominate the people of Canada for the benefit of foreign interests at the expense of the "subjugated people".
So.
Pay attention.
When we are presented with any new plan or policy of the Federal government, ask yourself - if Adolph Hitler was seeking to impose the new plan upon us - would we be inclined to resist it even if it sounded benevolent?
And if so, should we stand by passively as Ontario and Quebec seek to do the same?
Why is it that when my meter runs out, I get a $25 ticket.. but if I kill someone I am subject to life imprisonment?
The answer is obvious.
As a society, we impose penalties that seek to match the relative severity of the crime.. staying too long at your meter seems a little less severe than killing someone.
But the problem is that while some examples are very obvious, in the justice system, much of our sentencing is subjective, and, I daresay, ideological.
Witness the change in how we deal with impaired driving.. at one time it was the stuff of amusing jokes an anecdotes, and now, with the assistance of our courts, we have seen it as sufficiently weighty to suspend the application of our civil freedoms, submitting to periodic arrest and detention without due cause in order to answer that evil.
So then, today, we read on CBC News that the Greenpeace activists who broke into private property and climbed up smoke stacks and cranes to further their cause were fined $2,000.00.
It is worth while thinking about that, and even reading the article a second time to note that "Greenpeace Alberta spokesman Mike Hudema, who was not directly involved in the protest, said the activists knew they might face charges. "They were willing to take that risk," he said.
In other words, "We realize that the penalties are paltry and pose little effective deterrence in our effort to ignore the law to make our point, so we are happy to break it."
As further explained by Hudema in the article:
Hudema said the protesters should be commended for their actions and hopes the attention will lead to less oil sands development.
What this basically means is that the penalties being imposed are grossly inadequate to deter the behavior it is aimed at, and that, worse, the suggestion is that by ignoring the law they are able to further their cause.
There is no other description for this behavior but domestic terrorism.
And when we blithely ignore the throngs of punks breaking windows and burning police cars - and worse, support them and encourage them, we are asking for those efforts to become more severe and more dangerous.
The essence of democracy is that change is accomplished through the democratic process.
The Greenpeace zealots are free to vote for the Green Party to make their point - and if sufficient numbers of Canadians support them, change will be accomplished.
But that's not good enough for them.
Democracy is a hindrance to their effort and they feel no compunction in breaking the law to undermine the democratic process.
To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, it is important to stand against these efforts to make clear that "democracy is not an absurdity."
Time to say, "enough".
In the larger picture, domestic terrorism results in significantly more negative impact on the broader society than the current social evil darlings of impaired driving, child pornography and drug trafficking.
Time to start treating it as such.
As unusual as it may seem for a conservative blogger, we need to take the lead of Pierre Elliot Trudeau. Watch the video. Watch a leader who doesn't shy away from the press and who serves back to them their own ignorant babble - a Liberal leader clearly frustrated with even then, an exceedingly liberal media.
This exchange during the FLQ crisis is worth reconsidering today as we see, more and more, a tendency to condone those who would seek to undermine democracy:
Trudeau: Yes, well there are a lot of bleeding hearts around who just don't like to see people with helmets and guns. All I can say is, go on and bleed, but it is more important to keep law and order in the society than to be worried about weak-kneed people who don't like the looks of ...
Ralfe: At any cost? How far would you go with that? How far would you extend that?
Trudeau: Well, just watch me.
Ralfe: At reducing civil liberties? To that extent?
Trudeau: To what extent?
Ralfe: Well, if you extend this and you say, ok, you're going to do anything to protect them, does this include wire-tapping, reducing other civil liberties in some way?
Trudeau: Yes, I think the society must take every means at its disposal to defend itself against the emergence of a parallel power which defies the elected power in this country and I think that goes to any distance. So long as there is a power in here which is challenging the elected representative of the people I think that power must be stopped and I think it's only, I repeat, weak-kneed bleeding hearts who are afraid to take these measures.
Not a whole lot. I understand it changes. I understand there are laws of physics and chemistry that impact on it. But I'm not a scientist. I'm a lawyer.
But.. here's the thing. In all the climate change hubbub, I want to consider the issue from a position of understanding instead of ignorance. I would prefer not to be one of those who argued so strongly against Galileo's assertions that, indeed, the sun did not revolve around the earth.
The difficulty is, however, a nagging sense that what passes for "science" is in reality disguised social idealism.
Alan Sokol was a professor of physics at New York University.
After reading "Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science", Sokol was sufficiently intrigued and concerned with the notion that ideological concerns interfering with scientific study and criticism, that he sought to test that theory by submitting an article without any true basis to a Sociological text, "Social Text", to see if he would be permitted to "publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if it (a) sounded good and (b) flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions."
To his dismay, but not his surprise, the article was indeed published as a serious work.
More recently, and more specific to the issue of climate change - during the recent climate conference in Cancun - UN delegates by the boatload signed on to a petition to ban "di hydrous monoxide" - watch this video:
Di hydrous Monoxide? H20. Water.
The UN Delegates were falling all over themselves to ban.. water.
Does this mean there is no such thing as anthropomorphic climate change?
No.
Near as I can understand, during the last massive increase in climate temperatures, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, carbon dioxide appears to have been the culprit.. though it is fair to say that when you see stuff from people like Al Gore, David Suzuki, and the IPCC.. you may want to take it with a grain of salt.
Every time I visit Vancouver, I'm accosted by an assortment of pan handlers and beggars.
And if they are sitting on their ass.. or particularly if they have a healthy looking dog beside them, they are getting sweet bugger all out of me.
But.
If they have a talent, are entertaining or providing something of value - then, ardent capitalist that I am, I will often buy something or throw some money in the hat, so to speak..
This morning on the way to the pool listening to Opie and Anthony, I was treated to some great music from a guy named Daniel Mustard, who has also gone by the handle "Homeless Mustard". And he's gone from busking in New York to selling his EP on ITunes.
So.
If you are fed up with people just standing in front of you with their hand out, but are willing to engage in a little social-minded capitalism.. you might want to drop five bucks into Daniel Mustard's Hat.
According to the Montreal Gazette today, the UFCW had to take down it's Walmart logo in its online campaign to Unionize Walmart.
But, they are "declaring victory" because they are still permitted to use the name in their website supporting unionization of Walmart employees.
Now - personally, I don't like Walmart. I think they infect small cities in particular and put undue pressure on small businesses who can't compete with Walmart's international marketing clout, and beyond that put undue pressure, along with other "big box" outlets on municipal resources while not giving their share back.
That being said, I also used to be a member of the UFCW, working at Safeway for several years.
And here are a few curious comments on the UFCW and their "noble" efforts against WalMart:
a) Firstly, I notice in the Montreal Gazette article linked above, the UFCW was arguing "that Walmart was attempting to curtail its free speech and association rights."
Let me tell you about UFCW commitment to free association.
While I worked at Safeway, we are a Union Shop. No choice to join, upon being hired, the Union was entitled, by law, to draw their dues from my pay cheque.
Strike one.
b) Beyond that, while working with Safeway, I noticed that there was a distinct difference in how part-time employees were being treated by management. Hours were being manipulated regardless of seniority, part-time employees who had been there several years (as I had) were given positions of significant responsibility, in many cases, more so than positions held by full-time employees, yet we didn't have the same benefits and in cases of employee-employer differences, the Union was nowhere to be found.
Well.
Being an up-and-coming lawyer - I decided to attend a Union meeting during discussions leading to a strike vote.
And I suggested to the Union that their indifference to part-time employees was both a breach of their obligation to represent all union members, and worse, was going to backfire on them because management was going to simply get rid of full-time employees in favor of part-time employees.
What I received was more indifference.
Strike 2
c) Well. In response, at that point I suggested that if there was a strike, I had no intention of supporting it, that I would cross the line and go to work.
At that point they threatened me and my property, telling me "you don't want to be parking your vehicle on the other side of a parking lot at night if you do that."
So much for "freedom".
Strike 3.
d) Just for good measure - go have a look at their effort, "Mike's Walmart Blog", and notice, firstly, that they are doing their best to turn business away from Walmart and to portray Walmart as a place you shouldn't do business.
Which I'm good with actually - but the point they seem to miss, is that they are seeking to attract all Walmart employees, by trying to put their employer out of business.. and, by definition, to put their prospective union members out of work.
Tell us, UFCW, how did almost putting GMC and Chrysler out of business work for THEIR employees?
This is what free speech looks like to a major multi-national union.
Of course, when your idols are Che Guevara and Karl Marx, what would you expect - a free sharing of thoughts and ideas?
Look.
I don't like Walmart and would encourage readers to shop at smaller locally owned businesses - spend the extra few dollars - it's worth it. But that being said, Walmart employees - you don't need the so-called "representation" of the UFCW.
Go wander the empty isles of a Safeway and ask the one or two full-time workers on staff what they think.
That "heroism" doesn't require that we put our lives on the line.
That small acts can make a difference.
Today I sponsored a 9 year old boy named Sankagdja in Burkina Faso, through the Christian Children's Fund.
I'm not a particularly ardent Christian, and go to church only two or three times per year, but I checked out the charity and it has done some great work abroad by helping children in need.
So - I've sort of done this before to some criticism, but I think it's still worthwhile - today I'm challenging all political bloggers and readers to do more than complain, to do some act for another and then blog on it and pass on the challenge to others - either of similar political stripe or not.
Donate to a charity, shovel your neighbor's walk, hold a door for an elderly person, whatever.. do some minor act of heroism, some positive act.
As bloggers, our bread and butter is complaining about the world around us so often - but, as the saying goes, "Better to light one candle, than to curse the darkness."
Some in the past have suggested that the most selfless charitable act is done anonymously.
Perhaps.
But I think in an age of growing cynicism, at a time where so many of us advertise our success by the stuff we own, it is worthwhile to identify yourself by some positive thing that you do for someone else.
Two weeks ago, I commented on a book by Susan Neiman, "Moral Clarity: A Guide For Grown Up Idealists". While she appears quite liberal in her politics, she commented on how we have eschewed the concept of "heroism" in favor of raising victims to a pedestal in their stead.
Something to think about following the shooting in Florida, referenced in my blog yesterday.
At the head of the table, sat an older white man, from the deep south of the United States, Bill Husfelt.
A man that many might stereotype as self-interested and lacking in empathy for others - certainly that was the take of the gunman, taking the room hostage for their unfeeling and uncaring layoff of his wife. Another decision of heartless bureaucrats.
Yet - when the chips were down, when his own life was quite literally in the balance -Superintendent Bill Husfelt volunteered that it was he who would have signed the separation papers, that it was he who the gunman should be angry with - and so the others should be let go.
He clearly put his own life on the line to help his fellow board members. There is no getting around that.
Beyond that, we see another woman, Ginger Littleton, who was released and allowed to leave - but who came back and made a futile effort at striking the shooter with her handbag - again, putting her own life on the line, to help others.
This is heroism.
Think about that today.
Our media, our culture, loves to deconstruct heroes. It loves to pull their lives apart, to criticize them, to second guess them.. after all, even heroes are just human beings - and are subject to the same frailties as all of us. And maybe we'll next hear about some failing in Bill Husfeld or Ginger Littleton, suggesting they aren't "real" heroes. Already we're hearing criticism in the media - so called "security experts" telling us that when Littleton did was foolish, and that Husfeld shouldn't have questioned the shooter's intentions.
Why do we do it?
Because it allows us to be less critical of ourselves.
If we fail to act "heroic" in our lives, if we act on a level constantly consumed with mediocrity and self-interest - we reject heroes on a certain level, because it casts a mirror before ourselves that we would prefer to not look at.
Easier to admire victims. Anyone can be a victim. It doesn't take any skill or effort. It doesn't require a scintilla of selflessness to just be a victim. It may be tragic. But it doesn't advance our society in a positive way, in an of itself.
But heroes do.
And being heroic doesn't mean you have to put your life on the line for another. Being heroic means doing something more for someone other than yourself that you have no obligation to do and that provides you with no "investment" return, other than perhaps, admiring the person you see in the mirror just a little bit more than you did today.
So.
Consider Bill Husfeld and Ginger Littleton today.
And then go do something heroic. Shovel your neighbor's walk. Put some money in the Salvation Army bucket when you enter the mall today. Pay the expired meter for the car next to you.
You can do that, and you wouldn't even need a reason.
In Canada, it is almost certain that no one else would have had a firearm, and the security guard who shot the gunman would have had his gun locked in a gun cabinet, with a trigger lock on the gun, which would be unloaded - at his home.
And several families would be making funeral arrangements this morning.
P.S.:
Following up on yesterday's post, my point has been made yet again. In this guy's facebook suicide note, he states, "Want the Truth?" and then references a website, http://metanoia-films.org/, which, if you check it out references as its "sources" a grab-bag of progressive-types who decry everything from using grades in our schools, to automation in the workplace, with a special place for progressive darling Naomi Klein.
Again, Bill Maher, apparently not all violent acts of protest come from conservatives.
It's interesting to review how the different sides of the political spectrum deal with political frustration.
For some time now, leading up to the recent mid-term elections in the United States, we have seen the development of a loud and forceful protest from the right in the shape of the Tea Party.
When the right wing gets upset and indignant, this is what they do at the Glen Beck "Rally to Restore Honour"..
Now - in fairness, I was also at the Rally to Restore Sanity personally, and at that Rally people also showed up in large numbers and were in good behavior.
However - when Bill Maher says, "Why is it that violence always comes from the right?", I would perhaps ask him if he has been to a G20 protest lately.
Or if he was in Rome this week, when Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi won a crucial confidence vote in parliament, much to the chagrin of Italian students and communist party supporters.
This is how the so-called "sane" progressives respond when they aren't getting their way:
Sure. I'll take your money.. but only if you put it in my pocket for me.. D'oh!
Scrapping the mandatory long-form census.
Do I really care all that much? Probably not, one way or the other, though when examining the underlying philosophy of the census, one might suggest we're better off without it.
The underlying philosophy of having it at all is to allow for allocation of resources.
From the people judged not to deserve them, to those who do.
If you have bee lucky enough to have been born in a Province where there is relative wealth, or be of a race or gender that provides you an inalienable advantage, well, the census allows the state to make sure you get less and that the less fortunate get more.
Which, maybe, isn't necessarily a bad idea, except that, well, how do you balance say a white woman from Alberta and an aboriginal man from Quebec who is francophone. Who has the upper hand? Who is the best "victim", deserving of the biggest piece of the re-allocated pie?
And interest groups understand this very clearly.
Witness the most recent challenge to the census. By aboriginal groups. Arguing that it's unconstitutional for the government NOT to poke around in our personal lives - because without it, we can't properly count them to know how many cheques to write and for how much.
Other Court challenges? Well, surprise, francophone groups brought an earlier challenge, essentially on the same basis. That without the census, how can we possibly count the francophones so that the rest of Canada can know how much money to give them.
My response. Not that it's wrong for the more fortunate to help the less fortunate. Far from it. A just society has to be something more than just some pure Darwinian experiment premised simply upon survival of the fittest.
But here's the thing.
The census is not being scrapped.
It's just being made voluntary.
However, the concern of critics, according to the report in the Star today, is that:
"..they are worried about the loss of information about groups that are least likely to fill out forms, including low-income Canadians and aboriginals." And, apparently, francophones.
But, pardon me. I pay a pretty good amount of tax. And I think that's fine to a point. I don't object to sharing my good fortune with those who aren't as fortunate.
But, when I reach into my wallet, and take out part of my pay cheque to hand it over to you, please don't complain because it takes effort for you to reach out and take it.
Do not criticize me if I refuse to put it in your pocket for you.
The Gun Registry supporters got their way. The Registry stays. For now.
But, oddly enough, after spending a boatload of money on the Registry to make us all safe in our beds, last evening, someone pulled out an AK47, and shot 10 people. About a mile away from where I used to live in Vancouver.
But.. how could this happen?
We have the gun registry..
We have prohibitions on people owning AK47's, or their variants..
This must be a bad joke, or a mistake. Certainly, we haven't spent hundreds of millions of dollars and intruded into lives of millions of law-abiding Canadians only to be told that thugs and gangsters are still going to be carrying around assault rifles and shooting each other.
Well, I suppose the good news is that the thugs are safer.
Maybe not from each other, but from law-abiding citizens, knowing that when they walk into l'ecole Polytechnique or Dawson College, or on West 23rd and Oak in Vancouver - as long as there are no criminals around THEY will be the ONLY ones holding a firearm.
Last week our Prime Minister was again tickling the ivories, regaling fellow Conservatives with his renditions of Sweet Caroline by Neil Diamond, The Seeker by the Who, Share the Land by the Guess Who, I'm on My Way by the Proclaimers, Jumping Jack Flash by the Rolling Stones and a short piano interlude of John Lennon's "Imagine".
While the effort was, no doubt, intended to give the Conservatives another boost in the polls similar to that resulting from his earlier cover of a Beatles tune at the National Arts Centre gala in Ottawa, clearly he was enjoying himself as was the crowd.. and the Liberals were best left to just ignore it.
But the Liberals are nothing, if not bent on self-injury, coming out the following day in a report by Jane Taber of the Globe and Mail complaining that Harper didn't sing any songs in French.
Really?
While the comment has been universally criticized as petty, it does raise an interesting point that our neighbors in Quebec would be well to consider.
Let me illustrate mes amis.
Stephen Harper was, clearly, playing a set of oldies, mostly from the 70's.
If we go back to, say, 1970, and ask ourselves, "what were young people listening to, we find that the top 10 songs in Canada for 1970 were:
1. Let It Be - Beatles
2. Close To You - Carpenters
3. American Woman - Guess Who
4. Bridge Over Troubled Water - Simon & Garfunkel
5. My Sweet Lord - George Harrison
6. Up Around The Bend - Creedence Clearwater Revival
7. Venus - Shocking Blue
8. He Ain't Heavy, He's My Brother - Hollies
9. Band Of Gold - Freda Payne
10. As The Years Go By - Mashmakhan
What do we note?
No songs in French.
Now - in fairness, these are Toronto area charts, so the situation in Quebec would have been different.. however, it is clear that even in Quebec, where 82% of the citizens speak French, English is the dominant language of modern music.
According to Quebec Government Statistics, albums in English generated 63.7% in sales in 2008, up from 2007 (54.6%).
So.
The lesson for the petty complainers in the Liberal Party of Canada, and, more importantly for the thought police in Quebec?
You can't legislate culture.
The modern media is too decentralized and too free to try and suggest that somehow, by "encouraging" French, we are going to stop Canadian youth, and in fact, Quebec youth, from listening to the Black Eyed Peas or, God forbid, Justin Bieber.
So.
Well done Stephen Harper.
And pour les Liberals.
If you can't sing and play piano, I guess you can always whistle.
There's something kinda 'eey-yew' about that boy..
Imagine.
Some creepy looking guy, thin, almost effeminate, is sitting outside your house right now.
Just sitting there, watching.
Waiting for your mail man to come by.
Waiting for your telephone repair man to arrive.
Waiting for the garbage man to drive up and pick up the trash.
And when they do, this little creep cajoles them into letting him have a peek at your mail, at your email, and your garbage.
And then, when he finds out you are unhappy with your boss, or your wife or children, he takes that information, and he publishes it on the internet, for everyone to see.. and he calls himself a "journalist".
Does that make you feel just a little bit uncomfortable? If you say no, you're a liar.
No body wants to live, or wants to work, with the sense that some creepy little information thief is rooting through their emails, their garbage, waiting for them to say something embarrassing. In a society that, more and more, is seeking to protect its privacy, it is ironic that so many have embraced the notion that this is acceptable or even noble.
It isn't.
And now, we see that this guy may well be a rapist.
And I've already published commentary regarding the serious questions regarding how he operates his little fiefdom.
Finally, now his supporters have resorted to terrorism.. attacking legitimate businesses websites, for doing little more than exercising their own freedom to do business or not with whoever they choose.
Lovely.
Well, I may not like the government poking around my life, but, at least they have SOME controls and some accountability for what they do. Which is how it should be.
Julian Assage? He considers himself, apparently, above the law.
But, one thing I will say for him.
He doesn't, apparently, like people rooting around in his dirty laundry. An excerpt from a past interview with CNN:
Assange, too, declined to address the charges in the October interview with CNN in London.
"This interview is about something else. I will have to walk if you are ... going to contaminate this extremely serious interview with questions about my personal life," he said.
Then, he pulled off his mic, said sorry, and walked away.
As much as I hate to admit it, my own post was bettered by a comment. "Livin' at Home" responded to yesterday's post with an extremely witty take-off of the James Earl Jones speech towards the end of "Field of Dreams" (though I might take credit that using the movie as an analogy for the need to create hope in politics was actually done before).
Here's yesterday's comment:
Rob, I think you're making a wise decision joining the Wild Rose Party. You're probably a little scared right now wondering if Wild Rose will really take off and form a government, or if others will join the party.
Personally, I'm not worried at all.
People will join Rob. They'll join Wild Rose for reasons they can't even fathom. They'll turn up at your Wild Rose meetings not knowing for sure why they're doing it. They'll arrive at your Wild Rose office door as innocent as children, longing for the past when good government reigned Alberta.
Of course, we won't mind if you look around, and join our party you'll say. It's only $20 per person. They'll pass over the money without even thinking about it: for it is money they have and peace they lack. And they'll come out to the Wild Rose forums; sit in shirtsleeves on a perfect afternoon.
They'll find they have reserved seats somewhere along one of the podiums, where they sat when they were children and cheered their heroes. And they'll watch the Wild Rose candidates and it'll be as if they dipped themselves in magic waters. The memories will be so thick they'll have to brush them away from their faces. People will come Rob.
The one constant through all the years, Rob, has been Right-Wing Protest parties. Alberta has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. It has been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt and erased again. But Right-Wing Protest parties have marked the time.
This new party, this grassroots movement: it's a part of our past, Rob. It reminds of us of all that once was good and it could be again. Oh... people will join Rob. People will most definitely join.
Well done, my friend, well done.
Though polls are suggesting that the Wild Rose is, perhaps, more than a protest party.
I bought a membership yesterday in the Wild Rose Alliance.
Commence the chatter about jumping on bandwagons, etc.. I can take it.
I wouldn't keep this blog going if politics didn't matter to me. And if politics matters, I think it's incumbent to do more than just complain about it.
So I'm trying to stay involved.
At present - it seems to me that Alberta needs a change. Politics in Alberta, in Canada, is broken. And it needs a shake-up.
Will the Wild Rose Alliance be different, or will they succumb to the pressure to "play the game"?
Who knows?
But, as an indication of, hopefully, things to come Danielle Smith announced that her party will be doing business differently. According to reports in the Winnipeg Free Press, the Wild Rose Alliance supports recall rights for citizens, to basically fire their MLA by a petition of 33% of the eligible voters.
She also announced that all votes in the Legislature would be recorded free votes, that MLA's would be allowed to vote their conscience and the conscience of their constituency whether than accords with the party or not.
What do I think about that? Well, it would be different, wouldn't it?
Personally - I support the latter proposition, but not the former. I think an MLA should be able to vote in a manner they think is best, and if the leadership cannot convince enough of their own caucus to support a measure to make it happen - well, que sera.
However, I'm not a big fan of recall. I think there already is too much effort to appease the electorate. Sometimes, what SEEMS wrong today, will, after sober thought, be understood to be right later.
Like GST.
It was hated and despised.. but at the end of the day, for a conservative - a consumption tax is infinitely more democratic that a harsh progressive tax that penalizes success.
And at least in my opinion, you hire someone and then give them four years to do the job. And then fire them if they don't. And in the meanwhile, while your employee should be open to input and criticism, they shouldn't be taking directions from thirty or forty thousand bosses. All that will bring is, well, appeasement of the lowest common denominator. Bad government.
What would I suggest to make the new party different?
My pet peeve? Appointments of unqualified "friends" to positions of responsibility.
A government holds its power, holds the tax dollars it collects, in a fiduciary capacity for the people of the province. It's like a trust. And that power, and those funds, should be used only in the best interests of the citizens of the province. And when it isn't - it's like theft. You have taken your power, you have taken money from the citizens of the Province - and you have abused it to either help out your friends, or to repay a "debt" for some past benefit provided to you.
It's wrong.
And it happens every freaking day in this Province and it happens, no doubt, in every Province of Canada and in the federal government as well.
So - don't get me wrong. The PC Party of Alberta is no worse than anyone else - they are just doing "business as usual". But that doesn't make it right.
So - my suggestion? Appointed positions are made by an all-party committee. Positions are advertised, resumes are collected, and then the all-party committee makes a decision - which must be unanimous. So - no ganging up by the PC's and the Wild Rose, or the Libs and the NDP.
And in that manner - we get the most qualified people. Which should be the point.
But right now - it isn't. And that's wrong.
So.
My vote today?
Yes to free vote, no to recall - and a suggestion for a new idea.
And that, apparently, is ok in this new party - isn't it?
Danielle Smith, in a stylish track suit, running down Jasper Avenue.. throngs of Albertans following close behind.. a quick right turn on 109th (it had to be right, didn't it?) and she sprints the last few blocks before vaulting up the stairs of the Legislature, turns to face her screaming supporters, raising arms in victory.
A fairy tail?
Maybe not.
Seems like I'm not the only Albertan who is suggesting the PC Party of Alberta is getting past its prime.
The National Post reports today that the Wild Rose Alliance is now in a statistical dead heat with the PC Party of Alberta.
In fairness, the governing PC Party has maintained it's level of support at about 34%, while the Wild Rose has increased it's share to 32%, at the expense of the dead or dying Liberal Party of Alberta.
Now.
Those who have read my blog for a while are probably going to be saying, "we told you so" when I previously was critical of the Wild Rose Alliance.
Fair enough.
I have big shoulders, I can take the criticism, which may be deserved.
While I still question some of the fundamental policy basis of the Wild Rose Alliance, I have come to believe that they provide the only viable choice for Albertans who are seeking something new. Something better.
Danielle Smith has weathered the storm since her ascension to the leadership of the Wild Rose Alliance rather well, and appears to be poised to potentially be the first party in my voting lifetime to be able to stand toe-to-toe with the big PC Machine.
Will she come out victorious?
Maybe, Maybe not.
But like the over-confident Apollo Creed, the PC Party had best be prepared to take a beating. Win or lose, they will know they were in a fight.
My Friday observation, shared from a book I've enjoyed reading, "Moral Clarity: A Guide for Grown Up Idealists".
The book is written by Susan Nieman, and is, for the most part, from a liberal perspective and is particularly unhappy with the turn of the Republican Party in the U.S. under former President G.W. Bush.
But what is interesting in her book is the general idea that there is a place for ideals and heroes in society.. but not heroes as we have lately started to define them.
Consider this comment:
"Knowing heroes were imperfect, and sometimes even silly, didn't stop earlier ages from maintaining them, but the twentieth century introduced something new. Others may have unmasked the hero and stopped; our age had something to put in its place. Instead of competing with our neighbors to see who could be the bigger hero, we began to compete to become the biggest victim."
And, later, referencing the case of Benjamin Wilkomirsky who faked a claim that he spent his childhood in a Nazi concentration camp, she points out the perverse lengths to which we have gone to replace heroes in society with victims.
As she states:
"We have valorized a set of virtues that I'd rather not have in my world unless absolutely necessary. More precisely: Undergoing suffering isn't a virtue at all, and it's unlikely to create any. Virtue is not about what happens to us, but about what we do with it. Victimhood should be a source of legitimation for claims to simple restitution, but not for anything else - even the legitimation provided by overmuch attention. If we view victimhood itself as a source of legitimacy, we are on the way to untying legitimacy from virtue altogether."
This, she acknowledges, is part of the liberal failing. Contributing to a society of self-anointed victims.
Worth thinking about, even from the perspective of conservatives who may, as we recently saw in Maclean's Magazine, complain about "unfair" competition from Asian students in our Universities and such.
24 year old Ottawa resident Zhou Fang, has been charged with first-degree murder after shooting 52 year old Si Cheng with a crossbow inside an east side Toronto library Thursday.
Shortly after the crime was reported, Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff announced that a tough, universal, cross-bow control law is necessary to stem crime in Canada - and could head off the formation of medieval cross-bow militias.
Cross-bow control opponents were quick to respond that Ignatieff's comments, clearly in reference to the cross-bow shooting - linked to a cross-bow militia - is fearmongering.
In response to the proposed crossbow registry Treasury Board President Stockwell Day commented, commented, "Crossbows don't kill people.. people kill people, and if the honorable leader of the opposition supported our effort to build more jails to put people away before they commit crimes, how many lives could be saved?"
When Canadians were polled respecting their response to the Liberal and Conservative proposals, 79% said, "What?"
Michael Ignatieff voting hand in hand with Stephen Harper against a joint motion of the NDP and Bloc?
You know.
There was a time where Alberta was a leader.
Where the political capital of the Progressive Conservative party was used to slash excessive government spending, and was poised to lead the rest of Canada into a "third way" to respond to a crumbling health care system.
Those days, unfortunately, are somewhat behind us.. hopefully temporarily.
Sadly, the current government ear is pulled by big business, by labor, by well-funded special interests.. and the "severely normal" are forced to make do on the scraps left over after those interests are well fed.
But think about this for a moment:
Small business accounts for 98% of all businesses in Canada.
Small business accounts for 30% of Canada's GDP.
Small business employs 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 sending gobs of money to political parties, either provincially or federally.
Few of these business are probably going to dinners charging $250 to $500 a plate to put your name on a list of "good supporters", getting you in line for favors in the future.
But these business make the economy work.
And it appears the NDP government of Manitoba is wise to that reality.
The reality that who really deserves a hand is not the failed business and bloated union members of GMC and Chrysler, but the one man repair shop down the street from you, the local flower shop, the husband/wife landscaping team, the 20 child daycare facility, the family farm operation.
In Alberta? It could be worse, I suppose - the small business tax rate in Quebec is 8%. In Ontario it's 5.5%. However, we don't expect much from Liberals in Quebec and Ontario.. we expect more from the PC Government in Alberta.
Hopefully, with a legitimate push from the Wild Rose Alliance, one hopes or expects that our government will respond to the demand for truly conservative policy.
Until then, I suppose, we can gaze wistfully at the current small business leaders, the NDP government of Manitoba.
