Wings Over The World

Get out and vote!

2011-05-02T15:47:00.002-04:00

Today is election day in Canada. Canadian voters decide who will represent them in Parliament.

Whatever your political stripe, get out and exercise your democratic right! Don't let negative attack ads, or fatalism about the outcome dissuade you, especially basing your decision whether to vote or not coming out of the results from pollsters. YOU determine who will represent you in Ottawa. And collectively, Canadian voters decide who will run the country.

If you're not sure what you need to do to vote, Elections Canada helps you out.

Remember, if you don't vote, you don't have the right to complain about the results.

Ethnic votes

2011-04-29T11:27:00.000-04:00

The Conservatives have been chasing the "ethnic" vote in order to get their coveted majority. They've been doing this by espousing policies that resonate with the particular groups their after. This is nothing new, since it has been a long tradition amongst political parties. The difference with the Conservatives is, they're hypocrites.

For the past year or so, they have been airing attack ads against Michael Ignatieff saying that he's "not here for you." That he has lived abroad for many years; that he calls other countries "his own"; that if defeated, he will just go back to Harvard. What I find interesting is how this plays against the ethnic vote.

When you look at the ethnic vote, you'll find a number of them are 1st generation Canadians. Many of them have dual citizenships, and most significant of all...they vote in the elections of their home countries. Many countries allow their former citizens to vote in their elections. I know of at least one country that will allow the adult children of these immigrants to vote in these elections, as long as they register. Does this make them less of a Canadian citizen? I don't think so. Then why was Mr. Ignatieff being pressed about whether he had voted in foreign elections? (For the record, he said he has only voted in the UK, as a Commonwealth, i.e. Canadian, citizen). Add to all of this that many naturalized Canadians, decide to go back and live in their home countries for months or years at a time.

This is an example of the Conservatives being hypocritical. On the one hand, they criticize Mr. Ignatieff for living abroad, and on the other hand, they vigorously pursue ethnic voters who engage in the behaviour they are attacking. Why hasn't the media pressed Mr. Harper on this? Why don't they reveal this incongruity, which I would say is significant, since not only does it examine the Conservative political strategy, but criticizes their attack ad strategies.

My charge to journalists is, press Mr. Harper on this issue. He'll obviously dance around the topic, like he often does, but at least it will get voters thinking.

Conservatives promising to open an office to support religious freedoms

2011-04-29T10:48:00.000-04:00

Another example of the Social Conservative (SoCon) agenda that the current Conservative caucus is moving towards. The Conservatives have promised to fund a centre to promote religious freedoms around the world. One example he gives is the persecution that the Coptic Christians experience in Egypt. But I wonder if they will treat all religious persecutions equally?

The historic tradition in Western democracies is a separation of church and state. Although there is some dabbling in each other's affairs (The Vatican making political statements, and governments observing religious traditions), in recent memory there has not been a real merging of the two...until now.

The Conservatives want to help Coptic Christians in Egypt, but will they defend with the same vigour Tibetans in China? Muslim sects persecuted by other Muslim sects? And what about the Morman sect in British Columbia that believes in polygamy? Will the Conservatives fight for their rights? Where is the line? What constitutes a religion? Will they recognize the Falun Gong?

This issue is politically polarizing and obviously catering to their Christian core support. This office will more likely support lifting Christian persecution only, instead of all religions (unless it garners votes from a particular religious group). And how is the publicly funded centre hope to achieve their objectives? Do they really think they will be able to influence foreign governments through this office?

No. This is first and foremost a vote grab for religious voters. Second, it's a vote grab for particular religious groups that feel persecuted (such as Coptic Christians in Egypt). And although promoting religious freedoms around the world may be a good idea, it is not something that should be part of an election promise, especially when public funds are being committed to it.

Rising gas prices now an election issue?

2011-04-27T11:07:00.002-04:00

It appears the party leaders are fielding more questions regarding rising gas prices (with the exception of Mr. Harper of course, who only receives scripted questions). People are mad about rising costs, without any readily apparent reason other than because of oil speculators (similar to what happened prior to the recession). Canadian voters are asking politicians what they will do to fix it.

Politicians, being what they are, say they will have inquiries to get to the bottom of this to see if there is collusion, appoint an ombudsman to hear public complaints, and various other touchy-feely band-aid promises. The reality is there was a commission a few years ago to determine collusion, none was found. And none of these answers actually fix the problem.

Gas prices, like pretty much everything else, are typically driven by supply and demand. But huge investment firms and hedge funds like Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan and the like (not that I have investigated whether these particular firms actually engage in this) invest in crude oil futures quite vigorously, which drives up the crude oil spot price. The fact that Canada is a net oil exporter would make you think that Canadians wouldn't feel the pain at the pumps. Another factor that has been cited is that refining capacity in Canada has dropped over the years, which means Canada has to import its gas.

Now, back to the problem of high gas prices as it relates to election promises. The biggest mistake made with respect to this issue is when Petro-Canada, which was a crown corporation, was sold to private investors. This meant that the Canadian government had no proxy in the free market to ensure sufficient competition in the marketplace. Since buying Petro-Canada back would be an expensive proposition (in the tens of billions of dollars), beyond the fact that it could be political suicide for any party that puts it in its platform during an election (because of the cost), I believe the government does have an opportunity to play an active part. The government should direct the Canada Pension Plan, which already has billions of dollars in the open market, to buy a majority of shares (51% or more) of Petro-Canada.

With the CPP having a controlling interest in Petro-Canada, they can install their slate of candidates on the Board of Directors, as well as recommending their picks for senior management. In doing so, they can pursue the following strategy:

Ensuring Petro-Canada has a complete supply chain under their control, i.e. from well head to the pumps. That means not only drilling and having gas stations, but having a significant transportation and refining capacity.

Because it is a for-profit organization, having a policy of cost plus reasonable profit pricing strategy ensures shareholders (including the CPP) are taken care of.

Buying up more shares over time to ensure the CPP maintains its majority stake.

By following this strategy, the government now uses the CPP as its proxy to maintain controls on gas prices within a free market economy, through the use of competition. Other oil companies will be forced to match gas prices at Petro-Canada pumps, thus reducing the possibility of gouging and influence of oil speculators. No need to form commissions, which find no evidence of collusion (and wastes a few million dollars doing so), or hire ombudsmen, or otherwise increase the size and cost of government.

What can the average Canadian voter who is worried about the gas price do now? Remember this: gas prices are affected by supply and demand, use less gas, demand goes down. Demand goes down, supply increases. Supply increases, prices come down. How do you do this?

Boycotting a particular gas company and buying your gas elsewhere doesn't fix the problem, because you're shifting the same demand to fewer gas chains. This reduces competition, which makes matters worse. You need to reduce your consumption! How can you do this? Here are a few ideas:

Instead of buying a gas guzzling SUV, buy something that's easier on gas. Of course if you only have one vehicle, you want to buy one that suits your needs. But you don't necessarily need a huge vehicle to accommodate the occasional time you load up with materials from Home Depot. You can always rent a van or trailer. You want a vehicle that meets more than 75% of your needs. Not necessarily 100%.

When buying a vehicle, look for vehicles with fewer cylinders. The more cylinders, plus the higher the engine displacement, the more fuel you go through. Compare that to hybrids. Typically, hybrids are more expensive to purchase so going with a smaller engine will be less costly and have a competitive fuel economy.

If you decide you need two vehicles and you absolutely need an SUV or minivan, your second vehicle should be one that has the best fuel economy that you can get in the class you need. Typically it just needs to get you to work, so you don't need a large interior, therefore a sub-compact will do. Keep the SUV in the driveway when you don't need the capacity.

If you're fortunate enough that you don't need the regular use of a car, rent one when you actually need one. Using the services of companies such as Zipcar, where available, make this very convenient. But where Zipcar is not available, the prudent use of traditional rental car companies (they're everywhere) may do the trick.

Buy foods that are produced locally, as much as possible. This encourages local producers which reduces transportation requirements, thus the need for gas and diesel used in transportation systems. When it comes to fresh produce, you need to take advantage of seasonable supply of the various offerings. Try to stay away from foods shipped in from other countries, especially from overseas.

Canadians are looking to the government to fix the problem. Maybe they want to hear that the government will reduce their taxes at the pump. This is a big mistake, because it will quickly get absorbed by the gas companies and Canadians will be back to square one, and governments will have less revenue to deliver programs that Canadians want. Government has a role to play, but not the way politicians are dancing around it. The CPP is the best immediate option to deliver what Canadians want: Reasonable gas prices.

DOH! Moment: Liberals' "Career Politicians" talking point

2011-04-26T11:12:00.003-04:00

The Liberals have come out and described Mr. Harper and Mr. Layton as "career politicians" in one of their latest attack ads. Is this wise?

The Liberals' strategy has been to shy away from promoting Mr. Ignatieff as the great leader (unlike what the Conservatives have done for Mr. Harper - even going as far as to rebranding the government and calling it the "Harper Government" - and what the NDP have done for Mr. Layton). Instead, Mr. Ignatieff has focused on his "team". I have news for you Iggy, some of your caucus members are career politicians, including your school mate, Mr. Rae.

This is not an effective attack and it should be dumped. Obviously, the Liberals are trying to fight back the NDP surge and making their ad buy effective by lumping Mr. Harper and Mr. Layton in the same attack. If you really wanted to do that, you might have focused on their idealogical platform extremes, i.e. right vs. left. The message would be that Liberals represent the moderate, middle-of-the-road political stance that will resonate with most Canadian families and business.

Will a Conservative majority make abortions illegal?

2011-04-26T10:38:00.003-04:00

Women's health groups in Canada have come out and said that Mr. Harper and his Conservatives will open up the abortion debate and make abortions illegal if they get a majority government. Mr. Harper has come out to categorically deny this and has said that if legislation comes up for a vote, that his government will vote against a law that bans abortions. I say poppycock!

Abortion is a key plank in the religious right vote, which is the Conservative base. Even though the government may not introduce legislation, a Conservative backbencher might (the same thing that happened when a bill was introduced to strike down the long gun registry - another Conservative support plank). Mr. Harper claiming that his government would vote against it means he will have to "whip" the vote, i.e. force his caucus to vote a certain way. I've heard it said that two thirds of his caucus supports making abortions illegal. If they are forced to vote against this legislation, these MPs will have to go back to their constiuents, who will no doubt be angry with them, which would mean a reduction in support for the Conservatives. If Mr. Harper allows a free vote, he's going to have to cross his fingers that enough of his caucus and the members of the Opposition will be sufficient to defeat this legislation. That would be walking a knife's edge, depending on the number of seats the Conservatives hold.

I'm doubtful that Mr. Harper would sacrifice support for his party in order to keep abortions legal, given his own religious beliefs, as well as the support he enjoys from the religious right. It means ensuring none of his backbenchers introduce a bill. I find it hard to believe Mr. Harper will be able to control some of his more militant caucus members if the Conservatives have a majority government.

DND no longer backing Conservatives on F-35 purchase

2011-04-26T10:11:00.005-04:00

OH NO! Looks like Mr. Harper is going to have to eat his words. He said that the life cycle cost of the F-35 program for Canada would be $16 billion over 20 years, i.e. $9 billion for acquisition and $7 billion for service contracts ($350M per year). Today, the Canadian Department of National Defence (DND) came out and said that those estimates are now low but they are waiting for details from the Pentagon to asses the impact. A former Candian Defence official indicates that he currently estimates the cost of a Canadian service contract (not including procurement) at $24B over 30 years ($800M per year) based on figures from the Pentagon, an increase of more than twice the previous amount estimated by DND.

This supports Opposition assertions that the replacement of the CF-18s should go to tender and a competition held. This will ensure that Canada gets the best bang for the buck, with a guarantee of industrial offsets (see my previous post on Apr 8, 2011). If Mr. Harper and his Conservatives get a majority in this election, you can kiss the promises he's made to be implemented when the books are balanced (you know, the ones he's promised families) a big sweet goodbye!

Leader's Debate: Mr. Ignatieff's point the most important for Canadian voters?

2011-04-13T13:18:00.011-04:00

Did one of the leaders deliver a knock-out punch in last night's debate? I agree with others that there were no knock-out blows, but each of the opposition leaders had their rabbit punches.

Mr. Harper remained calm (but always speaking directly to the camera creeped a lot of people out), despite having a reputation of blowing up behind closed doors, although he did engage in some significant obfuscation and misdirection (saying that there were no upcoming corporate tax cuts, even though it's in the government's latest budget, is one that comes to mind). Mr. Layton seemed the most relaxed and came up with a couple of good zingers ("...criminals in the Senate" was probably the best one). Mr. Duceppe seemed to have a little difficulty debating in English, but came up with some good attacks (bringing up the 2004 coalition accord that Mr. Harper initiated and signed, as well as pointing out that he promises that his government won't open up the abortion law among others, but may use someone in his caucus to raise a private member's bill like he did with the gun registry, were the most memorable).

However, I think the most poignant moment for all Canadian voters, the one that everyone needs to consider, is the point made by Mr. Ignatieff. Although not a knockout blow, it is one that the media hasn't really held up as important for voters. Mr. Harper went on about one of his main talking points (and plea to Canadian voters) that they're "asking Canadians for a clear majority so we can get on with the nation's business..." Mr. Ignatieff retorted with, "You haven't earned a majority. Majorities are things you earn when you earn the trust of the Canadian people. And you haven't earned the trust of the Canadian people because you don't trust the Canadian people." Mr. Ignatieff also said, "You don't deserve a majority because you don't respect our democratic institutions." How telling is that? The polls consistently show that among committed voters, the Conservative numbers have remained flat, and have so for the past several years. I think that this shows that Canadian voters are not ready for a Conservative majority and certainly not one with Mr. Harper at the helm. Could the Conservatives be deliberately engaging in obfuscation and misdirection to so thoroughly turn voters off the election process that minority Conservative support turns into a Conservative majority parliament because so many people that will not vote Conservative just stay home on election day? It certainly appeared that way in the 2008 election. It was the lowest voter turnout in Canadian history, yet the Conservatives failed to form a majority government.

Are the Conservatives aiming for new lows in voter turnout so that they do have a shot at a majority? Election Day will tell the tale, unfortunately hindsight will be 20/20. Whatever your political stripe, get out and vote. Don't let this election be a Sienfeld-esque "election about nothing." Make it about who you want to lead Canada. Make it about what YOU want, not about what someone else wants, because you didn't bother voting. THAT is what democracy is about!

Should Canada buy the F-35?

2011-04-08T13:25:00.004-04:00

An election issue that is being debated is the decision by the Conservative Government to purchase F-35 jet fighters as replacements for the CF-18's.

The Conservatives argue it's the best plane available in the time frame that Canada needs a replacement and is coming in at a good price. The Liberals are criticizing the Conservatives because they want to enter into an untendered contract (i.e. no competitive process) and that they are purposely low-balling the cost estimates (not to mention there is no requirement for industrial offsets - something that is very common in these types of contracts, regardless of which country is buying the equipment). Many sources (including the Parliamentary Budget Officer - Kevin Page) are coming out and saying that the actual costs are going to be significantly higher (see my other post about the PBO posted on March 18, 2011). Before you take sides, consider this: if you're going to undergo a major renovation on your house, are you going take a quote from one company, or are you going to ask for at least three or four quotes? Mike Holmes would say you get a few quotes before you decide and Mike is never wrong!

The process that picked the F-35 is flawed. The debate should not revolve around whether the F-35 is the best plane, since this is a simplistic argument. What is the definition of 'best'? Of course if you ask the military what they want, they'll want the 'best' and shiniest piece of hardware they can find, not unlike a child that wants an expensive toy. The reality is that there are competing forces on taxpayers' money, not to mention that the top 5% in system performance usually accounts for a significantly disproportionate amount of the unit cost. The way this process is supposed to work is that the Government makes defence policy (when is the last time the Canadian Government issued a white paper on defence?). Defence planning is developed from this policy and consequently, manpower is allocated and equipment procured. Getting back to the purchase of the F-35's, a statement of requirement should be developed based on the government's defence policy (and not written to a particular platform, which is sometimes engaged in these types of contracts). A request for proposals should be sent to potential suppliers to see what's available to meet the requirements. If there are insufficient candidates because the requirements are too stringent, then the statement of requirements can be revised to list what are must-haves and which requirements can be less stringent (with alternative benefits) to include more suppliers. After an initial vetting process, shortlisting to three contenders allows the government to wrangle some significant concessions out of the suppliers during final negotiations. In the end, maybe Canada will choose the F-35, but it will ensure it got it at a competitive price and with industrial offsets. Something that was done during the purchase of the CF-18s but is not guaranteed at this point of the new fighter aircraft purchase. Makes sense doesn't it?

So even if the Conservatives form the next government, there's still an opportunity for Canadian voters to make it known to their elected representatives that Canada needs a competition to choose it's next front line fighter aircraft. But it doesn't hurt if voters make their thoughts known to their candidates during the election, because candidates are seeking your vote and they're more likely to listen! P.S. Remember my "PMO watches the movie Wag the Dog" post (March 22, 2011)? I heard in the media recently that one of the reason's that a Canadian general is leading the NATO task force is that the CF-18's have old technology that "can't communicate" with American forces so this was an opportunity for Canada to make a significant contribution (or words to that effect). I find this hard to believe. There are NATO standards that every NATO member must meet. Communication is certainly one of them. I think this was a little tidbit sent out into the ether to support the purchase of the F-35's. I'm just sayin'...

Should Elizabeth May be in the televised leaders' debate?

2011-04-08T12:48:00.003-04:00

Should Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party, be allowed to debate with the other party leaders in the televised debates next week? The simple answer is YES. My reasoning for this is simple. The broadcast consortium running the debate say that since the Green Party doesn't have a seat in Parliament, the leader isn't allowed in. It has been argued that the reason they don't have a seat is because of the "first past the post" electoral system used in Canada. If seats were allocated by the popular vote, that the Green Party would most definitely have some sitting MP's. However, I think that the argument that the number of votes they received in last election qualifies the Green Party to receive the full per vote subsidy is a good reason, and that they deserve to be heard as a legitimate voice in political discussions in Canada, since they receive significant public funding. But, to make sure we don't have too many voices, regardless of whether a party receives any per vote subsidy, in the interest of having a civilized debate, it should be limited to party leaders that earned at least 5% of the popular vote across Canada (the Green Party had 6.8%). This ensures a plurality of voices to be heard without muddling the discussion too much. I also think that the debate format used in 2008 (when Ms. May was included) was not a very good one. This needs to be revised. One suggestion I have is to dedicate a significant block of time for a debate strictly between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition has an official status in the Canadian Parliamentary system and therefore should have special status in a debate so that the Opposition Leader has the opportunity to debate issues directly with the Prime Minister without the other leaders interjecting and creating a lot of noise. Typically, it's the parties of the Government or the Official Opposition that are voted into the next government and voters need to see how the leaders of each of the parties stack up. Finally, it has been suggested that decisions regarding the debates be taken away from the broadcasters and an independent body be used to manage the debates (as it is in the United States). I applaud this. Broadcasters are too close to this issue. They need to be at arms length. The independent body could negotiate terms with the broadcasters and the broadcasters would have to televise the debates as part of their licence requirements. Someone suggested that the people running the Munk debates could take this on, and unless someone has a better idea, this appears to be a sound idea. Canadian voters need a plurality viewpoints so that they can decide who to entrust their democracy to!

DOH! Moment: Conservatives announce Children's Arts Tax Credit

2011-04-07T15:52:00.004-04:00

Mr. Harper and his Conservatives announcing a Children's Arts Tax Credit (allowing a credit of $500 per child per year to attend arts and cultural activities) as one of their campaign promises made me fall off my chair! This is the same man who a few years ago wanted to cut off arts funding because their "elite" members were overpaid, when in fact many artists barely make a living wage in Canada. How do Mr. Harper and the Conservatives reconcile funding for children to attend arts activities, getting them interested in this area, only to cut them off if they decide to make the arts their career when they reach adulthood? Oh wait, I almost forgot. It's election time and the CONservatives are promising little nuggets to anyone that will give them a vote. It's not about principle, or good public policy, it's about getting a/any vote! The policies of Mr. Harper and his Conservatives never cease to confound and amuse me.

Globe and Mail proves corporate tax cuts do not equal jobs

2011-04-07T15:19:00.003-04:00

Here's an article from The Globe and Mail's Karen Howlett that supports the idea that corporate tax cuts do not necessarily equate to more jobs. Instead, The Globe and Mail's analysis shows that over the past several years as successive corporate tax cuts have been implemented, corporations have been hoarding their new found cash, instead of creating new jobs. There is nothing wrong with keeping corporate tax rates competitive with other industrialized countries. This puts Canada on the map when it comes to international corporations considering investment in the country. However, corporate tax rates alone will not be a factor. As I stated before, productivity needs to be a consideration. Administrative costs (such as payroll taxes, and the work required to fill out forms and reports), benefits to employees (such as health care), livability for a company's transplanted workers, etc. are just some of what corporations will also look at. This means that Canada doesn't necessarily need to strive for the lowest corporate tax rate. There has to be a balance. And if provinces want corporations to locate and grow in their jurisdictions, they have to do their part too, which is what the Province of Ontario just did by announcing the reduction of the provincial portion of the corporate tax rate. Getting back to the other factors that attract corporations, such as health care, there needs to be a balance between reducing the corporate tax rate and paying for social programs. The Liberals announced this tact in their election platform by balancing the corporate tax rate with the need to institute new spending that considers the needs of Canadians. I've been arguing that corporate tax cuts should not be instituted and instead, the money should go to social programs, but I don't know if raising the federal tax rate back to 18% (versus the current 16.5%) is necessarily a good thing, coming out of a recession. I believe that the demand for Canadian resources will create a greater growth rate than is projected, which will pay for the new social programs announced by the Liberals. However, it's difficult to predict this with any certainty. Unfortunately, foresight isn't as accurate as hindsight. The bottom line is that the Conservative message of killing the federal corporate tax rate cut, i.e. from 16.5% to 15%, is going to kill jobs is a bunch of unfounded fear mongering as the CONservatives grasp at anything and everything to hold onto their tenuous power.

Worst campaign promise this election!

2011-03-29T09:42:00.005-04:00

Mr. Harper has issued the Conservative's first campaign promise of this election. To provide families with young children the ability to use income splitting to reduce their tax burden. BUT, you have to wait until the budget is balanced, which is expected to happen in four or five years from now. This is the worst campaign promise this election, which is saying a lot, because the election is only a few days old! Many voters don't trust politicians as it is, do the Conservatives really believe voters should trust the Conservatives now? This is above and beyond the criticism that's emerging on this policy. That it will not apply to all families with young children, but rather families with a single income earner making over $100k (yet the average income earner in Canada is about $46k). That it will encourage one parent to stay at home, even after the kids are old enough to go to school. This is Social Conservatism. The idea that a family is made up of two parents (let's call it for what the Conservatives think that is and that the two parents are a man and a woman), where the woman stays home and the man brings home the bacon, and that bacon has to be substantial! And what happens if one parent does stay home until all their children are out of the house? After all the years this person has been out of the workforce, what skills and experience will they have to rejoin the workforce, if that's what they wish, or need to do? Will we see elderly people manning the majority of positions in fast food outlets, instead of high school students getting their first job experience? If the Conservatives really wanted to help families, then it should be across the board. Eliminate tax on anyone making a wage below the poverty line. Reduce the tax on the lowest income tax brackets (Mr. Martin and the Liberals tried to do this when they were in government, before they were defeated by Mr. Harper's Conservatives, who rolled that back). This helps everyone, regardless of income level, regardless of whether they have children, regardless of whether they are head of a single parent household. It never ceases to amaze me that Mr. Harper, a trained economist, is making public policy that makes little sense from a economic standpoint. The biggest gaffe was reducing the GST. It was a good sound bite for the 2006 election. People certainly hated that tax, but the consequence was to reduce revenue for the government which put the country into a much larger deficit situation now, than Canada would have been had that not been done. A better policy would have been to reduce personal income tax so that Canadian voters could choose to do what they wanted with their money, whether it was to save for their children's education, save for retirement, or spend it on an expensive pair of sneakers. Instead, the Conservatives are rolling out high sounded policies that target specific demographics and even then, it becomes more narrowly defined when you get into the details. It makes me wonder if Mr. Harper would get a failing grade from his economic professors. The Conservative Government gloats that Canada is in the best economic situation in the world, but just imagine where the deficit would be if the Conservatives actually made good economic policy, rather than imposing their narrowly defined Social Conservatism and vote grabbing public policy. Voters need to ask the hard questions of the Conservatives now, because outside of an election campaign, the Conservatives keep tight control over the media regarding their message.

"I think I can" Liberals?

2011-03-26T16:20:00.011-04:00

I'm going to go out on a limb right now, on the first day of the election and say that the Liberals will form the next Canadian government. It will likely be a minority government, but a small chance at a majority. Forget about any coalition talk. That kind of talk doesn't matter until after the election. I know what you're thinking, that I'm crazy. The polls have been strongly in favour of the Conservatives for some time now, and even flirting with majority territory. But this is why I think the winds will change:

The polls have been looking less favourable towards the Conservatives, given their latest antics of being found in contempt of Parliament, and their lacklustre budget.

An election will give the opportunity for Mr. Ignatieff a voice to write is own narrative, instead of the Conservatives writing it for him.

I wonder if the constant attack ads from the Conservatives will have run their course, because Canadian voters will be tired of them and in fact there may be a backlash against them.

It has been said often that you can't form a majority without winning Quebec or Ontario. The Conservatives are done in Quebec. Mr. Duceppe will build a sufficient narrative for people not to vote Conservative, but even if they don't vote Bloc, they'll vote Liberal or NDP. I think the Liberals will make some inroads here and potentially grab some seats from the Bloc. In the last election, I think that many Quebec voters parked their vote in the Bloc, because voting Liberal was distasteful (despite the Liberals having someone from Quebec leading the party). They will go back to the Liberal camp.

Ontario will be a big battleground, especially in the GTA. The question will be whether the Liberals will hang on to what they have and potentially grab a few seats. There may be a few exchanges, with the Conservatives taking immigrant votes (the traditional power base of the Liberals), but I think the net result will be in favour of the Liberals.

The Conservatives started out at the centre-right of the political spectrum when they won their first minority in 2006, but have been slowly moving further and further to the right. They've been able to use this to attract some immigrant voters, but I think it's beginning to lose traction with the middle of the road voters. The Liberals' centre-left stance, with emphasis on families and elder care in their current platform, will resonate with the public.

The caveat to the above point is that voters will see that the Conservatives were throwing peanuts at families and the elderly in their latest budget. Unfortunately, the Conservative climate over the past few years will have people throwing up their arms and saying it was better than nothing and possibly voting for the Conservatives with the notion of the devil you know.

B.C. voters are still smarting from the HST implementation, even with the cheques they received in the mail, courtesy of the federal Conservative Government. B.C. voters may not vote Liberal, but going to NDP, and possibly Green Party in one or two ridings, will reduce the Conservative caucus.

Canadian voters are not happy about going to the polls for a fourth time in seven years. They will be looking to vote in a majority government. Voting in the Conservatives for a majority will be sufficiently distasteful for enough Canadians that the Conservatives will fall short, so swing voters will vote for the Liberals.

From their recent appearances in the media, the Conservatives seem to be running scared. They're trying to go on the attack by raising the "coalition" boogeyman, but I see them going on the defensive during the campaign. Defense of their budget will not amount to much, especially if the Opposition can sell items like the Corporate Tax cut as something Canada can't afford at this time.

The Conservatives will have more difficulty controlling the media because they will need them to get their message out. Therefore, Mr. Harper will have to answer questions, rather than turning away and leaving (like he did after the post non-confidence vote statement he made yesterday). The Conservative handlers will also have more difficulty in picking and choosing which media outlets are picked to ask Mr. Harper questions. If they stick with their close control of the media, as they have been for the past several years, the media will turn against Mr. Harper and show the Conservatives as the party with something to hide.

But most importantly, in the last election, there was the lowest voter turnout in Canadian history. Many believe it was because Liberal voters stayed home since they couldn't support Stephane Dion as the Liberal leader. I believe that these voters will feel that they can come out and vote for the Liberals with Mr. Ignatieff at the helm. The Liberals have to focus on getting Liberal voters to the polls.

On May 3, you'll see me gloat, or eat my words!

Coalition, shmoalition

2011-03-25T15:51:00.008-04:00

You know what I'm sick of already about the election that's going to start tomorrow? How reporters keep asking Mr. Ignatieff whether he is going to form a coalition government. He says he and his Liberals are in it to win it. Just like Mr. Layton and his NDP are looking to do the same. Reporters can't seem to fathom the idea that political parties don't go into an election with the idea of forming a coalition, whether that's in Canada, or any other country that does end up with a coalition government. The reality is, when the vote is in, and a single party cannot form a majority to move through the policies that they were voted in on, that two or more parties can get together and agree how they are going to form and run a government. It's not the first time it's happened in Canada, and it won't be the last. So, is there a hidden agenda? Of course not. It all depends on whether two or more parties need to get together to run the country. Reporters seem to buy into the notion that a coalition government is bad thing, not remembering that in 2004, Mr. Harper proposed a coalition with the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP to bring down Mr. Martin's Liberal Government. That's right, you read it right, Mr. Harper wanted to form a "coalition with the socialists and separatists" to bring down the government of the day. If it wasn't a coup d'etat when Mr. Harper tried to do it when he was in opposition, it isn't one when he's in power. Instead of taking up air time asking about coalitions during this campaign, how about we focus on other matters. There will certainly be time to talk about coalitions, if necessary, after the election. Let's not get into sensationalistic reporting. Do reporters really think they'll have some kind of big scoop by getting Mr. Ignatieff to admit that he would form a coalition after the election if he doesn't win a majority? I marvel at the so called "objectivity" of the press. It appears that five years of Conservative rule is driving Canadian media attention.

Unnecessary election? For whom?

2011-03-24T10:33:00.004-04:00

Mr. Harper and his Conservative cronies have shamelessly used the term "unnecessary election" to describe the current political environment in Canada. Unnecessary for whom?

Pundits are citing the fact that Canadians will 'endure' their fourth federal election in seven years if the Conservative Government falls tomorrow. Well, it would have been one less if Mr. Harper didn't trigger the 2008 "unnecessary election". And make no mistake, the Conservatives are triggering this election too (see my previous post "Don't be fooled..."). The Conservatives are citing events in the Middle East and Japan as reasons for not having an election. MAHUH?!?!?! When in the last four decades have there NOT been significant events in the Middle East? When have there NOT been economic events like the one being caused by the Japan tragedy? Heck, the last election occurred on Oct 14, 2008. By that time, it was widely expected that the Canadian (and most of the rest of the world) economy would go into what turned out to be the greatest recession since the 1930's Great Depression.

The Conservatives keep saying Canadian voters don't want an election and it makes me wonder, are the Conservatives deliberately using this as a strategy to stay in power? Are they forcing elections every couple of years and then blaming it on the opposition parties so that voters (who seem to be tired of going to the polls so often) will either vote against the opposition, or even just stay at home so that the minority of Canadians that are hard core Conservatives have a better chance of voting the Conservatives to a majority?

Think about that and let it sink in for a few minutes....

Democracy is never unnecessary. If politicians can't play nice on Parliament Hill, then maybe it's time to switch it up a little. A political party facing scandal after scandal? Maybe it's time to change leaders, like what happened to the Liberal Party.

There is no such thing as an "unnecessary election", except when it is "opportunistic", like the one that the Conservatives forced in 2008, when they tried to shoot for a majority. The only reason this coming election can be accused of being "opportunistic" is that it gives the opposition parties to agree on a principle to cause the plurality of their votes to cause the Conservative Government to fall in their "coalition" to topple an overbearing ruler.

By the way, the Conservatives going on about how they want to focus on the economy reminds me of Bill Clinton's campaign for presidency when the campaign motto was "It's the economy, stupid." Another lesson the Conservatives are taking from the American political playbook.

To vote, or not to vote

2011-03-23T11:47:00.003-04:00

When polled, Canadians say they do not want an election. Unless someone can prove different, I would argue that Canadians never want an election, as long as they have their job and they don't receive huge tax increases. The public sees some tax increases as good, as long as the government can spin it so that the increases support health and/or education. But increase the cost of driving a car or taking significantly more out of the public's pay cheque (as opposed to increasing payroll taxes by a little bit here and there), then watch out!

Canadian voters need to get their heads out of their asses! There...I said it.... The media is plastered with images of a democracy movement happening in North Africa and the Middle East, fighting for a right that Canadians take for granted. A huge turnout of Afghanistan voters happened during their last election, despite long line ups lasting hours, and the death threats issued by Al Qaeda. Yet, Canadians grumble about spending a few hours learning about the issues, then stopping on their way home from work to vote. If you really need to watch Oprah that day, how about setting up the PVR to record it?

The Canadian election in 2008 had the lowest voter turnout ever. Was it apathy? The issues weren't compelling (this was before the recession hit)? Liberal supporters staying home because they didn't want to vote for a Stephane Dion led party? Who knows. But this is your chance.

Get your ass off the couch and spend a few minutes getting engaged. Talk to the candidates that come to the door. Ask them about the issues that matter to you. Read their literature. Go to their websites when you're surfing the Net. Watch the leader's debate. At the very least, get out and vote. If you can't decide whether there is candidate in your riding that suits you, then vote for the candidate that represents the party that best aligns with your values.

Voting shows the political parties that you're engaged in the political process and you want a say in government. Not voting gives more power to special interest groups and may benefit a party you didn't want to govern. Not voting also doesn't give you the right to complain.

Stop doing the Canadian thing by whining and get out and vote!

Bon Coalition/Bad Coalition?

2011-03-23T11:10:00.009-04:00

Mr. Harper and company have been calling it the Opposition Coalition ever since a year and a half ago when the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Quebecois formerly joined forces to defeat the Conservatives. Mr. Harper promptly prorogued Parliament, which caused the downfall of Stephane Dion as Liberal leader, and saw the rise of Mr. Ignatieff as the new Liberal leader. It seems the Conservatives have taken great delight in using that term whenever the other parties would raise points against the Conservatives that were difficult to defend against. As if a "coalition" was an evil and undemocratic thing to do.

Yet, as the Canadian Forces have committed six CF-18's to the fight in Libya, Mr. McKay (Defence Minister) has taken great delight in declaring that Canada is part of the "Coalition" of allies protecting Libyan civilians (and more likely to topple Gaddafi).

So is being part of a coalition good or bad?

The Oxford Dictionary defines coalition as:
1. Union, fusion.
2. (Political) Temporary combination of parties that retain distinctive principles.

Nothing evil about the definition, except of course if it threatens your hold on power. The United Kingdom is currently enjoying a coalition government, and this is the country that developed the government system that Canadians use. The British accept that a coalition represents a majority of the people that voted in the last election, just as if a coalition government in Canada had assumed power. There is nothing in the Canadian constitution or Parliamentary rules that I'm aware of that would prevent this. But the Conservatives would have you believe that it amounted to a coup d'etat.

But wait a second. The Canadian Government sent fighters to participate in the "Coalition" against Gaddafi forces. So, here it's a good thing (unless you're on the side of Gaddafi, who is in power at least in parts of Libya). Apparently, coalitions are only bad when you're the leader that the coalition is after.

Yet again, the Conservative Government turns something that at one time was black and white into something that is now shades of grey, to suit their own purposes. I'm tired of their antics and I can only hope that they are forced out of office by Canadian voters in the upcoming election. But I fear the memories of voters are short and self-serving.

As a side note, I want to state categorically that I do not support Gaddafi in any way shape or form. He is a despotic dictator who, true to form of any dictator, exploits his citizens. He should be deposed, but I could imagine the way events would unfold, that there would be significant issues to overcome (history repeats itself, yet again). Only a few Western countries have supported the UN resolution on Libya (Germany is opting out, and there is very little support for NATO taking over, which would like cause Italy to pull out of supporting the action by no longer allowing the use of their bases), and the coalition actions are now causing Arab groups to call the coalition "crusaders" and "colonialists", as the Arab League gets cold feet in their initial support for this action. The more things change...

Don't be fooled, the Conservative Government is forcing the election!

2011-03-23T09:59:00.004-04:00

The Conservative Government would have you believe that the Opposition parties are forcing an election because they have stated they will not be supporting the budget. But I will show you that it is the Conservatives who have presented a budget that is a Conservative-induced election.

Before I get into the budget details, let us consider the Conservative tactics over the past couple of months. First, the ever present attack ads. Because an election hasn't been called, they are free to spend as much as they like on attack ads, and spend they have! The fact that they are making personal attacks, rather than on the policies of the Opposition, makes these go even further below the usual mud-slinging (you can thank Conservative strategists for taking lessons from American politics). Let us also consider the $26M the government is spending on promoting the Economic Action Plan. An unprecedented amount, even for a large corporation such as P&G promoting consumer products. Why are they doing this? The program is winding down (projects will have to be finished by the end of the year), and no new money will be allocated. It has been reported (and I have to agree) that this is a way for the Conservative Government to promote themselves, without having to dip into their party's war chest.

Now for the budget. The Conservative Government has said they have provided what the Opposition, and in particular, what the NDP had wanted. Mr. Layton has stated that the budget provides peanuts compared to what they were after and that they couldn't support the budget. Obviously, Jack isn't that cheap. So let's look at some of what the Conservatives are offering and why they're offering each item:

1. Forgiving a portion of student loans for doctors and nurses located in rural areas. This is in direct support of Conservative roots, and an attack on an rural NDP ridings. Rather than increasing the number of doctors, it merely relocates them from urban areas, likely on a temporary basis until their loans are paid. It doesn't stop them from relocating back to urban areas, and will create more difficulty in urban areas as doctors and nurses relocate until they meet the terms of this budget line item. Think about the TV series Northern Exposure.

2. Tax credit for volunteer fire fighters. Volunteer fire fighters are typically located in rural areas, so again, support for their rural base and an attack on NDP rural ridings.

3. Funding an all-season road link between Inuvik and Tuktoyaktuk. This is currently an NDP held riding and the Conservatives lost by 523 votes (only 3.8% of total votes cast). Obviously a riding the Conservatives are targeting to win.

4. Providing money to gun owners so that they don't have to pay anything for their gun registration renewal fees. The Conservative government couldn't kill the gun registry, so why not give money to their support base so they're not out of pocket?

5. Providing funds for closer ties to doing business with India. Increasing trade with other countries is not a bad thing, but given the gaffe from Jason Kenny's (Immigration Minister) office regarding releasing the Conservation plan to attract the immigrant vote, the cynic in me says they're trying to buy the South Asian vote in urban and suburban areas in order to grab a few seats.

6. Eliminating mandatory retirement. Again, not a bad thing, since it is discriminatory. But again, cynically speaking, it's a cop out in not providing better retirement benefits for the Boomer generation. This, combined with a modest increase in payments for seniors with the lowest income (Guaranteed Income Supplement), means they might get a few grey power votes. They missed the mark by not committing to pension reform.

7. Providing $4M to build a cyclotron in Thunder Bay to produce medical isotopes. A riding currently held by the NDP. The Conservatives were in a distant third place in both ridings in this area during the last election, so it looks like a Hail Mary pass to me. Maybe they think they have star candidates lined up that have a chance. Especially considering their other budget measures would be attractive for voters in this area.

8. Providing $50M over five years to the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics located in Waterloo, ON. This riding is held by a Conservative, but he won by only 17 votes! This riding will be hotly contested in the next election.

I think I could find other examples, but I believe I've proven my point, the Conservatives WANT THIS ELECTION! They are going after a majority by targeting specific ridings they intend to snatch from the Opposition parties. Are they using the events in Japan and Libya to overshadow ethical lapses and other scandals? The media will be distracted. A dissolution of parliament means no more committees to dredge up more wrongdoings. I've heard it said by one pundit that events that distract from elections, favour the sitting government. I believe the Conservatives are taking this to heart and going after the brass ring. The question that won't be answered until after the election is, will they snatch it?

PMO watches the movie "Wag the Dog"?

2011-03-22T16:10:00.006-04:00

I fear that the Conservative Government is employing "Wag the Dog" tactics, i.e. if you want to change the channel, wage a war.

The Conservative Government has sent six CF-18s to help enforce the UN sanctioned Libya no-fly zone. Mr. Harper seemed to support this very quickly. In addition, it has been reported that the Canadian Special Forces (JTF II) was also sent. Although the government doesn't comment on JTF II operational matters, they won't confirm what they will do, if in fact they are there. Presumably, if any Canadian nationals that wanted to get out, but couldn't, required rescuing, JTF II would be there. But it also raises the spectre of this group also engaging Gaddafi forces outside of that mandate, if required. They were reportedly employed in Afghanistan operations.

The Conservative Government have committed to daily briefings on operations conducted, which have the potential to crowd out Conservative scandals and a spring election from the news cycle. Especially, if a Canadian pilot or soldier is killed or captured during operations.

Another possible scenario is that if a CF-18 is shot down, or crashes, during operations, that the Conservatives would use this to justify the spending of $16B (or $22B for 20 years/$30b for 30 years, if you listen to Kevin Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer) on purchasing the F35 fighter.

Excuse my cynicism, but the Conservative Government (as well as lot of the politicos on Parliament Hill) antics over the past couple of years have brought me to this.

Kevin Page, PBO (Punish Bullshitters Outright)

2011-03-18T14:12:00.005-04:00

The Conservative Government (also known as the "Harper Government") is on another campaign to discredit the numbers published by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Kevin Page. Now, the Conservative Government is getting the Department of National Defence to do their dirty work. This keeps going on and on. The Conservatives always disagree with Mr. Page's numbers when the numbers go against the Conservatives, but almost in the same breath, say they are the ones that created the office.

If the Conservative Government wants Mr. Page to publish accurate numbers, maybe they should actually provide them to Mr. Page! Mr. Page has gone on record that when he was researching the numbers for the F35 program, nothing was provided by the government and that the Department of National Defence hadn't even made the calculations yet! Mr. Page went to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), as well as governmental organizations from at least a couple of countries that are involved in the F35 program to collate the info and come up with his figures. Of course, there will be a difference in the bottom line figures, as the Conservatives will defend, but they would make you believe that they are the ones that are correct. The Conservative Government have been accused of using numbers provided by the F35 contractor, however Mr. Page is using numbers from not only different sources, but from countries that have gone through many of these types of procurement programs. Who would you believe, somebody that uses several sources, or the one who uses the numbers from the company that regardless of cost overruns, will get their money? I know who I would choose to believe.

It's become obvious that the Conservative Government thought they could create a toothless tiger by creating a Parliamentary Budget Office, on their "Accountability" and "Transparency" campaign, and then underfund and severely limit the info that they provided to this office. Thankfully, they didn't count on Mr. Page being so resourceful with what was available to him and sticking a thorn in the Conservative Government's side.

I would work for Mr. Page. Not because he's a thorn in the Conservative Government's side, but because he's shown himself to be the most resourceful and ethical guy working in the government on Parliament Hill. This guy deserves the Order of Canada! Someone call Rideau Hall!

Anti-nukes are a bunch of blow hards

2011-03-16T12:08:00.009-04:00

The earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan so hard have now resulted in a crisis at one of their nuclear plants, resulting in some release of radiation to the environment and mass evacuations of the area. Despite this ongoing tragedy, which has yet to be resolved, some anti-nuclear activists have come out of the woodwork to use this tragedy to rally people to their cause. They say that now is the time to shut down all nuclear plants and go to green alternatives, such as wind and solar power.

I support the use of green alternatives where they make sense, but this technology is not a panacea, nor is it a one size fits all solution for the world's power needs. I did a little research and found out that a single unit nuclear reactor can create more or less 800 MW of power (I did not research all the current offerings from different countries, but let's use this as a typical example -- you can use other nuclear reactor numbers to compare with the other figures I provide). Typically, there are multiple reactors on a single site (assume 4), and the site will occupy approximately 2,000 acres in North America.

An equivalent wind farm in Texas (Roscoe Wind Farm) has the capacity to generate 780 MW, but of course, that depends on wind speed throughout the day and year. Even assuming that they get full generation throughout the year (which is unlikely), they would generate 7 TWhr of electricity in a year. About the same capacity as one nuclear reactor (remember we are considering 4 units on one nuclear site). Yet this particular wind farm occupies 100,000 acres, i.e. 50 times the area of a nuclear generator site, producing less than 1/4 of the power!

Having a look at solar, the Harper Lake California solar farm has an 80 MW capacity on 120 acres. To achieve the 800 MW capacity, it would have to occupy 10 times the space or 1,200 acres. However, they reported generating an average of 125 GWhr of electricity per year, which is an efficiency of just under 20% -- and this is in the desert! This is in part because the sun doesn't shine 24 hours a day in this location!

It's clear that from a land use perspective, nuclear power is the most efficient. Of course there are issues such as potential radiation leaks to the environment, what to do with the spent fuel rods, and what happens when the facility is at the end of its useful life. But there are also issues arising from these "green" sources. One current discussion is the effect of low frequency noise coming from wind turbines that are affecting the health of local residents. What about the high cost of solar panels (although prices are coming down)? Not to mention that wind and solar generation are not reliable sources of energy and are considered as visual "pollution" by many. Are you going to get a lot of wind during a hot and humid day to run air conditioners? Are you going to get enough solar power in the winter (not to mention at night) to run your furnaces? Environmentalists aren't talking about these issues. In fact, I recall a long time, well known environmentalist (his name escapes me, but I believe he's located in the UK), has come out and supported nuclear power as a "green" alternative until the next generation power source is developed. What does this tell you?

I think these anti-nuclear activists taking advantage of the situation in Japan are despicable, and unfortunately, the media is giving them a voice. I'm not against debate on the subject, but this should not be an either/or discussion. Nuclear power should be part of a larger energy plan, optimizing all of the available technologies. Where nuclear power is used, nuclear engineers need to use the occurrence in Japan to review and revise their risk assessments, and look at how they can make their facilities safer. Nuclear facilities have back-up power in the form of fuel generators and batteries to ensure the water pumps run in the event of a power outage. Could the addition of wind and solar power at these sites provide supplemental back up power if there was a catastrophic event such as what we've seen in Japan? Makes you wonder.

Iggy's first election gaffe?

2011-03-15T10:04:00.006-04:00

Did Michael Ignatieff, Leader of the Liberal Party make his first political gaffe of this spring's election (the writ hasn't been dropped yet, but everyone is saying it's just a matter of which of the many issues will trigger it)? He promised to help fund a Quebec City arena that would attract an NHL franchise, if elected. He went further and said that he would do this across the country, which was a sticking point when previously debated. The Conservative Government had already nixed this idea previously and is now using the sound bite (or talking point, whichever you prefer) that this is subsidizing billionaires who hire millionaires (referring to team owners and professional players).

At first I agreed that the government should not subsidize professional sports teams, but then I reframed the issue. Obviously, the biggest beneficiary to having an arena operate is the community that it's in. It employs people, it draws in tourists who spend money in the local economy, and builds pride in that community. But typically, a local community can't afford to pick up the entire tab, and it's direct income streams (i.e. going into the municipal coffers) is limited. Thus, the province should step in. They benefit in many more ways, i.e. income tax from the people employed to build and run the operation, a portion of the HST (or the entire PST if the province doesn't have HST) in the materials used to build the arena, plus concession sales, and obviously tourism to the province. Ultimately, these two levels of government should fund the arena, but maybe the Federal level should provide some seed money to get things started.

The Federal Government receives benefits in the form of income taxes from the people that build and operate the arena, as well as GST or HST from the building and operation of the arena. So could we look at the Federal contribution limited strictly to calculating this value, over say 10-15 years, and providing funding limited to that amount and not one penny more? That any cost overruns to build the facility are not a Federal responsibility (it took forever for the Big O in Montreal to get paid off)? Surely the Parliamentary Budget Officer could crunch the numbers (he's been so good at it!)?

I would also argue that the ownership of the arena should remain in the local government's hands. It should not be sold to the private sector, as is done quite often, usually at a huge loss (see SkyDome in Toronto). This would generate an ongoing revenue stream (i.e. leasing and concession sales) to the municipality (other than property taxes and municipal services) that would allow them to recoup their investment, and hopefully, become profitable soon after.

I think this is doable, but it has to be well thought out. To recap, the Federal Government should help build sports arenas with the following provisos:

1. The Federal Government limits their contribution to the building of the arena to the direct benefit it receives in income tax and HST/GST it receives in building and operating the arena over a 10-15 year period, so that the net benefit is zero.

2. The Provincial and Municipal Governments agree on their splits for the contribution to the remaining amount required to build the arena.

3. The ownership of the arena remains in Municipal Government hands and not sold to private interests. They can set lease rates and are in the best position to attract professional teams.

Having said all this, building an arena does not guarantee a professional sports team franchise. The best example that comes to mind is Hamilton. They built a great arena, but they are too close to Buffalo and Toronto to allow an NHL team. In addition, Mr. Bettman, the NHL commissioner, has stated that an NHL team will not be going back to Quebec City. Presumably, it does not fit in with his expansion strategy into the U.S. where there is a greater opportunity to make money, but you can always hold up examples such as Atlanta, Phoenix, Nashville, etc., however that's a whole other conversation. As long as the local community assumes the risk, since they stand to benefit the greatest, I believe a working formula can be made.

This discussion should not be strictly about the best sound bite, doing what the other guys aren't to buy votes, or pandering to hockey-mad Canadians. Let's look at the business case: will the building (it doesn't have to be arenas only) attract who you want, and will the facility ultimately make money for those who need it the most, i.e. the Municipal Government.

I think a business case can be made, and I think their will be a net benefit for all Canadians. To bring it back to Iggy, yes, it is possible to fund arenas across Canada, but be VERY careful how you frame it. Also, make sure you put it into short simple terms for everyone to hear and understand, because you're only going to get 10 seconds at a time to say it.

Like an "opportunistic" election has never happened before

2011-03-14T11:26:00.003-04:00

I have to laugh at the latest "talking point" of the Conservative government. Prime Minister Harper has said it, Government House Leader Baird has said it, and Conservative strategists have said it. "It" is that the opposition rumblings of forcing an election (by calling for a vote of non-confidence, since the opposition is claiming the Conservative government of being undemocratic) are "opportunistic"! It never ceases to amaze me when it comes to the hypocrisy of politicians. It was Prime Minister Harper that forced the 2008 election, after only two years in office, and AFTER enacting legislation that would prevent the sitting government from calling snap "opportunistic" elections to gain more seats, in his bid for a majority. Disgraceful. And it just goes to show you how short memories are. I have yet to hear of anyone in the media pointing this out.

The side show to all of this is three Conservative MPs announcing that they will not be running in the next election. I find it interesting that MPs Strahl and Cummings were first elected to the House as Reform Party Members, and Stockwell Day was the Canadian Alliance (which rose out of the Reform Party as a basis) leader. Interesting in that the Alliance Party, "...platform and policies emphasized, inter alia, the rights and responsibilities of the individual, Senate and other democratic reforms, and smaller more fiscally responsible government." Yet, people have argued that the Conservatives have become less than democratic. They have run up a record high deficit (some argue the government would have run into significant deficit even without the recession happening) and Mr. Harper, in this latest session of Parliament, has a record number of Cabinet Ministers (37 at last count), not to mention the Parliamentary Secretaries on top of that, thus increasing the costs of running the government.

It makes me wonder if these former Reform/Alliance members are bristling at Mr. Harper's (and those of some of his Cabinet Ministers) antics, which clearly rub against the grain of the former Reform/Alliance platform. I think a strong case for this is when Mr. Day was asked why he was leaving, he said he wanted to focus on the future, and when he was asked for specifics, he seemed very vague about what he may do (other than spending more time with his family). It was pointed out by one media person that all three bailing MPs currently hold BC ridings and that they would feel the effects of the province adopting the HST. It was also noted that these are strong veteran Western MPs (the Conservative Party base) and that some of the remaining strong MPs are in Ontario and were members of the Mike Harris Ontario provincial government. I guess it will be the Ontario "elite" that will be holding the reins of the Conservative Party through the next election.

When the election does come, Canadian voters need to ask hard questions of their candidates. Try to get past the talking points and decide which candidate, and party, you want to vote for (or vote against). I think its time for Canadians to stand up and voice their concerns, not just stay away from the polls because they can't be bothered or are upset with politics in general. Afghanis had massive voter turnout even when faced with death threats from Al Qaeda! Surely you can get up off your couch and vote. You don't vote, you can't complain about the result.

Really, Mr. Harper?!?!? Democracy?!?!!? Really?!?!?!

2011-03-11T08:59:00.003-05:00

Really, Mr. Harper?!?! The Speaker of the House of Commons ruling against your government on withholding cost information required by law, as well as at least one of your ministers "misleading" a parliamentary committee?!?!?! Really?!?!? And you call this a "distraction" and a "game" by the opposition??!?!?! Really??!?!?! Excuse Canadian voters, for they did not know that democracy is an inconvenience to you!

Of course Canadians are concerned about their jobs and the economy, but in a Westminster Parliamentary system, the opposition MPs have the right to question the government on its programs, receive information on the cost of proposed government bills, among other things, to show all Canadian constituents what the government plans and how their hard earned tax dollars are being spent. Your Finance Minister, Mr. Flaherty, just standing up and saying trust me, just doesn't wash. He did the same thing when he was Finance Minister for Ontario, and he left a mess for the new government that took over, not to mention his statements over the past couple of years like no recession, no deficit, and small deficit.

Clearly, your government is engaging in a lot of obfuscation, so who is really playing "games"? You rode into Ottawa on a platform of "transparency" and "accountability", yet time and again, media reports that you and your cronies are doing the exact opposite. Tell me, are your former Reform colleagues bristling in their seats, trying to keep their mouths shut?

Democracy is not just about elections. Check your Oxford Dictionary. It's defined as, "government by all the people." Are you that cynical that you think that ALL Canadians would act in this manner. Who is really playing games?

A cynicist would say that you are doing anything and everything possible to not only retain power, but try to win a majority in the next election (and it seems, taking lessons from the American political process, i.e. attack ads). According to the latest polls, your party is way ahead, but just short of majority territory. However, we'll still have to see the polls after the Speaker's rulings. But, as many have said, the only poll that counts is the one on election day. Should you win enough seats to form another government in the next election, I pity Canadian voters (and especially those that don't vote). But it reminds me of the saying, "Every nation has the government that it deserves."

Coporate tax cut: Job creator, or fatter bonus?

2011-03-09T13:51:00.010-05:00

Will a Canadian corporate tax cut of 1.5% really create jobs? That's what the Conservative Government and a number of economists will lead you to believe. However, I'm wondering if they're relying too much on economic theory and coming up with an easy sound bite for the public to digest. Or is this just another political move for the Conservatives to finally achieve the majority that has been just out of their reach all these years?

I've had some instruction on economics, but not enough to argue this over economic theory, so I decided to look at this from a more practical standpoint. Statscan tells us that from the 2005 census data, the average Canadian worker earned $41,401. Assuming that "payroll taxes" (i.e. benefits, company contributions to CPP & EI, etc.) account for 25% (this would vary from company to company, depending on a number of factors, but let's use this as an average), that would mean a company would need a benefit of $55,201 (41,401/0.75). Consequently, for the 1.5% tax reduction, a company would have to have revenue of about $3,7M (55,201/0.015) to justify hiring an additional worker. I couldn't find the data, but I suspect many small companies would not make sufficient revenue to fall into this category, and it is often said that small companies are the economic engine of Canada.

So, where would this reduction in taxes go? Canadian Business, in their Investor 500 list, has Manulife Financial Corp as the top revenue earning public company at $34,550M. Using the revenue figure from above, that would mean Manulife could hire up to 9,337 new employees, just from this tax giveaway! Will they do it? Highly unlikely. What sane manager would hire more people just because they could? It's more likely they would give fatter bonuses to their employees, and/or increase their dividends to shareholders, which in effect, raises the stock prices, and makes the Manulife managers with stock options ever richer. Now, I'm not trying to single out Manulife for anything other than they were the top revenue earner on the list. I use them to illustrate the point that putting money in corporate pockets won't necessarily lead to jobs. But the Conservative Government would lead you to believe that this is the case. The real driver for business is to generate more sales. More sales means more production. More production means capital investment and/or the hiring of additional staff. In order to be competitive, it comes down to productivity, i.e. output per unit of input. This is especially true in labour intensive industries where low cost countries have a competitive advantage. The U.S. and Germany (both G8 countries) have significantly higher productivity rates over Canada.

The fact is that Canada already has the lowest corporate tax rate among G8 countries, and that opponents such as Jim Stanford (an economist with the Canadian Auto Workers union) have come out against lowering the corporate tax rate. Mr. Stanford points to the fact that over the past 20 years, corporate tax rates in Canada have dropped from 29% to 16.5% (much of it during a series of Liberal Governments), yet capital investment in Canada has declined.

I can't help wondering if this is a little Three Card Monty trick the Conservative Government is playing so that it appeases their Conservative base, while trying to sell it to the more middle of the road public under the general "will create jobs" banner. Given that Canada fared better than most countries during the recession, and that the economic recovery is still tenuous, with an ever-present fear of a double-dip recession, I would suggest that putting this latest corporate tax cut on the back burner for now would be a good thing for the country. Especially considering the Conservative Government is facing a $45 billion deficit in the next budget, with a quickly rising debt level.

What do you think? Contact your MP and let them know!

Engage in the political process

2011-03-07T11:55:00.005-05:00

A new organization has formed to engage Canadians in the political process. They are Leadnow.ca. I've only just heard of them (since they went public just last week). They claim to be a non-partisan organization that are getting Canadians to hold their politicians to account.

I fully support this and hope that they:
1. Continue to be non-partisan;
2. Vociferously hold politicians to account for their, and their party's actions; and
3. Engage the Canadian public in the political process to reverse the apathetic trend.

This is the type of organization that the general public needs to get involved with, lest Canadians suffer the same fate as people in North Africa and the Middle East are currently suffering, in their fight for justice and democracy.

It reminds me of that famous quote that has been attributed to Edmund Burke (but is disputed), "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing". I find another interesting quote from him that is just as applicable, "The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedients, and by parts."

To Leadnow.ca I say, a long and fruitful existence!

The passing of Jim Travers, Star columnist

2011-03-07T11:45:00.003-05:00

James Travers, Toronto Star Columnist on political matters, died last week. Many accolades have been coming from colleagues, politicians and the general public alike. As a tribute to him, The Star reprinted a story he wrote on Apr 4, 2009, called, "The quiet unravelling of Canadian democracy." I suggest everyone take the time to read it.

I've had the opportunity to see him on television and I found his deconstruction of the political scene illuminating. It's unfortunate that we've lost such a great journalistic mind.

My condolences to his family.

Going off the rails on a crazy train?

2011-03-04T14:10:00.003-05:00

Another scandal for the Harper Government. Using Parliamentary resources for partisan purposes, i.e. campaigning for contributions to the Conservative Party of Canada. And to think, Helena Guergis, the MP kicked out of the Conservative caucus for suspicion of wrongdoing, was the ethical one when she refused to participate in the "in and out" campaign funds maneuver that is currently under intense scrutiny by Elections Canada. Add to that the Bev Oda affair, Lisa Raitt, Maxime Bernier, etc. Does this mean the Harper machine is finally running off the rails? Well, no doubt they'll try to spin the Liberal sponsorship scandal as something more heinous, as they are oft to do.

I suppose that the voting public has come to believe that they cannot expect completely ethical behaviour from every politician out there. But scandal after scandal must indicate a change that requires cleaning out the House. Yet, poll after poll indicates that people favour the Conservatives to run the Canadian government, and that Mr. Harper is the best candidate for Prime Minister. This defies common sense. People seem to be short-sighted. Because the Canadian economy is in better shape than most industrialized nations and unemployment isn't too bad, everyone seems to think the Harper government is doing fine. But let us not forget that it was the previous Liberal government that generated a surplus that allowed the Conservatives to give "gifts" like rolling back the GST (see my other post about why that was a mistake). It was the Liberals that set the stage for the banking system to weather the recent economic storm, but the Conservatives are taking credit for it. There may be some good things that the Conservative government have done (not that I can think of any off the top of my head), but the NDP have some good ideas too (not that I think Mr. Layton should become Prime Minister). Even Mr. Duceppe surprises me with the odd great idea or point, even though he is classified a separatist. But this is moot.

The bottom line is that the current Conservative caucus seems to be getting a little too comfortable, and maybe a little too bold, in their quest for a majority government. Then what will we see? The abolishment of the gun registry? The reopening of the abortion debate? The definition of marriage narrowly defined as that between a man and a woman? These are questions that have been raised because they are platforms espoused by hard core Conservatives.

I don't have a crystal ball, so I don't know the outcome of the next election. What I do know is that Canadian voters need to vote their conscience, not cast their vote as a popularity contest. If it comes down to voting against somebody, rather than for someone, then so be it. I just think that change, any change is good. And the change I'm hoping for is another party running the country, not giving a majority, or even another minority, to the current government.

Libya, a Lesson in Democracy

2011-03-01T14:55:00.002-05:00

The current events in Libya are troubling. Not just that a dictator is using violence, killing the citizens of his country, to hold onto power by his fingernails, but also the responses by world leaders. The wave of protests throughout North Africa and the Middle East have shown that the citizens of these countries have had enough of their officials, whether they are corrupt, not doing enough to reduce unemployment, and/or not being able to elect new leaders to respect their democratic voice. The fact that Western nations are talking about overtly interfering (calls to impose a “no fly zone” to protect Libyan rebels from pro-Gaddafi air attacks), or whether they are already covertly supporting the rebels (at this time, there are no reports of Western advisors making contact with the rebels, nor supplies being delivered), one thing is clear. This protest has turned into civil war. The question is, should other nations intercede, or at the very least, take sides?

No Western democracy will publicly support Gaddafi at this time, even though for many years, even before his mea culpa of a few years ago (when he shook hands with Tony Blair), companies within these Western democracies did business with Libya, with or without the knowledge of their governments. The fact that the public knows of certain Western companies doing business in Libya is an indication of the attitude of: we will tolerate the dictator, as long as we benefit. Case in point: Nelly Furtado just declared that she is going to donate to charity the fee paid to her by the Gaddafi family a few years ago to perform (not unlike the whole Sun City thing in South Africa during Apartheid). The winds of change are blowing and everyone is piling on to wash their hands clean.

But where is the justice for Bahrainians? They too are protesting peacefully, with many Bahrainian soldiers marching in solidarity with the protestors. Yet, the police have fired upon and killed protestors. Where is the world public condemnation over this? Is it because Bahrain is a Western ally? Is it because it produces a lot of oil for the West? Or is it the fear of the rise of a group that would obtain power and act less favourably towards the West? I would venture that Western leaders are breathing a small sigh of relief that the events in Libya are occupying the world’s attention.

There are many instances in the past when foreign nations have intervened in the affairs of countries. One of the more recent occurrences is Iraq, but have we forgotten (Soviet-era) Afghanistan? Vietnam? Or even the American Revolutionary War and the American Civil War? During the American Revolution, it was the French who helped the American “rebels” defeat the British. During the American Civil War, there was some tacit, unofficial support from the British for the Confederate “rebels”, but firm support did not materialize under the threat of war against Britain from President Abraham Lincoln.

Humankind has a history of interfering in the affairs of other countries, for good or bad. Hindsight is always 20/20 and making the right choice, and picking a “winner” is difficult given the information available at the time. Unfortunately, many decisions are based on ideology, money, and/or the concept of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Over the years, we have developed treaties and conventions to protect the innocent within conflicts, one example being The Geneva Conventions. Quite often, despots do not adhere to these rules, in their bid to remain in power.

I find these current events ironic when I think back to the G20 protests in Toronto, Canada last summer. People using “black bloc” tactics marched through the streets of Toronto, vandalizing property and taunting police. But, instead of protecting property and arresting the perpetrators on the spot, the police force (made up of Canadian local, provincial and federal police forces) broke up a peaceful protest in a government sanctioned designated protest area, and “kettled” a group at a downtown intersection, after most of the G20 leaders had already left! Current investigations are still ongoing, so no final reports are complete, but there are a few interesting points to be made:
1. Most violent protestors were not arrested during the demonstrations, but have been systematically arrested and charged after the fact, through the police’s investigations using in part, photographic and video evidence.
2. A peaceful protest (there were no reported indications of violence) in a government sanctioned designated protest area was broken up by the police force using riot police and police on horseback.
3. Hundreds of protestors were held in detention for many hours, many of them released at the end of the weekend without charge.
4. Some of the people “kettled” in the downtown intersection reported that they were not part of an actual protest, but just happened to be walking in the area and getting caught in front of police lines.
5. The accusations by some of the arrested of the excessive force used by police did not get far and investigations were dropped (due to “insufficient evidence”) until people came forward publicly with photographic and video evidence to support charges to be laid against individual officers.
6. It was widely reported during the G20 that the police were given the power to stop, question and search anyone within a certain distance from the fence surrounding the summit site, regardless of these “suspects” exhibiting suspicious behaviour, and the police exercised this power. At the end of the summit, it was revealed that police were not given any such powers by the government.

At this time, I want to state my unequivocal support for police. We ask them to make many sacrifices to perform very difficult work. I am sure that many of them would agree that a few bad apples should not mean we throw out the bushel. But, the actions of individuals are one thing, the decisions of the leadership is another. Who ordered the use of horses to break up the sanctioned protest? Who ordered the kettling? Who perpetuated the idea that people could be stopped and searched just because they were walking near a particular fence? Are these people being investigated, or is this going to be a state sanctioned “insufficient evidence to pursue” result. Why did the police hold up confiscated “weapons” seized from protestors (and a small number of “weapons” at that, in comparison to the number of people at the protest) to be used as justification for breaking up peaceful protests and arresting people? I had some difficulty with classifying some of the “weapons” they displayed as actual weapons that could do significant harm. If I happened to be walking home from a friend’s place carrying a 6” long screwdriver I used to do a little electrical work at his apartment, and I was in the wrong place at the wrong time and was arrested because I had a “weapon” in my pack, does that show intent to do harm at a protest? Are we moving to a “Minority Report” type of world?

Ultimately, we have developed the concept of democracy where we elect representatives to manage our interests. We believe this to be the power of the people. If we do not like how they manage our affairs, we have the opportunity to vote them out of office. Voter apathy is not an option. Recent elections in Afghanistan showed huge voter turnouts, even under the threat of death from Al Qaeda, proving that people want a voice in the determination of their future, even at the expense of their security.

There may be times when wrongdoers escape justice, but not every conflict is won by the most righteous. The best that outsiders can do is allow the populace of countries to sort out their own affairs, while protecting the innocent to the best of their abilities, and that International Law will allow. Whether that’s flying foreign nationals out of Libya, with or without Gaddafi’s permission, publically condemning in the strongest way the killing of peaceful protestors in Bahrain, or bringing to justice the people responsible for using excessive force on peaceful protestors at a G20 protest in Toronto. As Thomas Jefferson (a former President of the United States and American Revolutionary) once stated, “The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object.” I would add that media, including the use of photographic and video evidence (recorded by reporters and/or the public), is a tool for the people to hold governments to account.

It is everyone’s responsibility to protect the safety and security of the innocent. However, it is the people that must decide their own fate, for good or bad. To turn a blind eye when it is inconvenient makes us just as guilty as if we had perpetrated the deed ourselves. The blood stains our hands just as much as it stains the hands of those responsible. We cannot base our decisions on ideology, money, or the idiom “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” It appears that most citizens of the world want the same thing, i.e. safety, economic well-being, and the right to voice a dissenting opinion in a peaceful manner. Governments that suppress these needs do so at their own peril. Governments that turn a blind eye to their peers’ actions face trying to rub out that “damned spot.”

Deja Vu All Over Again?

2009-12-11T11:46:00.004-05:00

The latest controversy with the Prime Minister Harper Conservative Government in Canada: Did Canadian soldiers hand over detainees to the Afghan National Police, knowing that it was likely these detainees would be tortured, on the Conservatives' watch?

Whether Canadian soldiers did or not appears not to be the fault of the soldiers, but rather whether the ruling government received the information and acted appropriately to change the situation. Poor Mr. Colvin was directed to appear in front of a Commons committee and the Conservative government used every trick in the spin book to try to discredit his testimony. The committee demanded uncensored documents to be presented...no can do...national security. The opposition parties are demanding a public inquiry. No, the Conservatives cite the current economic climate as a reason not to spend money to get at the truth.

Apparently, in last year's election, when the Conservatives campaigned on a platform of transparency and accountability, they either crossed their fingers, or they had a little asterisk that referred you to the bottom the page which stated it didn't apply to them. And of course, whenever they couldn't come up with a good counter argument to any issue (not just this one), they defaulted to bringing up the Liberal sponsorship scandal to deflect criticism.

It seems as if Canadians are not really interested. Poll numbers show that this is not a ballot question. The electorate ask: did Canadians torture Afghans? If the answer is no (and that appears to be the case), then it doesn't matter. The truth is, if Canadians handed detainees over to the Afghan police knowing that they would be tortured, then Canada is contravening international law. The fact that the Conservative government is using every trick they can to discredit statements made to that effect, that they are withholding documents that may or may not implicate them, certainly gives the appearance they they are hiding something. So much for transparency.

The soldiers are not at fault here. They were doing their job. The Canadian government is the one responsible for setting the policy and procedures in place, since this was a government-to-government transfer. It appears that the Conservative government either knew something and chose to ignore it, or did not know anything and chose not to seek out what was going on. Either way, there appears to be a lack of leadership on their part. The fact that the Conservatives are blocking attempts to get at the truth does not bode well. So much for accountability.

Something I find coincidental is that the Somalia affair, which occurred in March 1993, happened while the Conservatives last formed the Canadian government. This is where a couple of Somalis were either killed outright, or captured, tortured and killed, by members of the Canadian Airborne Regiment, while engaging in a military operation in Somalia. It's not likely that this incident alone brought the government down, but it certainly cast a pall over them.

Canadians need to take notice of the current situation with Afghan detainees. Their ambivalence over whether Afghans are torturing Afghans is shameful. Does this mean if Canadians were torturing Canadians, that it would be okay? What about Mr. Mahar? After a public inquiry, it was determined that Canadian officials were complicit in handing him over to Syria to face months of torture, ending in a settlement worth millions of dollars. Canadians used to be known as the nice guys of the world. Is this changing? Should Canadians turn a blind eye to international commitments when it's convenient to do so?

Canadians need to hold the Conservative Government to their transparency and accountability promise. If they're not transparent on the Afghan detainee issue, will they be on issues that affect Canadians more directly? How about stimulus spending? Bailouts? Long gun registry? And whatever else comes along?

The Conservative government needs to man up on this Afghan detainee issue. They need to release uncensored documents to those investigating that have the proper security clearance. They need to take responsibility. They need to lead. Instead, they scurry around with their strategists' supplied briefing notes discrediting everyone and everything except their own "message". The fact that some uncensored documents have been leaked to the media shows that there are some people with knowledge of the facts that are concerned enough to do so, knowing that they may face prosecution for leaking secret documents. The fact that these documents were leaked indicates something is amiss.

Yet Another Fib: Tory Senate Appointments

2008-12-11T21:13:00.004-05:00

Will it never end? Yet again, Prime Minister Harper is engaging in "Do as I say, not as I do" antics.

Today, Prime Minister Harper announced that he intends to appoint 18 (Conservative) Senators to the "House of sober second thought." Yet, even before he was elected two and half years ago, he's been on the platform of reforming Senate by having them elected, and working to that end. The reason for this quite transparent...he faces losing a non-confidence vote in the House at the end of January, when MPs return from their unscheduled vacation (i.e. the PM requested proroguement ends). So, why not stack the Senate with as many Conservatives as possible before he leaves? His enduring legacy.

Another example of Prime Minister Harper saying one thing, then doing another to suit his purposes. As always, there's plenty of spin. Apparently, these newly appointed Senators are going to be asked if they would step down, should an elected Senate come into being. I'll believe that when I see it.

If I can paraphrase that famous quote that's been bantied about Parliament Hill over the past several days (with apologies to Mackenzie King):

Senate elections, but not necessarily an elected Senate.

Prime Minister Harper's mother is quick to admonish people for calling him Steve, but has anybody told her about Stephen's fibbing?

Wings Over The World

You Can't Lead From Behind

2008-12-09T16:45:00.004-05:00

There are two basic tenets of Leadership (I made it upper case "L" on purpose) that I learned many years ago:

1. Lead by example, and
2. You can't Lead from behind.

In the political mess that is happening in Canada these days, there has been little of either lately...until today!

Let me start with the top. Prime Minister Harper has shown little of either even before election day in October 2008. During the election campaign, he denied Canada was going into recession and that there was no need for Canada to go into deficit to get the country moving again. The Conservatives formed a minority government and Canadians heard from their Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, that there will be a "technical" recession, but that Canada will have a small surplus. Prime Minister Harper stated on election night, and again in the Throne Speech, that he was reaching out to the opposition parties to work with them to help Canada through these tough economic times. Instead, Mr. Harper came out with an economic statement that was widely regarded as regressive to Canadian rights and a blatant attack on the finances of the opposition parties, yet had nothing that would stimulate the Canadian economy. He had his head in the sand.

The independent Parliamentary Budget Chief confirmed that there will be a deficit this year. The Bank of Canada reduced their prime rate by 75 points (0.75%), which was 25 points more than economists expected, because of the Bank of Canada's fear of a deepening recession. Yet, the Conservatives have not introduced any significant economic stimulus (aside from their "tax breaks" since becoming the governing party in 2006), and Parliament has been suspended until the end of January 2009, when the Conservatives are expected to introduce their budget, albeit two months early.

Cap all of this off with an economic crisis that turned into a political crisis, because the opposition parties formed a coalition to counter the Conservatives, with Prime Minister Harper getting proroguement of Parliament from the Governor General. And Prime Minister Harper raising the rhetoric by making all of this a unity crisis because the coalition includes the Bloc Quebecois, a Quebec sovereignty party.

One last thing about Prime Minister Harper, if he was really concerned about the economy. If he really wanted reduce the cost the political parties were exacting from the public purse, then why did he appoint 38 cabinet ministers, six more than he had prior to the election, with their higher salaries, additional staff and perks like limos for their use? These are not the actions of someone who Leads from the front, or by example.

But let us not forget the Liberal Party. Their divisions go back to when Paul Martin was making his bid to replace Jean Chretien as leader several years ago. There was bitterness between both camps that went beyond Mr. Martin's ascension to Prime Minister, until at least his downfall, if not after. And it appears as if more of this was going on as supporters tried to get Mr. Ignatieff elected as leader during the last leadership race that Stephane Dion won, and possibly again as the race heated up to replace Mr. Dion.

Canadians only have to look to their neighbours south of the border to see a real example of Leadership. President-elect Obama suffered many political attacks from within the Democratic party, as he sought to be the Democratic candidate for the 2008 election. Mr. Obama suffered further attacks as he faced off against the Republican candidate John McCain, to win the election. Did President-elect Obama show vindictiveness towards his political foes? Is he waiting to be inaugurated to tackle the economic crisis in America?

President-elect Obama has reached out to his opponents, in order to work with them to do what's best for Americans. He made his Democratic Party leadership foe Hilary Clinton, Secretary of State. The President's representative to foreign nations. He retained Mr. Gates as the Secretary of Defence, a Republican, to ensure continuity while America fights in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has invited Mr. McCain for discussions, to work with him. He has announced his planning of an economic stimulus package to get the American economy moving again. Something he can't actually implement until he is inaugurated on January 20th. These are the actions of a Leader.

What a sorry state Canadian politics are in at this time. The one bright spot is Bob Rae. Today he announced that he was withdrawing from the Liberal Leadership race and is putting his full support behind Mr. Ignatieff to become the new Liberal leader, so that the party (and coalition) can prepare for the resumption of Parliament. This is a man who has had many years in political life. He lead the Ontario NDP, became premier and went into federal politics with the obvious intention of becoming the Liberal leader, and possibly Prime Minister, which would have been the crowning achievement of his political career. In the best interests of the party, the country and the Canadian people, he has stepped down, thus potentially ending the possibility for him to become the leader of the party (because of his age).

Bob Rae is a man who not only Leads from the front, he leads by example!

Many politicians can learn from Mr. Rae...including Prime Minister Harper.

Wings Over The World

Canadians to Decide: Coup or Dictatorship

2008-12-07T15:47:00.003-05:00

What's happening in Canadian politics these days is very disconcerting. It seems as if Canadians must decide between a coup d'etat...or a dictatorship.

Prime Minister Harper and his Conservative minority government was supposed to provide the Canadian public with an economic statement that would allay fears Canadians had about the economy. Instead, they made a blatant attack on public funding of the opposition parties that would effectively bankrupt them. They also intended to roll back pay equity and suspend the right to strike for public service employees.

In response, the opposition parties (Liberals, NDP'rs, and the Bloc) banded together and came to a coalition agreement to oppose the Conservative government. This caused the Conservatives to back off on their plans. In addition, the possibility of a non-confidence vote in the House prompted Prime Minister Harper to request of Governor General Michaelle Jean to prorogue Parliament until January 26th. That means no debate in the House until then. As strange as it may seem, experts have said that all of these actions are perfectly legal within the Canadian Constitution.

Some people (including the Conservative government) have called the coalition of opposition parties an attempt at a coup d'etat over the democratically elected government. If that's true, then Prime Minister Harper and his Conservative government have become a dictatorship. Because the opposition parties individually could not mount an effective defence to the Conservatives, the parties banding together and forming a coalition has scared the Conservatives into thinking their government could fall. By closing Parliament until the end of January, they have effectively taken away the right of the Canadian voters' representatives from being heard in the House. This sounds too much like the actions of a leader of a small African country trying to tenuously hold onto power. The difference being there aren't any tanks around Parliament Hill or the Prime Minister's residence...yet!

The black humour in all of this is that Canadians have fought and died in foreign lands to combat coups and dictatorships. Canada has a long history of supporting democracy and ensuring the people of a country retain their right to choose those that would represent them in government. But the actions of the current Canadian government does not provide leadership by example.

In this time of economic instability, Canadians need to know that their political leaders are responsible and doing what is needed to ensure the best outcome for the country. Now is not the time for pettiness. At first, I thought proroguement was a bad idea. And from the standpoint of democracy, it is. However, it gives the chance for everyone to step back and take a deep breath. It also gives the Liberals the opportunity to change leaders. It's obvious the Canadian people could not stomach Mr. Dion leading the country, especially during these times. Whether the Liberals appoint an interim leader (such as the Liberal House Leader, Ralph Goodale) in advance of the leadership convention in May, or quickly choose from the leadership candidates, that needs to happen as soon as possible so that they can prepare for the resumption of the sitting of the House.

Proroguement of the House also gives the Conservative government the opportunity to put partisanship aside and come out with a budget that helps Canadians. That will be something the opposition coalition could support, and allow the Conservatives to continue to govern.

What Canada needs right now is political leadership (not partisanship) and stability. If the Conservatives can't provide it, then the opposition coalition should be given the opportunity.

Wings Over The World

O Christmas Tree...Where art thou?

2006-12-23T21:28:00.000-05:00

"White Man's Guilt" or religious intolerance?

This is the scenario: Madam Justice Marion Cohen bans the display of a Christmas tree at the entrance of her courthouse and relegates it to a side hall. As senior judge of this particular courthouse in Toronto, she has the authority to do so.

Her reason? It was given to the staff via an e-mail that went like this, "However beautiful Christams trees may be - and I do find them beautiful - a Christmas tree is a traditional Chrisitian symbol. The message to many who attend our court and are confronted with this symbol is that they are not part of this institution. I do not think it is appropriate that the first thing people see when they enter is a Christian symbol."

Of course the media was plastered with this incident. A week later it still gets written about in the newspaper. What was the fallout? Jewish groups were interviewed - they had no problems with the tree being displayed at the front entrance. Muslim groups were interviewed - they had no problems with the tree at the front. The Premier of Ontario Dalton McGuinty apparently discussed the issue with the Madam Justice to no avail. Not one politician or religious group came to her defence, that I saw. Then why did she do it?

Is this a case of "White Man's Guilt?" That a White person feels guilty of past oppressions, or is trying too hard to be politically correct in order not to offend anyone. There is another possibility that I have yet to hear anyone broach, because they're probably too afraid to, lest they be labelled racist. And reading this, that may be your first reaction. But let may say it, read the rest of this posting, then judge me. You can even go as far as to submit your comments. So here it is... Her name is Madame Justice Marion Cohen. I'm not certain if she is, nobody's mentioned it, but the name appears Jewish to me. Is this a case of her be offended by this Christian symbol and using her position to get her way? Only she knows the true answer to this.

In a predominantly Jewish neighbourhood of Toronto, there is a giant Menorah. During Hanukkah, it is lit. It's in a very public place. What do you think the reaction would have been had somebody had the cajones to ban this important Jewish symbol from the public space, or relegate it to some hidden area?

No. Religious symbols such as a Christmas tree or Menorah should not be banned from public spaces. Canada is made up of a diverse population with many religious beliefs. The Canadian Constitution even guarantees the right to practice your religion without fear of persecution. Isn't the banning of a Christmas tree from the front entrance of a courthouse religious persecution? This is the act of a single person, not a government mandated policy.

I work for a company that has many non-Christians working for it. I do not harbour any ill will if some of them leave early because they must pray at sunset, or they take Jewish holidays off, or they take a few extra days during Christmas, even Orthodox Christmas, to be with their families. It's part of the diversity that makes up this country.

The ill will I do harbour is towards those that are intolerant towards those of other beliefs, and they get away with it under the guise of "equality" for all. Banning a Christmas tree is not equality.

Madam Justice, why don't you come out and tell us the real reason you banned the Christmas tree. If you did it because of what I suggested, then say so and apologize for it. You stand alone because nobody has come to your defense.

To those that may try something similar in the future, using the Madam Justice's incident to justify your actions, this will just lead to an escalation of religious intolerance. We have enough intolerance in this world, we don't need to start a war with this incident as the genesis.

Merry Christmas
Happy Hannukah
Happy Kwanzaa
Happy Holidays

Wings Over The World

P.S. Take note that I did not include a Muslim symbol because I'm not familiar with as public a symbol as those I mention for Christians and Jews. I do not mean any offence. I would have included one had I been aware of one when I wrote this. I just wanted to head off any comments.

Not playing with a full deck

2006-12-14T09:01:00.000-05:00

I heard it reported that there is speculation Prime Minister Stephen Harper is going to shuffle his cabinet in the New Year.

Hmmm....Less than a year and he wants to move people around. Maybe it's been tough to muzzle the cabinet ministers he currently has and he wants some real wallflowers surrounding him. Or maybe Ms. Rona Ambrose is getting too much flak over the Conservative policy on the environment that he wants somebody with tougher skin holding the Environment Minister's post.

My suggestion. How about Mr. Harper shuffle his position to Mr. McKay. I stated previously that Peter seems to have (mostly) gotten over his break up with Belinda. Of course there's the occasional comment in the House that has a bit of bitterness in its tone. But I'm sure that would disappear once he takes over the top job. (Maybe they broke up because a compounding of their names doesn't sound as good as Brangelina or Bennifer -- Pelinda? Beleter?)

Yup, maybe a little cabinet shuffle will do the government good. If only we could get rid of some of the jokers in the deck.

Wings Over The World

Stephane Dion. Liberal leader or "modern man?"

2006-12-07T14:12:00.000-05:00

I've written about dual citizenship before. This issue came up last summer with the whole evacuation-of-dual-citizenship-Canadians-from-Lebanon-during-the-strife-that-went-on-with-Israel thing. My conclusion was that as long as the Canadian government has a policy to support dual citizenship, that they need to support their policy, not just when they think it's convenient. The important thing was there not be two class of citizens, within that policy, unless specifically stated otherwise (I added this last bit for the purpose of this entry).

The exceptions to dual citizenship should be made clear to the people who immigrate to Canada, or Canadians seeking other citizenships, as well as what the consequences of their actions would be.

One policy that should be implemented, and has been making the news of late, is that some politicians and political appointments currently hold dual citizenship. The most recent case to make the news? The newly minted federal Liberal leader, Stephane Dion. He also holds French citizenship, through his mother.

Mr. Dion's defence? He doesn't think it's an issue. He "is 100 percent to Canada first." Well, if that's the case, then he should give up his French citizenship. Even if there is no conflict of interest, he should take the high ground because there is a perception of a conflict of interest. Ask any lawyer and they'll tell you the same thing.

If you decide to go into Canadian politics, or the politics of any country for that matter, you must renounce citizenships of any other country that you may hold. Canada's Governor General Michaelle Jean renounced her French citizenship when she felt the pressure. And why not? As Canada's appointed head of state and commander-in-chief of the Canadian Armed Forces, there should be no question of her loyalty to Canada and its citizens.

So why is it that Mr. Dion is choosing not to renounce his French citizenship? I can't even venture a guess.

In fact, it has been reported that approximately 40 of the over 300 MPs in Ottawa have dual citizenship, represented by three of the major parties (Conservatives, Liberals and NDPers). None of the other parties have the right to criticize Mr. Dion (let he who is without sin, cast the first stone comes to mind), but that doesn't make it right. In fact, NDP leader Jack Layton stated that Mr. Dion should renounce his French citizenship, although he qualified it by saying that the leader of any party should do so. Why did he qualify his stance? His wife Olivia Chow, who is a part of his NDP caucus, holds dual citizenship. You can bet Mr. Layton would have gotten an ear full over dinner that night if he pressed harder.

When you hold public office, then you must renounce any significant allegiance outside of Canada, especially citizenship. More so for Federal politicians than lower levels of government, because by their very nature, they are dealing with foreign governments. If Mr. Dion becomes Prime Minister and an issue regarding France comes up, will he excuse himself from the debate, as well as the vote? Not acceptable! If in the future you return to private life, then I see no issue with regaining renounced citizenships. I'm sure most countries would allow this.

Politicians, because they are public figures and our representatives in government, are held to a higher standard. They are a reflection of their constituents and their country, in the eyes of the rest of the world. To Stephane Dion (Liberal), Vic Toews (Conservative), Tony Clement (Conservative), Olivia Chow (NDP), and all the rest in Ottawa who hold foreign citizenships I say this, renounce any citizenships and significant allegiances outside of Canada, or step down. Simple as that.

Don't believe that this is good idea? Just ask separatist Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe. He doesn't see a problem with Mr. Dion holding dual French citizenship. Do I need to say more?

Wings Over The World

(photo courtesy of www.ctv.ca)

Is Quebec a Nation?

2006-11-27T15:20:00.000-05:00

Before I begin, let me provide you with a couple of definitions from my Oxford dictionary:

Nation: large number of people of mainly common descent, language, history, etc., usually inhabiting a territory bounded by defined limits and forming a society under one government.

Federal: 1. of a system of government in which several States form a unity but remain independent in internal affairs; concerning this whole and not the separate parts. 2. relating to or favouring central government, as distinguished from government by separate provinces, etc.

The French definition of Nation was taken from here and is: L'ensemble des personnes nées ou naturalisées dans un pays et vivant sous un même gouvernement. It loosely translates to: Assembly of people originating or naturalizing in a country and living under the same government. Strictly speaking, not quite the same as the English definition.

The issue: is Quebec a nation? I cannot speak from a French viewpoint, since I’m not a Quebec Francophone. But I would like to explore this notion from an English perspective.

There has been a lot of discussion in the media lately about recognizing Quebec as a nation, since Prime Minister Harper entered a motion to recognize Quebec as a nation “within a united Canada.” Here is Hansard’s transcript of the speeches by the party leaders in the House. This act effectively took the wind out of the sails of a motion that was to be tabled by the Bloc Quebecois (herein referred to as “The Bloc” as they are more commonly known in English Canada) the following day to just recognize Quebec as a nation, with no mention of Canada. Was this an end run by the Conservative government, or are they playing right into The Bloc’s strategy? Politicos are taking sides and fewer and fewer are mincing words.

This issue has dogged the country since the time before the Confederation of Canada in 1867, going back to when Wolfe defeated Montcalm on The Plains of Abraham in 1759. A primer on the formation of Canada can be found on Wikipedia.

I cannot accept a Quebec Nation, not only because of the definition of the word (for reasons that will become clear), but also because of the logic the Separatists are using.

The Separatists use the argument that they are from a French tradition, with a distinct language and culture, therefore they are separate from the rest of Canada. Using that logic, if you accept Darwinism, and the fact that homo sapiens got their start in Africa, as well as the fact that people of the United States, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, et al live in the Americas, then by extension, we are all African-Americans, regardless of the colour of our skin!

The lunacy of this statement gives you a glimpse at the untenable Bloc position that Quebecers are one of the founding groups of Canada, therefore they must be recognized as a nation. They refuse to allow that Acadians, Newfoundlanders, Albertans and even Ukrainians were also founding groups of Canada. Also, that Canada is currently a country that has large groups of ethnically diverse immigrants. Canada is a country of immigrants, with diverse languages and cultures, made up of people where a significant portion of the population do not claim English or French as their first language. If the rest of Canada confirms that Quebec is a nation, by the Spearatists definition, does that mean the predominatly English-speaking people of Westmount, a neighbourhood in Montreal, also be recognized as a nation by the Quebec Assembly (provincial government)?

Should we declare any concentration of an ethnic group as a nation? Should the Chinatown of each city be declared a nation (the Greater Toronto Area has at least two major areas, with several smaller ones)? Should a predominantly Ukrainian neighbourhood in Saskatoon be declared a nation? What about a bunch of environmentalists in Vancouver? Where does it end?

According to the 2001 Census data, 9.97 million people cited the British Isles (English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh) as their origin, and 4.71 million have French (French, Acadian) origins. But you must also consider that 2.74 million are of German descent, 1.32 million are Aboriginals, 1.27 million are Italian, 1.09 million are Chinese, and 1.07 million are Ukrainian. Using Separatist logic, all of these groups, and more, should be recognized as nations.

Although the French definition, and common viewpoint within Quebec, may allow Quebec to be a nation within a united Canada, that is certainly not the view of Separatists and their arguments to get Quebec voters onside. There can be no acceptance of the Bloc’s notion of Quebec as a nation, because let’s face it, if they are able to get official, legal, recognition as a nation, a sovereign nation is just an adjective away.

This act is isolationist. If the Separatists are trying to be isolationists, what reactions would they invoke? Will it cause other provinces to pull the plug on publicly-funded French programming? Will those Francophones living in other provinces be isolated from their “homeland” because of this short-sightedness? Isn’t this something the Bloc would vociferously campaign against; that which is exactly what they’re trying to do to non-Francophones within Quebec? What better way to promote Quebec/French culture than to spread it amongst all Canadians, using the province of Quebec as a basis of a concentrated grouping of the culture?

The Bloc, a.k.a. “Blocheads” as coined by some political commentators, would lead you to believe that recognizing Quebec as a nation protects their language and culture. But the gains Francophones have made within Canada outweigh any possible additional benefits. They have gained equal language status in the Federal and New Brunswick governments, with Ontario providing more and more services in French. Access to French language and culture is available across Canada, if not from cable companies, certainly from satellite providers. The Quebec government has a lot of autonomy in their governing at the provincial level (they control some aspects that no other province has the legal authority to do). What possible additional benefit could they want? Equal status as Canada on the world stage? Representation at the United Nations? The Bloc think they can do all of this while retaining the Canadian Dollar as their currency, and retaining their Canadian passports.

The Bloc was formed by Lucien Bouchard and his cronies in 1990 for the sole purpose of separating Quebec from Canada. When he formed the Bloc, he stated that it was a temporary party and that it would only last until the next Referendum. The sovereigntists were narrowly defeated in 1995, but the Bloc did not dissolve. They just won’t go away until they do win a referendum, which apparently they will hold at least once every decade. Reminds me of a two-year old that kicks and screams and cries until they get their way.

The reality is a sovereign Quebec would not last long. Economically, it is unlikely they could make a go of it, while still retaining their current standards. Some nations from around the globe that have tried might give some insight into Quebec prospects. A Quebec currency would have little effect on the world markets. Exporters and importers would demand to do business in US Dollars or Euros. Inflation in Quebec would likely rise to unmanageable levels. The standard of living would decline. Quebec’s only resource is its mineral deposits, which are finite, and its hydro-electric generating capacity. They are a net importer of oil, so their treasury could not fall back on oil’s rising prices. But as their population grows, less and less of Quebec’s resources will be available for export. In the end, if they do not return to the Canada fold, they will be forced to join the United States (who would remove their new found freedoms), or the European Union, where they would have to fall in line with the other member states.

Canada deserves Quebec, just as Quebec deserves Canada. Not in a derogatory, nyah nyah manner, but in an ethnically diverse, tolerant, and prosperous sense. All the cultures that make up a Federal Canada make the country the envy of the world. What other country has taken within its borders and made citizens such a diverse group of cultures, where the people have learned to live and govern together? Where multi-culturism, rather assimilation rule? Sure its citizens have their difficulties, just like any family. But that does not mean it should just be chucked onto the garbage heap. The Quebec culture has come to symbolize Canada, just as much as the scarlet tunics of the RCMP and maple syrup have. It's part of the citizens' Canadianess.

Let me leave you with one final definition from my Oxford dictionary:

Notion: general concept under which (a) particular thing may be classed.

Quebec is a notion, not a nation. Much like Newfoundlanders, Acadians and Albertans are. I'm not trying to diminish Quebec's contributions to Canada. On the contrary. The country is stronger with Quebec, as well as all these other groups and more, than without. The acts of a few “Blocheads” kicking and crying and screaming RE-COUNT should not change this. If anything, the Blocheads should be sent to their room without any supper.

Wings Over The World

Reverse Onus a Constitutional Challenge?

2006-11-24T11:54:00.000-05:00

I think not.

Yesterday, Prime Minister Harper announced the intent to introduce “reverse onus” legislation to stem the tide of gun crimes. In a nutshell, reverse onus means that the defendant must prove that they are not a danger to the public if they receive bail, rather than the prosecution proving that they are.

Until the wording of the legislation is released, we’re not sure how it will be employed. However, the PM has stated that it will only kick in during a second offence, after a previous conviction of a gun-related crime. I’ve been a critic of many of Mr. Harper’s ramblings, but I must give him kudos for this one.

The fact that, “Some lawyers were outraged by the move, arguing it would create a false impression that gun crime is being addressed, while potentially imprisoning innocent people along with criminals,” is a non-issue. Defence lawyers and civil libertarians should just keep quiet on this one.

If you are convicted of a gun crime, and you are caught with a gun in your hand during the commission of another crime, what possible scenario could there be that you’re “innocent?” Yes, there may be insufficient evidence to convict, but that doesn’t mean you aren’t potentially a danger to the public.

The statistic they reported is that out of 1,000 crimes committed involving a firearm or restricted weapon this year in Toronto, 40% were committed by people on “bail, parole, temporary absence or probation.” I’d certainly want the potential of a 40%, or more, reduction in gun-related crime, wouldn’t you?

This is not a Constitutional challenge, as the potential legislation has been presented thus far. This is a case where the societal good outweighs any benefit that might come from striking the legislation down. And the Justices will concur. Gun crimes are getting out of hand, and a simple slap on the wrist punishment is insufficient. Certainly, prevention is key. Let’s find ways to keep our kids getting involved with gangs. But failing that, a little tough love might be in order.

To the defence lawyers I say this: How about you save taxpayers a few bucks in court costs and stop rattling your sabres over a Constitutional challenge? If your client has been caught with their hand in the cookie jar for a second time, and they’re “innocent,” they’ll have the opportunity to give reasons to the judge to allow bail.

Wings Over The World

Buying Votes...Selling "Traditional Family Values"

2006-11-22T13:14:00.000-05:00

The Canadian Conservative government never ceases to amaze, and delight me (in a forehead slapping “DOH!” kind of way).

Their latest antic? Jim Flaherty, the Finance Minister, was floating some possible budget ideas in an obvious attempt at gaining media, and thus voter, reaction to his proposals. One item that stuck out and got some media play was the idea of income splitting. In short, if one spouse made significantly more than the other, then the higher income earner can assign some of their income to the lower wage earner in order to reduce the couple’s tax burden. The greatest benefit from this scheme coming from the lower income spouse not generating any income at all.

Of course, the media’s usual man-in-the-street reactions were required, because the issue dealt with money and politics. Usually, I’m not one to pay attention to these, except for maybe a little bit of levity, since occasionally I hear a comment coming out of someone’s mouth that is one step above the antics of monkeys at the zoo. However, some people did make some interesting comments for this story. And it wasn’t just about what they said, but also what they didn’t say.

Those that were married obviously liked the idea. But the single people made a good point. Income splitting “discriminates against single people.” Of course it does. But it’s just this kind of tax break that gets good political mileage, just like a GST cut does, even though a GST cut is worse than just giving everyone an income tax rate cut across the board, like the Liberals did just prior to the election.

What these man-on-the-street interviews didn’t highlight is the fact that an income splitting scheme not only discriminates against single people, more specifically, it discriminates against single parents, the people that need a tax break the most! In addition, because the greatest benefit of the scheme comes from the maximum disparity of the two incomes, it also encourages one of the spouses to stay at home and be with the kids!

What the media failed to do is put two and two together and realize that income splitting is just another perk for the traditional family values agenda being pushed by the Conservatives. If you’re good and are married (soon to be defined as between a man and a woman, if the Conservatives have their way), then they’ll reward you with some tax breaks. One of you stays at home with the kids, and they’ll reward you even more.

Shameless.

I fear that the majority of Canadians are not going to penetrate the Conservatives’ thinly-veiled attempts at society regression through political points achieved where it hits Canadians the most…their pocketbook. What I mean by society regression is that the Conservatives are attempting to reduce or relinquish the gains people in our society have achieved, through the courts, as well as through legislation. Societies change and from my other postings, you’ll see I’m a proponent of community standards. Obviously, there is a large segment of society that supports things like gay marriage, and single parenthood. But these things don’t fit in with the Conservative agenda, because their support base comes from those that support “traditional” family values, sometimes referred to as the “religious right.” The split flows along party lines between the Conservatives vs. everyone else (with maybe the exception of the Bloc Quebecois – don’t know enough about their platforms). But it’s interesting to note that this split is represented in the Canadian population between the city and rural populations, as well as Western and Eastern Canada. Don’t believe me? Have a look at the colours on the map representing the party affiliations of our representatives in the House of Commons.

I don’t like the agenda the Conservatives are pushing, but that doesn’t mean I approve of the leadership the Liberals provided over the previous 12 or so years. They made plenty of mistakes too. But that doesn’t mean I think NDP leadership would fare any better, because I think Jack Layton is a media narcissist, interested more in getting his face on the six o'clock news than in good governance. Can we hope that the Liberal leadership convention will elect the best candidate…or the most popular? Someone that could lead the party not only to victory in the next election, but someone who will do what is right for the majority of Canadians? Time will tell.

To the Canadian electorate I say this: get involved with the election process, whether it’s running as a candidate, volunteering as a campaign worker, letting your representative know your thoughts and feelings during their mandate, or just spending a few minutes before you vote to see what each of the candidates/parties are promising and casting a critical eye, before you mark that X on your ballot. When you do vote, don’t just look at party affiliations, or how good the candidate looks, or any other specific thing. Look at the total package and make your choice. And certainly don’t vote based just on how it affects your pocketbook. Case in point, the GST tax cut was the worst financial promise made in the last election (from an economic standpoint), yet it put the Conservatives in power.

One person, one vote. Make your thoughts known to your MP throughout their mandate. If you don’t like how they’re representing you? Vote with your feet.

Wings Over The World

The “N” Word

2006-11-21T14:52:00.000-05:00

Michael Richards, a.k.a. “Kramer,” is in hot water for sure! If you haven’t already heard, then watch it on YouTube.

I think that this incident brings up a very interesting point. The common complaint is (usually from White people): Why is it alright for African-Americans (I will call them “Blacks” from this point on in the interest of including groups of people that may not be considered African-American, but are affected by this) to call each other the “N” word (I refuse to use it even in written form), but a White person, even if saying it to a friend in the same context as another Black person would say it, is labelled a racist?

With regard to Michael Richards’ performance, reading the subtitles of the incident and seeing his reactions in the video, I believe he was trying to push the comedic envelope, like many artists do, thinking his tirade could be part of his act that night, a little improv on his part. But it also looks like it got out of hand and he didn’t know when to stop, or where to go next, and that’s why he walked off stage. I also want to point out that the audience member also made a racial slur to Mr. Richards, but nothing is being said about that in the media.

Getting back to the “N” word, Wikipedia has a history of the term. That word did not start off being a racial slur, it was only a term used to describe Black people, and even used in English Literature texts. It was only when Blacks were being oppressed and that the oppression was widely recognized, did it come to be a racial slur, on par with some of the others mentioned in the Wikipedia entry.

I recall that the now cancelled TV series Boston Public, had an episode devoted to this subject. In this episode, two very good friends, students in the high school, one Black and one White, were being playful. The White student called the Black student the “N” word, in the same manner and context as one Black person would call another Black person. The Black friend took no offence, but another Black student in the class did. The teacher of the class, the Michael Rapaport character, being the cutting edge teacher, wanted to discuss the subject in an open forum in class. Of course, he had his ears pinned back by the school staff because, it was explained, he was White and had no right leading this kind of discussion since he could not empathize, not having had the “Black experience.” Even the Black principal (Chi McBride) was in turmoil, deciding whether this subject should be broached. In the end, the principal lead the discussion in class with the teacher looking on (from outside the class), in approval.

What does all of this teach us? Have we gotten to the point where the “N” word should be expunged from the English language? Should we even allow for Blacks to use it amongst themselves? Is this a case of re-appropriation of the word by the people suffering from it, much like the term “Dyke” has become amongst Lesbians? Since Lesbians have re-appropriated the term, is it okay for people outside the Gay and Lesbian community to call them that, or is it still seen as derogatory? And if it is still seen as derogatory for a heterosexual to call a Lesbian a Dyke, will it be acceptable some time in the future? Which brings us back to the “N” word. If the Black community accepts the use of the word, then will it ever be acceptable for people outside of the community to use the term in a non-derogatory manner?

There was a time when Blacks were referred to as “Coloured People.” That too has been demonized somewhat, in deference to the term African-American. But what of the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People)? Do they continue to use the term because of the organization’s history/tradition, or is it still acceptable to call a Black person a “Coloured Person”?

I could go on, but let me wrap this up and we can continue this discussion through the comments section.

We are a community, whether that means the entire World, or just one small block in a large city, or even a group of people that have a common thread. The acceptance or rejection of anything, a word, a deed, or anything else, is based on the community standard. If the “N" word is acceptable in some circles and not in others, then maybe a discussion needs to occur to decide whether the term gets expunged from the English language, or not. We should determine whether the word should be re-appropriated so that it is empowering, rather than derogatory. Why is it that it is common and accepted in hip-hop circles, but I just can’t imagine one Black lawyer saying it to another Black lawyer in the financial district?

Yes, Michael Richards went a bit too far during his comedy act. It was reported that he didn’t use the term during the performance that followed. He is making public apologies for using the “N” word, whether it is in fear of his career, or he is truly sorry. Only he knows for sure which applies. He received harsh criticism from every quarter, and it continues to be newsworthy a couple of days after it occurred. However, I think the audience member that made the racial slur towards Michael Richards should also apologize, because he certainly didn’t take the high ground during the incident.

Racism has no place in our society, regardless of your origin. It is emotionally harmful and oppressive. Do your bit in stamping it out.

Wings Over The World

Democratic Anarchy

2006-11-10T13:15:00.000-05:00

Voter intimidation. Closed polls. Long line-ups. Long waits. Confusion. Ballot box stuffing. Voter fraud.

Scenes from a ‘Banana Republic’ in Latin America? Some sub-Saharan African nation trying its democratic legs after a generation of dictatorship rule? Nope. This was what was reported during the electoral process in the good ol’ U. S. of A. last Tuesday! What is happening in this self-proclaimed greatest democracy on the face of the planet?

Add to this the attack ads promulgated throughout the campaign using half truths, and you’ve got one outrageous democratic process! You would think that this would only happen in one of those countries, not in the well-developed democracies of the West. Sad, but true.

What drives people to resort to such tactics in order to win? Are they that desperate to retain power, or gain it? Are there mob and/or big business connections? Are campaign workers looking for a cushy bureaucratic appointment after their candidate is voted in? Are candidate policies so hollow, their messages so vague, their party affiliation an albatross around their neck that they think dirty tricks would be the only way to win? Do they think that voters would be susceptible to such tactics? In this age of the Internet, did they not think that information would not only flow to the voters, but that voters would be able to easily pass along information to other voters? Did they not think that someone with a critical eye could take a few minutes to upload a video to Youtube.com and show the world (or at least several million Americans) just what kind of candidates they really are? Did they actually think that their message would influence the computer keys of someone with an Internet connection and a Blogger.com account? Maybe the voters are smarter than the politicians think.

If you think that this is par for the course in the American frontier, apparently Canada is not immune either. Voters will be going to the polls on Monday to vote for their municipal leaders. What of those crazy, but polite, Canucks? Crazy, yes. But some are not so polite. Similar accusations of dirty tricks are cropping up. It will be interesting to see if it is translated into votes on election day.

Ancient Greece was the cradle of Western civilization. From there, our notion of democracy had its genesis. Unfortunately, political corruption and backstabbing, literally rather figuratively, also had its start. Have we really progressed? We should have. In this age of political correctness, equality, and technical achievements occurring in an exponential fashion, you would think candidates and/or their campaign workers would be above such unethical behaviour.

The Oxford dictionary defines democracy as, “Government by all the people, direct or representative; form of society ignoring hereditary class distinctions and tolerating minority views.” Wikkipedia has quite the backgrounder on democracy. If the people that employ dirty tricks are voted into office, then it is a sad state of affairs that these people represent us, or even represent what we stand for, in front of the citizens of other countries.

Who are we to export, or even preach, democracy, when we are so fallible when employing it? Charity begins at home.

If we are to achieve true democracy, then we have to show these sham candidates that we will not tolerate their antics. This is your government. How do ensure they truly represent you to the world, in an ethical form? Write to them, or tell them in person…file a complaint with a police authority…or just vote for the guy that didn’t sully him/herself with such tactics, regardless of their political affiliation. That would teach future candidates that voters will not be intimidated, nor have the wool pull over their eyes. Hey, the only reason they do it in the first place is because someone can show that it was successful in the past. Then we might, just might, see some good, wholesome democracy in action. Maybe the movie V for Vendetta taught us more than we thought.

Just remember, voters get the government they deserve. And if you don't vote, you can't complain.

Wings Over The World

Attack of the iPod People

2006-10-13T13:01:00.000-04:00

You've seen them, white wires growing out of their ears, oblivious to all around them. These "Pod" people. When you ask them a question they respond with a "huh?" and pull out one of the wires from their ears. That's right, I'm talking about iPod users.

They're everywhere. They can be your friend, your neighbour, your sister. It seems like they can't go more than a few seconds without being plugged in. In fact, I saw a guy playing in a Beach Volleyball tournament with those telling white wires sticking out of his ears.

What are the tell-tale signs of an iPod user? Consider the following:

White wires protruding from their ears, leading to their arm, or pocket, or some form of carrier.
Vacant looks, i.e. very little awareness of what's going on around them.

They may also exhibit:

Head bopping, in time with the music they're listening to.
Audible singing, or the mouthing of the words of the song they are listening to.
The wearing of a baseball cap, canted to one side (the "down and locked" position, as I like to say).
Baggy, hip hop style, clothes.
Hoods covering their heads and/or staring at the ground for fear of eye contact with anyone.

However, the one true sign you've seen an iPod Person is those darn white wires coming out of their heads.

Although I don't begrudge someone for listening to music that they like, whenever it's convenient, I just think it's gone a little too far. When people are listening to their iPods and become oblivious to their surroundings because they have the volume turned up (a majority do, according to statistics, even when informed of the possibility of hearing loss), then it becomes a hazard to the general population when these iPod People jaywalk, ride bicycles and drive cars. Not only could they seriously injure themselves, they could hurt other people too. Here's a grim thought: will we see statistics showing the number of deaths directly attributable to iPods?

Are iPods going to become the new cigarette? You'll only be able to use them in certain designated areas? Apple will get sued because of deaths caused by the use of iPods? Is Apple the tobacco company of the new millennium. Well, if someone can successfully sue McDonald's for millions of dollars because they spilled the hot coffee they ordered at the drive thru in their own lap, then I don't think Apple getting sued because of the hazards associated with using an iPod is farfetched. I think I'll have a good chuckle when that happens. But until then, I have one thing to say to current and future iPod People...

Be careful out there!

Wings Over The World

9/11 Schools

2006-10-12T21:13:00.000-04:00

Why are there a rash of school shootings of late? It's the beginning of the school year. Surely Mr. Smith's math homework is not that overwhelming. Wait...most are being perpetrated by non-students. Why is that? Why are people (all seem to be male, strangely enough) going into our schools and just killing students. Kids with hopes, and dreams, and a future...snuffed out before they can be unleashed into the world. Could those that were killed have been our future Einsteins, or Ghandis, or Oliviers? We'll never know.

In the aftermath, our schools are becoming fortresses. Not of learning, but of fear.

Fear and suspicion are breeding in our schools, just like they have in our airports and airplanes. Metal detectors, video surveillance, armed security, physical searches, intrusive questions. These are not just the norm in our airports, they've become de rigeur in our schools too. Why is that? Why have we come to this?

The obvious reason is to protect our children. But what was the catalyst for people going on shooting rampages in our schools? Have the fears of 9/11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan driven people over the edge? And why schools? Because they are the most vulnerable? The students are the most innocent and defenseless? The reason the shooter went into the Amish school was because he knew there would be little resistance for him to get inside. The reason he gave in his final note for committing this act was that it was because he had molested children before and he was getting the same thoughts 20 years later. More often than not, it seems a shooter's motivations centre around revenge. Why do they think they can resolve their issues by killing people (mainly students)?

We once felt reasonably safe in airplanes (except for the anxiety of crashing), before they became weapons on September 9, 2001. Is the same thing happening in our schools? Are we breeding a new generation of neurotic people who will go on to commit similar crimes? Look at the people who were molested in childhood, only to go on and commit these heinous acts themselves (Mr. Foley being the latest high profile perpetrator).

Is making our schools an armed camp they way to go? Children need and deserve our protection as they try to learn in what was once a safe environment. Do they not enjoy the same feeling of security as when we went to school? Violent acts have always been around. During my school years, a student was stabbed during school hours, when I was in Grade 8. Also, a student was shot at the high school I went to a couple of years after I graduated. These were city schools, but they weren't economically depressed neighbourhoods. These areas were populated by hard working, middle-class families. That seemed a lifetime ago. Violence in schools has always been around, but what is the difference now. The post 9/11 environment?

Has the nightly news showing religious fanaticism, war zones and military might influencing our children? Is showing the video feed from a "bomb cam" sending a message to our children that it's okay to solve your problems with the use of weapons? Is this constant exposure to violence in the news, in TV shows, and in video games finally taking its toll on our childrens' psyche?

Maybe this issue needs to go beyond being a philosophical question and moved into our labs and think tanks. Violence in our schools is not a recent phenomenon, but it certainly seems to have escalated. Ask why. Dissect the minds of those that perpetrate these crimes. Dig deep. Explore every avenue, however innocuous.

We must find a solution. Our children...our future depends on it.

Wings Over The World

Belinda the Neophyte

2006-10-01T21:30:00.000-04:00

What is Belinda Stronach thinking? Does she think that she can join public life when she became an MP and not have her personal life scrutinized?

You've probably heard by now that Belinda has been named as the "other woman" by the wife of tough guy NHLer Tie Domi, in her divorce papers submission. In an interview, Belinda said that she did not want to comment, because the impending divorce was a matter for the courts. I can accept that. Why muck up an already messy situation? But she went on to state that her private life was not for public consumption! Pardon?!?!? Tell us Belinda, since when has any public figure, especially a political figure, not have their dirty laundry hung out for the world to see? And you haven't exactly flown under the radar. Your very public break up with Peter McKay, coming to mind. And to top it off, you say that this wouldn't have been an issue if you were a male politician. Give yourself a shake!

Public figures, be they politicians, actors, or just plain filthy rich, male OR female, are subject to public scrutiny. Because for some reason, many people feel the need to read about their favourite celebrities. Just look at the sales figures for supermarket tabloids, and celebrity magazines. Why is that? Are we truly interested in their lives. Do they represent a world we'd like to live in, or do our own humdrum lives need spicing up, as we live vicariously through the latest spat between Angelina and Jennifer?

Regardless of the answer, the fact remains that Belinda's relationship with Tie has been outed and people want to know. Since people want to know, journalists are going to ask. Denying them information will just cause them to dig deeper. Belinda, take a cue from your ex, Peter. Recently, on a visit to Halifax by Condoleeza Rice, there were some suggestions that there was chemistry between she and Peter. Did Peter issue statements? Did he deny any relationship? No. He kept his mouth shut and a one or two day story remained that, instead of carrying on for several days, and in many different media sources.

Hey, wait a second, dear reader. Let's just step back a second. Maybe Belinda has an agenda here? Maybe she knows this is a one or two day story and she wants to extend it by employing these tactics? After all, as it's been said before, there is no such thing as bad publicity. Maybe she's just trying to get more press to fuel her political ambition? She's not heading for a Liberal leadership candidacy this round, maybe she'll try next time? Maybe she'll use this incident to gain notoriety? The next Liberal leadership run probably won't happen for a few years. By that time, people will have forgotten about this. What do you think? Could someone who failed to take more than one year of university, and was president of Magna because daddy owned it, have enough wherewithal to accomplish such a campaign?

I leave you to be the judge.

Wings Over The World

DON'T Hang 'em High

2006-09-24T23:29:00.000-04:00

Okay, I get it. Mr. Arar was wronged. He was falsely accused and wrongfully sent to Syria for 'questioning' (read tortured). An investigation was conducted, and this was found to be factual. However, should we be seeking to serve RCMP Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli's head on a platter? Although I haven't seen anybody specifically asking for that -- yet-- the media certainly seems to be hounding him as if he should resign.

I recall the opposite happening, not too long ago, with the Kadrs. The Kadr patriarch was held for questioning, then released, only to be found fighting against those fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan. Some of the same questions were raised when this came to light....How soon we forget.

Those that protect us have a difficult job. They must do whatever they can to prevent these attacks from happening, ever mindful of our civil liberties. Those that would do us harm take advantage of the liberties we enjoy to slip under the radar, in order to accomplish their nefarious deeds. A difficult balancing act...Mistakes will be made...In the Kadr case, the authorities were overly cautious. In the Arar case, they were not cautious enough. I would not want to be put into the position Mr. Arar was in, but does that mean we should start firing people??? Let's not get hot-headed here.

Mr. Arar and his family deserve to have their names cleared. They deserve their apology. They deserve compensation, just as anyone else who had been falsely accused and/or imprisoned does.

The RCMP? Don't just go looking for a rope and a high tree branch. Give the RCMP Commissioner and his staff the opportunity to determine what went wrong and how they can fix it so these types of things don't happen in the future. Political leadership will also be required from Mr. Zaccardelli's boss, Stockwell Day, Public Safety Minister, and his boss, Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The "war on terror" will require a 'living' game plan, i.e. something that changes and adapts to the threats and tactics used to strike fear into the population. A game plan that needs a good coach and a good General Manager. People who learn from their mistakes. If they can't learn, that's when replacements should be sought out.

Now is not the time to crucify those that work to protect us, just because it's politically expedient.

Wings Over The World

Is Canada's Gun Law Killing Us?

2006-09-15T23:37:00.000-04:00

Prime Minister Harper is at it again.

After the tragic event at Dawson College where a lone shooter killed and injured 20 people, then turned the gun on himself, Mr. Harper states that the gun laws are ineffective. Of course, the victims' families and others are calling for stricter gun laws, but it was found that Kimveer Gill held a semi-automatic rifle, a shotgun and a handgun legally. It was revealed that he was a member of a gun club, he received two gun permits under the reportedly stricter 1995 Firearms Act, which included TWO background checks, and there were checks and balances supposedly set in place to identify and report people that could potentially become unstable. Yet, with all these precautions, someone was still able to commit this heinous act.

Before I get to my point, I want to make clear that I'm okay with people owning guns through legitimate means. I question some of the weapons that are available to gun collectors, but I don't begrudge their ability to own weapons. However, this privilege, not right, privilege comes with great responsibility. They must be properly stored and secured, and I believe all weapons should be registered. Which brings me to my point.

Again, Mr. Harper says the current gun laws are ineffective. What he failed to mention over the past couple of days is his long held policy intent to remove so-called "long guns," or rifles, from the registry. No doubt, a request from his Western Canada support base. How are you going to spin this one Mr. Harper? Obviously, this policy initiative isn't going to be pushed through by the Conservatives during their current mandate. They're going to have to wait and see if they get a majority government after the next election in order to be able to push this one through.

My message to Mr. Harper and his Conservative caucus:
If the current gun laws are ineffective, fix them.
If the current gun registry is broken, fix it.
If the types of weapons available to legitimate gun collectors are a danger to the public, reduce the list.

Now, nor anytime in the future, is it appropriate to relax the registering of weapons. If you think there is an appropriate time to do so, Mr. Prime Minister, just ask the families of the shootings at Dawson College, Ecole Polytechnique, Concordia University, Verdun, Winnipeg, and all the people killed in Toronto during the last year and a half, including Jane Creba.

Wings Over The World

Harper Talking Out of Both Sides Of His Mouth

2006-07-25T09:45:00.000-04:00

Unlike ex-Prime Minister Jean Chretien, Prime Minister Harper is talking out of both sides of his mouth. Not that I'm a Jean Chretien fan. Okay, cheap shot at Mr. Chretien. Sorry about that.

I wanted to post this earlier, but wasn't able to get around to it. I figured now was as good a time as any, considering it's the same old news of death and destruction coming out of Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon.

If you just put your thinking caps on, you'll remember that before and during the election, Mr. Harper talked about an elected senate. However, in a recent interview, Stephen (I won't say Steve because then I'd get an admonishing e-mail from his mother) said that he wasn't ready to do that during his current mandate, even though he would like to. The reason he gave was that he didn't want to cause additional cost to taxpayers, because elected officials can write off election expenses.

Some of the points Mr. Harper made are:

He would never appoint a senator (yet he appointed Michael Fortier right after the election, presumably to reward him for his campaign work for the Conservatives. Does your mother know you fib, Stephen?);

He wants to limit a Senator's term to eight years, vice a lifetime appointment to age 75, currently;

He wants to have fixed election dates to be held every 4 years, except for a non-confidence motion. But the PM can still go to the Governor General to request a dissolution of parliament prior to the 4 year limit, then have a an election on the fixed date in October.

Okay, okay. There are some benefits:

1. We have fixed election dates, which makes it convenient for politicians and electors;

2. There is a cost savings because governments may otherwise be tempted to call early snap elections to take advantage of high polling numbers;

3. Senators become accountable to the electorate.

BUT, I'm thinking there are some serious disadvantages too:

1. If the government requests dissolution of Government in February, and there's no election until October, we are talking about eight months of no parliamentary debate. That means that political debate has to be conducted through the media. How democratic is that? Not a very effective means of governing.

2. If Senators are elected, then you could get the same party having a majority in both houses. The Senate is supposed to be the house of sober second thought. If you have the same party in both houses holding majorities, a lot of stuff will just slide through. Yes, you have partisanship in the Senate now, but I think Senate appointments are better than going through Senate elections. Electing MPs should be all that Canadian citizens should be asked to handle. We shouldn't get into political popularity contests in the Senate. On top of which, not having Senate elections will save the country coffers from Senate election expenses.

3. If politicians know exactly when the election is, they'll spend a lot of time leading up to it for electioneering. Look at the United States. It's generally accepted that campaigning for the Presidency starts about two years, before the actual election!

No, Stephen, you're wrong on this one (not the first time either). Sure, the Canadian parliamentary system has room for improvement. Everything does. But your suggestions are way out in left field. Is this real reform? On top of which, you don't do as you say (re: the Fortier Senate appointment). How about imposing minimum attendance for Senators during sittings? Or, allowing a "None of the above" selection on ballots, so people can make a protest vote without the fear of electing say, an NDP government (like what happened during the Ontario experiment in the early 90's).

Do you want real reform, Mr. Prime Minister? Step aside and let someone else run the country, because it appears as if you're what we call in the business world, an autocratic manager. How about giving Peter MacKay a shot? He looks like he could handle it. A friendly Maritimer, boy next door, kind of guy. Sure Belinda broke his heart, but he seems to have bounced back.

Wings Over The World

Materazzi who?

2006-07-22T12:25:00.000-04:00

This whole Zidane incident at the World Cup 2006 final between France and Italy has raised my eyebrow. Not so much the incident. Yes, Zidane was wrong to do it and he's certainly become the butt of many jokes. One e-mail sent to me recently shows an animated Zidane dealing with problems in various scenarios by head-butting. I've also seen a video that shows how to deal with everyday problems using the head-butting technique. And certainly, it will be difficult for Zidane to live this incident down, for many years to come. It may even become his epitaph. But what of the recipient of the head-butt, the Italian player Materazzi?

Both players were given three game suspensions by FIFA, as well as fines. This doesn't mean anything to Zidane, since he has stated that he is retiring from the game. Zidane did offer to perform three days of community service in FIFA's name instead, which FIFA accepted. Good for them. It shows Zidane is contrite about the incident and wants to make amends. For Materazzi, it means missing the first three games of the next international competition, which includes missing a game against France. Oh irony of ironies! Of course, Italian soccer fans are up in arms about this. They don't agree with the Italian player receiving any kind of punishment, since he is the 'victim.' Not so, I say. Materazzi is the one that provoked Zidane into this action in an obviously thinly veiled attempt at drawing a penalty. Exacerbated by his drama queen writhing on the soccer pitch. Yes, Zidane exhibited unsportsmanlike conduct, but Materazzi is just as guilty of not living up to the ideals of international competition.

Oh sure, they all do it. They all hurl insults at each other to provoke actions like Zidane took. They've probably taken acting classes or practiced in front of mirrors to develop their techniques for showing how much pain they're in, even though the other player didn't touch them, in order to draw a penalty. If FIFA wants to clamp down on these acts, then I say, unless there is blood, both players should get the penalty. That will stop these divers from acting their way to a victory. Diving has even crept into the NHL. I don't remember a lot of diving happening until many Europeans came across the pond to play. Is this a European thing? Are European professional athletes just a bunch of wimps and cry babies that would rather win by having the best players in the penalty box, or should they battle it out in the spirit of good sportsmanship?

To the Italian soccer fans, I say this: Quit your griping. Materazzi got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Be thankful he didn't get a more serious judgment against him.

Wings Over The World

(Canadian) Exodus

2006-07-21T10:00:00.000-04:00

I saw it with my own eyes last night on the news and I can only shake my head in disbelief.

The first boat load of Canadians evacuated from Lebanon landed in Cyprus yesterday. Did we hear relief to be away from the war zone? A thanks to the Canadian government for getting them out? No. All we heard were complaints: no food, no water, cramped quarters, filthy bathrooms, no air conditioning...Wait a minute! No air conditioning?!?!!?! You were just rescued from a war zone and you're complaining that there was no air conditioning?!?!!? Do you think this was a Mediterranean cruise on a five star ship? Next you'll be complaining there wasn't a show on the Lido Deck to entertain you.

Okay. There were problems. The Canadian government hastily put this evacuation together. You were the first boatload to get out. Of course it's not going to run perfectly. Let the government officials know where the deficiencies were so that they can correct it for future boatloads. But don't rant about it. There was one women complaining and when someone, presumably a friend or relative, who mentioned that she should at least thank the Canadian government for getting her out. What did she do? She just walked away. How ungrateful is that? Given a choice, would you rather stay in Beirut until the Canadian government can bring up The Love Boat? Your advising people that are still in Beirut to find other ways to get home? Easy for you to say, you're on a plane heading back to Canada. I'm sure there are thousands still trapped that would have gladly taken your place.

Lets get back to what the first guy said. No food and no water for an eight hour trip that turned into a 16 hour voyage. Okay, there should have been food and water, even if it was an eight hour trip. It was reported that the reason it took 16 hours is that the Israeli Navy stopped the boat twice for at least two hours each time. Although, one person from the second boat said they were eating the same kind of sandwiches for the past two days. Again, a war zone. Be thankful you had anything to eat! I don't think the Canadian government had much time to get Wolfgang Puck to cater the war. Cramped quarters on the first boat? Well, there were 261 evacuees on a boat that normally carries 100. Do the math. Some people are going to have to sleep on the deck. Filthy bathrooms? I think you can blame your fellow refugees for not wiping the sink with their towellette after they were finished, for that one. No air conditioning? Why don't you just give yourself a shake!

Last night, the media reported that an estimated 50,000 Canadian citizens are in Lebanon, with 38,000 registered with the Canadian embassy to be evacuated. The largest group compared to any other nation. People were actually trying to climb the fence to get crammed onto these boats that don't have air conditioning. Meanwhile, the media showed a scene of American Marines coming in with their landing craft onto a Beirut beach and picking up American civilians to take to their ship. Didn't see any Americans complaining about getting into that boat.

At this point, I have to say that Spirit of the West got it wrong. We ARE NOT Far Too Canadian. People readily vilified the Canadian government for their handling of the evacuation. The only bright spot was someone that was interviewed for the CBC newscast actually thanking the Canadian government for getting them out. Yes, I did it. I gave kudos to the CBC.

Since this operation is going to cost a lot of money, then maybe government officials should start taking names and start billing the evacuees. Of course, they would get discounts if there was no food or water, just like on a no frills airline. Simply stated, I would rather it not come out of my pocket, because I'm just disgusted with the ungrateful evacuees that I saw interviewed last night on the news. And it was out there for all the world to see...and judge us by.

Wings Over The World

Dual Citizenship Quagmire?

2006-07-20T15:00:00.000-04:00

I can talk about the current conflict in Southern Lebanon/Northern Israel, but what's the point. Hezbollah and the Israeli government obviously haven't been reading my blog. So I want to turn my attention to something else that has cropped up during the conflict.

With the number of foreign nationals in the area trying to leave, seeking their governments' help to do so, I wanted to discuss something my partner brought up last night, dual citizenship.

It has been reported that up to 30,000 people with Canadian citizenship have registered with the Canadian embassy to be evacuated. Apparently, the majority are people that were born in Lebanon, had moved to Canada to escape conflict, then decided to return after they had achieved Canadian citizenship, without renouncing their Lebanese citizenship. The result? Dual citizenship. Some of these people have reportedly returned to Lebanon as many as ten or more years ago. The question is: should the Canadian government take responsibility for evacuating those with dual Canadian/Lebanese citizens, that have established a permanent residence in Lebanon?

The Citizen and Immigration Canada website has outlined the advantages and disadvantages of dual citizenship, so I won't get into that. But the website does bring up an interesting point. As a citizen of another country, you are subject to the other country's laws, even if they are in conflict with Canadian laws, and they may even take precedence over those laws. Case in point is mandatory military service. The website even points out that if a Canadian citizen has dual citizenship and has a permanent residence in Canada, that the other country could potentially come to Canada and collect that person for military service!

Now back to my original question. Obviously, these people in Lebanon with dual citizenship are taking advantage of their Canadian status to leave a war zone. The Canadian government is facing difficulty evacuating these people because of the numbers, in comparison to other countries. Canada also has a problem with respect to equipment availability (i.e. the military capability), but that's for another post. For the lucky few, some are being accepted by other countries on their ships, such as the British, Dutch and Italian ones, sent to the area. So, should the Canadian government (or any other government, for that matter) go through extraordinary measures to evacuate those that have dual citizenship, but have established permanent residency in Lebanon.

I think there can only be one answer to this. A resounding YES. The Canadian government, and indeed any government, that establishes a policy of accepting dual citizenship, also accepts the responsibility to those citizens, with the same responsibility it shows towards Canadians without dual citizenship. The Canadian government must go through extraordinary measures to protect its citizens, especially in the case of evacuating civilians from what is in effect, a war zone, at whatever the cost (which apparently they are doing, and it was mentioned that the cost will be quite high, according to one news report). From the news reports I've seen, I will go one step further and state that Canada should have contingency plans in place to accomplish just such a task. Not only should Canada have plans to evacuate its citizens from war zones, but from disaster areas, such as we saw from the tsunami that flooded Southeast Asia a year and a half ago. If that means having more military ships and aircraft, so be it. Canada has a set policy, they must not abrogate their responsibilities to their citizens. Canada is getting closer to its military capability needs by ordering new military ships and aircraft recently, after years of Liberal neglect under Mr. Chretien, but it will be a couple of years before the new capability will enter the Canadian military inventory.

Canada has a stated policy of allowing dual citizenship. Unless it rescinds that policy, it must protect everyone that has a valid Canadian citizenship, regardless of how many other citizenships they may possess, and wherever they may be living, whether it's temporarily or permanent.

As a side note, I would like to applaud the other countries that have sent ships to evacuate their own citizens, and accepting people from other countries, including Canadians, on their ships because they had the space. This is a case of countries, regardless of differences they may have, working together to protect each other's citizens. The caveat is that evacuees may have forged passports, so embassies need to work together to ensure people with ulterior motives do not use this opportunity to gain an advantage they would not otherwise have. That would include terrorists posing as Canadian citizens, leaving the area to set up shop elsewhere.

Let us hope that the foreign citizens trapped in Lebanon get out soon, safely. And with the help of many countries, that will happen.

Wings Over The World

Ista or Ati. Which One Are You?

2006-07-18T13:30:00.000-04:00

Are you a fashionista? A technorati? A literati? Or some other -ista or -ati?

I'm finding it hard to keep up with the new terms coming out to describe every little personality or career quirk people have. What is it with coming up with cutesy names to describe niche people? The latest one I read, just today, is blogarati. From the term, I can only assume that it is anyone who posts and/or reads blogs on a regular basis....I guess that makes me one of this elite class...blogarati.

I don't know. The term blogarati sounds a little more pedestrian than fashionista. A little less intelligent than literati. Could the blogarati be the Internet equivalent of trailer trash? If there are Internet catastrophes, could blogs be the first ones to suffer damage, much like it seems tornados hit trailer parks? No! We can't let that happen! This blog must be protected, if only to cut through the muck and mire that makes up a good portion of the Internet and provide you with the truth, plain and simple. No hidden agendas. No ratings grabbing headlines. No bias from so-called 'independent' journalists.

And what of blogs in general? Yes, there's a lot of crap out there. But anyone, even those that are not really tech-savvy, have the opportunity to speak their mind for the world to read, or ignore, as they see fit. How empowering is that? Information is power and the fact that any Joe or Jane off the street has the ability to provide or receive that information, is powerful indeed. The ability to speak one's mind in an open forum, if not informative, is at least cathartic, speaking from experience.

But what of the need to name anything and everything with the suffix -ista or -ati? Is it part of some grand conspiracy? Is it some innate need we all have? Does everyone feel they need to enlarge dictionaries, or add to the popular culture lexicon? Or are we all just being judgmental? Hard to say from where I sit.

To all of this, all I can say is that the people that come up with these kinds of terms are Websterati...or is that Oxfordistas?

Wings Over The World

The Year(s) of the Gun

2006-07-17T13:00:00.000-04:00

This is getting out of hand. It's bad enough when there are murders, but within the past year or so, deaths caused by the use of guns has skyrcketed in Canada. Toronto has certainly seen it's share of this increase.

Why has this happened? You can fault a number of things: increasing number of gangs, reduced funding for social safety nets, more aggressiveness in the drug trade, or even people settling disagreements through the use of violence. Whatever the root cause, the implementation is the same...the use of guns.

Case in point. One of the latest murders in Toronto occurred last week when a couple left a bar late at night and got into their car. Before they drove off, someone walked up to the car and fired several shots killing the woman, and seriously injuring the man. Although the police don't have a motive yet for the shooting, they did find what they suspect is the gun used in the crime. It was purchased from a gun store in the U.S., in the state of Georgia, just a year and a half ago. The police have asked for assistance from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in the investigation.

How did this gun, apparently purchased legally in the U.S., end up in the hands of someone who committed a murder in Canada, apparently without provocation? Was the gun transported by the legal purchaser? Was it stolen and transported? Whatever the method that was used, we as a society have to look at ways of eliminating these acts, or at least reducing them. We can't just ask one group, such as the police, to stop the tide.

The best way, is to reduce demand. Reduce the demand and it will make it uneconomical to supply. How do we do this? I believe the biggest factor would be to keep our kids out of gangs (again a supply and demand issue). Gangs need members for strength. Don't give them members, and they remain weak or disband. There are a number of ways to do this, but none of them can be accomplished in isolation. It requires a coordinated effort. Things like: parents getting more involved with their kids' activities; funding community centres in the poorer areas so they have afterschool programs; social programs such as daycare, big brother/sister; and a host of other initiatives.

The government and judicial system can get tougher on gun related crimes. Harsher sentences and getting tougher on crimes committed by youths. The Youth Justice Act may be a good way to handle most offences committed by those under 18, but when guns are involved? There should be a special section for that. Also, harsher sentences for those caught smuggling guns into Canada. Make it riskier for them and it's less likely to occur.

But all of this is only part of it. The U.S. has to do their part too. Yeah, okay, we get into the Constitutionality of the right to bear arms. Sure, I'll give you that, however I don't think the American Founding Fathers had roving bands of armed gangs walking around with their itchy fingers on the triggers of automatic pistols ready to shoot you just because you accidentally bump into them, in mind. Of course there are the standard reasons for owning a gun: home defence, collecting, hunting, or whatever else. But what invariably happens is that guns are stolen from legitimate owners who store them improperly (such as in their night stand). That may be a Hollywoodization of the problem, but I don't think someone who owns a gun for home defence will store it in a safe in the basement, if they're up in the bedroom when they hear a burglar entering the house.

I'm sure you can point to many of the same ills that Canadians have, with respect to social programs, such as kids getting involved in gangs, etc. Americans should look at how they can improve that situation. But every American needs to do their part, just like Canadians, in drying up the demand. Keep your kids out of gangs, whatever it takes, even if it's "tough love." Stop taking drugs. That joint you're smoking, thinking that you're not harming anybody because you're smoking it at home alone, isn't bloodless. Governments should get tougher on criminal acts involving guns, but that should be in conjunction with programs making it more difficult to legally own a gun. In Canada, the process to own a handgun seems to be a lot tougher than in the U.S.

This is just the starting point. But like the old Chinese proverb, every journey begins with that first step.

Let's take those first steps...on both sides of the Canadian-American border.

Wings Over The World

World Cup Fever

2006-07-06T13:30:00.000-04:00

You've seen them. The ones with World Cup "Fever." They have the tell-tale signs. Your first hint is like the sign of a plague ship...the ever-present national flag of the team they're egging on, attached to their car. Further symptoms may indicate how far gone they are with respect to their fever, such as:

Rashes on their faces in the colours of the team they're supporting;
The wearing of clothes in their team colours, or in more severe cases, the wearing of national flags;
Huddling in groups around big screen TVs in bars favouring their teams, for mutual support;
Exuberant and sometimes irrational behaviour, in the streets of the city after their team wins; and
In extreme cases, calling in sick, coincidently on the days when their team is playing.

The cure for this fever seems to occur when those afflicted see their teams eliminated from the World Cup competition. Flags are removed from their cars; their rashes disappear; they're back to wearing their normal clothing; less huddling around big screen TVs; and quieter streets, especially in areas that are prefaced with the title "Little." The most tell-tale sign is the muttering of, "just wait, we'll win next time," or something similar.

I have to admit that I'm not interested in soccer (or football, as it's called in Europe). Oh sure, I've kind of been following the standings, especially now that the competition is in the elimination round and it's down to the finals. But that's more because I work in a cosmopolitan office in a cosmopolitan city. So it's more for a little water cooler talk than actual interest in the game. Maybe I would have been more interested if the country of my birth, or of my heritage, had made it to the finals. But then again, maybe not.

Because of my lack of real interest in the sport, maybe I should rebel against all those supporters. Why don't I show everyone that I won't succumb to the "Fever." That I'm immune to the symptoms that appear, at least in four year cycles. But how? How do I wear my rebellion on my sleeve?

I think I have the answer! I'll take a cue from a movie that's opening this summer. That's right, The Pirates of the Caribbean is not only entertainment, but it's educational too. I'm going to fly the pirate flag, The Jolly Roger, on my car!

Maybe it's a little too late in this year's World Cup competition to do that, considering the competition is almost over, but it's certainly something to keep in mind when this fever reappears in about four years. I'll show everyone that I will not fall to the fever everyone else does.

When it comes to the World Cup of soccer I say, hoist the sheets, set course, and...

UP THE JOLLY ROGER!!!

Wings Over The World

Gun Registry Voodoo?

2006-05-17T11:55:00.000-04:00

Politics never cease to amaze me.

Yesterday, the Canadian Auditor General, Sheila Fraser, came out with her yearly report. The purpose, for any of you that may not know, is to go through government financial accounting and report on any mismanagement, waste, etc. Basically, she works like the auditors for a company. And just like a company auditor, the Auditor General is supposed to be free from influence in rendering her opinion.

The reason I bring this up is that the first item on her list, as reported in the media, was that the gun registry that was set up by the Liberals had some apparent irregularities in how they reported its true cost. Fair enough, but apparently this has been going on since at least 2004! Ms. Fraser claims that she was facing resistance from bureaucrats in getting the information she required, but why did she wait this long to get the word out? Why didn't she bring this up before, or is there another reason?

The Conservatives announced today that they will revamp the gun registry. It has been reported that handguns and semi-automatic weapons will likely remain on the registry, but shotguns and rifles will be taken off. No doubt, a result of western-influenced gun lobbyists. A shame that this will occur since police forces are applauding its existence and use it quite often. I don't think they relish the idea of it being watered down.

I find it more than a coincidence that these two announcements happened within 24 hours of each other. Are the Conservatives influencing the supposedly independent Auditor General? Did they just take advantage of something they knew she was going to report because they got an advance copy? Did they purposely give her the information she required so the Conservatives could embarrass the Liberals? Why did this not come out sooner?

The tight reign that Prime Minister Harper has on his caucus, when it comes to them speaking with the media, is getting out of hand. We see the same couple of Conservative faces in the media, when it comes to talking about the issues. We never hear from most of the other ministers or back-benchers. Yet, when it comes to bashing the opposition members, there seems to be unending access and information from the Conservative caucus.

Conservative conspiracy? You be the judge. I'm only here to present information for you to decide. Dismiss me as a crackpot, or a conspiracy theorist looking for hidden agendas everywhere. Whatever conclusions you come to with respect to me or the Conservative government, unfortunately you won't have much help from the media because they have little access to Conservative MPs.

Wings Over The World

Gas Price Fixing

2006-05-16T13:40:00.000-04:00

With the high cost of gasoline (since last summer...before Hurricane Katrina hit), there's been a lot of talk about fixing the gas price at a set amount. Oil companies would then have to give at least two weeks notice for any increases to the price, thus giving time for consumers to adjust to the new price. This is SO a bad idea!

There is already gas price fixing on the East Coast. Nova Scotia will be the last of the four provinces to institute this practice, starting July 1st. Studies have shown that gas price fixing is actually more costly to consumers, by at least 1 cent a litre, but Nova Scotia's rationale is that their constituents want stability in pricing. Well, if world oil prices spike significantly, oil companies can apply to the province to have the two week cycle waived...How does that improve stability of gas prices at the pumps? In effect, by fixing the price of gas, the oil companies don't have to compete for your business, therefore more money pours into their already fat wallets. Yes, it will be stable...for the oil companies!

What I learned in Economics 101 is that it's all about supply and demand. The greater the supply, the lower the price to move the product. The lower the supply, the higher the price that can be commanded. As users of the product, consumers get the short end of the stick. If you're sensitive to the price of gas, then let the market forces rule and buy gas when the price is down. Consider buying gas when you still have half a tank of gas. Small price to pay for the inconvenience of filling up more often, compared to buying at whatever the price is when you're faced with the big "E" on the gas gauge.

In fact, I've noticed trends in gas pricing. Whether it's the day of the week, time of day, before a long weekend, whatever. Wherever you are (except maybe on the East Coast), take a mental note of these trends and adjust your gas buying habits accordingly. If you notice the gas price goes up just before the weekend, fill up during the middle of the week, then top up as required on the weekend, if you can't wait until the middle of the following week. Sounds simple doesn't it? Of course, those of you with those huge gas-guzzling vehicles like Hummers (which, I noticed, are decked out in nice shiny accessories, and never seem to be muddy since they're probably never taken off-road) don't have to worry because you don't really care what the price is as long as you can occupy as much space on the road and parking lots as you possibly can.

Better yet, do you really want to stick it to oil companies? Take public transit, bike, or walk. You'll be and feel healthier. Yes these options may take a little longer, and there's more effort required on your part, but you'll save money and the environment. Public transit doesn't serve you well? Write to the politicians that represent you. Contact the transit services. Still can't get out of your car? How about carpooling? Plenty of HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle) lanes popping up on the highways and city streets. If you share a car, you'll get to your destination faster. Still can't do it? There's always the last resort of buying a small gas-sipping car. If you're the only one in the vehicle, do you really need to be in a Lincoln Navigator? You can go to the other extreme and get a Smart Car. Easy on gas, easy to park. Too extreme for you? There are plenty of offerings from the North American Big 3, as well as imports, that are easy on gas. If you think you need a large vehicle to carry stuff from Home Depot, consider how often you do this and whether renting a vehicle whenever you require that kind of capacity would do the trick, instead of commuting daily in a V8 with a lot of empty space behind you. Home Depot even provides an on-the-spot rental truck service. Might save you some substantial coin in the long run.

If you complain about the price of gas, then I think something that I've said resonates with you and you can adjust your transportation needs accordingly. If you drive a large vehicle and want to keep it, well there's nothing I can say to convince you to change, so I guess we'll see your wide-butt vehicle on the roads and occupying two spaces in the parking lots.

Either way, fixing the price of gas is not the answer. Let market forces decide the price so that consumers can benefit.

As a post script, let me offer this. After Hurricane Katrina hit last September, the price of gas was about 20 cents higher per litre at the pumps than it is now, with the current cost of a barrel of oil at almost record levels. Do you really think oil companies are looking after consumers' best interest? Supply and demand. Supply and demand...

Wings Over The World

Flag Flap

2006-05-11T13:45:00.000-04:00

Since this was big news last week, I'm a little late with this one, but a parliamentary inquiry was just decided on yesterday.

The issue was should the Canadian flag on the Peace Tower (at Parliament Hill) be lowered to half mast whenever a soldier is killed overseas? Previously under the Liberal government, it was, but recently when four Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan were killed, Prime Minister Harper decided that this would no longer be accommodated, that they would be recognized during the national day of mourning for soldiers on Novemeber 11th, Remembrance Day.

There were certainly critics of Mr. Harper for doing this, mainly from the opposite side of the house (the Liberals and NDPers). But, surprisingly, veterans groups and many of the families of the slain soldiers are okay with this. They feel that ceremonies during November 11th were sufficient to honour their fallen comrades, sons and daughters.

The Liberals, specifically ex-Prime Minister Paul Martin, asked whether it was the Speaker of the House (a Liberal who must be non-partisan in his administration of the House) who actually had dominion, thus the authority, over whether to lower the flag over the Peace Tower. The speaker, based on his research on the responsibilities of those in question, and applying Parliamentary procedure, ruled that it was the government that was responsible for the raising and lowering of the flag, and the government is led by Prime Minister Harper. Therefore, it is his decision.

After all this political posturing, and some self-reflective thought, as much as it pains me to, I will have to say that I agree with Mr. Harper. Whatever his motivations may be (and some have accused him of taking the American route of downplaying the number of soldiers killed in overseas conflicts, so that his own political popularity doesn't suffer), I believe he is doing the right thing. Especially considering that Veterans groups also support this route.

Let's not cheapen the value of lowering the flag on the Peace Tower each time a soldier dies in conflict overseas. Unfortunately, it may come to a point when the flag will have to be at half mast for the entire year. Instead, let us honour "Our Glorious Dead" on the day that we have reserved for them since 1919, i.e. November 11th. And if you didn't do so before, now more than ever you should wear a poppy to signify your honour and respect for those that have fallen in service to their country, whether you support any of the conflicts or not. Remembrance Day is not a day for political partisanship, or protest. It has one purpose. Please honour that purpose.

Having said all that, the federal government can go one step further to honour the individuals who have sacrificed their lives in the current conflict. I suggest that on the day a soldier is buried, that all the federal buildings in the town, city or county where the soldiers are being buried, should lower their flags on that day. It's the least they can do. This way, it becomes more personalized where a home town can honour one of their fallen sons or daughters.

And this thing about the media showing soldiers on their final journey home in a casket. The military will no longer allow the media on military property to film this, in deference to the fallen soldiers' families, they say. I've seen some of the coverage that has occurred in the past and I would have to disagree with the military (who probably got their orders from the Prime Minister to take this action) on this one. The media has been very respectful. They set their cameras up at a distance, and they do not impose on the mourning families. Surely the military can allow this so the entire country can mourn with the families. Some people have spoken out that they would like to go through a mourning process too. Soldiers have died in service to our country, we should be allowed to pay our respects. If, however, the families do not wish media coverage of the funeral service so that they may have a private ceremony, certainly we must give them that.

Wings Over The World

Supreme Court Ruling on Drinking at a House Party

2006-05-08T13:40:00.000-04:00

I have to say that I support the Canadian Supreme Court's ruling that 'Social Hosts,' i.e. the hosts at a private house party, are not responsible for any of their guests that drive home drunk and get into an accident. This in no way means I condone drinking and driving, I just think that if someone hosts a party and one of their guests gets into accident and is found to be drunk, that the host should not bear unlimited liability for the accident.

A number of years ago, public bars went through this same issue. Their argument was that they should not be held responsible. However, the situation is different in the case of bars, as opposed to the recent ruling. At a bar, you are not allowed to bring outside drinks in, and the alcohol is distributed from a central point. Staff, who are agents of the bar, and have had some experience dealing with patrons and can monitor alcoholic intake of the people they serve, can cut people off when it comes to subsequent drink orders. Therefore, the consumption of alcohol is strictly controlled. Not so, at a house party.

At a house party, the host may provide alcohol, or it might be BYOB (Bring Your Own Booze), or someone might just sneak a bottle in. Since the host cannot entirely control the flow of drinks, how can they have a duty of care to ensure that their guests do not drive home drunk? In fact, if the host was to be find liable, then I would say that every person who attended the party had a similar liability, since they all had the opportunity to observe the actions of a guest and dissuade that person from driving if they had too much to drink. Just think of the anti-drinking and driving campaign slogan of "friends don't let friends drink and drive."

I'm not saying that this should absolve hosts from being responsible in their administering a party. Of course they should do what they can to ensure all their guests, as well as the community at large, are safe. When court judgements are made, the test is what would the "reasonable man" do, i.e. what is common sense? I can get into a whole rant about common sense, but that's for another time. Right now, I'm just saying that party hosts should not have unlimited liability for their guests. If they did, then there wouldn't be any parties because people would be afraid to invite people over. That would be a stark world indeed.

My advice to party hosts: continue throwing parties, but don't let them get too big; make sure you know everybody, or at least know someone who can vouch for guests you don't know; and if the booze is flowing, keep an eye on anyone who seems to be drinking excessively and make sure you ask for their car keys -- better yet, ask 2 or 3 people to help you watch that person.

My advice to party goers: if you're going to drink, don't drive -- take a taxi, get a ride, take transit, or arrange to sleep over; if you see someone at the party drinking excessively, let the host know and keep an eye on them; if you suspect someone is drunk, help the host in deterring them from driving.

I thought we were already living in a culture where it was unacceptable to drink and drive, but obviously there are still many people that do. As with many things, we have to look out for each other. Don't let someone's bravado dissuade you from doing what you know is right.

Wings Over The World

Tall Person Discrimination

2006-04-11T21:55:00.000-04:00

Yes, I'm considered tall. And you know what bugs me most? When people say, "Oh, you're so tall!" If I said to a short person, "you're so short," that would be insensitive. So why is it okay for you to comment that I'm so tall, like it's the best thing to be? I've got news for you...it's not all that it's cracked up to be.

Oh sure, there are advantages to being tall. You can see over the cubicles in the office "cube farm." You get a better view in a crowd without having to stand on your toes. I even recall a study that was completed that showed that taller people were usually paid better and were promoted more often than their shorter counterparts (although not studying the report in detail, there could be other factors that influenced this). But did you ever consider how often tall people hit their heads? Or how about squeezing into a small car? I would certainly like to have the option of owning a small car, but alas, it is the domain of the "height challenged" elite. Sometimes larger cars and smaller SUV's are not even an option, because of the seat height.

I bring this up because of an observation I made during a recent business trip. Of course, I have difficulty travelling on airplanes. The seat pitch and backrest heights are not exactly conducive to a comfortable ride for a tall person. So of course, whenever I can, I request bulkhead or exit row seating. Much to my chagrin, this is usually impossible. Why? Because these coveted seats usually go to children and the elderly.

Now, I don't really have a problem with elderly passengers getting the bulkhead seats, if they require assistance, or have medical conditions that being in these seats, makes their trip more comfortable. However, I do not agree that children should get these seats. Two years ago, I was on an overseas flight. I specifically asked for bulkhead seating, but none was available. When I boarded and looked at the nearest bulkhead seats what did I find? All three of the middle seats were occupied by pre-teen children. Does this make sense when I, or any tall person, has to squeeze into a seat for an overnight flight?

Most importantly, I don't think that the elderly or children should get exit row seating, especially when it comes to overwing exits. Aircraft certifying authorities expect the passengers at overwing exits to be briefed on how to open the exits. If an emergency occurred, they would have to open the 40 lb door, pull it into the cabin, maneuver it around, and throw it out the opening. Do you think a pre-teen or elderly passenger could do this? What about the added complication of an elderly passenger in this location (who may have a medical condition) having to not only open the door, but get through it in a reasonable time so other passengers could do the same? This is a safety issue, and airlines should take note.

Maybe tall people should band together. Complain when you see children and the elderly in these seats. Just because we're tall, doesn't mean we always have things handed to us on a plate. It doesn't mean that we should have to suffer because we are well beyond the "average" height. There is handicapped seating on buses, handicapped parking, even maternity parking. Why can't there be tall person reserved seating on airplanes? Is this such a terrible thing to accommodate? I don't mind giving my height when ordering an airline ticket, if it puts me on a list to get a seat with extra legroom. In fact, if there are only 12 of these seats on an entire aircraft, the airlines should start with the tallest person on the flight and work their way down. Each person is allowed one travelling companion when the flight is longer than 3 hours. The caveat is that if you have a travelling companion that doesn't make the grade, then you have the option to decline the seat and go back into cattle class, and the next person on the list gets the seat. This sounds reasonable, doesn't it?

We can even have those neat little signs with a tall person graphic pasted to the rows of the coveted seats. Or if we really want to stick it to people, we can show a short person, and elderly person and a child in a circle with a line through it. Yeah, that's the ticket!

Yes, the sky IS blue in my world, and yes, I believe in a free and just society. Maybe I'm wrong on both counts because of all the bumps on my head.......or could it be that the bumps are just making me taller?

Wings Over The World

Sports Cliches

2006-03-31T13:30:00.000-05:00

We gotta put the puck in the net.

We have to put our skates on and make a game of it.

When the game is over, the only thing that matters is what's on the scoreboard.

Our defence didn't play as well as our offence.

We've all gotta dress for the game.

You have to step up to the plate.

etc., etc., ad nauseum...

What's with all the empty sports cliches happening these days? Sure, they've always been around, but what is the difference between what's going on now, and what we had before? Of course, there were the classics from Yogi Berra like, "It ain't over 'til it's over," or "This is like deja vu all over again." Sayings that have weaseled their way into our popular culture lexicon. But I think his '-isms' were probably seen as less empty, because there were fewer cliches out there. I wonder if it's more bothersome now because media outlets have to get a sound bite from everybody and anybody that is remotely associated with sports. That's probably because twenty years ago, you didn't have much choice in where you could get your sports news.

On network TV, you'd have the 10 minutes of sports during the nightly newscast, or the weekend afternoon sports programming. ESPN and TSN started the change, because then you had sports specialty programming, but now you have niche sports programming like OLN and The Golf Channel. Golf Channel?!?!? 24/7/365 of nothing but golf programming? Is this for the golf enthusiast, or a way for insomniacs to fall asleep? Why am I paying for this channel? I don't even play golf, so I certainly don't want to watch it! Why should I pay for it?

Yes, I think that all these sports channels have fed a need for people (mostly men I think, but I suspect more and more women are into it) to watch sports, instead of participate in them. Are people getting lazy as they get older, or are they trying to dive more deeply into the sports they're interested in? Whatever the case is, I wish professional athletes would come up with better sound bites. Hey, what if we protested by not watching these programs?!?!?!?! Drive the viewership down so that there will be some consolidation in the sports channel marketplace. Let the broadcasters know that they shouldn't entice us back unless they can come up with some quality programming....wait...that won't work. Especially when there's a guy in my gym that has two TVs on two different sports channels when he's on the treadmill, one of them being The Golf Channel, and then he ends up talking to the guy running next to him anyway. No, guys like him will never make this suggestion work.

Write to the networks? The cable/satellite companies? Your MP? The Prime Minister? No, I think we're stuck. Sports channels are here to stay and not all professional athletes are Mensa members. I guess I'll have to read the paper when the sportscast is on and continue paying for channels I never use (in fact, they're not on my favourites list, so they get skipped when I'm channel surfing).

Yup, I guess when it comes to sports cliches, Yogi Berra was right. The future ain't what it used to be.

Wings Over The World

(il)legal immigrants

2006-03-29T21:50:00.000-05:00

Lately, the Canadian and American governments have been cracking down on illegal immigration. The U.S. Government estimates that there are currently 11 million illegal immigrants, many Hispanic, in that country, rising by tens of thousands each year. While Canada isn't quite seeing those numbers, it too has many illegal immigrants.

The U.S. is dealing with the problem by introducing a bill to better control this illegal immigration, mainly due to crossings through the U.S.-Mexico border. No amnesty, just better control. Canada is dealing with it by just deporting these people. Of course, the media is getting a lot of mileage from a couple of Portuguese families that were deported last week. They had been in Canada for several years, working in the construction industry, and even apparently had Social Insurance Numbers and were paying taxes!

I don't have a problem with good, law-abiding, hard-working people that come from other countries, looking for a better life for their families. At one point or another, all of our families did the same. That is not the issue. The issue is the method by which they entered Canada.

My understanding of the Canadian immigration system is that anybody that applies for emigration to Canada, must apply at their home country's Canadian Embassy or Consulate. When their application is processed, they are given points for such things as education, experience, English (and presumably French) -speaking ability, whether they have immediate relatives already in Canada, etc. The score they receive, and Canada's quota for particular skill sets, will determine whether, and how soon, somebody would be allowed to enter Canada. A process that could take two or three years. A long time to wait for someone that wants a better life. Apparently, some potential immigrants are fast-tracked if they have sufficient money to invest in a business in Canada and hire a number of Canadian employees. As you can see, this system favours educated and financially well-off people. But what about the hard-working, blue-collar stiff? Certainly there's a place for those without money, post-secondary education and/or strong English/French-speaking ability?

How about a system that identifies businesses and trades, such as day labourers, construction workers, kitchen help, and other jobs, where there is a worker shortage? This shortage likely comes from the low wages that these jobs typically pay and lack of desire for Canadian workers to perform them. Surely someone from another country would be willing to work in these positions, given the opportunity. It's happening now, but it's more than likely underground, and business owners are probably taking advantage of the situation these workers are in.

I have a suggestion. What about a government run "virtual" equivalent of a Union Hall. The government can sign up businesses and/or identify jobs where there is a significant shortage of workers. The government can translate this need into immigration quotas for the skills, or lack of, required. Businesses that have owners/workers that predominantly speak a particular language can target countries that speak that language. For example, last week, the deported families were from Portugal and worked in the construction industry. So, tell the Canadian Embassy in Portugal to fast-track construction workers looking to emigrate to Canada. The government can even have quotas for totally unskilled labourers, looking for an opportunity, to do manual labour like digging ditches and the like.

By having this "Union Hall," the government can control the number of unskilled and semi-skilled immigrants to the country, as well as keeping track of their progress as they work as day labourers, part-time, temporary, or even full-time. At this point, they are landed immigrants. Prior to being granted citizenship, they would have to show progress in holding a steady job, improvement in language skills (which the government can help administer), and any other criteria the government deems necessary.

The result? Everybody wins. Immigrants that may otherwise not be allowed to come to Canada because of lack of education, or English-speaking skills, would have the opportunity for a new life for their family. Businesses wouldn't face such a shortage of labour, and the Canadian Government would get a legal taxpayer to add to the Canadian coffers. In addition, the government will likely spend less money trying to track down and deport illegals, because there would be fewer of them. Sounds like an ideal situation doesn't it?

This sounds too simple for it not to be instituted by the government a long time ago. Am I missing something? Could I be oversimplifying the problem? I hope I'm not because maybe this would be a win-win-win situation for everyone.

Wings Over The World

Islamic Crusades?

2006-03-28T13:30:00.000-05:00

Are we seeing a modern day Crusades? Have Islamic fundamentalists driven their followers into being those that they despise most, Crusaders?

In Afghanistan, Abdul Rahman (see picture) was to be tried for converting to Christianity from Islam. Apparently, under Sharia law, this is apostasy, i.e. abandonment of religious beliefs, and is punishable by death. My understanding is that this law resulted from the time of Muhammad's death and the splintering of Islam. I know this is an oversimplification of the facts, but I would like to keep the history brief, so that I can concentrate on my point.

Because of the outcry from Christian countries that are supporting Afghanistan's fight against the Taliban, the government used a loophole to free Mr. Rahman and he is now presumed to be in hiding for fear of his life.

This incident bothers me because of what I stated in one of my early posts. My understanding of the Islamic religion is that it preaches peace and brotherly love. Sure, some Islamic ways are different from those of other religions, but overall, they are similar. So why do Islamists insist on the persecution of converts away from Islam?

Yes, this may have happened during the Middle Ages, when Christian Crusaders stormed through the Holy Land killing Muslims who did not convert to Christianity, but this is hardly an excuse to continue the practice in modern times. I understand that in Africa, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the area because converted Christians became disillusioned with their situation. What if the shoe was on the other foot and these Islamic converts were to be tried for apostasy? The prisons would be filled with people to be put to death because they felt the Islamic religion served their faith better than Christianity did. Certainly, Islamic leaders would not stand for it. Why should they support the same practice under Sharia law? In fact, I've seen a report that religious teachings are not even clear that apostasy is punishable by death and that it is a particular interpretation of the Qu'ran.

No. State punishment for conversion from one religion to another is wrong. Religion is deeply personal. It should not be imposed on anyone, nor should one follow a particular religion because not doing so would be punishable by death. This is a matter for religious heads, and religious heads should not have the capability to offer state punishment. What happened to the separation of church and state? It's not always practiced, but it certainly should be more practical.

It's obvious that religious zealousness is affecting good government. Not only in the Middle East, but in the West also. Don't subscribe to it. It's becoming a modern day Crusades. It reminds me of the old saying, "those that do not study history, are condemned to repeat it."

Wings Over The World

(photo credit: www.ctv.ca)

Freedom of (Dis)Information Act?

2006-03-27T21:22:00.000-05:00

Only a short time in government and already he's doing the things he said he wouldn't do. You know, the things that other governments have been doing. Well guess what. He's done it again! That's right, Prime Minister Stephen Harper is restricting media access to his caucus. Only he and cabinet ministers can address the media, BUT the cabinet ministers can only speak to the media with the approval of the PMO, and only on the pre-approved five topics of his government's agenda. What is the Prime Minister trying to hide?

He did it during the election campaign. Keep the fringe, extreme right members away from the media. You know, the ones that were against gay marriages, abortions, and other sinful acts. Well, apparently doing it just through the election campaign wasn't enough. Now he feels he has to keep them on a tight leash during their Minority Government rule.

What did Prime Minister Harper's Director of Communications, Sandra Buckler, have to say about it? "I don't think the average Canadian cares as long as they know their government is being well run." WHAT?!?!? Is she trying to tell us that we don't need to know what's going on, as long as the Conservatives don't get their hand caught in the cookie jar? Does Ms. Buckler have such a short memory? The Conservatives campaigned on ousting the Liberals because of the sponsorship scandal. Something brought to light well after the fact by a courageous whistleblower. The scandal happened on Mr. Chretien's watch and he was well into private life before that mess became very public and Mr. Martin had to pick up the pieces. Is Ms. Buckler telling us that the media should not scrutinize the government on the Canadian people's behalf? What kind of self-entitlement does the Conservative government think they have? When is the last time that the Canadian people trusted their government so implicitly? When has any population of any country trusted their government so completely?

No, Ms. Buckler. You're wrong! Maybe you think the Conservatives are doing a wonderful job. But the fact is, there is trepidation in Canada about whether the Conservatives can run the country under Mr. Harper's stewardship. Why do you think you only have a Minority Government stake. In fact, you have a slimmer minority than the Liberals had. Does that sound like implicit trust to you?

The Canadian public wants to know what's going on. We want the media to be our eyes and ears because we can't spend all day in Ottawa watching over your shoulders. If you want the Canadian people to put you into a Majority Government situation in the next election, giving you up to five years of uninterrupted rule, then you're going to have to be transparent in your actions. Don't hide how you're running the government, and don't put your caucus members on a short leash. Let's hear what they have to say and we'll be the judge of what's important to us as constituents.

And what can you do as a Canadian voter? Show the Conservative government that you want them to be open in how they govern. They campaigned on a platform of accountability, well make them stick to that promise! What can you do? What every Canadian has the right to do, write to your MP. It doesn't matter which party they're a member of, they work for you. Make them earn their pay. If you want to make sure Mr. Harper gets your message, then write to his office:

Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa
K1A 0A2

Fax: 613-941-6900

Or better yet, e-mail him at pm@pm.gc.ca.

Let Prime Minister Harper know that he's going to have to put up, or shut up. Either he's going to have to let the media have access to EVERY Conservative MP on the hill, or he's going to have to shut up about accountability and telling us that he's different from the Liberals...because right now he's not!

So, it's up to you, dear reader. Do you think the Conservative government is doing a good job?

Wings Over The World

Clucking Cellphone Users

2006-03-24T13:45:00.000-05:00

Today's post is aboout (ring, ring)... just a sec...

Hello?...

Oh, hi....

I'm busy with something right now, can I call you back?....

Ciao.

Where was I? Oh yeah, the ubiquitous cellphone conversation. They're everywhere. Many people have them. Most others are annoyed by them. True, cellphones have made life easier for many of us. They put us in contact with our companies, customers, families, friends and the occasional wrong number. But to others overhearing those conversations, it's simply a nuisance.

I do not take issue with cellphones themselves, or the convenience that they bring. I take umbrage when I have to listen to someone talking about their personal, medical, or family problems, usually at a high volume. Some cellphone users seem to be oblivious to the fact that anybody within 50 feet can listen in on their conversation. It's not so bad when you're walking down the street, but what about when you're in a store, or on a bus? Especially when you have no option but to stand there and take it. Do I really need to know about the boil on your butt oozing pus? Will my life be better for knowing this information? Or do I have to know that Diane slept with Sam on the first date, and that she is such a sl_t for doing so? I think not.

What about the hazard these people are creating? The people that just continue talking on and on while driving, creating havoc in their wake. Or the fact that they may actually be in the presence of someone and they would rather speak on the phone than converse with the person next to them. Many times, I've seen people carrying on conversations, while they have someone walking right next to them. Is their telephone conversation more engaging than the one they would have with the person right beside them? How about the ultimate. Something I witnessed not too long ago. I saw, through the windows of a car, that both the driver and passenger were talking on their cellphones! And this was on a Sunday night. True story! Aside from the danger posed to other drivers, were they that bored with each other on a Sunday night drive that they felt the need to talk to someone else...anyone else? It boggles the mind.

Yes, cellphones are ubiquitous, and yes, they make our lives easier. I'm sure you can find Miss Manners or other suggestions for cellphone etiquette, but how about I give you some common sense (you would think) tips for cellphone use:

1. When driving, make it quick. If you're driving and you receive or have to make a call, pulling over is the best option. If that's not practical, make it quick. One minute or less should be enough to say I'll call you back, or meet me at such and such a place. Anything longer, wait until you can pull over so you can concentrate on the conversation. Better to be late 5 minutes for an appointment, than to pay $2,000 in car repairs.

2. Be considerate of others. Don't yell into the phone when there are people around you. They're not interested in what you have to say and it just contributes to the noise pollution. Try to talk at a volume where the person on the other end of the conversation can hear you well enough, not that they have to move their handset six inches away from their ear.

3. Leave the gossip for home phone calls. If you want to just spend time on the phone gossiping, or having inane conversations, wait until you get home or are in a private place. Strangers don't want to know about what socks you bought last week, why subject them to the conversation. Better yet, get together with your friend to discuss these things. It's more personal and sociable.

4. Keep cellphone conversations brief, when someone is with you. Terrible faux pas when you'd rather be on the phone than talking with the person next to you. It sends the wrong message. Do you really want that person to know that you would rather be talking someone else? However, I guess that's one way to ditch a "friend," if that's what you want to do.

5. Actually turn off your cellphone, when appropriate. How often have you been in a movie theatre and some idiot's cellphone starts ringing during a crucial moment in the story. And this after the theatre staff reminds everyone to turn off their cellphones, or at least turn off the ringer. Do everyone a favour and turn off the ringer, or the cellphone altogether, during movie, stage productions, or any other event where it would be distracting to those around you.

There you have it. Some quick and simple rules to live by when using cellphones. I'm sure there are a number of others, but at least this is a good start. Being considerate of others means we can all get along.

Now that I'm finished...who was it that called?

Wings Over The World

S.O.S. (Save Our Seals)?

2006-03-23T13:40:00.000-05:00

The queen of animal activism, Brigitte Bardot, has received a lot of media attention the past couple of days because she was in Ottawa, trying to get a meeting with Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The subject was the seal hunt to be conducted off of Canada's East Coast. This headline grab came shortly after Paul McCartney and his wife actually visited an ice floe for some photo ops with the cute little things (see picture).

I have to admit, I'm a tad conflicted with this issue. On the one hand, the seal population is so large that it can, and has, adversely affected the East Coast fisheries stock. On the other hand, the clubbing of seals is not exactly a humane way of harvesting them, although the Newfoundland Fisheries Minister states that only about 10% are killed this way. The rest are killed with a bullet to the head.

Why are they being killed? For their fur, of course. Nothing different than mink, fox, or any of the other furs that are highly sought after. The difference, I think, is that seal pups are cute and they're in the wild. I'm sure if there were seal farms where everything was hidden from view and the seal pups were actually quite hideous, there wouldn't be such an outcry (take note that they are actually killed when they're older and not as cute as in the picture). Lambs are cute, but when's the last time you saw a celebrity protest the killing of them? When's the last time you went to a restaurant and ordered some? I had some recently and it was quite delicious. However, I believe that most of the seal carcasses are left on the ice flow because the seals' remoteness doesn't allow the economic usefulness of the entire kill.

I suppose that it comes down to this. I learned in Economics 101 that economies are based on supply and demand. For there to be a supply, there has to be a demand. This applies to anything. Food, guns, drugs, seal pelts. The greater the demand and the less supply, the higher the price. The people that conduct these hunts come from economically depressed areas, so this is a way for them to make some money, instead of being on unemployment.

Do you truly want the the killing of seals for their fur to end? Make the wearing of their fur unfashionable. Don't buy them. Don't let your friends buy them. If the demand dries up, the killing will stop, or at least make it uneconomical to do so. That doesn't solve the fisheries problem, but maybe you'll sleep better. However, be prepared that the seal hunt won't stop overnight. Seal hunt protests have been going on for decades and the hunts continue. That's the economic reality. Instead of trying to stop the hunt, maybe you can at least lobby to make it more humane.

Now, stopping the drug trade (including marijuana -- no it's not a victimless crime), there's a cause for protest!

Wings Over The World

(photo credit: www.ctv.ca/ Tom Hanson)

Hip Hop Lemmings

2006-03-21T13:10:00.000-05:00

Lemmings. That's the word for them. Hip Hop Lemmings.

When I look at kids, especially those 'kids' that are in their twenties and maybe even thirties, dressing up like their favourite Hip Hop star, I can only shake my head and snicker to myself. Wear a bandana (usually red or blue); wear your basketball shorts or jeans so low, no one is really sure there are any pant legs (except to see them bunched at the ankles); wear a sock on one foot but not the other; one pant leg raised to the knee, the other down to the ankle, etc. ad nauseum. Wear Nike, or Adidas, or whatever-the-latest-brand-craze-is. Do made-up, puffy-haired, bare-stomached, teenage-hooker-wear-clothed-Christina-Aguiliera-wanna-bes really dig these looks? What motivates people to emulate their favourite Hip Hop star?

Why do people do it? To look cool? Because the rapper is their hero? Keeping up with Jones' mentality? I remember seeing a report where a teenager spent about $1,000 a month on clothes that he sees his favourite rappers wear. He has a part-time job just so that he owns clothes that sometimes, he doesn't even wear. He had about 70 pairs of sneakers! His reason for doing it? It looks cool, and because he's the first in school have it. Sounds like insecurity to me.

And what's with the latest 'grillz' phenomenon? Why would you spend as much money as it would cost to buy a small car, for jewellery that you stick in your mouth? It became fashionable when Nelly came out with his Grillz video. I say that it's about as fashionable as a lot of gold chains on top of a hairy chest that we see beyond the unbuttoned shirt. And just like that craze, along with disco platform shoes, white suits and parachute pants, this too will pass (I hope).

Busta Rhymes and P. Diddy (don't get me started on his constant name changes) recorded Pass The Courvoisier after which people went to their local watering hole and ordered it, not knowing what it was! How stupid is that? I think that they only did it because the lyrics to the song made it sound cool, and everyone wants to be cool, right?

So I ask you again, why do people do this? Why do they buy things, sometimes not knowing or caring what it is? Is it cool? Do they have a need to be the first on the block to have it? Do they want to attract the ladies? Maybe it's because Hip Hop stars are anti-establishment and even if you can't sing like them, at least you can dress like them...what a load of BS! If you think rap artists are anti-establishment, why are they wearing and singing about name brands, and often being paid by the brand maker to do so. Sometimes manufacturers will even approach rap artists to write a songs about their products, or at least incorporate their names in the lyrics. Does that sound anti-establishment to you?

I'm sure there are many of you that tape shows off network TV so that you can fast forward through the titles and commercials. I do it. It saves at least 10 minutes of my time for every hour of programming I watch. Or you go to the fridge or washroom during the commercials. Advertisers and networks know this. That's why networks usually charge a premium for spots right at the beginning and end of a commercial break. Advertisers are getting around you not watching their TV commercials by looking for other ways to get the message across. The Internet, is just one example. A few years ago, you wouldn't see a whole lot of advertising on web pages, except for some sites, if you know what I mean. Then pop-ups became de rigueur. The reaction? Get software that blocks pop-ups. Ok, find another way. How about flashing or video advertising. Ignoring that. The latest? Have advertising actually crossing text that you're trying to read. No way to get around that except to wait for it to clear, or look for the "close" button. Somebody will find a way to stop it, and when they do, advertisers will find another method to grab your attention...

Hey, wait a second...Let's use rap stars. Yeah! They have a herd of sheep following them. We'll make a bazillion dollars!

You avoid watching TV commercials. You scan the radio to avoid commercials, or even pay a monthly fee to get commercial free satellite radio. You buy pop-up filters for your computer. Why the heck would you buy something just because a Hip Hop star mentions it?

Stop the madness! Don't give in to those advertisers because they're making millions banking on you buying the stuff they're hawking, trying to make it look cool. Stop being a lemming and find your own style. Don't adopt someone else's. People have been hurt or killed because they wore something that someone else wanted, or because they wore the wrong 'colours.' Don't give into the hype. Make it fashion non grata. Or at least don't run to the fashion store as soon as a music video comes out. Show manufacturers and advertisers that you will not be swayed by a music video.

When you've accomplished this, sit back in your leather La-Z-Boy, watch the game on your Sony plasma TV, smoke a Montecristo cigar, and drink a glass of 18 year-old Glenfiddich. Ahh, that's the life...

Wings Over The World

Driving For The Uninitiated

2006-03-17T14:20:00.000-05:00

I was driving in town the other day, on a road that was three lanes in the direction I was going. I was in the middle lane and a small car was just slightly ahead and in the right lane. The right lane was going to turn off into a parking area, and the driver of the car obviously wanted to continue on, because he changed into my lane without signalling. This was not surprising. It's happened to me many times. What was unusual was that it had a Driving School licence attached to the rear of the vehicle! Was it a student who forgot to signal? No, the driver was alone, so I can only assume that it was the instructor. Because it was a driving instructor, his driving habits caught my attention at the time (don't worry, I was still keeping my eye on the road). A very brief time later, he changed into the left lane so that he could make a left turn. Although I wasn't watching his every move (since I was also driving, remember), not only did he not signal, but it appeared that he didn't even look over his shoulder either. Both being habits of defensive drivers. After witnessing this spectacle, I marvelled that someone who teaches future drivers, has such bad driving habits himself. No wonder there are so many bad drivers out there, so many accidents, and my insurance rates continue to climb even though I don't make any claims.

I feel it's about time I talk about one of my pet peeves...bad drivers.

Yes, they're out there. You've seen them, or maybe you are one whether you're aware of it, or not. I marvel at how bad some drivers are. Just when I think I've seen it all, someone proves me wrong. I've heard reports on how driving schools will teach their students to pass the exam, rather than how to be a defensive driver. Apparently, anyone can get a licence to be a driving instructor. You don't have to have any special knowledge or training. Just fill out the forms, pony up the cash and hang a shingle. If you haven't taken a reputable driving course, go out and get one. If your children are about to learn, send them to a proper one, not a 'friend of a friend' who will give you a good deal. But if you think you're too old to go back to school, at least continue to read on.

This is my contribution to making the streets safer for drivers everywhere. Here is Wing Over The World's Driving for Dummies (with apologies to the "...For Dummies" publishers for using their title), tips for the driving uninitiated:

1. Stay out of the left lane whenever possible. When you're on a multi-lane highway or expressway and you're in the left-most lane, and the traffic isn't bumper-to-bumper, if you're not passing anyone, move over into the right lane. This applies to anyone going at any speed. So often, I see people driving at the speed limit, with a line up of cars behind waiting to pass. Even when you're going 20% above the speed limit, it won't be long before someone comes up behind you and indicates they want to pass. It's been my experience and observation that whatever speed you travel at in the left lane, someone will come along and want to go faster, so move into the right lane.

2. When you want to pass someone in the left lane, be polite. This is the other side of the coin of Tip #1. So often, people have come up behind me, wanting to pass and they're one or two feet from my rear bumper. BACK OFF! I'm a responsible driver. I'm doing my best to get over into the right lane. I don't need you 'pushing me'. We could both get into an accident if the car in front me decides to brake hard. For those that are not followers of Tip #1, how about you flash your highbeams or use your left turn signal to get them out of the way. It is said that the current etiquette from Europe is to use your left turn signal since flashing your highbeams is considered impolite. Might I suggest you use your left turn signal to start. If after sufficient time and opportunity, the car in front of you doesn't get out of the way, then flash your highbeams. Many cars have a flip feature on the turn signal arm that allows you to flash your highbeams.

3. When turning or changing lanes, signal. Strangely enough, a survey just came out and a significant number of drivers said they don't signal because it's too much work or that they're busy with other things to bother. What?!?!?!? How stupid is that? I say, if it's too much work to signal, then why the heck are you driving? As for being too involved with other things: get off the cellphone, or stop putting your make-up on and concentrate on driving. And when you do signal, give a little notice. Don't wait until you're actually making the lane change or turn to give one flash of the turn signal.

4. Take a look in your mirrors and over your shoulder when changing lanes. Again, it seems like people are too lazy or concentrating on their cellphone conversations to notice that I'm in their blindspot and they cut me off. A few recent examples saw me narrowly escape providing my insurance information because I was quick enough with the brakes or steering wheel.

5. If you have to talk on your cellphone while driving, make it quick. Better yet, pull over. That's the best option. If you're one of those road warriors that have to be on your cell all day, invest in a hands-free system. If you're the type that just gabs away with their friends during the morning or afternoon commute, quit it! Too often I've seen people almost get into accidents because they were more interested in the cellphone conversation and oblivious to what's going on around them. Granted, women seem to be better at multi-tasking, but they have been just as guilty at almost causing accidents.

6. Keep your eyes on the road. Your one hour commute should not include reading, writing, eating your breakfast, putting on your make-up, or any other of a myriad of things that people do while they're driving. Do that stuff anywhere except behind the wheel, willya?

7. Stop rubber-necking when there's an accident! I can't stress this one enough. There is usually a long line up behind an accident, made worse because rubber-neckers slow down to see the flashing lights. What are you hoping to see? Blood? Body parts? Emergency crews usually cover up quickly. This also happens when no lanes are blocked. An example I experienced a couple of years ago was that an accident happened on the opposite side of the highway, on the right shoulder, with three cement barriers in between -- about nine lanes away! Yet people slowed down to look! What could they see? The flashing lights on top of the fire trucks! That's it! Get with the program people. There's no need to slow to crawl if no lanes are blocked, just so you can look at some crumpled metal. If that's what turns you on, go to a junk yard. Plenty there.

8. Don't cut people off. It seems that there are drivers out there that have to be where they're going two or three minutes earlier, because they have the propensity to weave and cut people off (see Tips #3 and #4). Sometimes they're just oblivious to what's around them. What you're doing is playing Russian Roulette with your insurance rate. Have a look, and be patient.

9. Don't force your way into the lane. There are some people that just must get into a lane during rush hour traffic. Because they are very aggressive, or do not follow Tip #10, many drivers will not allow them the space. I know, because I've also jockeyed to not let these people get away with this. Not a very defensive driving thing to do, but if I've contributed to their education, it's worth it. If I'm on the other end and have run out of lane, if someone doesn't let me in, I wait until someone does. I will not 'force' my way in.

10. Don't use the acceleration/deceleration lanes of on/off ramps to pass people. This is one of my major pet peeves. Especially those people that use the acceleration lane to make it look like they're just getting on the highway, just so that they can get a dozen cars ahead. I will sometimes actually keep an eye on who does this and make a point of not letting them in. I've seen other people do the same. A few months ago, a semi, sans trailer, was actually driving on the shoulder to try to get in front me, playing a kind of 'chicken' to get me to put on the brakes so that he could get in front of me. Doing this, in combination with the Tip #9 faux pas will probably only save you five minutes on your trip. Is it worth adding hundreds of dollars to your insurance bill, angering a bunch of drivers and encouraging other drivers to do the same to you?

I've probably missed a number of bad habits. Maybe people can submit their own pet peeves or experiences, with recommendations on what the proper etiquette should be.

Want to keep your insurance rates down? Stop contributing to the problem by following the above tips. Can't do it? Maybe you should leave the driving to someone else. Car pool, take transit, or ride a bike to work. Maybe insurance rates won't go up so quickly, fewer cars will be on the road, and we'll have lower pollution levels. At the very least, you'll save a few bucks, maybe catch up on some reading, and certainly save your sanity.

Wings Over The World

Valentine's Day Isn't Just On Feb 14th

2006-03-13T14:00:00.000-05:00

Valentine's Day isn't just on February 14th.

I know I'm a little late with this, but maybe it will have more impact now, then it would a month ago.

I long held the belief that Valentine's Day was just a way for the greeting card, chocolate producing and flower picking companies to get their balance sheets in the black. A way to guilt people into buying stereotypical presents for their significant (and maybe not so significant, but hot, want-to-sleep-with) others. For years, I raged against the conventional wisdom. My argument? Why should just one day be set aside to show your partner that you love them? You should be doing the romantic thing throughout the year. Not some all or nothing play in the dead of winter. If you get it right, all is well in the (romantic) world. If not, damnation from your partner for the next six months, where the start of every conversation had the potential to degenerate into accusatory tones and reminders because of a miscue during that fateful romantic day. Or worse, the passive aggressive behaviour that ensues. Nope. I would be the contrarian. I would show my partner that I'm different. Valentine's Day is for the herds of sheep to the commercialization slaughter.

I'm a hypocrite.

Yes, I too fell into the trap. Don't get me wrong. I DO show my partner that I love them throughout the year -- little love notes, the buying of their favourite goodie or flowers for no particular reason other than to show them they're the one I'm thinking of -- but, I also bought heart-shaped chocolates, those hot cinnamon candies, and not just one, but two Valentine's Day cards! Why did I do it? Maybe it was because you can only get those cutesy heart-shaped goodies during this time of year. Or could it be that I wanted to support the money-making machine? (I could have waited until after Valentine's Day and gotten these items cheaper, but that would just be tacky) What if I was trying to 'keep up with the Jones'? No, I think it's because I love my partner and I wanted to show them I do. Not just by kissing, or making love to them (something we do often, but is no less special each time we do it), but with a materialistic trinket that could be eaten in one glorious gulp, or displayed with pride on the mantelpiece.

Did I want something in return? I thought I didn't, but during that fateful morning on the fourteenth day of the second month of the year, I came to a realization. While still lying in bed, I presented my partner with their second card (the first having being presented on the Saturday night before, when they least expected it). As my partner read and appreciated the card they received, I kept waiting and waiting to receive mine, to no avail. I dutifully got out of bed, completed my morning routine and went off to work as usual. All day I considered the emptiness I felt at not receiving a card...anything that showed me they loved me. That evening, I returned home to an empty house, because my partner had another engagement that night. As I went into the bedroom, there it was! Sitting, propped on the pillow, a card! I opened it with glee. Savouring every printed word and graphic line. As I read the hand written note, my heart melted and emotion welled up in me. A tear almost came to my eye. Yes, I too had become one of the sheep. BUT, something more than just one of the heard, I say. Because I will still show my partner that I love them throughout the year, just as I had previously vowed. Indeed EVERY day is Valentine's Day! I later found out that my partner had chosen this particular card months previous, which had significance because of an ongoing banter between us. Yes, I was...no, AM in love.

So my friends, whether this is a snub at the money grubbing chocolatiers and greeting card makers, or just some helpful hints to those that want their romantic relationships to be that much more special, I give to you Wings Over The World's Tips to Lovers (no guarantee of results are implied):

For Women:

1. If your man is watching his favourite sport or show on TV, don't interrupt unless it's during a commercial and you finish talking by the time the commercials are finished. They don't mind if you talk to them, but your time is more flexible than the game or show they're watching.

2. Yes, sometimes men tune out when you're talking at length about something. Don't get mad, they're just not conditioned to listening to long dissertations about the latest Hollywood gossip, what the latest spring fashion is, or what friend A did to friend B. If the conversation isn't about one of their favourite subjects, be it sports, cars, or themselves, chances are they're going to zone out once in awhile.

3. Give HIM something that he'll appreciate. Not necessarily a cute stuffed animal, or a tie. And it doesn't have to be expensive either. Even if you just pay for dinner once in awhile, he'll appreciate it, unless he's old school and insists on paying when you go out. In that case, you'll have to find something else that will show him you care.

4. Dress up when you greet him at the door. You don't have to be in an evening gown, but something that shows off your curves. Maybe even a tight pair of jeans, a revealing top and high heels. Bonus points when he finds out you're wearing sexy underwear underneath after he throws you on the bed for a little early evening loving.

5. Make him his favourite dinner and serve it to him. You don't have to do this all the time, but when you do, he'll appreciate it. Bonus points if this leads to sex (also see Tip #4).

6. If your man is into sports and you're not, learn a few of the basics of his favourite one and get him talking about it. Watch the occasional game with him. If it's one you can participate in with him, do so. It's a way for the two of you to bond on his terms.

7. Give him what I call a Thai massage. Dress in something skimpy and tight, and give him a "full body" rub down. But be prepared, this DOES lead to sex! Bonus points for wearing high heels and doing a little bit of role playing.

8. If he takes lunch from home with him to work, prepare it for him. Maybe even spice it up with something that he doesn't normally take, but likes to eat. (also, don't forget Tip #10)

9. If you make plans to have lunch or dinner together, surprise him with a side trip to the local motel for some intense lovin'. Better yet, treat him to a night of debauchery at a swanky hotel. This might include morning room service to regain your strength. You won't be able to wipe that smile off your face when you see him in a blissful daze and with a wobble in his walk.

10. Leave him little love notes. By e-mail or little paper ones. Just to show him you're thinking about him.

For Men:

1. Getting your woman flowers is not just for special occasions or when you're in the doghouse. Buy her some just because. She'll appreciate them more when she doesn't expect them.

2. Don't be afraid to show affection in public (kissing, holding hands). So what if people are watching. You'll be making them jealous and your woman will appreciate that you're willing to show the world that you love them.

3. If your partner is talking about something, anything, try to concentrate on the conversation and not about how you're going to 'do' her. There's a time and place for that. Sometimes she just wants you to listen to her. How about it? Besides, you'll get bonus points for listening to her in the middle of a crucial football game.

4. If you can't afford, or don't have the energy to go out dancing, or to a nice restaurant, go for a walk, stop in at the local ice cream shop and buy her a cone of her favourite ice cream. You don't have to spend a lot of money. She just wants you to be with, and pay attention to, her.

5. When you go out for that walk, talk to her about the things she's interested in. Listen to what she has to say. Ask questions. Get involved in her interests. Actually, this tip can be applied any time, but doing it when there are no other distractions will allow you to focus.

6. Prepare her favourite dinner and serve it to her. You don't have to be a great cook. She'll appreciate the effort, as well as the pampering. Zero points for cheating and buying it already prepared. Make it from scratch, lazy bones! (also see Tip #8)

7. Massage her. It doesn't have to lead to sex. Sometimes she just wants her back or feet rubbed and have a few relaxing moments afterward. After your finished, if she's feeling relaxed and wants some quiet, let her have it and go into another room. But if you're going to watch TV or listen to music, keep it down.

8. Greet her at the door in an outfit she likes to see you wear. It doesn't have to be your best suit. Sometimes, a tight pair of jeans will do it. By the way, they may not admit it, but they DO like to look at guys' butts.

9. Buy her little things that mean something to her. Whether it's her favourite chocolate bar, a cute key chain, or the book she's been meaning to read. Giving her those unexpected little things endear you more and more to her because it shows you're always thinking of her.

10. Give her little love notes. With the advent of e-mails, it takes just a minute to whip something up and press 'send'. You don't have to be Cyrano de Bergerac. Just a few words expressing how you feel, even if it's just "kiss kiss". Of course, the adventurous might try their hand at writing a short poem and leaving it in a place where she'll find it when she's at work. She'll melt right in the office...guaranteed!

It doesn't end there. These were just a few suggestions to get you started. Be creative. Get to know your partner better, so that you can romance them all the better. Maybe if every couple made the effort throughout the year, there would be less marital strife and fewer divorces. Hey, we may even put Dr. Phil out of business. Wouldn't that be great!

If this has helped you, I'm glad to have made a difference in you and your partner's lives. If not, I hope that you will find your way because knowing the pure love of someone is better than any material possession you could hope to have.

Wings Over The World

Follow up: Did God create evil? (Mar 3)

2006-03-10T13:15:00.000-05:00

I have some good news that I'd like to pass on. It's about the little Afghani boy I wrote about in my blog entry for Mar 3rd.

It was reported last night that he is currently undergoing treatment in a Pakistani hospital for a cancerous tumour he has on his face. Surgery was conducted and the tumour was found not to be as bad as first thought. The boy is undergoing a round of chemotherapy and one of the doctors (an oncologist) reports that the he has a 60-65% chance of surviving. The boy's grandfather was visibly happy, and grateful for the news. A far cry from the expectation that the boy would not see his sixth birthday.

What was the difference? A Canadian soldier in Kandahar writing to his church back home, where they raised $13,000 to pay for the boy's treatment. A small price to pay for an innocent little boy's life. Also a small price to pay to show his family and neighbours that there is good in the world. That complete strangers were willing to help. That violence for violence sake is unnecessary.

I can only imagine what this little Afghani boy will do with his life. Will he become a doctor? A great politician and peacemaker to bring strength to his country? Or maybe a suicide bomber? Only time will tell. I like to think that the showing of kindness towards him will give him the opportunity to 'pay it forward' and he will lean towards the first two options, rather than last one. History will be his judge.

In the meantime, let us continue with this. Let us commit to performing good deeds. Let us reduce the opportunity for evil to flourish. It made a difference in a little Afghani boy's life. Are you willing to help the battered wife down the street? Help fund the cure for cancer? Stop the fighting in the Middle East? Whether your act, however small, helps your community, your country, or the world we live in...it's worth it.

Allow me to repeat the previously posted quote from Edmund Burke:

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Do something good. Anything.

Wings Over The World

Bring the Roman Catholic Church Into The 21st Century

2006-03-08T13:50:00.000-05:00

I felt it was time to discuss this subject, given the latest revelation of Irish priests sexually abusing at least 350 children since 1940.

I have thought about this subject whenever a like news item hits the wire and I've come to the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church must enter the 21st Century in order to survive. First, I must say that I have a great deal of respect for this religion, as I do many other of the organized religions out there, but I believe that it has become somewhat of a dinosaur. Don't get me wrong, it has many admirable facets. However, I don't think the church is able to meet the needs of its shrinking congregation. Although I say shrinking, there have been reports that churches are reporting increased numbers during mass, but the church is also seeing a drop in priest population because of declining numbers following this "calling," as well as the existing ones aging. Lets look at a couple of teachings that I find particularly onerous, that I believe they should change their policy towards, in order to reverse this trend.

Priests are to remain celibate. Quite an unreasonable requirement. Given that priests are human and suffer from human failings, it is unreasonable to ask them to not have sex for the remainder of their lives. Especially considering the life expectancy of a person has more than doubled over the past millennium. The result? Well, if a priest does feel the need to obtain sexual gratification, they can't very well go to a bar to pick up a woman (or man, for that matter), or even hire a prostitute. Too public and the chances of being caught in the act, too great. Sleeping with each other? If one approaches the other, the other may 'out' them and they could potentially be excommunicated. So, where does that leave them? Sexually abusing the children that are left in their charge. An act very easy for them to get away with, since the children are less likely to tattle on them because of their position, and there would certainly be opportunities to be alone with them. Why is celibacy a requirement for priesthood? Does it have something to do with devotion to God? How is the sexual abuse of children serving that purpose? Maybe someone can edify me on what the Church/Vatican says why priests must remain celibate.

Birth control. Any kind of birth control is not allowed amongst Catholics. I'm not sure if this also includes the Rhythm method, but lets assume it does, because it is a conscious act of not getting pregnant. I can understand that this teaching would be of interest during the dark ages, when infant mortality rates were high and life expectancy was low. But now, with lower infant mortality rates, longer life expectancies and booming world population (6.5 billion at the most recent estimate. Seems like only yesterday we were at 5 billion), the need (and want, in the Western world) for high birth rates is unnecessary. Our expanding population is competing for fewer finite resources. This has to be slowed. A friend told me that when he was going through the marriage course at his church, the priest stated that the church denies its congregation the use of birth control....but these are the methods available anyway. Good for this priest! Despite the archaic edicts from the Vatican, the priest recognized the needs of his congregation and followed his conscience. If the Vatican saying no birth control is just so that they can boost Catholic numbers, then it's for the wrong reason. People can change religions, almost as easy as they can change gyms, so this isn't the way to keep the numbers up (in fact, sub-Sahara Africa, a traditional stomping ground for Catholic missionaries, is seeing Islam as the fastest growing religion).

I think you know where I'm going with this by now, but I'll state it anyway. The Vatican should allow priests to marry and allow birth control. I'll even go further and say that gay priests should be allowed to marry (I didn't want to get into the gay issue in this entry, but suffice to say, the Church should accept that it's out there and it's not an abomination). The result? Fewer instances of priests sexually abusing children, so the Church won't have to sell off their holdings to pay for reparations. Their congregation won't have to feel guilty about having 2 children, instead of 10. They will likely get a rising number of men entering the priesthood. But most of all, I think, the Church will see a growing number of people filling the pews. I'm sure there are a number of people out there that are Catholic in name only and don't attend mass. Loosening up some of the more archaic rules would turn this around. I thought with the election of the new Pope, this might be accomplished, but to no avail. He's old school.

I think it's high time that the Roman Catholic Church enter the 21st Century. It's unlikely it will happen under the leadership of the current Pope, but maybe the next one will be more progressive. Roman Catholicism is definitely due for a makeover. Maybe not an extreme one, but a makeover nonetheless.

Wings Over The World

Academy Award Conspiracy?

2006-03-07T16:15:00.000-05:00

Is there a conspiracy in Hollywood? Have members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the ones that hand out the 'Oscars', colluded to wring more money from our pockets?
Witness the latest round of awards Sunday night, for the 2005 film year. The following were awarded in the top six categories:

Best Picture: Crash
Best Director: Ang Lee (Brokeback Mountain)
Best Actor: Philip Seymour Hoffman (Capote)
Best Actress: Reese Witherspoon (Walk The Line)
Best Supporting Actor: George Clooney (Syriana)
Best Supporting Actress: Rachel Weisz ( The Constant Gardner)

Notice something? No? Let me give you a hint. The following were awarded to the top six categories in the previous four years:

2004: Million Dollar Baby - 4 out of 6
2003: Lord of the Rings - 2 out of 6; Mystic River - 2 out of 6
2002: Chicago - 2 out of 6; The Pianist - 2 out of 6
2001: A Beautiful Mind - 3 out of 6

Still don't see the pattern? Okay, okay, I'll tell you. In this year's Academy Awards, no single picture got more than a single Oscar! Why do you think that is? I think that Hollywood is trying to make more money. Sound crazy? Look at the evidence:

1. In the previous four years, at least one film was awarded two or more Oscars.

2. When George Clooney was awarded the Best Supporting Actor Oscar Sunday night, he quipped that he guessed it meant he won't be getting the Best Director award.

3. Box office numbers were down significantly last year, despite big budget releases.

4. Hollywood box office has to compete with other entertainment outlets, of which many people are flocking to.

5. Films, even bad ones, make plenty of money in DVD sales, or from selling to rental outlets, some going on to achieve cult-like status with audiences.

6. Oscar winning films are usually re-released at the box office to benefit from Oscar wins, or at the very least, their DVD sales spike significantly.

7. During the Oscar ceremonies, there were at least two separate comments about advocating seeing movies in theatres, rather than on DVD.

Was Clooney a part of a greater plot? If not, was he just aware of Hollywood's dirty little secret? Is it the worst kept secret amongst those in the industry?

Although they may not have overtly rigged, or manipulated the results, since they use the auditing services of PriceWaterhouseCoopers to count the secret ballots, I believe that members of the Academy quietly influenced voters to spread the wealth. Why not? It's the movie industry that supports the Academy, why shouldn't they scratch the other's back? Bad box office? Boost DVD sales of as many movies as possible. Everyone wins...except maybe audiences.

Now, I'm not advocating that you bootleg copies, or do anything else that may be illegal. However, I do suggest that you not get taken in by this charade. If you didn't want to see it at the box office, you probably don't want to see it on DVD, unless you're of the ilk that likes to go through those six hours of "extras." If you do want to see it on DVD, then I suggest renting, rather than buying. In fact, wait until it's off the newly released rack. Cheaper for you. You're not stuck with a bad movie, if you don't like it, and your not saddled with a DVD format that may become obsolete in a year or two. Show Hollywood that they can't get away with this manipulation.

By the way, does anybody know who to contact for "The Razzies"? I have a new category: Most thinly-veiled attempt at separating viewing audiences from their money.

And The Razzie goes too...

Wings Over The World

Coming home

2006-03-06T14:00:00.000-05:00

A sombre ceremony occurred over the weekend. The bodies of two soldiers of Canada's Afghanistan contingent were repatriated. Although their deaths were not a result of combat (they were in fact killed as a consequence of a traffic accident with a civilian vehicle), this reminds Canadians that they must play an international role, whether its through diplomacy, peacekeeping, or peacemaking.

This is a scene that has been witnessed by many Americans over the past couple of years, with soldiers having died in Iraq, as well as Afghanistan. As the truth comes out about the reason for invading Iraq, there is less and less American support for its presence there. Whether you agree or not that America should have invaded Iraq, I believe Afghanistan is a different story.

When the Soviets ended their occupation of Afghanistan (with help from the American CIA, no doubt), there was no leadership from other countries to assist Afghanistan to develop a 'normalized' democracy. Consequently, a power vacuum formed such that a small insurgent group, the Taliban, become the dominant ruling group. What happened next? It has been reported that terrorist training camps were set up, so that terrorism could be exported to other countries. Freedoms were restricted, mainly because of the religious fundamentalists in power. Women were not educated, and in fact had to cover themselves head-to-toe in clothing called burkhas. Sons were trained to become suicide bombers. Then, the attack on the World Trade Center in New York on Sept 11, 2001, changed all of that. As a result, Americans entered Afghanistan to restore some semblance of democracy, or at least curtail terrorist attacks on its citizens. Gains have been made, but there is still a significant insurgency. A simplistic explanation of what has occurred, but I don't want to get bogged down with a history lesson.

Coming back to the honouring of Canadian fallen comrades, there is some rising discontent over the country's involvement in Afghanistan. As more Canadians are killed, more questions arise. Of course, diplomacy and negotiation are the best methods to resolve differences, but how do you negotiate with a group that flies no flag, has no permanent home, thrives on chaos, solves its problems by killing non-combatants - women and children? This reminds me of the famous scene in which British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, after returning with an accord signed by Adolph Hitler in 1938 declared, "My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time...Go home and get a nice sleep." The truth is, World War II occurred with tens of millions dying as a result. Had it not been for the British military progressively building up its forces in the time leading up to the war, the world could have been a different place.

Let the Taliban have Afghanistan to do with as they wish? Allow them a place to plant their flag so that diplomatic negotiations can be conducted? Consider what life was like under the Nazi regime: curfews, executions without trials, extermination camps - not just killing Jews, but anyone that the state felt was a threat even if it was because of sexual orientation. Consider what life would be like if Europe and North America were ruled by those that ruled Afghanistan. Any criticism of the government, you would quietly disappear. You would be forced to practice the religion that they deemed the correct one. Your sisters and daughters would not be allowed to get any education. Your sons would be trained to kill innocents, by gun or suicide bomb, to further the regime's cause.

Yes, killing is wrong, but sometimes it has to be done to overthrow a despotic regime. World history is littered with such regimes. Western democracy is not perfect, but at the moment, it's the best system available. The father of one of the fallen Canadian soldiers said that he was proud that his son died serving his country. Whether you agree or disagree with the Canadian presence in Afghanistan, do not sully his, nay any, Canadian soldier's sacrifice. They do it for the benefit of all citizens. Not just Canadian, but world citizens, including those in Afghanistan that want freedom. Remember the poem In Flanders Field.

If I have not swayed you yet, then let me leave you with this. Read my previous post, Did God create evil? (Mar 3, 2006) Then consider this quote by Edmund Burke, from the late eighteenth century:

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Let us not get a good sleep in our homes until the absence of good is no more.

Wings Over The World

(photo credit: www.ctv.ca)

Did God create evil?

2006-03-03T14:00:00.000-05:00

I received this recently:

Did God create evil?

Did God create everything that exists? Does evil exist? Did God create evil?

A University professor at a well known institution of higher learning challenged his students with this question. "Did God create everything that exists?"

A student bravely replied, "Yes he did!"

"God created everything?" The professor asked.

"Yes sir, he certainly did," the student replied.

The professor answered, "If God created everything; then God created evil. And, since evil exists, and according to the principal that our works define who we are, then we can assume God is evil."

The student became quiet and did not respond to the professor's hypothetical definition. The professor, quite pleased with himself, boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth.

Another student raised his hand and said, "May I ask you a question, professor?"

"Of course", replied the professor.

The student stood up and asked, "Professor, does cold exist?"

"What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?"

The other students snickered at the young man's question.The young man replied, "In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-460F) is the total absence of heat; and all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat."

The student continued, "Professor, does darkness exist?"

The professor responded, "Of course it does."

The student replied, "Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality is the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact, we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it.

How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present."

Finally the young man asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?" Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course, as I have already said. We see it everyday. It is in the daily examples of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil."

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist, sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil.

Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat, or the darkness that comes when there is no light."

The professor sat down.

The young man's name -- Albert Einstein

I'm not asking that you send this to ten people so that you will get some great reward. This isn't a chain blog. Neither am I saying that you should embrace religion, if it's not your way. But, just because you do not follow or practice a particular organized religion, doesn't mean that you shouldn't follow some of their teachings. Most of the major religions preach things like being kind to others, be charitable, be good to not only your family and friends, but to strangers too.

No, my friends. I'm only posting this anecdote to illustrate that evil exists in the absence of good, not the other way around. George W has it wrong. There are no evil-doers in this world, just people that fail to do what's right.

Consider this. In Kandahar, Afghanistan, Canadian soldiers 'adopted' a little Afghani boy who had been turned away from three other medical facilities in the area (see picture). Desperate, his grandfather brought him to the Canadian's camp. The boy's problem? He had a large, cancerous facial tumour that was beyond successful treatment. The response? Canadian doctors gave him medicine to make him more comfortable. One of the soldier's church congregation back home raised money so that the boy could be sent to a Pakistani hospital to live out his final days in relative comfort. The grandfather was grateful. Where was the father during all of this? Oblivious to his son's situation because of an opium addiction. The Canadian reaction? This boy needed help and should not suffer from his father's failings. No judgements. Just make a difference in a little boy's life, however long that may be.

How can you make a difference? You say that you can't afford to give money, or you don't have the time. How much does it cost to donate a couple of cans a food during a food drive? What's the matter? Can't go without buying that Starbucks vente Cafe Americano for one morning? If you can go without three or four in one month, give to your favourite charity. If you have the time, volunteer somewhere -- a hospital, a senior's home, a day care centre. Even if you can't do any of these things, open the door for someone - man or woman, handicapped or able. And when someone does it for you, say 'thank you.' Initiate a good deed. And when you're the recipient of a good deed, pay it forward.

I've only scratched the surface of the problem. This post can be applied to anything. Sit back for a few moments and consider what I've written. Then maybe, just maybe, there will be less evil in the world because there is more good.

Wings Over The World

photo credit: www.ctv.ca

Turn Your Head and Cough (up some money!)

2006-03-01T16:00:00.000-05:00

Do these guys need to have their heads examined?

I've decided. Access to private health care for some 'non-emergency' health care is wrong! It's a slippery slope that Canadians must not engage in.

The issue: Hospital wait times. Canadians are waiting far too long for non-emergency surgeries, such as for knees, hips and cataracts.

The Solution? Recently, the Premier of Quebec, Jean Charest, announced that his government would allow access to private health care, at the government's expense, if a patient has to wait longer than six months for their surgery. Ralph Klein, Mr. Charest's counterpart in Alberta (is it me, or does Ralph look like the puppet alien from the TV series Alf?), is also allowing for private health care to stand beside the public system for non-emergency care.

There is no doubt that hospital wait times in Canada are far too long. They exacerbate the suffering people must endure when they seek medical help. Having observed the system, it certainly has changed over the years, but wait times? Not for the better. What is the problem? What has gotten the system into this mess?

People often cite lack of funding. Or could it be doctor's aren't paid sufficiently for their services? Many doctors have headed south for greener pastures because provincial health care plans have capped their fees in order to control spiralling costs. Could it be that the population is expanding and growing older, but the medical training system has failed to keep pace with the growth? Should Canada actively recruit and fast track to citizenship, immigrant doctors for the specialties that are needed? How do we know how to tackle the problem, if we don't know what the problem(s) truly is/are?

Adding a parallel private system is not the answer. It treats the symptoms, not the cause. It just applies a band-aid to an open gash. What we need to do is sew up that gash. Instead, that band-aid will transform into gauze packing, then a tensor bandage, and on to a cast. But of course, that will only happen if you can afford to pay for the cast. Those that can't, will bleed to death waiting.

Consider this analogy. Your house is on fire and the fire department arrives on the scene to put it out. They have three hoses trying to douse the flames with water. Your neighbour comes over to the firemen and tells them that their roof is getting hot and that they will pay them $100 to take one of the hoses to keep the roof cool. He accepts. Now there are only two hoses on your fire. Your other neighbour does the same. Now only one. Then the two neighbours get into a bidding war over the last fireman...whoops, get out the garden hose. But the water pressure is down...get a bucket brigade going...ran out of water, start throwing sand...no more sand, start spitting on those 30 foot flames! The end result? Your neighbours who could it afford it, saved their homes. You? Owner of a pile of ashes.

No, health care shouldn't go to the highest bidder for non-emergency surgeries such as hip and knee replacements, because that could lead to paying for organs, blood transfusions and other life saving medical treatments. If there are only so many surgeries that can be accomplished because of the number of knees and hips that are available, or operating room time, who do you think they will go to? The patient that relies on a capped fee from the Provincial system, or someone that's willing to pay a few thousand dollars more for faster service? The waiting lists for the government system will get longer, and people that cannot afford private health care will suffer longer. Don't believe me? Look at the American system of private health care and HMOs. Many people do not even have the benefit of an HMO, bad as it is.

Should we just throw billions at the problem? Probably not. But I do propose a good start. Let's do something that businesses do. General Electric was very successful with their Six Sigma program. An improvement program that identified deficiencies and corrected them, saving GE billions of dollars over the years, becoming part of the company's success. Why can't this be applied to the health care system? Who better to fix the problem than the health care professionals themselves? Train them in Six Sigma. Local hospitals will have their own Six Sigma teams. As well, provincial and federal levels will have teams tackling issues at their levels. All of this can be lead at the federal level so provincial activities can be coordinated. Best of all, a database of knowledge can be held so that all health care professionals across the country could benefit from the results. Each hospital won't have to reinvent the wheel. This way, the health care wound will get sewn up. Sound like a plan?

Every Canadian wants better health care, especially as the Baby Boomers age. Should one get better health care than anyone else because they have more money in the bank? No. That's not the Canadian way, eh? The health of people does not discriminate because of financial ability, why should the health care system?

Wings Over The World

Stephen Harper's Three Card Monty

2006-02-25T11:00:00.000-05:00

Would you trust this man?

A lot of you have. Not the majority, but certainly enough to allow him to run Canada. To some people, maybe many, he was the lesser of two evils.

In case you didn't recognize him in this picture because of his sly demeanor, this is the Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper.

The subject of this post? One of his campaign promises: to reduce the GST by 1% immediately, followed by another 1% within five years.

Why am I bringing this up after the election? Because I started working on my taxes and I came to a realization. Actually, I came to this realization during the election campaign, but it really hit home filling in those boxes on the forms I received from the Canada Revenue Agency.

Paul Martin, and his outgoing Liberals pledged an immediate 1% tax reduction on everyone's taxes, for the first $35,000 of income. This applies to your 2005 taxes (you should have received the updated forms by now). That means that if you made $35k or more, an instant $350 in your pocket for this and upcoming years. BUT, Mr. Harper had pledged during the campaign that he would scrap this tax break in favour of reducing the GST. Why? Because he wanted to gain popular vote by reducing an unpopular tax.

Let's look at the big example the Conservatives were touting. Buying a car. If you bought a car for $30k, you would save $300 in one shot. However, nobody buys a car every year, so let's amortize that over say, 5 years. That means $60 per year over this period. In five years with the Liberal's 1% tax break, you would have a total of $1,750. In order to achieve the same savings through a GST reduction, you would have to spend $145,000, or $29,000 per year. Half that with a 2% reduction. Considering people don't have to pay GST on food from the grocery store, or rent (directly), or mortgage payments, or some other items, do you really see yourself spending that much?

StatsCan reports that the average household income of two or more people is $64,900. This average is just $25,600 for unattached individuals. This means that the average household of two or more people would have to spend 44.7% of their income on GST-able items to gain the same benefit. Considering that 20.2% is going to taxes, 19.2% goes to shelter, 10.9% to food, 2.7% to health care, 1.7% for education and 8.7% on other non GST-able items, that leaves about 36.6% of the average Canadian's household income that is actually spent on potentially GST-able items (numbers taken from StatsCan website). Bit of gap, isn't there? A gap of $5,100 in spending to be more precise. I won't even get into the mathematics for a single individual.

The GST was introduced by the Mulroney (Conservative) government in place of the old Manufacturer's Tax that applied 13.5% to big ticket items. This tax was seen as a hindrance to exporting Canadian goods. So it was decided to tax only goods that Canadians buy, in order for our exported goods to compete globally. Was this a good idea? Some economists have said this move, along with Free Trade with the US, have grown the Canadian economy substantially. Whether you're a pundit or not, the reality is, GST is not unique.

The United Kingdom has a VAT (Value Added Tax) of 17.5%. Germany? They pay a VAT of 16%. The French pay 16.38%, and Italians pay 20%, 10% or 4%, depending on what they purchase. The Canadian GST is not looking too bad, even taking into account the PST (Provincial Sales Tax). What do the European taxes have in common? Their VAT is already incorporated into the price. That's right, the sticker price is what you pay. They don't add it on top of your purchase. The psychology of this? You don't complain about what you don't see. How often do you go to the cash register, thinking that you'll be paying $100 for something, only to find out that it's actually $107, plus PST? There's further confusion because some items are GST-ed and PST-ed, some are taxed by either, and still others have no tax at all. How do you keep track?

Why not just add the tax to the sticker price so you know what you're paying? At the end of the receipt, how much tax you actually paid is printed, so you know how much tax you paid. Take a look at your gas receipt the next time you fill up your car! Hey, with all the digital technology around, there shouldn't be any difficulty incorporating this into ALL the registers.

Now back to my point. The GST is a consumer tax. To gain benefit, you have to consume goods. The lower your income, the less you consume on items that are GST-able. The more disposable income a person has, the better benefit there is from this type of tax reduction. Not very fair, is it? Mr. Harper is an economist. He knows this. He also knows that the GST is an unpopular tax. Wake up people! Getting a reduction on your personal income tax is of far greater benefit than reducing the GST. It affects everyone, regardless of the level of income. This money can be used to spend on goods, save for retirement, save for you child's university education, or give to a charity. The point is, it's your choice. You shouldn't be forced to spend money, in order to save money. Think about it.

This is what every tax paying Canadian should do: Write to your MP in Ottawa. Or even better, contact the Prime Minister's Office. E-mail Mr. Harper at pm@pm.gc.ca. Or contact him at:
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa
K1A 0A2
Fax: 613-941-6900

Let Mr. Harper know that Canadians want a fair reduction in their personal income tax. Not taxes of lesser benefit where he has to use a lot of hocus pocus to promote. Send a message.

And what should you do with your new found wealth? Something does come to mind....Switzerland has a plethora of nice, secure, discrete banks...and the VAT in Switzerland? ......7.6%.

Watch the queen, watch the queen...

Wings Over The World

(Photo Credit: www.ctv.ca - CP/Tom Hanson)

All we are saying, is give Timbits a chance

2006-02-24T21:45:00.000-05:00

I heard on the news that the top Canadian military man, General Rick Hillier, has invited the President of Tim Horton's, to go to Kandahar, Afghanistan with him. Why? So Canadian soldiers can get their double double, and a Timbit.

I think this an outstanding idea. Why? It worked for the Americans, why not for Canadians. What have the Americans got to do with this? Think back to WW II, if you're that old, or maybe search through some stories and images, or even ask someone that was there. I'm sure they would appreciate the attention. During WW II, as Americans advanced against the Axis powers, Coca-Cola was right behind them. Yep, that ubiquitous cola was in the trenches, fighting along with those that fought for freedom. And everywhere the Americans went, people learned of Coke and soon enough, wanted it for themselves. What a great marketing strategy and penetration! Open up markets even before they exist. In the meantime, establish your distribution, right behind the advancing American army. Coke had become synonymous with freedom.

Back to the Timbits. Canadians are pining for that little bit of home, while they're off in a far away land. Let's give it to them. Let's give them a Tim Horton's kiosk. Since there's only 2,000 of them in Kandahar, I'm sure the kiosk would be able to handle the traffic, BUT they should be prepared to expand. What about opening it up to the locals? Spread some Canadiana to the world. Heck, maybe it'll bring peace to the region. Show the locals that it's better to discuss politics over a cup a coffee and a Dutchie, than to try blowing each other up.

Yesiree, Tim Horton's should set up an operation in Kandahar. In fact, maybe they should set up a kiosk at every Canadian military outpost around the world. Spread the Canadian way out there. A message of tolerance and understanding. And even if it stops the fighting for 15 minutes, while the combatants drink their large black coffee, with a "fruit explosion" muffin...it was well worth it.

Get the Timbit rolling. Give the Canadian military a Tim Horton's franchise license.

Wings Over The World

The Groundhog as a Weatherman (Weatherhog?)

2006-02-24T13:20:00.000-05:00

Correct me if I'm wrong. It seems to me that we have been experiencing more winter since Groundhog Day (Feb 2), than before...Haven't we?

Maybe it's because we're getting close to the Spring Equinox and I can't wait for it to happen soon enough. Or maybe it's because I'm having flashbacks of substantially positive temperatures in January and seeing reporters freeze stuff in the bone chilling cold of the prairies lately. Whatever the case, it's freakin' cold and I want it to rise a few degrees already! Where's that global warming everyone's been talking about? It was in all the papers!

I blame the groundhogs they use as Weathermen (Weatherhogs?). They come out of their holes once a year on Feb 2nd and give us their prediction weather (pun intended) there will be an early spring (if they don't see their shadow), or 6 more weeks of winter (if they do see their shadow).

The main Canadian Weatherhogs are Wiarton Willie of Ontario, Shubenacadie Sam of Nova Scotia, and Balzac Billie of Alberta. Of course, the first, and most famous Weatherhog is the "prognasticator of prognasticators," Punxsutawney Phil of Pennsylvania. There are many wannabes, but these guys are the ones quoted most often in national news. Where did they stand on whether there will be an early spring this year? Willie, Sam and Billie said yes, and Phil said no....Wait a minute! There's something fishy going on here!!! Before I get into that, allow me to digress for a moment.

Let's talk about the Weatherhog as a predictor. I've trolled the Internet, looking for any info about what their records were when it came to their predictions (believe me, there are a lot of sites. There were 2.19 million hits on Google when you type in "groundhog day"). Couldn't find anything (maybe someone could direct me to a site if they come across one). Based on the weather this year, I'm thinking something's wrong. We make such a fuss about the whole Groundhog Day event (they even made a movie about it with Bill Murray -- is it just me or was their little difference in looks between him and the groundhog during parts of the film). I think we should hold these "professionals" accountable for their predictions. We do the same for the Weatherpeople on our TV stations....wait a second....here's a thought...The local Weatherperson will post a POP (probability of precipitation), right? Why don't the Weatherhogs post a CRAP (correctness (at) realizing all prognastications)! Yes. We can track their predictions, have Weatherpeople correctly identify when the weather definitely turns to spring and see just how correct the weatherhogs are. These can then be reported and we can truly see which Weatherhog is truly the best at predicting the coming of spring.....or is there a conspiracy of silence...hmmm...In any event, at least they'll always be right. GENIUS! What's that you say? How can that be? Think about it. When a Weatherperson gives you a POP of 30%, if it rains, they're right. If it doesn't, they're right also. They didn't always give a POP. They used to come out say whether it will rain or not. Now they give you probabilities. What kind of accu-weather mumbo jumbo are they trying to feed us? I could go on, but I've digressed enough.

Let's get back to this whole thing about Phil predicting six more weeks of winter, and his Canadian neighbours predicting an early spring. What's going on here? What conspiracy is brewing? Could this be a Canadian-American rivalry to gain weather prediction supremacy? Has the softwood lumber dispute spilled over to the Weatherhogs arena? Or could there be something more insidious?

Maybe...just maybe....it's a Conservative government conspiracy to take the public's mind off of the government's performance! Hey, they got elected two weeks before Groundhog Day. Maybe they're using this to distract us from their real agenda. What if the Liberals won, you say? Well, then it would have been a distraction from THEIR patronage appointments. Think about it. One thing Canadians, all Canadians, like to grumble about is the weather. Look at all the weather porn that's out there (...can't...look...away...must see what the temperature will be tomorrow...). If there's one thing that will distract Canadians, it's talk about the weather.

Don't believe it's a conspiracy? What single subject have you talked about most since Feb 2nd? Hmmm?!?!

Wings Over The World

(photo credit: www.southbrucepeninsula.com/index.cfm?member=willie)

Canada's Quest For Olympic Gold Suffering From FOG?

2006-02-23T13:00:00.000-05:00

Yes, men's hockey fans. No Olympic gold this time for Canada. Does one win (in 2002) constitute a dynasty? I guess not. By the way, the American team didn't fare any better. They also got eliminated in the quarterfinals.

As a side note, Canada didn't do too well in the preliminary round robin either. I can understand losing to the Czechs or the Fins, but the Swiss?!?!!?!?! Not exactly known as a powerhouse in world hockey circles. What about the Americans? Latvia tied them in round robin play! It was Latvia's only point in the whole competition!

You can use all the usual sports cliches to explain this development:

"They didn't put the puck in the net."
"They didn't go on the ice and make a game of it."
"Their defence wasn't as good as their offence."
"When the game was over, it's what was on the scoreboard that mattered."
...etc ad nauseum.

A lot of fans are asking, why did this happen? Who do we blame? And how do we not let this happen again, especially since the next winter Olympics in 2010 will be on Canadian home turf in Vancouver?

There are a lot of theories and comments out there, some of which include:

1. Players were overconfident.

2. Players didn't have enough preparation time before the Olympics, with the NHL shutting down just a few days before the players went to Torino.

3. Players were suffering from jet lag.

4. Not enough young players.

5. The team was suffering from FOG: Friends of Gretzky.

Here are my answers to those comments:

1. I believe that. We kept hearing players say "wait and see" when answering questions about their lacklustre performance. Maybe the money they make from their professional salaries went to their heads. Or maybe their hands and feet weren't doing what their brains were telling them to do.

2. I agree with that. Before professionals were allowed to compete, we had national amateur teams that played together year round, in order to prepare. Throwing together a bunch a players from different teams, used to different coaches and styles, does not a team make. The best Pat Quinn could do was work on the basics. Obviously, a little too basic.

3. Jet lag? I doubt it. I can understand that being a good reason during the first few games, BUT the last game against Russia was well into the competition AND it was an afternoon (in North America) game.

4. Not enough young players? There's a good reason. A team needs the youth and vigour of young players to keep up with the speed of the Europeans. There's a lot of talk now why Crosby was not on the team. Yes, you need some veterans to bring their leadership and experience with them, but you need some young guys to do the grunt work.

5. The FOG phenomenon? That's another good reason. Just because you're in his inner circle, doesn't mean you should automatically go to the Olympics. I'm also guessing that picking Bertuzzi, with all the controversy surrounding him, contributed to a morale problem. And the whole Gretzky betting thing didn't help either.

Sooooo...what do we do for the next Olympics on home turf? No jet lag excuses. A national team? Not likely to happen, given most people's argument that NHL players are the best of the best. Is Gretzky not as good a manager as he was a player? Was 2002 just a fluke? In Canada, that would amount to heresy and you would be stoned, ...er... pucked to death by people taking slaphots at your head. But maybe, just maybe, he should expand his horizons a little.

No. Let's lay this one on Gary Bettman. Yeah, that's right, Bettman. Why? He shut down the league just a few days before the players were to go to the Olympics. Not a lot of time to practice. Not a lot of time to get over jet lag. Not a lot of time for anything. Why did he leave it to the last minute? Money! He wouldn't be able to significantly extend the season, since even without the Olympics, conceivably the final Stanley Cup game would be played well into June. That means during the Olympic shut down, no butts in the stands, and more importantly, no TV revenue.

But "Wings", there are NHL players on the other national teams that are going to the medal round. Yes, that's true. And yes, they also faced the jet lag phenomenon. But I'm guessing these teams had players working together a lot longer than the North American teams. AND the NHL players that joined them added some depth, expertise, and leadership to the teams.

Hey Bettman! You want to bring Olympic gold to North America? Shut the league down for two weeks before the Olympics start!!! Let the players get together with their coaches. Give the coaches time to assess who plays well with whom so they can make up the best lines, and give the players time to get used to their linemates' playing styles. Maybe then we can have a hockey dynasty in North America.

Wouldn't it be nice for the Canadian and American teams to bring home Olympic medals every four years? Works for me. Heck, it won't be so bad if Canada doesn't receive gold every time, as long as they mine something. The Canadian women's team was able to do it, why can't the men? Don't forget, when the Americans win gold in the Olympics, it's a "Miracle On Ice." They make a movie about it and it becomes the stuff of legends. But for Canada? It's OUR game! It's expected of us. To not win feeds our humbleness and people quietly wimper 'next time.' But to win feeds our national pride. We are all Canadians, even if for only a fleeting moment. We need that, even if it's only every four years.

Mr. Bettman, put your wallet aside and do what's right for the game in North America, nay for our collective national pride (Canadian and American). Shut the league down for two weeks before the Olympics so that the Canadian and American teams have time to prepare. Besides, the players that don't go will have a nice mid-season rest, ready to come back to the NHL schedule all fired up. If not physically, at least with a sense of pride that their team won an Olympic medal.

Watta ya say Gary? Are YOU game?

Wings Over The World

Follow up: Sid, don't be so CUPE! (Feb 21)

2006-02-23T09:10:00.000-05:00

Congratulations Sid, you've done it!

In case any of the rest of you haven't heard, a strike by CUPE members has been averted. Certainly good news for everyone. The Ontario government has pledged that the entire OMERS pension system will be reviewed within the next six years. In exchange, Mr. Ryan has pledged not to engage in an illegal strike (I won't get into why I italicized illegal, except to say that Mr. Ryan didn't think it was illegal, unless a court injunction was imposed -- right now, I'm constraining myself quite vigorously from getting into it).

Mr. Ryan, good work in backing down, without losing too much face with your membership. There was obvious dissension amongst your members, so this strike could have caused animosity, instead of solidarity. But, you were able to pull off a compromise at the last minute, so that your job will be safe (for now). Keep up with the constructive dialogue, and pianissimo with the destructive rhetoric.

Wings Over The World

Sid, don't be so CUPE!

2006-02-21T13:45:00.000-05:00

Sid Ryan, leader of CUPE, wants to take his members on strike, well, not ALL of them.

What does this mean to you? No garbage pick up. If you have kids, they will probably stay at home because the schools will close for want of janitors (who will be on strike). Snowstorm? The streets will be a mess because most of the plows will stay in the yard.

Why did I say not all CUPE members will go on strike? Because the police and firefighters are the non-vocal minority. Let me explain. All these people have one thing in common, OMERS (Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System). When they retire, they will draw a pension from this fund. A fund they all contribute towards. One of Ontario Premier's McGuinty's election promises, a promise he seems intent on keeping (don't get me started about the Ontario "Fiberals"), is that police and firefighters will receive higher pensions upon their retirement to reward them for the more dangerous jobs that they do. You have a problem with this Sid?

How you can you not accept that police officers and firefighters work in more inherently dangerous jobs than say...garbage workers. Yes, they all have vital roles to play in the operation of our society, but how often does a garbage worker go into a burning building to save a family pet? Or get shot at? I'm not trying to say that garbage workers are inconsequential, but I would say that a cop on a beat faces more dangers that can happen at the turn of a corner, on a daily basis. What about a firefighter? When he/she retires, how long do you think he/she will survive to collect his/her pension, when he/she dies early from the emphysema he/she developed from all that smoke inhalation? And how does this affect the families they leave behind?

Mr. Ryan. I'm about fariness. And I think it's fair to recognize that the police and firefighters that risk their lives on a daily basis to protect our families and property deserve a few extra dollars in their twilight years. It's not as if OMERS is broke. In fact, if it's not the biggest pension fund in Canada, it's certainly one of the top ones. As members of the fund who pay dollar for dollar more into it than those that are going on strike (because of their higher salaries in comparison), I believe police officers and firefighters deserve to reap the additonal benefit from their investments.

Sid, what is this really about? Enough grumblings from your membership that you felt you needed to take a stand? In fear of your cushy job during the next union election? Now that you put yourself into this mess, you're going to have to get out of it yourself. I have no other suggestion than to back down, because this is an untenable position to take. Sit down with the government. Come up with something that will allow you to save some face with your membership, but let the bill to increase police officer and firefighter pensions pass! It may not be the popular thing to do...but it's the right thing.

Wings Over The World

Negative Option Organ Donation

2006-02-20T13:50:00.000-05:00

That's right, you read it right, Negative Option Organ Donation!

Member of Provincial Parliament (MPP) for Ontario Peter Kormos (NDP) introduced a Private Member's Bill (a bill introduced by an an MPP outside of cabinet) to introduce negative option organ donation for the Province of Ontario.

For those of you that are unfamiliar with the concept, several years ago, companies tried introducing negative option billing to their clients. How this worked is that you would be notified that you will be automatically enrolled to receive a product or service, usually the latter, unless you respond to them in the manner they require, that you do not wish to receive the product or service. This method of marketing preyed on the ignorant and apathetic to generate additional sales. Of course, there was an outcry from the public and governments and this method of marketing has generally been dropped...or so we thought.

The introduction of this bill by Mr. Kormos is wrong for so many reasons, so lets only talk about the main one. If you want to generate a larger organ donation list, negative option is not the method by which to do it. Picture this scene:

Dr. Feelgood: I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but your son is dead.
Mrs. Religious: Can we see him?
Dr. Feelgood: You'll have to give us a few minutes. We're just finishing up on harvesting his organs.
Mr. Religious: WHAT?!!?!?
Dr. Feelgood: Yes. Our records show that your son did not opt out of organ donation, so that cleared the way for us to harvest his eyes, lungs, heart, liver, and kidneys.
(Mrs. Religious crying)
Mr. Religious: But...but...we're of a religion that doesn't allow organ donation. Can you stop this?
Dr. Feelgood: Um...it's already too late, the organs have gone off in their different directions and the recipients have been prepped for surgery. It would be quite impossible to retrieve them.
Mr. Religious: But I'm sure my son never received any notification. He was quite devout. He never would have allowed this. Do you realize that by harvesting his organs, you have condemned his soul to eternal damnation?!?!?!
Mr. Feelgood (looking sheepishly):....um...our bad.

I know this scene sounds a little ridiculous, but maybe not too farfetched. By using negative option organ donation, the government would prey on the ignorant and apathetic. Ontario has a large immigrant population and many people wouldn't be able to read the notice, let alone be able to respond to it.

The media has reported that other jurisdictions have more active organ donation programs. Spain has this negative option program going and their organ donations are way up. Well of course! If potential donors have to opt out, chances are you'll get more organs! I also heard that another jurisdiction offers $300 to organ donors to offset funeral expenses. Cash for organs? Maybe, but it's better than the negative option. The lesser of two evils, I say.

What can be done to increase organ donations to reduce the waiting lists? The current system in Ontario provides information on organ donation when you renew your licence. They ask you to check a yes box. Not too beneficial when dealing with an apathetic audience. Well, the Ministry of Transportation uses service kiosks to issue renewals, why not add a page where people have to answer the question, "Do you wish to be an organ donor?" The page would highlight what your current status is and you couldn't go onto the next step without answering the question (this could also be applied to online services). But this would address a small proportion of drivers. What about those that don't drive. How about tax forms? The question can be asked on the provincial tax sheet. This form goes to anybody that earns income (of course the recipient would have to be 18 or older to answer the question). I'm sure there are a dozen other methods, not including any financial incentives, to increasing the organ donors list. Whether it's through direct contact, or through forms for other services, or through an online presence. Negative option need not be used.

Where does that leave us? Reports in the media indicate the McGuinty government will not support the bill for negative option organ donation, therefore it will die (phew--oh the irony, considering the bill's contents). The Ministry of Health should think about how to get the message out there, instead of just relying on mailer inserts with driver's licence renewals. Of course, they should also look at reducing hospital wait times, but that's another story.

As for Mr. Kormos, you at least brought the problem in the public eye, so you get a pat on the back for that, but you did it by introducing a bill for negative option organ donation. For shame! I thought you would have been smarter to come up with a more inventive, workable solution. Apparently not. Now that you got your five minutes of "LOOK AT ME" in the news, why don't you go back to the drawing board and come up with better options. Or was this just a publicity stunt for the benefit of your constituents?

Wings Over The World

Follow Up: Take The High Ground (Feb 15th)

2006-02-17T13:30:00.000-05:00

OK. This is just getting out of hand! Read this, then come back to me.

Obviously, these people (Muslim protestors) did not read my blog entry from Feb 15th. Ok, ok. It was recent. I'll give them that. After this news report, I suggest they took a look.

Muslim clerics are calling for the head of the Danish cartoonists. Note to the potential murderer(s): you can do it for financial gain, not just in the name of religion!

Come on people! How can you advocate this?!?!?!

The Christian and Jewish religions both follow the Ten Commandments, one of which states:

"You shall not murder."
Exodus 20:13

Although I'm not familiar with other religions around the world, I expect that this is one of the tenants of any one of them. Maybe someone can post any information they might be aware of from the Qu'ran where it states that murder for religious and financial reasons is ok.

Let me just say that my encounters with Muslim people do not reflect what I'm seeing on tv. They are moderates that want for themselves and their families, the same thing most be poeple of other faiths want, whether they practice those faiths or not.

The news item for which the link I posted states that one sign of protest read, "No double standards. We want justice." How do you expect to get justice by murder and destruction of property? If you don't want a double standard, then maybe other people should be able to murder you! Give yourselves a shake! (Again, I still can't fathom the idea of burning a country in effigy)

If you want justice without a double standard, please do it in a calm, organized, civil manner. Muslim organizations should file for a court action or actions against the publishers of these cartoons to have them banned, so that a precedence is set and other cartoons are not published in the future. Murder only puts you into court and if you're thinking of escaping criminal justice by committing suicide, I would have thought that suicide sends you to hell, or at least purgatory. You can get vengeance for your brothers, but apparently you don't care if your soul is damned for the rest of eternity. If you want to look into that, I suggest you read Dante's Inferno.

Stop the rioting! Stop advocating for street justice and take it to the lawful court of the land (The World Court in The Hague would likely try the case). Stop fanning the flames of hatred. Preach discussion and understanding, especially you clerics out there. Your followers look to you for guidance. Don't misplace that guidance. Stop the rioting....

Wings Over The World

The Pride of Nova Scotia?

2006-02-17T00:30:00.000-05:00

You may have seen them. The commercials for Alexander Keith's Pale Ale where a Scotsman advocates on the behalf of the beer, in different situations. Well, the actor who plays that character has been charged with owning and disseminating child pornography. Yes, child pornography is a heinous crime, but until he gets his day in court, this crime is alleged.

This brings me to my point. Labatt, the owner of the beer brand in question, has dropped the Scotsman character and the campaign altogether, despite it being quite popular. A spokesman for Labatt stated that they did their 'due diligence' and dropped the actor/campaign. Due diligence?!!?!? What due diligence?!?!?! They dropped him the day after he was charged! Sounds to me like the company just wanted to distance themselves from him, probably because of the nature of the charges. What due diligence did they do? Did they speak with the prosecutor? Did they examine all of the evidence? Did they speak with the actor's lawyer? Did they speak with the judge that will hear the case, and if it goes to trial, did they speak with the jurors? Sounds like a railroading to me.

Don't get me wrong, child pornography IS a heinous crime. But I'll go out on a limb and say that our judicial system is based on the idea that someone is innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around...isn't it??? This reminds me of the whole Gretzky betting thing. It seemed as if journalists were wringing their hands with glee, trying to get Gretzky to admit some form of wrongdoing. Heck, he got the better part of the front page of most major newspapers. Nothing bigger happening in the world? No murder? Mayhem maybe? Before going to the Olympics, during the press conference, journalists hounded him with questions for 20 minutes about the illegal betting ring, despite the fact that he said he wouldn't answer any questions regarding it. To Gretzky's credit, he dealt with the whole affair with aplomb. Maybe it was his years of experience with the media, or maybe he truly is the nicest guy you would ever meet. A guy that wouldn't raise his voice at a rock concert. Whichever it is, today, he was vindicated by the police. Maybe now the media will leave him alone on this issue. Just goes to show that people are often judged in the court of public opinion, and Gretzky certainly has his fans to support him. The actor in the beer commercial?

When the actor gets his day in court and if it goes to trial, do you think the jury may be swayed, even if it was just a little, by the fact that Labatt gave him the boot? Doesn't sound like a fair trial to me. Give the guy his day in court. If he's found guilty, punish him accordingly. If he's innocent, Labatt has sullied his reputation and I hope the actor seeks millions in restitution from Labatt. If Labatt wanted to distance themselves from the court case, maybe they could have upheld the actor's right to a fair trial by stating that the company is suspending the campaign, until the trial's outcome. At least this gives some air of 'innocent until proven guilty.' Even doing this, they still could have quietly dropped the campaign sometime down the road. The good news is that the Alexander Keith's Pale Ale drinkers that were interviewed for the news story aren't going to switch brands. Probably more apathy, than support for the actor's right to a fair trial. But hats off to them anyway for not over reacting (just yet, anyway).

Before you judge my posting, consider this. What if YOU were in the actor's shoes? Would you want your day in court? I'm just saying.

Apparently, the pride of Nova Scotia is now the pariah. Well...the Scotsman/actor is.

Shame on you Labbatt. Shame.

(That bottle of Molson Canadian is looking good right now)

By the way, journalists get a tsk, tsk for the whole Gretzky affair.

Wings Over The World

Yes, Prime Minister. The Grass IS Greener...

2006-02-16T21:42:00.000-05:00

Yes, Prime Minister Harper, the grass IS greener on the other side of the fence.

Allow me to digress, right off the bat. Those of you that are unaware of, or haven't been following Canadian politics, here's a quick primer. Canada follows the Parliamentary system of government. Eligible Canadians vote for MPs (Members of Parliament) who sit in the House of Commons in Ottawa. An unelected Senate, whose members are appointed by the ruling government at the time of their appointment, sit until they are forced to retire when they turn 75, or resign their seat. When legislation is introduced by the government, or through a private member's bill, it is read and voted on by the elected MPs. It travels back and forth to the Senate (also known as the place of "sober" second thought) between readings for debate and acceptance. When the legislation is passed upon third reading, it goes to the Senate for approval (basically a rubber stamping) and then signed by the Govenor General for Royal ascension (another rubber stamp), becoming the law of the land. In effect, the real power lies with the governing party, and the leader of that party is the Prime Minister.

Canada currently has three main parties, with one that is up and coming. The current ruling party, elected Jan 23, 2006, is the Conservatives. Like their name, they occupy the right and right-of-centre of the political spectrum. The Liberals, in power since 1993, until they were voted out last month, are in the centre, with members occupying both the left and right sides of that. The NDP (New Democratic Party) are left of centre and claim unionized and other hard working Canadians as their power base. The up and coming (hey they got 6% of the popular vote during the last election, enough to get public funding for the party) Green Party manage their policies around environmental issues (no judgments). Of course their are a number of fringe parties, but they are inconsequential at the moment.

Now, to my point. The leader of the Conservatives is Stephen Harper. While as opposition leader, he criticized vociferously about the air of entitlement the Liberals enjoyed, including the patronage appointments. The straw that broke the camel's back was when during a crucial non-confidence vote (you'll have to find out about that yourself) that could have brought the Liberal government down, occurred about this time last year. Belinda Stronach, a duly elected Conservative member, crossed the floor and joined with the Liberals, becoming an instant member of cabinet (I could get into a whole rant about her motivations, but maybe another time). This allowed the Liberals to squeak through and win the vote. By the way, during the last election, she handily defeated the Conservative candidate in her riding, despite news reports at the time of her crossing the floor, that people in her riding were calling for her to step down so that a by-election could be held.

Now Mr. Harper, having won the election with a minority government (i.e. he requires the support of other parties to pass legislation), announced his cabinet last week. The cabinet included Mr. David Emerson of Vancouver (who was a member of the Liberal government and campaigned as a Liberal), and Mr. Michael Fortier of Montreal, who by the way, didn't even run in the election. More on that in a second.

This is directed at Stephen Harper (but everyone else can listen in). Mr. Prime Minister, how dare you act they way you did! When you were in opposition, it was easy to criticize, along with many members of your caucus, about patronage appointments and living the life of entitlement. However, you seemed to have had a bout of memory loss. How do you expect the Canadian public to trust politicians when it's actions like yours that make us just shake our heads in disgust. But you're not the only one at fault here.

Mr. Emerson. You campaigned as a Liberal. You made very specific statements regarding fighting the Conservatives during the campaign. Yet, two weeks later, you're in the Conservatives' cabinet. What a hypocrite you are. You say that you do this in the interest of serving your constituency and the people of BC. If that's the case, resign and run in a by-election as a Conservative. Get a mandate from your constituency and see if the majority are behind you. Hey, you never know. Look at what Belinda did. Stop waffling, hoping things will die down and do the right thing!

And last, but certainly not least, Mr. Fortier. Who are you kidding? You get into Mr. Harper's cabinet without running in an election, but rather by him appointing you to the Senate. WHAT?!?!?!!? You tell the public that the reason you didn't run in the election because you had a great job you didn't want leave. MAHUH?!?!!? If you didn't want to leave your cushy job, why are you now in Ottawa? You say that you will resign your seat at the next election, even though it could be yours until you're 75. Well, if this is all true, then why didn't you run in the election and play political Russian Roulette? Are you prepared to only sit in the Senate for the two years or less it takes for the Conservative government to fall? I'll believe it when I see it. Mr. Harper was wrong to be so presumptuous to appoint you to the Senate so that you can sit in his cabinet, but you definitely had a mental lapse when you accepted. At the very least you could have come up with a better reason to give the Canadian public for you to accept the appointment, if in fact there was one. The only thing that is saving your skin right now is that Mr. Emerson is taking a lot of heat from the media, which is taking focus off of you. You should get down on your hands and knees and thank your lucky stars that he's become the media's sacrificial lamb. Maybe you should buy Mr. Emerson a nice steak dinner. I hear they're cheap in the House of Commons dining room.

These final words go to Mr. Harper. Mr. Prime Minister, don't be so hasty to have a short memory when it comes to your view on patronage appointments and clean government. It hasn't been so long that people have forgotten what you said about the Liberals when they were in power. You do not have the advantage of a majority government, so you don't have the luxury of people's memories lapsing after 4 or 5 years. Be careful. Stick to your word because the Canadian public will be watching...and so will I...so will I...

Wings Over The World

Take The High Ground

2006-02-15T21:01:00.000-05:00

OK. Let's sink our teeth into something juicy to start. Let's talk about the cartoons originally published in a Danish Newspaper about the Muslim prophet Muhammad.

First, I've seen the cartoons. Overall, they can be classified as political satire. BUT WAIT! Before you start sending me comments, read the rest of this entry. Yes, they can be classified as political satire, but if what Muslims are saying is true, and I can only accept that this so because I haven't verified that statement and I will take them at their word on this, then yes they are offensive...to Muslims at the very least. My understanding of the reason that they are offensive is that any depiction of the prophet Muhammad, in any physical form, is unacceptable. I could post them, using certain media outlets' arguments for freedom of speech to justify it, but I won't for reasons that will become clear.

The story, as I understand it, is that a Danish newspaper published them last September by asking cartoonists to depict the prophet Muhammad. I assume that this was for the purpose of political satire, given current conditions and the content of the cartoons. Apparently they were protested locally, but that was it. They were recently re-published and that's when all h*** broke loose. The question I have to ask is, what is the motivation? The answer I came up with may not be the correct one, but hear me out anyway.

I think this was done to sell newspapers. Yes, there may be other reasons, racial hatred, fanning the flames of discontent, maybe just because they can (the freedom of speech argument). Why do I think that they're just trying to sell newspapers? In this age of multimedia where you can get your news from TV, radio, newspapers, magazines, and the Internet, media outlets have to fight for people's attention in order to gain readership, thus making money. Sound simplistic? Maybe.

Let's discuss the idea of the cartoons vs freedom of speech. First, let me tell you that I believe in everyone's right to free speech. However, there has to be limits. You can't yell 'FIRE' in crowded movie house, or joke about having a bomb in an airport. Of course, the law will uphold these limitations to free speech. But what about cartoons, especially when they can be classed as political satire? I don't think a cartoon depicting a priest having sex with an altar boy will go unnoticed by Christian groups, or jokes related to the holocaust will be welcomed by Jewish groups. So, if these particular Danish cartoons, where one of the cartoons depicts the prophet Muhammad having a bomb with a lit fuse in his headwear, are offensive to Muslims, let's give them that.

In laws based on the English system, matters such as this are governed by "community standards." What the community accepted 100 years ago, may not be acceptable now, or vice versa. So where does that leave us? How do we get out of this mess?

Message to the media: Stop printing these cartoons! Don't jump on the "Look at me!" bandwagon. Don't throw gasoline on the fire, fan the flames, or...(insert your own cliche here). Use your freedom of speech to discuss them. Describe them if you must, but don't print the images, since that seems to be the root of the problem. Invite people from both sides to voice their opinions, but for understanding, not inflammatory rhetoric. Editorialize, comment, bring in guest columnists or speakers. Give the viewers of your coverage the benefit of the doubt and let them make up their own minds. But give them the information without digging us deeper into this quagmire by providing a balanced report.

Message to those offended by the cartoons, particularly Muslims: Stop the riots! Demonstrate, yes. But PEACEFULLY! Show the courts that the subject of this satire is unacceptable in terms of community standards. If you feel you must, have your organizations take the publishers of the cartoons to court. Prove to them that these types of cartoons are unacceptable and can be classified as a hate crime. Don't go into the streets and throw rocks, burn effigies, and destroy property. It may make the 6 o'clock news, but it won't gain you sympathy, or correct the problem. (By the way, I didn't know you could actually burn a country in effigy, but apparently you can, because it was done.) Burning a car is good for a 5 second visual on the news, but it won't stop people from publishing or passing around the cartoons. In fact, it may encourage them.

Both sides need to step back and take a breather. Let's work through this. Let's sit down and talk rationally about this. I was happy to see that the leader of a Muslim group was interviewed on CTV Newsnet the other day and allowed to voice his opinion of moderation. I'm not sure I agreed with everything he said, but I applaud his quest for discussion and resolution. I also applaud CTV for giving him the opportunity and engaging in responsible journalism. Let's see more of this.

Let's all take the high ground and get through this. Now is not the time for posturing, but for discussion and understanding.

Wings Over The World

Watching Over The World

2006-02-15T13:14:00.000-05:00

Finally decided to start a blog. Why? So much going on in the World that I feel I need to respond to the World.

My intent is to post thoughts regarding what's happening in the world, but I just may throw in other things for a little fun. Because some of my thoughts may be controversial, I've decided to select the moderating tool. Rest assure that if you submit valid comments, I will allow them to be posted. Cursive or vindictive posts are what I'm trying to avoid. So if you want to discuss something in a rational manner, do not hesitate.

Let The Games Begin!

Wings Over The World