Stephen Harper's Three Card Monty

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

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?)

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?

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)

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!

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

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)

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?

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...

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

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

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