IT'S NOT AN ENTITLEMENT

I have a question. How is it legal that the Federal Conservatives can use taxpayer’s money to send me election ads?
It’s not an election but every 3 weeks or so everyone in my building, presumably everyone in the riding of Mississauga South, gets a mailer from an Albertan MP promoting an aspect of the Conservative agenda. These aren’t from their campaigns despite how they look. Apparently they come courtesy of something called “CRG-Government Caucus Services” in Ottawa.

What bothers me is the postal budget for each MPs office isn’t an entitlement. It’s for the MP to use to communicate with their constituents, or to promote important legislation (mostly private member bills) in other marginal ridings. I’ve received more than 25 of these since the Conservatives formed Government.

Like any sane person I find the regular abuse of this budget both improper and unconscionable during these times of deficits and recession. I also find the use of Parliamentary budgets to fuel this constant state of electioneering that Mr Harper seems to be in rather annoying. Most of my building does so you have to wonder how this is helping them.

Oh, and what matter is so important that Alberta MP Rob Anders felt justified wasting his ridings postal budget on it? The Tax-Free Savings Accounts the Conservatives set up so unemployed Ontarians can save money.

If they spent as much energy creating the jobs we need that might actually help us. In the meantime someone needs to tell the Alberta MPs the optics of using taxpayer money to mail out election ads isn’t good and they should stop.

AN UNAVOIDABLE COMPARISON

Despite common perception there were many experts out there who for years had been warning of the crisis. 

Most of the warnings were ignored because too many of the people who made the decisions were comfortable or helped to remain in power by those who needed the status quo.  And because power needs support there was an inherent symbiosis that grew more difficult to break as time passed. 

Vision, backbone and resolve were needed.  People who had the foresight to see what was coming and would risk everything to do what was right.  But in an age where what was right was too easily attacked by those envious of power, and where those who’d lose the most had the best resources to shout down any suggestion of reform, shouts that would cost all but the most charismatic critical support, well, there simply weren’t enough visionaries alive to make it happen.

Restrictions that were hard to enforce, and even tougher for adhere to, needed to be made a hundred times more rigid if disaster was to be avoided, but each attempt to put these reforms in place were hard fought by those who wanted the status quo to remain as it was, because who in charge wants to risk what they know for the unknown?  Sustainable the buzzword, as if an ever growing bubble was possible forever.

And even as the end neared and those who were “with” quickly became those who were “without”, few wanted to admit there was a problem with the system.  Fewer would admit the whole system needed to be scrapped in favour of a new way.

Not that it mattered.  By the time any attempt was made to stabilize things things had progressed so far that the act was simply putting off the inevitable.  The very foundation of how things were run needed to be rethought, broken down to its core, and rebuilt with a new model in mind.    

The collapse had already begun and what would’ve cost too much to avoid was costing a hundred times more just to stabilize.  Changing that, restarting from the ground up, that meant dismantling everything, it meant rebuilding, an no one could even conceive how that could happen.  That is until the system collapsed and those left behind had no choice but to start over, creating a new system in the vacuum caused by the loss of the old.

 

Now you might think what you just read is about the current economic crisis, or the looming ecological threat.  It’s actually about Russian Communism.  A system that many spent billions trying to prop up but wasn’t workable, particularly as a competitive system, and rather than early reform, a controlled transition to what the smartest in that land knew was inevitable (and many ended up in Siberia for saying) they tried to keep the system going, until it completely collapsed.  The Chinese Communists have tried to manage the same transition, but their model as well is based on an unrealistic growth model.  It too will collapse, only hopefully without creating a void that crime and the mob will rush into.

And yes, when one takes the lessons of history and applies them elsewhere, you can’t fail to see the comparative to today’s economic crisis.  Some smart observers have already said we’re in a post-consumerist society, but you wouldn’t know that from those in charge.  The power people among us are spending trillions in an attempt to stabilize things so they can return to normal while failing to realize or admit that what was ‘normal’ was a fantasy based on risky investments and the free flow of cash that didn’t exist.

And the same is true with the environment.  There are still too many who have too much say in what happens who continue to marginalize people like Al Gore.  The power continues to argue that the cost of change is too high, that the trends of the last 40 years are coincidence, that the signs are inconclusive, or that we need to continue as we are because we can’t afford to change.

Well, perhaps if the reforms had been put in the 1970’s when the first signs of planet-wide manmade environmental toxicity were first noticed we could’ve reformed our current model into something sustainable without needing a complete overhaul.  But we didn’t because those in charge were getting rich, or propped up by those who were getting rich because it was too cheap to pollute. 

And now, countries like Holland are spending Billions to prepare their shores for a rise in the oceans because they don’t believe enough will be done to avoid that; while the rest of us, 10% of which live in coastal flood zones, are blithely continuing to pollute as though we’re not somehow approaching an ecological version of what happened to our economy.

Of course, when the inevitable occurs there’ll be many who shake their heads in shock.  Who will wonder how come we didn’t see this coming? 

The irony would be delicious if it didn’t threaten half the planet.

BIZARRO WORLD HARPER

I’ve come to the conclusion that Prime Minister Stephen Harper is from bizarro world. That’s the Superman realm where everything is backward!

Fixed election dates, aren't. Accountability isn't. Transparency involves the most secretive government in Canadian history. Environmental protection means removing the protection at the first opportunity to get the economy going, which isn't going because they're not doing anything to help main street.

Everything this man says is exactly opposite of reality. So Canada despite his claims the economy is NOT good, things are NOT rosy and Canadians are NOT ready for the new passport rules.

See? He's easy to translate when you know how.

WILL THE REAL STEPHEN HARPER PLEASE SHUT UP!

During the height of the last Federal Election in Canada; Stephen Harper the Strategist broke his own rule about fixed election dates so he could run against Dion before the man quit or was driven from Leadership of the Liberals (in part because of attacks that Stephen Harper the Candidate had initiated).

He was hoping that Stephen Harper the Leader could get a majority government before the economic meltdown struck and on October 12, 2008, Stephen Harper the Candidate said, “If you don't want a carbon tax and a deficit and recession, the only way to ensure that is the case is to vote for the Conservative party."

Well, the various Harpers got their wish and thank God because although we got the deficit and recession Stephen Harper the Candidate will at least protect us from that awful forwarding thinking, new economy carbon tax!

Of course, almost immediately after the election, the one where Stephen Harper the Leader failed to get his majority despite nearly destroying the Liberals, Stephen Harper the Economist presented his government’s answer to the crisis, a statement that was nothing more than another partisan snipe at the opposition (apparently it was still Stephen Harper the Candidate in control).

And that move quickly resulted in the Opposition coming together and demanding a non-confidence vote with the idea that even a coalition government tactically supported by the Bloq was better than another week of Stephen Harper the Lunatic.

And so, being the “steady hand at the economic wheel of Canada” Stephen Harper the Strategist immediately shut down parliament so Canadians could stew through 8 weeks of economic uncertainly as the markets collapsed, and Canadian business staggered without direction from the government.

But that’s because Stephen Harper the Policymaker’s philosophy on government is pretty simple, whatever America does Canada must conform its policy to compliment because we’re incapable of charting our own course. And with a change going on south of us he couldn’t come up with any ideas until he knew what direction his American masters were going to take.

Apparently though Stephen Harper the Policymaker didn’t remember that we didn’t follow American fiscal policy while Chretien was in charge, which rankled Stephen Harper the Reform Party member at the time. And even though our nation bucked the international trend of over capitalizing their debts by getting our economic house in order and paying ours down while enforcing regulations upon our banks the fact remains that Stephen Harper the Reform party member ranted against the “stifling economic climate of Canada, a defeatist nation afraid to take risks.”

Fast forward to today, where Stephen Harper the Leader is basking in the international adulation as leader of a country that got it right fiscally in the 90’s.

One would think such a person might realize their earlier take was wrong, certainly a smart leader would say “A good idea is a good idea no matter where it came from and so I’m going to be the guy who finds the good ideas and uses them.” But apparently that would be too Barrack Obama-ish for Stephen Harper the Leader.

Which is why, on Thursday, March 12, 2009, behind doors at the Manning Centre for Building Democracy, a conservative think-tank run by former Reform Party leader Preston Manning, our fearless leader ditched the sunny disposition of Stephen Harper the Economic Cheerleader that he’d used a few nights earlier for his “rah-rah-Canada” speech to rip into Conservative ideas, libertarian thinking and specifically the opposition in a way that had even the most ardent of Conservative supporters shaking their heads in confusion.

In fact, Mike Brock, a Conservative blogger who attended the conference, called the speech bewildering. A sentiment shared by most of the people there. But that’s because Reform members aren’t real conservatives.

In 2003, after years of dual memberships designed to engineer a reverse takeover of the Conservative banner, members of the Reform Party (which by that point had renamed themselves the “Conservative Canadian Alliance Reform Party” or cCRAP) finally got the leader of the Progressive Conservatives, Peter “Two-Face” McKay, to agree to a vote on merger of the two parties. There would be local votes, riding by riding, that would select delegates to attend a national vote where the issue would be decided.

As per the PC constitution the magic number needed was 66%, but even with all those Reform members holding PC cards the real number was still only just over 51% Canada wide (although some ridings had as much as 70% support).

The trick put in was this: Ridings would gather and vote but each delegate had to get at least 51% support to be selected. As many ridings had more than 51% pro-merger members the fix was in and for many ridings 100% of their delegates supported the merger. When they finally gathered it came off like a love in.

Since 2003 some disaffected Tories, True Tories as they call themselves, formed a new PC Party even though they were legally barred from using the word Conservative in their title and had to replace it with Canadian. Others limped over to the Liberal camp where they became refugees, a few stuck with the new Conservative party but because the executive of the party is nearly 100% Reform most became political orphans.

Add to this the executive of the party is also the most dictatorial. Refusing to seat local candidates voted by individual ridings because there are a few too many Progressives out there. Instead the executive frequently overrides the democratic wishes of those local assemblies in favour of people the national executive thinks have a better chance of winning.

All this, of course, has been done to ensure the new Conservatives (or neo-cons as some have labelled them) get a majority government in parliament.

Which they can't seem to do.

After four tries now with Stephen Harper the Leader at the helm, one of which was against the effectively demonized Dion, Harper remains a marginal leader in a minority government. And no one in the party seems to have realized he's the weak link holding them back.

But the pressure is getting to the old boy. He’s starting to rant incoherently. He’s shaking hands with Obama one minute while basking in the after glow and presence of someone who is actually popular, and the next week he’s ranting about the mistakes Obama is making.

And you've gotta know you’re coming off the rails when someone like Michel Kelly Gagnon of the Montreal Economic Institute comes away from your presentation saying “If you want to vote for a centrist party, you can vote for the Liberal Party of Canada. They're very good at that.”

Although usually Harper doesn't flip-flop this quickly unless a poll has been taken but maybe what little control he’s had over these personalities is wilting under the intense pressure of being consistently wrong. Oh well, as Poppa always says, "Once a Reform member, always a Reform member."

But as I read the National Papers reporting of Harper’s post-election meltdown I canb't help but think they're being generous by implying there are only TWO FACES to Stephen Harper. They need to go back and watch tapes from various speeches and comments over the last ten years and then maybe they'll see the TEN distinct personalities flashing in front of them like a zoetrope. The man is worse than Sybil and that isn't good for Conservatism or Canada.

NOT A FLIP-FLOP, A WINDSOCK

I was living in Calgary when Reform got their first MP and saw as the party rose to dominance, but as a Conservative I couldn't understand how people would fall for their rhetoric, as indeed that's all it ever was.

Every "Reform" they spouted sounded good but was unworkable in the real world so it was obvious to me that a Reform government would get elected by promising things that were popular but then break those promises as they discovered their reforms were unworkable or put them at risk.

Sure enough, 20 years later, the Reform party is the de facto Government of Canada.  And sure enough they've gone back on nearly everything they've ever promised.  I won't bother listing them, this forum doesn't have enough space for all of it.  Go to standupforcanada.ca if you want 50 examples.

The point is a leader doesn't change according to the direction the winds of polls and focus groups dictate.  A leader has a vision and taps their own inner reserves to communicate that vision to the electorate so they can make that vision reality.

Obama says what he does because he believes it.  Harper's tune changes so often because he's saying what he thinks we want to hear.  Harper is not leader.

The only people who believe in Harper are sitting in his choir, they would vote for him regardless of what he says because they hate the alternatives more.

But the vast majority of Canadians aren't in the choir and when the opposition realizes all they need to do to nail Harper is show ads with his own words contradicting himself from one speech to the next they'll have him.

Mr. Harper isn't a flip-flop, he's a wind sock.

Prevention VS Correction

I was hoping to make this a short one today but then I got typing…

I just read the following on AP:

Associated Press

March 10, 2009 at 10:16 AM EDT

COPENHAGEN — Top climate scientists meeting in Copenhagen say sea levels could rise twice as much as previously projected.

They added that low-lying coastal areas housing one-tenth of the world's population would be flooded unless greenhouse gas emissions are curbed substantially.

A 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted a sea level rise of 18 to 58 centimetres by the end of the century. But experts at a three-day conference said that sea-level rise could exceed one metre and is unlikely to be less than 50 centimetres.

The conclusions of the conference will be presented to politicians meeting in December to discuss a new global agreement on emissions.

Uh, yeah… All I can think of this: “How much would it have cost the US economy to have regulated the financial system so that recent meltdown didn’t occur?”

It’s not like there weren’t people in the industry warning people at the top about it, we’ve been seeing one after another appear on shows like 60 Minutes since October 08 (and people like Niall Ferguson and recent Canadian MP Garth Turner even wrote books about the coming financial crisis years ago). So what would it have cost the US taxpayer and the US economy to have put those regulations and such in place BEFORE there was a problem?

I’m going to be generous here and say it would’ve been a virtual figure of around $100 Billion. Now that sounds like a lot and just running around during the hey day of the wealth boom screaming “Do this and you’ll cost us a hundred Billion dollars in lost revenue!” probably would’ve been enough to keep any Bill passing into Law, certainly with the robber barons of the Bush/Chenney White House in charge.

But the cost of doing nothing until its too late is already at $3 Trillion Dollars, which is just for America, and there’s no guarantee it’ll work or get the economy moving again. The final bill could be $10 Trillion because really, you know some of what they're trying isn’t going to work because no one has ever had to kick start an economy so badly broken as the current US/World economy.

And that brings me to my point. Liberal leader Stephane Dion was soundly rejected in the last Federal election. Now admittedly a lot of it was self-inflicted because let’s face it the guy was at best a substitute teacher and at worse a weenie. But the issue the Harperites focused on the most was the Green Shift/Carbon Tax. As though shifting our economy toward something that punished polluters was going to cost the Canadian taxpayer $100 Billion.

Meanwhile we’ve just had a winter, from coast to coast, that has been filled with inconsistencies and brutal reminders of the power of mother nature. And anyone tracking weather trends lately will tell you that we’ve had more and more unstable weather. Unstable weather doesn’t just ruin our day, or screw up our vacation plans, it also makes agriculture really hard. Shorter growing seasons affect yields. Planning for normal patterns and growing wheat but getting weather better suited to strawberries when that’s not what you have in the ground is very bad for us.

And it’s not just Canada. The whole world is facing a growing food crisis.

Then there’s the coastlines. Interesting other bit of intel I can share with you is that last year Denmark earmarked 160+ Billion dollars to raise up their shoreline. That’s the country that has reclaimed countless hectares of land from the sea by building dikes and because they’ve realized the big polluters aren’t going to reform quickly enough they’re taking steps NOW to ensure that the looming disaster of rising tides is something they can deal with.

But Denmark only has 7,500 kilometres of shoreline. Canada has some 243,000 kilometers of coastline! And more than 10 percent of our population is living in coastal areas. Areas that could find themselves under a meter of water! Which doesn’t seem like much until you step out of bed one morning and get a soaker AND YOU’RE FIVE KILOMETERS FROM THE COAST!

And I recall at least twice in the last five years now that the Red River in Manitoba has flooded. Big time flooding. I mean, they’ve had systems in place for years to deal with the flooding and those were overwhelmed!

So I can’t help link the two thoughts and ask you this. When we’re paying triple for food because the farmers can’t get yields, or when we’ve got to rescue and relocate nearly 3 million refugee Canadians from the coast won’t the 100 Billion dollars the fear mongers/anti-environmentalists warned us about seem like a hell of a deal?