Egypt's Non-Revolution

By staging a coup the military in Egypt crushed any hope of a democratic Egypt, a democratic Middle East.

There are many commentators in the West, both professional and amateur, who have put forth the opinion that the coup was necessary.  Their argument goes something like this.  Mr. Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood, although they won a reasonably free and fair election, were not pursuing a democratic agenda.  Indeed, their actions were leading to a dictatorship and that Mr. Morsi would make certain that the election that made him president would be the last election Egypt would ever have.  Some even trotted out the old chestnut that Hitler was elected in free elections and we all know how that turned out.

This would have been a legitimate concern if Mr. Morsi had come to power after an actual revolution in Egypt.  However, no revolution took place.  A revolution always results in the old political order being destroyed to be replaced by a new political order.  That is, the old ruling class loses all or most of its political power and the power vacuum that creates is filled by a new ruling class.  That did not happen in Egypt.  The mass peaceful uprising of 2012 did not result in the replacement of the old and current Egyptian ruling class.  It did convince them that a change had to be made so they threw Hosni Mubarak and his son under a bus and held free elections to actually prevent a real revolution and to preserve themselves as the ruling elite in Egypt, not to have themselves replaced. 

They were successful.  We only need to see how the coup unfolded to see that.  In most revolutions the old ruling class tends to make one final attempt, a last gasp, to hang onto power but it always fails miserably and often spectacularly.  That did not happen in Egypt.  When the military moved they were so successful that the removal of Mr. Morsi and the installation of a new government was seamless.  It was only the aftermath that become messy.  The old ruling class still held all of the important levers of power and when they decided to use them Mr. Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood were helpless to stop them.

So the argument that Mr. Morsi was setting himself up as a new dictator is flat wrong.  He never had that power and he would never have achieved the power necessary to do it.  He could have nibbled around the edges but the fundamental power structure of Egypt would not have changed.  Any attempt by him to prevent further elections would have been thwarted if he would have tried.

Oh yes, Hitler did win free elections in 1933.  However, the Germany of the 1930s was what was left over after a revolution that swept the old guard of the Kaiser and his ministers from political power and replaced it with not much.  There was a virtual power vacuum in that country when Hitler won his election so there was no state apparatus to prevent him from seizing absolute power a few years later.  There is no parallel between Germany in the 1930s and Egypt in 2013 so any comparison of them is specious.

It is true that Mr. Morsi was pursuing an agenda that was not very liberal or democratic but as the duly elected president of the country that was his right.  Just because many disagreed with it does not justify his forcible removal.  If that was a valid criteria for forcibly removing a duly elected government there would be no democracy on the planet let alone Egypt. 

Unfortunately for Mr. Morsi he was very inept at pursuing his agenda because he managed to alienate every ally that the Muslim Brotherhood had gained over the years in its struggle against the current ruling elite.  It is a tragic irony that if the Egyptian ruling class would have let things progress as they were progressing Mr. Morsi would have probably lost his job to an internal Muslim Brotherhood revolt as many in that party would have realized just what kind of damage he was doing to their political movement.  Democracy might have been preserved.  But then again, the current ruling elite in Egypt has much less interest in preserving democracy in that country than that which Mr. Morsi is accused of so they moved to crush it when the opportunity presented itself.

That is all a moot point now.  The Muslim Brotherhood feels that it has been betrayed.  Not just by the ruling class of Egypt but by the democrats and Coptic Christians that allied with them to bring down Hosni Mubarak.  They probably feel that those groups were more than happy to piggy back on the organizational strength of their movement but then quickly abandoned them when the military moved to replace them in government.

And there in lies the real tragedy of all of this.  Those that would bring democracy to Egypt are not of sufficient number and organization to do it themselves.  They need a partner.  The only other two sectors of Egyptian society with sufficient muscle they can partner with are the current ruling class or the Muslim Brotherhood.  Now neither will have any incentive to work with them.  The ruling class because they have no interest in changing a system that grants them great privilege and the Muslim Brotherhood because they will believe the liberal democrats cannot be trusted.

Indeed, in all likelihood the Muslim Brotherhood will probably resort of increased violence, not just against the rulers of Egypt but against those they believe betrayed them, which is going to force the liberal democrats into the sphere of the ruling class just to find protection from the Muslim Brotherhood. 

We are already seeing this.  If anybody really believes that the attacks on the Coptic Churches are just about religion they are mistaken.  That is one reason but the main reason is probably vengeance at the perceived betrayal by them of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The dream of a democratic Egypt is dead and it takes the dream of democracy spreading through the Arab world with it.  The fate of the Morsi government will not be lost on other Islamists in the broader Middle East so they will continue to try to gain power by other means.

It would only be fair

When it was alleged that an aide to Dalton McGuinty had deleted e-mails regarding the gas plant decision Conservative commentators howled and continue to howl in outrage over the allegations.  You would think that Mr. McGuinty had been revealed to be a reptilian kitten eater or something.

So can we now expect the same outrage from these Conservative commentators now that it has been alleged that Senator Wallin changed hundreds of entries regarding her travel schedule in her Outlook account during the audit of her travel expenses? 

Both could be construed as attempts to cover up wrong doing. 

My question is rhetorical of course.  I already know the answer. 

Full disclosure.  I do not believe that either Mr. McGuinty's aide or the Senator intentionally attempted to hide anything.  Their actions were not taken for some nefarious reason.  In all likelihood they probably did not really think that much about their actions at all.  I have read the explanations from the two of them and in both cases they are logical.  In the case of the McGuinty aide, he was out of a job so it made sense to clean out your e-mail before leaving your office.  I have had to do that on a number of occasions myself.  As for the Senator, cleaning up your schedule to facilitate an audit, seemingly at the request of the auditor and after being told that the original full schedule had been backed up and delivered to the auditor, seems reasonable. 

Some mid-summer thoughts

It has been a busy summer and blogging has been down on my list of priorities but I have been paying attention and I thought I would comment on some of the things that have been going on the past few months.

Ontario by-elections:  The reading of the entrails from last night has begun and the instant conclusions of the chattering class is falling along ideological/partisan lines a usual.  I am always amused at the attempt to read something bigger into by-elections than what is really there.  Cutting through all of the spin the political situation in Ontario has not changed.  The Liberals are the governing party, with a minority government, the PCs are the Official Opposition and the NDP are still the third party.  Beyond that, the rest is just spin.

The next Ontario General Election:  Will be lost by the Liberals.  Voter fatigue with them has just reach a level where it will take a miracle for them to win again.  This was true before the by-elections and it is still true.  The next premier of Ontario will be Mr. Hudak.  Ms. Horvath is popular but her party is not.  The Orange Wave that swept Quebec did not carry over into Ontario.  There are still enough centre and centre-right Ontarians who remember the Bob Rae government and who will pick whichever of the Liberals or the PCs they believe will prevent an NDP government if that threat materializes.  People say that Mr. Hudak is too unpopular to win an election but they said the same thing about Mr. Harper.  So the only question is whether Mr. Hudak wins a majority or a minority.  If progressives want to guarantee it is a minority they should begin hammering at his promise to pass "Right-to-Work" legislation.  The idea of adopting failed Republican policies in this province would probably not go down very well in many parts of the province and it may just hold Mr. Hudak to a minority.

Mr. Trudeau and Pot:  Agree or disagree with his position but the fact he took one on a controversial issue instead of obfuscating and generally trying to avoid saying anything is quite refreshing.  It has been a long time since I saw any politician take a clear stand on such a charged issue.

Eastern Pipeline:  All I can say is it is about freaking time!  There are countless pipelines heading south out of Alberta.  So much so that there is a glut of Alberta oil in the US driving down the price being paid for Alberta oil way below market value.  Meanwhile, us folks in the East are pumping gasoline that originated overseas into our gas tanks.  Or, perversely, importing gasoline that has been refined in the United States that started out as Alberta oil.  It is the height of stupidity that we export raw crude to the US only to import the refined fuels that are produced from those exports.  If this Eastern pipeline will allow us to process more of Canada's energy resources in Canada then let's do it, after a thorough and fair environmental impact assessment of course.

Egypt:  The ruling class of Egypt must be very grateful that Mr. Morsi was such an incompetent boob while in government.  He gave them the excuse they were looking for to reestablish control without too great of a political backlash.  I believed nothing would change in that country and sadly I was right.

The US snooping scandal:  The naiveté of Americans to be surprised that their government was snooping on them is astounding.  Really did they believe after the Patriot Act and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security that there would not be greater surveillance of American society?  The other consideration is the American people probably do not have any concept of just how much data is being produced out there now.  It is not called Big Data for nothing.  There is no way that all of that data can be examined by human eyes.  It is being examined and reexamined by computers and an extremely small percentage of it is making it to a computer monitor of a human being.  So no American has to worry about "Big Brother" finding out about their elicit affair with their administrative assistant or their plan to defraud their company investors.  The computers are not programmed to spit that kind of activity out to a human analyst.

Federal Cabinet Shuffle:  Yawn.  The most interesting part of that was the widely held view amongst the paid political punditry that the Cabinet Shuffle would be an opportunity for Stephen Harper to change the tone of his government.  Not hardly!  Mr. Harper has realized great success by being a prick and he is not going to change a winning formula just because a scandal and the political honeymoon of one of his political opponents have driven his polling numbers down, especially when it happens smack in the middle of a four year majority mandate.  He will continue to be a prick. He will begin 2015 by donning a sweater vest and showing off his so far unknown dancing skills and he will relentlessly attack his opponents. Meanwhile Mr. Flaherty will pull the same stunt he pulled in Ontario and misplace the Federal government deficit in 2015.  Mr. Harper will do all of this and hope that it can overcome the voter fatigue that is setting in towards his government and which should be well entrenched by the next election.     

The Myth of Free Trade

There is no such thing as free trade.  Real free trade would be the free flow of goods within and across borders with restrictions that only deal with health and safety. 

Instead what we get is what is known as managed trade where countries negotiate what goods can cross their borders.  In other words, countries negotiate deals that codify protectionism and then trumpet to those who have to live with the consequences that they achieved a great deal.

Although free trade proponents will claim that free trade agreements are good for the economies of the signing countries the empirical evidence to back that up is rather lacking.  However, the evidence that such deals can do harm to sectors of an economy or even the whole economy of a signatory is more compelling.  We only need to look at the hollowing out of the industrial capacity of North America to see that at work.

This line of thought came up because I read earlier this week that the Harper government has ordered its negotiators for the Canada-EU free trade talks to have a deal this month.  These talks have been stumbling along for months without a conclusion being close but now Mr. Harper would like to a deal in three weeks.

The reason for this, according to several commentators that I have read, is Mr. Harper is desperate to find something to change the channel on the Senate Expense Scandal.

If this is true I cannot think of anything more at odds with the interests of Canadians.  You have to wonder just what parts of the Canadian economy Canadian negotiators are selling out in order to provide Mr. Harper a way out of the mess created by his Senate appointees. 

Free Trade deals are usually not worth the paper they are written on but this next one presented by our government, I am certain with great fanfare, will require a greater than usual level of scrutiny than other deals of this nature.

Conservative Scandals

For political junkies like myself it has been fun to watch the scandals unfolding in Toronto and Ottawa in the past few weeks.

The Ford scandal has been surreal.  Who would have ever thought that a politician in Canada would get involved in a drug scandal?

The Senate scandal is much more mundane.  That just involves ordinary money and really not that much of it either.  It is true that when they get around to investigating the expense claims of Senator Wallin the amounts will be more substantial but considering I can fly Air Canada to Orlando for around $400 return but it will cost me almost $900 return to fly to Halifax her expense claims could very well be plausible.

Although I have tried I cannot get really worked up over these scandals.  I find them interesting case studies in political crisis management but on a more personal level my reaction has been "Meh".

The Ford scandal does not concern me because it is occurring in Toronto.  It does not effect me here in Ottawa.  I know some Torontonians like to think their city is the centre of the world but.... This is something the people of Toronto will have to figure out on their own.

The Senate scandal does not concern me that much either because the kind of behavior that caused it is part of the human condition.  People have been using their positions for personal gain ever since we, as a species, began to form civilizations.  This kind of behavior cuts across partisan lines.  It is a function of having power.

Of course, that does not mean that the partisan in me is not enjoying watching Stephen Harper and his government twisting in the wind over this.

So will these scandals have any political impacts?

In Toronto who knows.  This is the same city where a sizable number of its citizens have been supporting a hockey team despite nearly half-a-century of futility.  There is no telling how the people of Toronto will finally react to the Ford scandal.

As for the Senate scandal it can be stated that it is absolutely having an impact on the Conservatives.  Despite their relative insignificance in the grand scheme of things these kinds of scandals are the ones that convince non-partisan voters, who supported the governing party in the last election or two, to rethink that support.  These are the types of scandals that begin convincing those voters that it is time to change the government.  Combine that with the fact the Conservatives have been in power for seven years, usually a time when voter fatigue with governments begin to solidify, and you have a recipe for electoral disaster for the Conservatives.

Not that it is guaranteed that they are doomed.  There is nothing to prevent these non-partisan voters from deciding in two years to stick with the Conservatives.  There are too many variables to consider.  However, Conservatives do have to be concerned about the scandal.  It has the potential to become a tipping point and if that happens the Conservatives will likely lose the next election.

The Air Cadet Gliding Program

I fly gliders as a hobby.  I learned how to do so 30 years ago by attending the Gliding Scholarship Course offered by the Air Cadets.  That course is part of the Air Cadet Gliding Program, a program that has been awarding glider licences to about 300 kids a year for about 50 years.

Many of these kids then participate in the Spring and Fall programs of the ACGP to build time and nurture their passion for flying.  Many like me will devote years to the program during these seasons (30 years for me) taking young Air Cadets up in the air to introduce them to gliding and to encourage them to attend the Glider Scholarship Course when they reach their 16th birthday.

You may recall Rick Mercer did a segment on this in the Fall when he visited a gliding centre in Alberta. 

Did I mention that all of this is free of charge for the kids?

I mention this because on the weekend it was revealed that the military is considering cutting this wonderful program as a cost cutting exercise and I seek anybody's assistance to convince them that such action would be a colossal mistake.  Many of us who are either still participating in the program or who participated in it in the past have started a Facebook Page to save the program and it has grown to over 11,000 members since Saturday but we still need to find other ways to put pressure on the military and its political masters to realize the program is extremely valuable.  It only costs around $25 million dollars a year to run, which is a rounding error in an $18 billion dollar defence budget.

We have made a good start as Peter Mackey has received questions two days running about this issue during QP but that is just the beginning.  We need to launch a sustained effort to stop this decision if we are to be successful.

Many Canadians have benefited from it and Canada has as well.  Countless airline and military pilots discovered and nurtured their passion for flying in Air Cadet Gliders.  Many Snowbird pilots, the pilot who landed the 767 in Gimli Manitoba when it ran out of fuel a few years ago, Chris Hadfield and even Peter Mackay's wife have benefited from this program.  In short its cost is a pittance in the grand scheme of the Defence budget but its value is incalculable. 

I would urge anyone who cares about saving a youth program that has been a resounding success for half-a-century to take whatever steps you think would be appropriate to help us save it.

The Liberal Ads

No one likes a prick.

And from a political standpoint the Conservatives have been just that.  For years they have made politics personal.  In any other environment if Stephen Harper would have orchestrated the negative, personal campaigns against colleagues that he did against Mr. Dion and Mr. Ignatieff he would have been in trouble.  He would have faced consequences at his job, he would have faced legal consequences and he might even have had to use his body to cash all of the cheques his mouth wrote.

However, politics is not the real world.  While it seemed counter-intuitive that these negative, personal attacks would be effective they were and the reason for that was the targets of these campaigns never effectively responded to them.  Both Mr. Dion and Mr. Ignatieff waited weeks and months before responding to Conservative attacks on them and with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight that was perceived as weakness, which is a killer in politics.

I do not know of anyone who voted for the Conservatives because they liked them or Mr. Harper.  But they voted for them anyway.  The reason is evident.  In politics being seen as a prick is better than being seen as weak.

Unfortunately, that has a built in trap.  If very few people actually like you it does come back to bite you on the ass eventually.

That is the reason why I find the Liberal English ad rather clever.  The first few seconds of the ad reminds the viewer of why they do not like the Conservatives.  They are pricks.  Then the ad tries to demonstrate that Mr. Trudeau is much more likeable or to put it another way, he is not a prick.

It is an interesting strategy and I would think a good one at this stage of the game.  If, in the next few months, they can keep reminding Canadians of why they do not like the Conservatives in general and Mr. Harper in particular while showing Mr. Trudeau as being a likeable and affable kind of guy they could go a long way towards making the next election very interesting and competitive.

Only the fullness of time will tell us how effective the Liberal ads are but they are a rather clever opening salvo.

Justin Trudeau and Negative Advertizing

When Pierre Trudeau died Canadians waited in their 10s of thousands, for 3 to 4 hours at a time, for their chance to pay their respects during his time of lying in state.  I was one of them.  I decided to wait until closer to the end of the week thinking that the crowds would have thinned by then but I was wrong.  I still waited over three hours for my opportunity to stand for a few seconds before his flag draped coffin and pay my respects.

I mention this as it demonstrates that the Trudeau name is respected and to a certain extent revered, particularly amongst the 45+ set, who happen to be the one demographic that still votes regularly. 

With this in mind and the fact Justin Trudeau seems to be quite popular amongst the under 30 crowd I do not believe that the Conservatives negative ad campaign will have much of an impact in the short to medium term.  Most of those over 45 will probably give him the benefit of the doubt because of his name and those under 30 who already support him will not change their minds because of two or three Conservative ads. 

What Liberals have to worry about with regard to these ads is they could set up an "I told you so" moment in the future if Mr. Trudeau stumbles badly and/or often going forward. 

As well, Liberals are dreaming if they expect that these ads will cause a backlash against the Conservatives.  This is the Conservative MO.  Canadians are probably not going to react with a wave of revulsion or anger because they have seen it all before.  Instead we will probably see a collective shrug from Canadians.

Not that Conservatives can take too much solace from that.  It is inevitable that Canadians will turn on the Conservatives at some point.  It happens to every government and they will be no different.  When that happens the usual reaction is to "go negative".  Unfortunately, Canadians will be less likely to hear that message because they would have been hearing it since the Conservatives came to power and would dismiss it as more of the same.  Indeed, at some point such advertising could just fuel a "throw the bums out" sentiment as it reminds Canadians of one of the reasons they finally turned on the Conservatives.

If Justin Trudeau can keep his feet under him in the coming months these ads will be forgotten.  If not then the true impact of them will be felt long after they have gone off the air.

Falling to Second World Status

My last post was lamenting the decline of the Middle Class in the industrialized west, particularly within the old G7 states, which includes Canada.  I mentioned that such a situation existed because governments and corportations within those states made a conscious decision to reverse the policies and practices that lead to one of the greatest economic expansions in history and one the greatest expansions of the Middle Class in history.  I further stated that the reason for that economic expansion was the rise of the Middle Class and the decision to reverse it has great impliciations for the industrialized west.

This is particularly true since while the G7 countries have been allowing their middle classes to decline all of the emerging economies are taking steps to build theirs up.  It should come as no surprise that such countries as China, India, Brazil, and Mexico are seeing their economies grow and prosper.  They are essentially following in the footsteps that the G7 set down in the 30 years after the end of the Second World War.  They are pursuing policies that are allowing their citizens to take full advantage of the economic booms these countries are enjoying and that in turn is continuing to fuel those booms.

The result is the emerging economies and the economies of the G7 are heading in different directions and the gap between them is closing very fast.

This should be a concern to the ruling classes of the G7.  With economic power comes political power and it is only a matter of time before the newly dominent economies will begin using that power, probably to the detriment of the political interests of the old guard.  Once that power shift is complete alot of things will change in many place, such as, the Middle East, Korea, Africa, South and Latin America.  And no telling how things will change in such areas as trade, nuclear proliferation and climate change politics.

The business classes of the G7 should be very worried as well.  The world industrial capacity is shifting to the emerging economies and history has demonstrated that he who holds the advantage in industrial capacity holds the power to control the financial and economic levers of the world.  It remains to be seen if these new powers will be as liberal and as enlightened as the old guard was when it found itself in control of the global economy.

As I stated in my previous post corporations in the G7 are now dependant on the emerging economies for their business health.  The middle classes of the G7 countries have declined so much that they can no longer sustain those corporations on their own. 

That is a very precarious situation to be in because the emerging economies are building industries that are in direct competition to Western corporations.  For example both China and India are in the process of developing their own auto industries and Brazil has a civilian aerospace industry to rival that of any G7 country.  It is only a matter of time before these industries begin squeezing out the foreign industries in these countries, particularly since the new political power these countries are beginning to enjoy will insulate them from any backlash to policies that protect these domestic industries in their countries.  Once that happens the foreign markets that have been sustaining Western corporations will disappear and without domestic markets to take up the slack, that will be that.

During the Cold War we all heard about Second World countries.  These were wealthy countries that just were not on the same level as the G7.  The thing holding them back was a lack of a middle class.  They were countries that had very wealthy ruling elites, while their broader populations were poor, often desperately so.  As well, the key thing about all of these countries is they were powerless within the international economy.  They were wholly dependent on the good will of the First World for maintaining their status as wealthy countries.  If it were not for the liberal trade and economic policies pursued by the First World these Second World countries would have fallen to Third World status.

That is the direction the G7 countries are headed.  It is only a matter of time before they become the Second World countries if current trends continue.  We are already seeing the characteristics of that status manifest itself in these countries.  Wealth being more and more concentrated in a very small percentage of the population while more and more "ordinary people" slip into genteel destitution.  What industrial capacity that remains in these countries are now dependent on the economic decisions of countries where they do not have an effective voice so they are dependent on the goodwill of those countries to sustain that capacity.  The politics in these countries has become less about working for the greater good and more about keeping your "base" happy and motivated.

It is the shortsightedness of the current ruling classes in the G7 that have brought us to this point.  It has put us on a path that will lead to all but the very few and the very priviledged being much poorer and much more desperate.  The trend will not be reversed before it actually happens because too many people believe that it cannot happen to them until it actually does or worse they suffer under the delusion that they will be one of the lucky few so they keep agreeing with those that are destroying the middle class.

Eventually, people will wake up and realize what is happening but by then it will be too late.  At that point even if the ruling elites were willing to risk their wealth and priviledges they would be powerless to change the situation until the new economic powers begin their inevitable decline, which would probably not happen before the end of this century.

The Decline of the Middle Class

The Middle Class built the West.  They are the reason why the G7 nations were able to get to the top of the economic pecking order and stay there.

Certainly after the end of the Second World War the Western World had to spend like crazy to rebuild.  It was almost inevitable that there would be an economic boom following the war while the rebuilding took place.  However, that building boom pretty much petered out by the end of the 1940s but instead of the Western economies sinking back to pre-war levels they continued to boom for decades afterwards and eventually the West amassed wealth that has been unprecedented in history.

This happened because in the 30 years following the end of the war the West did not only rebuild the infrastructure shattered by the war they also built the middle class.  Western governments went on a spending binge to assist ordinary citizens in their countries to take full personal advantage of the growing Western economies and corporations, either by necessity or by choice, compensated ordinary workers very well.  Indeed, for most of the middle of the last century a single income families was the norm and the economy grew at a healthy rate despite it.

The reason is simple of course.  With so many people making good wages and receiving assistance from their governments they had extra money to spend, on new homes, new cars, new consumer products, and that fueled the manufactuing boom that followed the immediate post war building boom, which further fueled the economic boom in a 30 year virtuous circle. 

All of this happened because governments were willing to spend money to support the middle class and corporations were willing to pay ordinary people sufficient wages for them to be able to buy their products.

All of that began to change in the 1980s.  With the backing of corporations Western political leaders began to rethink the idea of assisting ordinary people to navigate through the western economies and corporations began to be less generous with their compensation to ordinary people.  The reason why the corporations did this is because of the opening of markets overseas which reduced the need to them to depend on domestic markets to generate wealth.  The politicians did it largely because of ideology.

Fast forward to today and we see a middle class that is in sharp decline.  Most of those who can still claim to be part of that class are only able to do so because they are two income households that are maxed out on credit.  Most of them are one economic crisis, whether it be local, national or internations, away from economic disaster and a "demotion" out of the middle class.  Indeed, the US experience has demonstrated that one international economic crisis was enough to boot a significant portion of people out of the middle class, with very few prospects of climbing back up to that level.  That trend shows no sign of abating in the western economies.

The impacts of this should not be lost on us.  It is no accident that the Western economies are largely in decline.  It is no accident that what is left of the manufacturing base in the West needs to exploit the emerging markets in Asia in order to stay afloat.  Business decisions of Western corporations and political decisions of Western governments have greatly reduced the ability of domestic consumption to sustain Western corporations.

This is not sustainable for the Western economies in its own right but the emergence of China, India and Brazil as key economic players in the international economy could very well have a very profound impact on Western economies and on the West's status as the preeminate economic powers in the world.

I will discuss that in a later post.

Tragic Irony

Reports are that the gunman responsible for the school shooting in Connecticut yesterday used guns that were registered to his mother.

It is probably a reasonable assumption that one of the reasons why she had these guns was for protection.  That is what really stands out for me in this whole affair.  The guns she may have acquired for protection failed to protect her.  Indeed they were used against her.

Tragically ironic to be certain but wholely predictable.

The Liberals did not blow the Calgary Centre By-election

Three reasons why they did not.

1)  The by-election was in Calgary Centre, in Alberta.

2)  The by-election was in Calgary Centre, in Alberta.

3)  The by-election was in Calgary Centre, in Alberta.

Any Liberal who really believed that the Liberals could really take that seat from the Conservatives is truly delusional.  I would point out that at no time during the by-election was there any indications that the Liberals were leading in the riding.  There were indications that they were close, much closer than the Conservatives felt comfortable with I am certain, but they never closed the gap completely.

Of course, this does not stop many Liberals from wingeing and crying about how they blew it.  It is pathetic really.

The Liberal Party needs to renew itself to become relevant in Canadian federal politics again, that is a fact.  However, just as important, they need to regain the old confidence that they used to have.  There have been times, in the not too distant past, when the house was burning down around the Liberals and they would still exude a confidence, bordering on arrogance and that contributed to them escaping the problem(s) unscathed or bouncing back from them quickly.  Canadians might say they dislike arrogance in their politicians but the most successful ones in our history have had a healthy dose of it because quite frankly Canadians trust a leader and a party with a certain swagger over ones lacking that trait or perceived to be lacking that trait.  If anybody really believes that Pierre Trudeau, Brian Mulroney, Jean Chretien and Stephen Harper enjoyed the success they did because people liked them and thought they were paragons of humility they are nuts.

I stated this before but I will state it again.  Liberals, stop buying what your opponents and the media are selling.  You have to stop validating the crap spewing from them.  None of your opponents are doing so why are you?  Stop validating the narrative against you change the narrative. 

Wingeing and crying after a loss of a by-election that the Liberals never really had a chance of winning is not the way Liberals are going to demonstrate to Canadians that they have the confidence necessary to run this country.

"The left-wing wanted me out."

Wow, hubris and paranoia all wrapped up in one nice little package.

It is astounding who people vote for these days.

They wouldn't be that stupid again would they?

I have been watching things unfold between the Ontario government and the public sector unions of Ontario and it is reminding me of 1994/95.

It was during this time that these unions hammered the government of Bob Rae over his efforts to reduce government spending.  You see he was imposing policies that resulted in public servants and other workers in the public sector losing some of their income due to forced days off and other measures.  We all remember the so called "Rae Days".  A lot of bad blood rose between the two of them and it is certain that it contributed to the trouncing Mr. Rae took in the subsequent election and the election of Mike Harris to a majority Tory government in Ontario in 1995.

By no means was that the only reason why Mr. Rae lost but the desertion of many of these votes from Mr. Rae caused a split in the non-Tory vote and it allowed Mr. Harris to come up the middle.

Of course the rest is history.  Instead of howling about forced days off the public sector unions could only watch in helpless frustration as Mr. Harris took the route all right-wing governments take and laid off public sector workers by the thousands.

Could history be repeating itself?  Could the public sector unions be so focused on the short-term that they are forgetting history?

Maybe they believe that they can do this because the Ontario NDP will win the next election.  If that is the case the leadership of Ontario public sector unions are idiots.

I would be willing to bet a sizable chunk of money that the NDP will not even get a sniff of power in the next Ontario election.  The reasons are many.  First, they are in third place in the Ontario Parliament.  It is exceedingly rare for the third place party to win an election.  Second, there is widespread perception in this province that the NDP cannot be trusted with power because of the cock-up of Bob Rae.  I do not agree with that perception but my disagreement and a toonie will buy a coffee at Timmie's.  Third, many Dippers saw the results of the Federal election and got all misty eyed over what Jack Layton did and they believe Ms. Horvath could do the same thing.  The problem with that is Ms. Horvath is not Jack Layton and even if she was I would also remind Dippers that Jack Layton did not win anything.  All he succeeded in doing is taking his party to Official Opposition status against a majority government, probably the most frustrating place to be in our political system.  Just ask the Reform Party and the Canadian Alliance if you do not believe that.

During the next election the two parties most likely to form the government in Ontario are the Liberals and the Tories.  The question for public sector unions is which one would they prefer?  I can understand that neither option is particularly palatable and I agree with them that the Liberals are out of line imposing these policies in the high handed fashion that they are imposing them.  However, the Liberals are not laying anybody off.  If Tim Hudak becomes Premier of Ontario, he and the Tea Party wannabes in the Tory Party will follow in the footsteps of Mike Harris.

Does the leadership of the various public sector unions not see this reality?  Did the experience of the mid-90s not teach them a fine lesson?

My gut says no to both questions.  Like all politicians the leadership of these unions are not looking past the immediate concerns to the big picture.  They will probably continue to sow resentment to the Liberal government amongst their memberships so that when the next Ontario election rolls around the members of these unions will split their votes and allow Tim Hudak to win a probable majority government.

It is unfuriating that the unions have to take the treatment that the Ontario Liberals are visiting upon them.  It is also infuriating that there really is no viable, electable alternative to the Hudak Tories and the Randy Hillers of Ontario because I happen to believe that the Liberals could use a rest from government.  It's galling but it is what it is.  So, the public sector unions better realize that if they want to maintain the jobs of their members they had better work to prevent the election of a Tory government and the odds state that the only party able to do that in Ontario at this moment is the governing Liberals much to their and my chagrin. 

Lance Armstrong

After an extensive investigation and a great deal of time the USADA finally released its findings regarding allegations that Mr. Armstrong had cheated to win his seven straight Tour de France titles.  The report containing those findings was damning and it paints a very grim picture of cheating and deceit by Mr. Armstrong and the cycling teams he was a part of during those years.

Mr. Armstrong, his representatives and his supporters have all condemned the report as inaccurate and they rightly point out that he has never failed a drug test.  They have a point but the findings of the report were partially derived from sworn affidavits by individuals that were involved in the doping activities described in the report, individuals that specifically name Mr. Armstrong as a willing participant in these activities.

In all likelyhood their are some inaccuracies in the report because eye witness testimony can be wrong but the shear amount of witness testimony, from almost a dozen different people, makes it probable that at least some of the report is accurate and if even a small percentage of it is accurate it does not look good on Mr. Armstrong.

What is also working against Mr. Armstrong is the lack of an explanation of how he could have dominated a sport for over half a decade during a period of time which is widely known and documented as being a time of widespread doping activities by virtually all of the elite athletes in the sport.   This by no means proves he is guilty but it does raise questions which have not been reasonably answered yet.

Many of Mr. Armstrong's supporters have claimed that the USADA has been involved in a vendetta against him.  However, what is missing from such an argument is a motivation for undertaking such vendetta.  Again, there has been no reasonable explanation of why a government organization would go through the time, effort and money to "frame" Mr. Armstrong for the wrongdoing outlined in the report. 

Many of his supporters also point out that his cancer foundation has raised a great deal of money for cancer research so the rest does not matter.  There is no denying the good that he has done for cancer research and the success of his foundation.  However, to state that it makes the allegations against him irrelevent smacks of an "ends justifies the means" argument.

So what will this do to his legacy?  That remains to be seen.  Some will support him no matter what.  Others will condemn him no matter what.  Some that did not have an opinion one way or another will probably join those who condemn him but there are those who did not have an opinion before who will probably not have one now.  Only the fullness of time will tell us what impact the report will have on his legacy.

As for his personal reputation I would say it has been permanently damaged.  Although him and his supporters will always be able to point to his good works the USADA report will always be there casting a shadow over him and his work.

The Mayans are Right

I read a news story today where it was predicted that there would be a bacon shortage in 2013.

If that is not a sign of the end of the world I do not know what is.

Uninspiring

For several decades the electorate of Quebec could be roughly divided into thirty percent ardent seperatists, thirty percent ardent federalists and a mushy middle of about forty percent that are proud to be Quebecers but who are much more pragmatic when it comes to the question of being a seperatist or a federalist.

That means both the PQ and the PLQ have a base of roughly thirty percent and every election these two parties fight to win at least a plurality of the mushy middle.

What was interesting about the election results from last night is both PQ and the PLQ hung onto their bases but were completely incapable of convincing those in the middle to vote for them in significant enough numbers to give either one the decisive victory they were both looking for.  Interestingly, it was the CAQ that won the plurality of the middle but being the only party in the election without a discernable base it was not enough to unseat the other major parties as either the government of the opposition in Quebec.

The PQ won last night but there should be some concern about their inability to inspire enough of the middle to push them over the top to majority government.  As well, they should be very concerned with the fact that they did not even come close to the voting totals for the "Yes" side in 1980 let alone in 1995.  The PQ government will be working hard to try to remedy that in the coming months but they have a long way to go and they may be hampered by their minority government situation, although that is not a given as their chief opposition is leaderless and will be focused on internal PLQ politics for the next few months and the other big opposition party is new to the Quebec National Assembly and may take some time to get its bearings.

The PLQ should be very concerned.  Their base stuck to them not because they were happy with them but because they were afraid of the PQ.  Otherwise they were even less able to convince those outside of their base to support them.  That will probably not change in the foreseeable future so they could be in for a long time wandering the political wilderness and they will have to look over their shoulder at the CAQ.

The CAQ might have an opportunity.  I will admit that I did not follow the campaign as closely as I could have but I followed it enough to realize that they are a pragmatic party when it comes to the notion of separation.  They tend to better reflect the mushy middle in Quebec politics which is the largest segment of the Quebec electorate.  The fact that they were able to come from zero to almost three dozen seats in one election is something that is liable to keep party strategists from both the PQ and PLQ up nights.  If they can consolidate that advancement into the middle into a political base and convince enough anglophone federalists that they can be trusted not to seek separation in the future they could replace the PLQ as the Official Opposition and maybe even win government.  Their position in the National Assembly gives them that opportunity but it also puts them into the glare of a spotlight which might cause them to suffer the same fate as the ADQ, particularly as they try to navigate a minority parliament.

The total inability of either of the two established parties in Quebec to inspire enough people outside of their bases to vote for them is a cause for concern for both of them.  It is too early to assert that the results from last night is a portent of change in Quebec politics but both established parties should assume that could very well be a possibility and develop strategies with that in mind going forward. 

I do not know who is more foolish

It really is a toss-up.  Who is more foolish, the NHL owners or the NHL players?

Last year the league raked in $3.3 billion, which is more than the GDP of a significant number of countries around the world.  Yet the owners and the players would derail this gravy train, for the second time in less than a decade, because they cannot come up with a way to share that amount.

You would think that with revenues being that high they would realize that there is more than enough to go around and that everybody could come away being very wealthy.  True some would be wealthier than others but really everybody concerned would make more money than the average fan in their lifetime.

The owners first offer was outrageous.  As an opening gambit in a negotiation asking the players to take a 24% pay cut while ignoring ways the owners could assist some of their poorer brethren was hopelessly unreasonable.  I understand that opening gambits are supposed to be somewhat unreasonable but this one was unreasonable in the extreme.  I also realize that some of the teams in the league are having financial difficulty but alot of that could be resolved by pulling some of these teams out of non-traditional hockey markets and putting teams into places where profitable teams would be virtually guaranteed. 

The players first offer was clever as it gave the appearance of being conciliatory but it really was a outright rejection of the owners offer and their point of view.  I understand that the players want to keep the gains they have achieved in the last seven years but it is hard to feel any sympathy for them when the most untalented hack, whose only function on a team is to end the career of the stars on opposing teams, can earn a minimum salary of over a half a million dollars. (And if they are successful in their function enough times they get raises to over a million per year.)

If I were a betting man I would bet a fair chunk of money on the NHL season not starting on schedule in October and considering the two main negotiators are Gary Bettman and Donald Fehr I would bet that hockey fans will be denied an entire NHL season. 

What I would not bet on however is that either of the two sides suffering any consequences for their actions.  I imagine that fans will flock back and pay the outrageous sums for tickets, concessions and merchandise whenever NHL hockey restarts regardless of what happens in the next few months.

So I guess I should make an addendum to my opening question.  Who is more foolish, the NHL owners, the NHL players or NHL fans?

Legitimate Rape?

Really!!?

So what is illegitimate rape?  If a women gets pregnant as a result of rape does that mean she really wanted to have sex with the guy?

The truly frightening thing about this wingnut is he is already an elected representative which means a plurality if not a majority of the people he represents actually agree with him.

The sickness of American society

The world has yet again borne witness to a senseless mass shooting in the United States.  I have lost count of how many times I have read about and seen them in the media in the 40 or so years I have been alive.

The usual suspects in the United States are coming out of the wood work to decry this tragedy and to pin it on a single individual.  "This is just the act of one disturbed individual," they say.  "Increased gun control would not solve this problem," they say.  "If someone in the crowd would have had a gun themselves the death toll would have been much lower because they could have taken the guy down," they say, as if real life is like a Hollywood action movie.

To a certain extent I am beginning to agree with these people.  I believe most countries in the West have experienced this kind of tragedy at least once in the last quarter century but they seem to happen more frequently and with greater regularity in the United States.

The question is why?  Is it because of the ease with which it is possible to obtain firearms?  That would be the easy answer but all Western countries allow their citizens to own guns.  Certainly, they control them much more than the US but if someone like the suspect in this shooting wanted to obtain a gun they could do it.  Unfortunately, people with the intent to kill do not have a big sign on their forehead indicating as much when they go through whatever process they need to go through to obtain a firearm.

I believe there is a much deeper cause for the carnage we see on a regular basis in the United States.  As a society it is in a state of decay and when a society decays like that it produces the likes of yesterday's gunman.  It produces people who become alienated from that society and that alienation engenders a sense of isolation, an isolation that if allowed to grow and fester leads to a deep anger that will eventually need an outlet.

It is true that if guns in the United States were strictly controlled these individuals would still find a way of obtaining them and perpetrating these acts.  You only need to read and watch the news coverage from yesterday to see that this guy was rather methodical and patient in planning and implementing this act so a thing like gun control would not have prevented this tragedy.

Then again, when a society is in such a state of decay as the US it is folly to allow firearms to be so readily available, particularly firearms that have been designed with the single purpose of efficiently killing large numbers of other human beings like the ones uses yesterday.  Strict gun control would not prevent all of these tragedies but it would prevent many of them and it would probably reduce the death toll for those that were not prevented.  Gun control would also prevent many more of the more mundane actions that lead to the thousands of gun deaths in the US, the ones that happen every day as a matter of routine and do not make the international news.

However, Americans are not interested in that.  They have indicated many times by their actions that they consider yesterday's tragedy and the ongoing tragedy of thousands of guns deaths a year in the US as acceptable losses to maintain their "freedom".  Yes they will make all the right noises about how senseless and how tragic these shootings are but that has not prevented gun control from becoming the "third rail" in American politics. 

Most Americans do not see the deep decay in their society so there is no hope of the root cause of yesterday's tragedy being addressed and they also will not consider gun control as a way to reduce the carnage resulting from gun violence in their country.  So, we and they can continue to expect these mass shootings to happen again and again and I believe that deep down they are OK with that.