What can the Liberals talk about this week.
What are the Conservatives talking about:
I was recently surprised. I personally know three people who are against taking the COVID-19 vaccine and against vaccine mandates.
The first guy did not surprise me. He hates Justin Trudeau so it was inevitable that having his government urge Canadians to take the vaccine would elicit a desire to defy such advice. This guy might catch the virus and kill himself, his wife and/or his two teenaged daughters but in his mind he is owning Justin Trudeau and the Liberals so it is worth it.
The second person surprised me a bit but then again I do not know him well. We met a few times before the pandemic hit and he seemed reasonable. It turns out I am wrong. He has bought into the QAnon conspiracy about the vaccines completely. I guess he is just smarter than the rest of us, or at least he believe he is.
The third person surprised me completely. I have known this person for over 20 years. They are educated, intelligent and well traveled. If anybody would have told me at the beginning of the pandemic that this person would be against the vaccine I would have said "No way". However, this person truly believes that the risk of death from the vaccine is higher than the risk of death from contracting COVID. They are wrong of course and all of the data demonstrates that but there is no reasoning with this person.
This has lead me to question the reason why there has been resistance to vaccines and for those who resist hold a very ardent position against them. There really is no reasoning with them.
Part of it is politics but except for the first person I mentioned none of these three are overly political. And even with the first person his politics only extends to hating Justin Trudeau and the Liberals. There is nothing else to his politics.
One guess is the nature of the COVID virus is a big part of the reason why so many people are against taking the vaccine. It really is not that scary. Although the virus is easily contracted only 10% of people who contract it become seriously ill, meaning they need hospitalization, and only 3% of people die from it. That is extremely low for a virus. It is significantly higher for influenza and all of us are familiar with it so COVID is not that big of a concern. In short, may antivaxxers firmly believe that if they contract the virus they will be fine.
I would imagine things would be different if COVID was scarier. Imagine if it had been discovered early on that men, who contracted the virus and even showed mild systems, had a 50/50 chance of suffering permanent and irreversible erectile dysfunction. I am certain that would have profoundly changed the dynamic of the last two years. Men may risk death but they will not risk Willy.
Then again, if the virus would have been a little more dangerous things would also be different. Say the virus makes 50% of the people who contract it seriously ill and it kills 10%. Further all of those who survive the virus are hideously scarred and at least half of those are also crippled and/or blinded. Of course, I just described Small Pox, which was eradicated because everybody was REQUIRED to receive a Small Pox vaccine without exception. At the time no one protested because Small Pox was and is a very scary virus.
That does not describe COVID so the antivaxxers can avoid receiving the vaccine and they have a high probability that they will not suffer serious consequences for their stupidity. Not as high as those of us who are fully vaccinated but still worth the risk in their minds.
Of course, viruses mutate. COVID could mutate itself out of existence or it could mutate itself into something much more dangerous and the longer this pandemic goes on the greater the odds of either outcome. It could go either way but just imagine a virus with the illness and death rates of Small Pox and the ease of transmission of COVID. A truly scary prospect and if it comes to pass those antivaxxers will probably change their tune but it would be much too late for many of them.
First of all I do not own any Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency and I have never owned any. So, I have no personal stake in them. I do however strive to find the truth in any situation and what I have been hearing about cryptocurrencies, from people who should know better, has left me scratching my head.
As I stated in a previous post, cryptocurrencies are a commodity, created out of the virtual world that has grown out of our increasingly integrated civilization. An integration that has been facilitated by information technology and the growing quantity of data being produced by us on a daily basis.
Like all commodities it is going through a down period, a so called Bear market. That is not unique to cryptocurrencies and it is not a surprise. The reaction to it on the other hand is something of a surprise. In 2008 the price of oil hit the $180/barrel mark and stayed above $150/barrel for quite some time. It became conventional wisdom that it would stay there for over a decade it not longer. Instead, it collapsed to below $100/ barrel just before COVID-19 hit us in 2020, which promptly caused it to collapse to less than $50/barrel. At the time, you may recall, there were tankers full of the stuff that could not be unloaded because no one wanted it. At no time during that period did anybody state that the oil commodities market was a scam, as a result of the price collapse. There are those who believe it is a scam for other reasons but that is another story.
Yes, cryptocurrencies are not something you can touch, smell and feel, like oil, but neither is data. Like data, cryptocurrencies have an intangible quality to them but that does not take away from the reality of their existence. Remember, cryptocurrency is to data, what oil is to physical material.
So, cryptocurrency and the commodity markets that go along with it will remain. As with other commodities markets a sharp downturn into Bear market territory will clear out of the casual and amateur traders, leaving it to the professionals. Many of them will see the decrease in prices as an opportunity to buy so that they can reap the profits when the market goes up again, which always happens in commodity markets.
Crypto is not a scam, a scheme or a con. It is a virtual commodity traded on a commodity market. Like all other commodities markets the crypto market is subject to Bull and Bear markets and when they happen it is just the normal course of business.
One constant activity of our ruling class is their efforts to manipulate and/or distract those that they rule. It is constant and it is necessary because they have been screwing it up so badly for the last 30 or so years that ordinary people are noticing. Ruling classes screw things up for those they rule all of the time. It is the state of nature but usually they do not screw it up so badly those they screw notice. That is no longer the case hence the more determined efforts to manipulate and/or distract.
This line of thought was created by the kerfuffle that rose up a few days ago when it was revealed that a Global Affairs official had attended a garden party at the Russian Embassy. There is a perfectly valid reason why they would do that and we will get to that in a minute.
However, the reason why it became an issue has nothing to do with Russia or its war with Ukraine. If you seriously believe our ruling class really cares about either of these issues then you are lacking in critical thinking skills, aka, you are an idiot. The professionals at Global Affairs Canada care but that is because it is their job.
The real reason why this became an issue is because one of the major factions of our ruling class is going through a really tough time right now.
The hearings in Washington are laying bare just how far reaching the sedition went on January 6, 2021 and some of that is spilling over into Canada where we had our own January 6 moment, which dominated the news for three weeks in February of this year. I am not convinced the public inquiry into invoking the Emergencies Act will be as harmful to the Conservative Party of Canada as many progressives hope but the possibility is certainly there and they are acting like they know that fact.
The erstwhile front runner for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada is proving himself, almost on a daily basis, to be wholly unqualified for the position of being the leader of a political party, let alone the leader of a government, yet it looks like no one can catch him which may make winning the next election very difficult for the Conservatives.
Despite their best efforts, with the full throated support of the media, the Conservatives have been completely ineffective in even making Justin Trudeau sweat, let alone actually threatening his government. The Liberal government gets longer in the tooth daily but it is the Conservatives who are becoming unhinged these days.
Hence the distraction of a garden party. THE HORROR.
Of course, it might not matter in the long-run and the Conservatives could still come out on top because ordinary people have proven that they are easily manipulated by the ruling class again, and again and again but it must still be disconcerting to see just how ineffective they have been in the last few months.
As for the garden party. The issue that the world has is with the Putin government not Russia or its people. Eventually the Putin era will come to an end, either because someone will remove him or mother nature will demand he be "returned to the soil" as all of us are expected to do at some point. Once that happens things will probably change. Russia has a history of leaders who turn away from the West only to be replaced by a successor who turns back to the West. Mr. Putin is just another in a long line of Russian leaders who have maintained this historical pattern. When that change happens, relations with the Government of Russia could change as well. Having one of the professionals from Global Affairs attending the garden party is designed to keep the lines of communications open for when the change takes place. It was completely justifiable and appropriate.
Neither does the political news that bombards us on a daily basis or social media.
I called the 2022 Ontario election in 2018. I knew then that Doug Ford would win, probably winning another majority. I was correct although I was mistaken about which party would become the Official Opposition.
The simple fact is all of the political minutiae that we are hammered with by the MSM and social media only registers with those of us who are politically inclined. For the rest nada. So, all of the stuff progressives have been talking about with regard to Doug Ford was just wind in a progressive echo chamber. The same is true with regard to the BS we have been hearing from conservatives regarding Justin Trudeau and his government. The vast majority of people who do not live and breath politics on a daily basis do not care.
Ordinary, non-political, people sleepwalk through political life. They do not pay attention during elections so it is a given they do not pay attention between them. That is one reason why I always chuckle when some political commentator states "Voters are not paying attention to the election yet" early in a campaign. I got news for you. They only paid attention for the few minutes it took them to get to the polling station and vote, if they even bothered to do that. The rest of the time it was all just noise to be ignored.
Some are blaming the media for this but this has been true for a very long time, including a time when the MSM actually did the job it was designed for. So, although it would make some feel better, the MSM cannot be blamed for this, which still does not excuse the modern MSM for their utter uselessness at informing their audiences of what is really going on in the world.
So what we are left with are historical voting patterns, something I have talked about at length in this blog. I wondered if a global pandemic would disrupt that pattern for just one election but considering two world wars failed to do so it should surprise no one that the pattern held this time.
Ordinary people, in all of the legacy democracies, have been sleepwalking through history, ignoring the old adage that the cost of freedom is eternal vigilance. It is one reason why I tend to be pessimistic about the future.
It is also something I recognized way back in 2006 when I started this blog, which is why I chose the quote from Plato that appears at the top of it.
We know this because the so called richest country on the planet has a nationwide baby formula shortage. And it is not just a small shortage it is the kind of shortage where the USAF has to go to foreign countries and load pallets of the stuff on USAF transports. Remarkable.
Remember 2nd World countries are not necessarily poor countries. They are countries that can be quite wealthy but that wealth is so concentrated in the hands of a small and powerful elite that ordinary people actually live in poverty comparable to 3rd World countries. A country that finds it difficult to adequately feed their infants falls into that category.
One other aspect of 2nd World countries is they tend to be authoritarian. The US has not gone all the way there yet but it is certainly moving in that direction.
For now, Americans can still claim they live in a 1st World country but that is changing and recent events would seem to indicate that change is accelerating.
My guess, at this time, is the Ontario Conservatives of Doug Ford will win the election on June 2. The only question is whether it will be a majority government or a minority government.
If were still not living through a global pandemic, that has disrupted out lives for the past two years, I would say the Conservatives were a lock to win another majority. It would be a smaller majority and the Liberals would leap into second place, but it would still be a majority. The reason is historical voting patterns. It is very rare for a first term majority government to not be returned with a second, smaller majority, and it is almost unheard of for a first term majority government to lose their second election.
Of course, most of that history did not occur with a global pandemic as a backdrop. The pandemic has changed politics in this country but it is a question of by how much. Did it change it enough to overcome a century old voting pattern? We will see.
Although there are obvious exceptions, as a species we humans are very stupid. I would point out that the distribution of intelligence amongst humans looks like a bell curve so half of the people fall below the median intelligence. I would also point out that the median is really not that high either, so even those whose intelligence is above it are not overly intelligent either.
This thought was triggered by the recent election in France. France and indeed all of Europe was convulsed by a war that cost 10s of millions of lives and virtually destroyed all of the physical infrastructure of the continent because of fascism in it many forms. France itself had half of its territory brutally occupied by a foreign country while the other half was ruled by a puppet regime that was only allowed to exist because they had the same ideology as the occupying power and it took orders from that power. Millions of French citizens risked summary execution by resisting the occupation and the puppet.
So you would think after all of that they would run away from any political party that had even a hint of fascist tendencies. Nope. The last election in France had an openly fascist political party come in second during the general election and it was competitive during the runoff.
I would understand that if all of the negative outcomes happened hundreds of years ago. The French might forget about most of them but that is not the case. Yes, the generation that had to live through it are mostly gone but it was recent enough that the generations that came after should have a clear idea of what fascism did to their country. I believe they do but they do not care because....
I do not know how to finish that sentence except to say "that they are not that bright". And they are not unique in this. It has become more and more apparent that this is a problem of the species and not just a given group or collective of it.
Considering the existential threats that we will be facing in the next few decades I have to say that I am more and more inclined to believe this will be our fate instead of the alternative.
With Pierre Poilievre hocking cryptocurrencies as part of his campaign for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada people have increasingly been trashing them. They have largely described them as some kind of scam and they are mistaken.
Cryptocurrencies are a logical extension of the the current technical revolution that we are going through. Remember before the Industrial Revolution and the resulting need for more and more energy to make it work petroleum was a useless substance. Hell, even coal, which has been used since antiquity, was not that big of a deal. For centuries, the only coal that was mined was the stuff that was near the surface. If you had to put in any more effort than that to get to it the cost was too prohibitive. It was only after the invention of the steam engine that coal and petroleum products became the important commodities that they have become.
Since the current technical revolution is essentially a virtual revolution, as its main commodity is data, it stands to reason that some of the commodities that would feed that revolution would also be virtual and cryptocurrencies are exactly that, a virtual commodity.
A market for commodities always develop when they become important and one forming for cryptocurrencies should surprise no one. As with all commodity markets the prices fluctuate according to market forces, leading to volatility.
Incidentally, it should be noted that most national currencies have become virtual as well. There was a time when we used to exchange actual specie, bills and coins, for goods and services. Now we use bank cards. With a few key strokes some electrons move between computers and servers and money magically moves from one account to another but no real money is actually exchanged. It is a virtual transaction. So the difference between say Bitcoin and the Canadian Dollar is much less than people think and those differences are being reduced quickly.
So the problem with Mr. Poilievre's proposal is not cryptocurrencies it is his gross misunderstanding of them.
Although there are a few exceptions most commodities are not suitable to be used for facilitating the exchange of goods and services, which is the function of money. No one would suggest that I buy my next car using wheat, coal, or pork bellies. There was a time when gold or silver might have been appropriate but those times ended when we invented paper money.
The same is true of cryptocurrencies. Since they are a currency they can be likened to gold and silver but like those two commodities they are not practical for the everyday use of buying and selling goods and services and it will remain that way as long as there are national currencies. If countries ever get out of the business of "printing" their own currency, cryptocurrencies could fill the gap. But since that is not going to happen cryptocurrencies will just remain another commodity, to be bought and sold in a commodities market.
Mr. Poilievre is an idiot for suggesting otherwise but the problem lies with him not the cryptocurrencies.
So the media in our country is all a flutter about the crowds that Pierre Poilievre is attracting during this run for the Conservative leadership. They breathlessly assert that this could be a sign that the Conservatives could win the next election. Hell, even some Progressive media commentators, who I find usually have level heads, are giving dire warnings about their significance.
While it is always wise never to underestimate your political opponents and it is also true that if the current Federal government lasts until 2025 (it probably won't) the Liberals will have been in power for a decade, which could lead to a strong desire for change, one should not read too much of what happens during a party leadership campaign into politics in general.
Then there are the specific arguments that we have been seeing that shows that the political class, which includes all of these "journalists" never look more than a few days out.
Mr. Poilievre is indeed drawing big crowds but he is doing it in the West, specifically BC, which always splits its votes three ways in a general election. So one-third of the BC electorate will vote for the Conservatives regardless of who leads them so it should surprise no one that large crowds come out to see him. As well, it should also be noted that many of these people who do come to see him are being bussed in from various parts of the province which would indicate that he does have support in the province but not more than his two predecessors. Finally, it will be interesting if he can attract similar crowds in the East, particularly in the suburbs.
Then there is the notion of whether having huge support of members of the Conservative Party can be translated into sufficient support amongst the electorate to win an election. More than a few commentators, who do not work for the MSM, have stated that such a feat would be an uphill climb. The simple fact is being successful at winning the leadership of a political party often does not translate into winning a general election. Just ask Erin O'Toole, Andrew Scheer, Michael Ignatieff, Stephane Dion and every leader of the NDP during its history about that. I am certain they would have some really good insight on that topic.
Some of the commentators who are stating that Mr. Poilievre could be a real threat are pointing to the red hot housing market and the fact that young people cannot afford homes anymore so that could be a real problem. Such assertions are silly on so many levels.
First, the younger generations are the most educated generations in our history. They are also the most forward looking and progressive generations. It is no coincidence that those who support right wing populism tend to be older and less educated, while more educated voters tend not to vote for them. So while they may be upset about housing prices they are also very keen on addressing climate change, before they and their children are really left holding the bag in a couple of decades. As well, most of them will not go for rolling back gay and abortion rights as many in the CPC would want. So, Mr. Poilievre's housing plans, such as they are, may appeal to the younger generations but his lack of a viable and effective plan to fight climate change and his party's turn towards hard social conservatism will turn them off completely.
Second, old people vote and young people do not. There are more young voters than old but the last three elections were decided by the 50+ voting blocks. And they are quite happy with the rise in housing prices because most of them are mortgage free, so the rise in their housing prices is pure equity for them to take advantage of as they head towards retirement.
Third, during the 2019 election I made the joke that Royal Lepage was going to win my riding because of all their signs on the front lawns in my neighbouhood. In short, three short years ago it was a buyers market and the current torrid pace in the rise of the price of houses is unsustainable in the medium to long-term. If anybody believes that housing prices will still be a hot issue during the next election they are probably wrong.
Fourth, predicting what will be the important issues during an election, months or years before said election, is impossible and anybody who says differently is full of crap. Remember folks the important issues of the 2019 election were Mr. Scheer's citizenship and whether he was completely truthful in stating he had a real estate licence and blackface. And in 2021 the big issues were the Conservatives' plans for gun control and whether protesters threw rocks or pebbles at the PM. In neither case no one predicted that those would be the issues the elections hinged on and in neither case were real issues discussed during the election so anybody who states that the next election will be about inflation or the price of houses is wrong.
Pierre Poilievre is probably going to be the next leader of the CPC. He may be able to parley that success into an election win but that is not guaranteed regardless of the crowds he is currently attracting. People who assert or suggest otherwise are out to lunch.
The War in Ukraine: I would caution everybody not to believe what the media is saying about what is happening in the war. It is probably true that the war is not going exactly how the Russians believed it would but it is also probably true that Ukraine is not winning. I guess the big question is whether the Russians can sustain their effort for the medium to long-term. I do not believe so. Let's remember that the Russian economy, before the sanctions, was about the size of the Italian economy. The Italian economy could not sustain a prolonged war so the Russian economy will not be able to either. It is interesting, if Russia did not have nuclear weapons they would be as relevant in international affairs as Italy, probably less because at least Italy is a G7 country.
In the meantime, NATO should stay the course and avoid a direct confrontation with Russia
The Liberal/NDP Agreement: Let's not call it a coalition. Mr. Singh was not named Deputy PM and no other NDP MP has been named to cabinet. This is exactly what they say it is, an agreement to vote for confidence motions, budgets and other money bills, until 2025. However, make no mistake, if the Liberals run into some prolonged political trouble between now and then the NDP will break the deal.
The deal does have the potential to allow the government to make some serious headway in accomplishing its objectives. The same could be said for the NDP but that was going to happen anyway. The only real big difference between the two election platforms last year was the timing of accomplishing objectives.
We will have to want and see if this deal actually has legs.
The Conservative Leadership Race: The entrance of Mr. Charest was an interesting development. He has no chance of winning of course because the Conservatives have gone full on Trump. However, he could have provided Conservative members a true alternative to Trumpism. To put it another way he could be running a campaign completely different from his opponents and showing all voters, not just Conservatives, that there are reasonable alternatives to the Liberals. Instead, he decided to run the typical Conservative leadership campaign; no real substance, half baked policy ideas and "Trudeau bad".
It should be noted however that the campaign has proven one thing. There is no longer a centre-right alternative available to Canadians at the federal ballot box. The Liberals occupy the centre-left, with a heavy lean to the left, the NDP occupy the left and far left and the Conservatives and PPC are vying for the far right. If Conservatives were smart they would be looking for a leader to take advantage of the fact no party now represents the centre-right. A party that could take advantage of that fact, siphon off some disaffected Liberals and convince some of the more reasonable right wing Conservatives to water their wine a bit could form a solid government. That is not going to happen anytime soon, if at all.
Easing COVID Restrictions: A dumb idea at this time. It probably would have been better to ease them instead of getting rid of them immediately. What governments could have done was be transparent about it. They could have indicated some benchmarks that need to be achieved before easing given measures. They have had months to develop those very benchmarks. Instead they are doing it piecemeal and hoping for the best. Oh well, if we could very well have a sixth wave and if be do it will probably manifest itself in the late Spring and early Summer, which would suck for all concerned.
I am seeing some suggestions that NATO establish a no-fly zone over Ukraine. The implication of that of course is clashes between Russian and NATO warplanes would be inevitable. I cannot think of anything more wrong headed in this whole mess.
I also notice that those who have been making such suggestions are of the generation that were born in the late eighties and beyond. In other words they never had the joy of living with the ever present threat of nuclear war during the Cold War. They never saw, read or heard the extensive commentary of just what a nuclear war would look like and what we could expect in the aftermath. They did not see the increasingly senile Leonid Brezhnev and Ronald Reagan with their fingers on the nuclear trigger. Hell they never saw the movie "The Day After" and had it scare the fucking hell out of them.
I understand the desire to do something to help Ukraine and its people. I share that desire but there has to be limits. By all means provide them with all of the military, financial, intelligence and humanitarian aid possible. By all means sanction the Russian leadership and wealthy back to the stone age and make life a little more difficult for its citizens.
BUT DO NOT RISK A DIRECT MILITARY CONFRONTATION WITH A NUCLEAR ARMED STATE!!
I am seeing alot of hyperbole and hyperventilating from people about these occupations across the country. Some of the claims by their opponents are almost as out there as the "demands" of the occupiers.
First of all Canadian democracy is in no danger. If our democracy was so fragile that a few hundred yahoos could bring it down then it had serious problems before that. That is not the case. Our democracy is very resilient so we can stop worrying about it.
Second, the weakness of the "truckers" and their cause is obvious if you just take a step back. What started out as an occupation of downtown Ottawa has escalated into blockades of several border crossings with the US and word tonight is the beginning of blocking access to the Ottawa airport. Why are they escalating it? Those who agree with them say it is an indication of their increasing strength when in actual fact it is an indication of their weakness. If they were strong and if they really believe they are winning they would not feel the need to escalate. The fact they do speaks volumes.
Third, these occupations are kicking the living shit out of the CPC and Conservative provincial governments. As well, the reactions of these Parties are showing how much trouble each of them are in electorally. Take Ontario. Doug Ford must be getting an earful from his business buddies for not cracking down on the blockade of the Windsor bridge. The amount of business that is being lost by his business buddies is adding up quickly, yet he has not done anything to bring it to a close. The reason why is to do so would probably piss off much of this base and if he is so damned frightened of losing his base, five months out from an election, then his internal polling is telling him that the June election is probably a tossup or worse.
Then there is Alberta. The public polls for Jason Kenney have been gruesome since the Pandemic started and the fact he gave into the occupiers' demands probably means that the public polls are on to something. It will be interesting to see if the occupiers in Alberta will go home. If the do not then he will look even weaker than before and probably finish his chances of being reelected.
It should be noted that both the Ontario and Alberta Conservatives are first term majority governments. Both should be shoe-ins for winning a second mandate, with reduced majorities, but majorities nonetheless. They are showing many signs that they do not believe that will happen the next time they need to face the voters.
Then there is the CPC. Many of the front bench Conservatives came out in support of the occupation and now they have either gone quiet and in the case of their new interim leader she has actually begun to make some statements calling for the blockades to end. Three days ago, during the emergency debate in The House, she gave all but a full throated support to them only to make must less unequivocal statements today. Again, the increasing unpopularity of the blockades is probably being reflected in their internal polling.
The only actor in all of this that does not seem ruffled is the Federal Government. Indeed, the PM gave one of the best speeches of his career during the emergency debate a couple of days ago and he has been given the opportunity to repeat and reinforce the key points of that speech when questioned about the "disloyalty" of those two Quebec MPs. Their outbursts were probably not planned but I believe both went the PM beforehand to let him know they would speak out and the PM and his team had responses at the ready.
As these blockades drag on a critical mass of Canadians will finally decide that something needs to be done to end them, including the use of force. If the police would have used force on day three then the "truckers" would have gained some sympathy and they would have been able to present themselves as martyrs. When they are finally removed in the next week or so they cannot expect any goodwill at all from Canadians.
Also, as these occupations, particularly of the Parliamentary Precinct continue, the Conservatives and the NDP will not be able to resist the government calling a public inquiry into this whole situation. The government will be able to make it a very broad one including having Conservative Members of Parliament having to testify under oath about their involvement in the occupations. Such an inquiry could produce some rather large political bombs before ending with a very interesting report just in time for the next election in about a year.
Back when Erin O'Toole won the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada I stated in this space that he would have to actually lead. He did not so his final fate should surprise no one.
All political parties are multi-headed beasts. The Conservatives are not unique in that sense. The key for any leader of a party is to be able to convince all of the various interests within it to pull in the same direction, to water down their wine sufficiently so that their team stays in power long enough to achieve their objectives in an incremental fashion. Mr. O'Toole did not do that.
In his defence I am not certain any leader would be able to do that with the current Conservative Party of Canada. There may be too many factions who are not willing to compromise and/or think long-term within the Party to make it a viable political party but he should have at least tried and he did not. He pandered or at least attempted to pander but that is not the same.
Also in his defence his predecessor did him no favours by completely shirking his responsibility to renew the CPC after losing in 2015. He had three years to do so and never even attempted to do it. So Mr. O'Toole took over the same party that was created in 2004 and because he always had to put election readiness at the top of his priority list, because of the minority government situation, he could not make any efforts to renew the party either
So now the Conservatives have to elect their fourth leader to face Justin Trudeau and the Liberals in about 18 to 24 months. I am not certain who it will be but he or she is going to face the same problems as Mr. O'Toole and he or she will have to find a way to lead. We will have to see if they can actually do so but as I stated in a recent post the Conservatives might have to be humiliated during the next election to finally kick start the long overdue renewal of the party and to break the logjam of competing and uncompromising interests within the CPC.
Because he would not be able to be elected dog catcher in this city.
Any chance of him winning again was scuppered by the Light Rail Transit fiasco in this city. While it is probably not all of his fault, considering all levels of government had their hands in that particular pie, it still made him unelectable even before this week.
Now the total impotence of the City of Ottawa and Ottawa Police Services, along with their mealy mouthed excuses for that impotence, would have put the final nail into the coffin of his reelection chances. Really, could he have shown any greater weakness than he has in the past few days?
I am not suggesting that the OPS take action to remove the protests as I stated in my previous post. I am suggesting that they take action to contain it. Right now, truckers are allowed to drive around virtually the entire downtown core unopposed. Why?
Put up barricades at the corner of Wellington and Kent street to the West and where Wellington meets Elgin Street to the East. Then set up barricades at all the cross streets on Queen street to the South. (That is only two blocks south of Parliament Hill) Make certain each barricade has sufficient armed cops to man them, with orders not to fraternize with the protesters. Have actual riot police from the OPS, OPP and RCMP available to move to problem areas. If someone wants leave on foot let them but make it a one way trip and maybe escort them to the VIA Rail station. If they have left a vehicle behind they can arrange to have it shipped back to them, at their own risk and expense and after paying all of the hefty fines, towing and impound fees.
Any truck located outside of that area is to be ticketed and towed if they are breaking any local bylaws, such as parking where they should not be or breaking the noise bylaws of this city.
Of course that is not going to happen and I noticed today that our illustrious Chief of Police has indicated that the OPS will probably need the army to come in and help. Talk about passing the buck. The Trudeau government will deny that because the first place to get help would be from the Ontario Provincial Police and the Mounties but by saying the army is needed the Chief of Police can blame the Feds for the ongoing fiasco and not his incompetence.
If I am a mayoral candidate for the November municipal election part of the platform I would be running on would include a complete overhaul of the OPS senior ranks and the civilian Police Services Committee that oversees the OPS. Every cop who has the word "chief" in his or her title would be fired and every member of the committee would be replaced.
The OPS and the City of Ottawa has been a joke this past week. I have no problem with trying to make certain things do not get out of hand but that does not mean that you become completely paralyzed either. There is much that can be done to contain the protest, which is what most law enforcement organizations do as a matter of course, and which the OPS has not done.
As inconvenient as they are and as damaging as they are to the downtown of Ottawa the truckers should not be forcefully removed.
When indigenous people blockaded railroads over the Trans Mountain pipeline the government did not try to bring them down by force despite the clamouring by Conservatives and their cheerleaders in the media to do just that. These truckers should receive the same consideration and I find it kind of ironic that the same people who were preaching restraint for the rail blockade protests are screaming that force be used for the truckers.
The one thing about both protests is the protesters have no political smarts. The railway blockades went on way too long. They did not achieve the objective they were looking to achieve, instead just created badwill towards the protesters and their objective. The same is true of the truckers. With each passing day they become less and less popular and they hurt their erstwhile cause (eliminating the vaccine mandates and COVID restrictions), indeed probably making both more popular. Further they are doing damage to their other unstated objective (getting rid of the Liberal government) because it allows PM Trudeau to look strong and the connection between the truckers and the CPC becomes more noticed with each story about them. My guess is until last night there were many a gritted teeth at CPC HQ because of the slow drip of political damage to the Conservatives caused by what the truckers did and are continuing to do.
Then word came out that Mr. O'Toole is facing a vote of confidence from his caucus so that might distract CPC HQ for a time.
Now this protest is just going to go on until the truckers get bored and they drift on back home. (Assuming they can find the fuel to get home). If the organizers would have had any kind of political smarts they would have had their big rally on Saturday, after the big lead up during the preceding week, declared victory and gone home in an organized fashion. They could have organized triumphant gatherings on the way home from supporters to give the impression of momentum for their cause. Thankfully, the organizers are not that smart.
Like the railway blockades the truckers protest in Ottawa will be ancient history before the end of the month and the only thing they will have achieved is an increase in support for vaccine mandates and other public health measures and the further erosion of the CPC as a viable alternative to the Liberals in the eyes of most Canadians, particularly those Canadians that live in the big cities and their suburbs. The very voters the Conservatives need if they ever hope to win power again.
As an avowed liberal this statement could be dismissed as partisanship on my part but I am in earnest.
Although I generally support the Liberals I do know that for our system of government to be effective the governing party needs to be challenged by an effective opposition. It is the only way to guarantee that the governing party will remain honest, competent and that it will continue to work for the greater good. Unfortunately, that has not been the reality for quite some time and it has really been lacking since 2015. In reality the current federal government has been governing virtually unchallenged, despite being a minority government for over two years. And to any Dippers reading this and saying the NDP "forced" the government to develop and implement all of the COVID economic support measures you are flat wrong. There might be some evidence to support the idea that the NDP convinced the government to sweeten the CERB pot but that is about it. The rest all came from the government and the public service that supports it and no amount of historical revisionism will change that fact.
The ineffectiveness of the Conservatives is so glaringly apparent that they had to resort to supporting an antigovernment protest that was organized and dominated by white-supremists and neo-Nazis. Every prominent member of the CPC caucus, including the current and maybe future leadership of the Party, expressed support for them even when it became apparent leading up to Saturday just where the protests were heading. So when they went where they were expected and had the added bonus of them desecrating the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, the War Memorial and the statue of Terry Fox these same Conservatives had to play down their support and look to their cheerleaders in the media to try to redirect people from those events. Crucially however, these Conservatives and their media cheerleaders did not condemn, or disavow the protesters, instead making mealy mouth statements about "bad apples" amongst the protesters.
If you are a Conservative supporter or a member of the Party I really have to ask if the current leadership and party establishment, which condoned the protesters weekend behavior, really represents your values? I know that for many Conservative supporters it does not because I personally know more than a few Conservative supporters who have expressed their concerns. So what are you going to do about it?
I would suggest you do what the Liberals did. From 2006 until 2015 the Liberals did not have an answer for Stephen Harper and in 2011 they were humiliated. That humiliation turned out to be a blessing in disguise because it finally allowed the Party to toss the old Liberal establishment over the side and enter the 21st Century with new leadership and purpose. The result is they came roaring back and they have dominated the Federal political scene for over seven years. The same thing has to happen in the Conservative Party. The old establishment is ideologically bankrupt, without any principles or a unifying ethos. It may stumble into power at some point in the future but if it does it will be like the conservative governments of Ontario and Alberta, so ideological that they would probably not survive another election. For the long-term success of the conservative movement in this country that movement needs to be taken back from the ideologues. Reasonable conservatives, and there are many out there, need to reassert themselves into Canadian politics.
The best way to do that is for the CPC to be humiliated in the next election. It needs to be reduced to less than 100 seats, although less than 75 seats would be ideal. Such a humiliation would destroy the current Conservative establishment and provide an opportunity for reasonable conservatives to reassert themselves. There is no guarantee that they would be successful but I can tell you now that reasonable conservatives will never again come out on top as long as the current Conservative establishment holds sway.
Something similar has to happen to the NDP. Their current leadership is useless. It is interesting that the path that took them to being the Official Opposition began when they were reduced to non-party status in 1993. It took hard work and dedication by the NDP to rebuild itself and its brand to the point where they displaced the Liberals as the Opposition. It was quite an achievement but they have lost their way since then and again, I believe, only something really dramatic will motivate them to alter their current useless path. If the NDP were reduced to 10-15 seats it would probably be good for them in the medium to long term.
The Bloc and the PPC can just go away. They serve no useful purpose.
Of course, none of this is going to happen. All of the parties will stumble along on their current paths for the foreseeable future and we can only pray that our government will continue to have the internal discipline to remain honest and competent without an effective opposition.
Watching the Conservative Party of Canada provide aid and comfort to the ever decreasing and increasingly desperate antivaxxers in Canada I cannot help but think that they could have avoided all of the problems they have been having if they were competent, if they would show a little courage and if they would think past the next round of polling from the public pollsters.
None of this has happened and the result is they cannot gain any traction against a government that is getting longer in the tooth with each passing week.
The simple fact is the majority of Canadians support the measures that have been taken by governments to bring COVID under control and return to a semblance of pre-COVID normalcy. Unfortunately, there is a small and ever decreasing minority of Canadians who disagree with these measures and the gap is not even close. Over 80% of Canadians are double vaxxed, the number who have three shots is in the 70% range and both are increasing. Therefore, the number of antivaxxers is less than 20% and that diminishes on a daily basis. So which group has the Conservative Party hitched its wagon to? The smaller one of course. *Face palm*
It has got to the point where they are actually offering overt support for a protest that started out as an "antivaxxer" protest but is quickly morphing into an antigovernment, white supremist protest. If some of the more extreme elements of these protesters are able to voice their positions and they are in any way connected to the CPC that party will turn off voters in all of the parts of the country they need to have any hope of gaining power, namely the major cities and their suburbs. If the protest becomes violent, like some fear, then that would be even worse news for the CPC. Their only saving grace would be the compliant media which will attempt to shield them from the worst fallout.
So, why are the CPC doing this? It does not take a genius political operative to figure out that going against the opinion of the vast majority of Canadians is not a winning political strategy.
One reason maybe the CPC brain trust just cannot do simple math, although I do not believe that. What I believe is the CPC is following the strategy that they have been following since 2006. Keep your base happy and energized and then try to convince enough non-aligned voters to vote for them. It worked in 2006, 2008 and 2011. It has not worked since then but they have not changed their strategy to account for the new reality. That is the incompetence.
The fear is the Peoples Party of Canada. In order for the 2006-2011 strategy to work the CPC has to keep its base intact. The PPC is threatening that with their simple-minded message. Crucially, the antivaxxers have decided that they trust the PPC over the CPC to stick to the message. The result is the CPC has to attempt to win them back.
That presents a very high risk of alienating the majority of Canadians. You cannot alienate the vast majority of voters and expect to win an election. I believe there are a few people in the CPC that see this but the combination of fear and incompetence amongst the real power brokers in the party prevents them from changing their approach.
I keep seeing stories and comments about the holdup of several very important bills in the US Senate because of Senator Manchin. That is, just this one Senator, representing a rather small state, is holding up many important bills. Many commentators conclude that such a situation proves that the US system is broken.
I disagree. The system is working exactly how it was designed. As I have stated before the men who created the United States purposely created it so that its federal government would be weak. They were all frightened that one of their number would set themselves up as a king so they created a system to prevent that.
It worked for a time when the American ruling class were all pulling in the same direction but when that changed the system was helpless to prevent the country from tearing itself apart, leading to a long, bloody and painful civil war.
That national trauma lead to the ruling class again agreeing on the direction of the country, with the only disagreements being on how to move in that direction. Beginning with Ronald Reagan that agreement began to break down until the US finds itself in a situation where the ruling class and American society has broken into two distinct, mutually hostile factions.
One of the results of that is what is happening in the US Senate.
I do not know for certain what is going to happen in the US but I would remind you that the last time the US split as badly as it is splitting now it lead to war. That may not happen this time because the split is not confined to definable states but then again that might just mean that if war does break out it will be a messy and confusing one.
I recently saw a summary of a movie called "Idiocracy". It came out in 2007 and its basic premise is a person from that year gets frozen and is thawed out in 2507. The world he finds is one where human intelligence has regressed to the point where starvation is rampant because farmers are watering their crops with Gatorade, because it is superior to water because it contains electrolytes. The 21st Century guy is not very bright in the movie but he is a freaking genius compared to the rest the population so he becomes a hero and saves the day.
It seems like a silly movie and I have no desire to actually watch it but it does raise the question contained in the title to this post.
Almost everything about humans indicate that we should not have survived, let alone thrived, in the Darwinian competition that is the natural world. We are smaller, weaker and slower than almost every other predator out there. As well, we have small teeth and claws, barely suitable for inflicting harm on our own species let alone inflicting harm on those creatures that provide us with the sustenance to stave off starvation.
Of course, evolution solved that problem by giving our species big brains and the cognitive abilities to go along with it. With those we overcame our physical limitations and conquered the world. We did not do this all at once. It took 10's of thousands of years and I would bet that along the way humans, both individuals and groups numbering in the hundreds or thousands, paid for lapses in intelligence by being denied the ability to pass their genes on to the next generation. In short the constant threat of death to our pre-historical ancestors made it necessary to continue developing their brains, their cognitive abilities and acquire the new skills that these allowed to happen.
So thousands of years later here we are at the top of the food chain. If one of us is eaten by another predator it is always the result of an accident as opposed to a successful hunt of that human by that predator. Our gaining control of many natural processes or our ability to predict many of those that we cannot control has reduced the dangers of large numbers of us being wiped out by some natural disaster. There are exceptions to that as the COVID pandemic indicates but things like that are becoming an exception as opposed to an every present threat. So without the constant threat to our lives will our species continue to make the necessary adaptations to survive and considering the only adaptation that our species perfected was to increase our intelligence and cognitive abilities the question becomes will our species continue to do that?
I do not know the answer to that question and although many would say yes because of what we are seeing in the world today I would remind then of one thing. If you take the intelligence of all humans and plotted it on a graph it would look like a bell curve. That is, in general, there there is the same proportion of people with below average intelligence as there are with above average intelligence. So, there have always been stupid people around the only change now is there are more avenues for stupid people to demonstrate their stupidity.
However, we cannot forget that a species only survives if it can continually adapt to the world around it. If it does not adapt it dies. The corollary to that is if the world around the species is no longer a threat to it then the need to adapt is reduced and the species may stagnate or regress. We do not know for certain if that is true because no species has ever accomplished that feat but it is a logical extension of the Theory of Evolution.
While it seems that we are getting dumber as a species that could just be a by-product of the information revolution we are currently experiencing giving the less intelligent among us equal access to the communications tools. It could be skewing our perceptions. However, we cannot discount the idea that our species is stagnating or even regressing as a price for our success at taking over the world.
