So after reading the budget put forward by the current federal government I am left with the impression that Stephen Harper's mentors in Calgary are probably wondering what it is going to take to have their ideas implemented by a Canadian government.
This first budget from the majority Conservative government was probably the only real chance for them to implement some of the policies that they fought for during their time in Opposition. They had an opportunity to radically remake the Canadian government as they stated they wanted to do many times during the late '90s and the early '00s, while still having plenty of time to recover from any political fallout that might have occured.
They did none of that. Instead they crafted a budget that would have passed a minority parliament if it were necessary.
The structure of the government that existed on March 29 still exists today. True it is less well funded but otherwise it has not changed. Any succeeding government to this one will not need to rebuild the government infrastructure if they want to improve existing programmes. They will only need to increase the funding.
Even the reduction in the number of federal public servants is small when you compare it to the overall size of the Canadian federal bureaucracy. As some media commentators pointed out the government did not even reduce the public service to pre-2006 levels. That is, they did not get rid of all of the public servants that were hired under their watch.
So, this budget is a rather mundane document, with two exceptions.
The first one being the reduction in the budget for the Canada Food Inspection Agency. What is it with Conservative governments reducing budgets of agencies charged with protecting our food and water supplies? The Harris government's decision to reduce the number of water inspectors in Ontario lead directly to the Walkerton tragedy according the judicial inquiry that was called to investigate that event. That event was also a great contributor to the bath the PCPO took in the subsequent election. You would think that the Harper government would have taken a lesson from that, particularly since that government contains so many former Harris cabinet ministers.
The second exception is the favourtism in this budget to the oil and mining industries over the manufacturing industries. Resource extraction is not the answer to long-term economic health in this country. Over 150 years of history should prove that. They are too prone to boom and bust cycles and the Canadian economy needs a robust manufacturing sector to help mitigate the damage to the economy a resource bust will have. Like governments that came before this one the current government has failed to realize that reality. It will come back to haunt them and to haunt Canadians.
I do not know why the current government did not take a bolder approach in this budget and I can only imagine that many in the Calgary school are just as stumped as I am.
Tuesday, April 03, 2012
The Canadian Right's desire to copy the American Right
One of the features of the contemporary Canadian right that I have always found interesting is their desire to copy the issues and policies that are put forward by the right in the United States, particularly those issues and policies put forward by the far right in that country.
The Canadian right cleaves to the ideas of the American right on economic and fiscal policies, which is not surprising. However, on such issues as abortion, same sex marriage, capital punishment, gun control, health care and other social issues the Canadian right tends to fall into step with the ideas put forward by the far right in the United States as well. This is unique to the Canadian political right. No other right wing party or government in the industrialized world makes any of these social issues a priority. They tend to mimic the US economic and fiscal policy to a certain extent but they do not bother with the social issues.
Why is the Canadian right so enamoured with the ideas of the American right?
To a certain extent I can understand their desire to mimic the economic and fiscal policies of the American right. Despite its troubles the United States still has one of the most dynamic economies in the world. The Canadian right believes that such dynamism is the result of the low taxes and regulations on business in the United States. So their argument goes that if Canada can set up a similar tax and regulation regime the Canadian economy will take off like the US economy.
On the surface this argument might have some merit but if you dig a little deeper it is patently false. The US economy has been the driving force in the world economy for decades because innovation is the watchword for that economy. Innovation in products, innovation in processes, and not being afraid to take risks is the reason for the dynamism of the US economy. That was true during the height of the welfare state US economy of the '50 and '60 and it is true of the current Darwinian economic model in the US.
If Canada wants to have an economy like the Unites States the players in the Canadian economy will need to adopt such an approach to economic activity. Canadian companies and government will need to be as innovative and as willing to take risks as those in the United States.
That's not going to happen. Canadian companies and government do not take these kinds of risks. They do not engage in that kind of innovation. You just need to look at the history of Canada's economic activity, as I pointed out in my previous post, to see that.
So Canada's right is barking up the wrong tree on the economic front. Until there is a sea change in how business and governments approach economic activity in this country no amount of copying the US policies will create an economy as dynamic as the US economy.
On social issues I do not understand the Canadian right's desire to copy the American right. Virtually all of the social policies that the American right pursues in the United States tend to resonate with a sufficient number of Americans to make it worthwhile to pursue.
The same in not true in Canada. None of those issues are front and centre in mainstream Canadian thought. In fact, with the exception of health care most Canadian are quite content not to rock the boat by bringing up those other social issues that the right is so enamoured with. As well, whenever these issues do break through the consciousness of Canadians their opinions tend to be different from those of the Canadian right.
Canada has unique issues that need to be dealt with in both the economic and social realm of Canadian society. Perhaps, the Canadian right could use their energies to come up with original thoughts on how to deal with those issues instead of just regurgitating the thoughts and policies of their cousins to the south.
The Canadian right cleaves to the ideas of the American right on economic and fiscal policies, which is not surprising. However, on such issues as abortion, same sex marriage, capital punishment, gun control, health care and other social issues the Canadian right tends to fall into step with the ideas put forward by the far right in the United States as well. This is unique to the Canadian political right. No other right wing party or government in the industrialized world makes any of these social issues a priority. They tend to mimic the US economic and fiscal policy to a certain extent but they do not bother with the social issues.
Why is the Canadian right so enamoured with the ideas of the American right?
To a certain extent I can understand their desire to mimic the economic and fiscal policies of the American right. Despite its troubles the United States still has one of the most dynamic economies in the world. The Canadian right believes that such dynamism is the result of the low taxes and regulations on business in the United States. So their argument goes that if Canada can set up a similar tax and regulation regime the Canadian economy will take off like the US economy.
On the surface this argument might have some merit but if you dig a little deeper it is patently false. The US economy has been the driving force in the world economy for decades because innovation is the watchword for that economy. Innovation in products, innovation in processes, and not being afraid to take risks is the reason for the dynamism of the US economy. That was true during the height of the welfare state US economy of the '50 and '60 and it is true of the current Darwinian economic model in the US.
If Canada wants to have an economy like the Unites States the players in the Canadian economy will need to adopt such an approach to economic activity. Canadian companies and government will need to be as innovative and as willing to take risks as those in the United States.
That's not going to happen. Canadian companies and government do not take these kinds of risks. They do not engage in that kind of innovation. You just need to look at the history of Canada's economic activity, as I pointed out in my previous post, to see that.
So Canada's right is barking up the wrong tree on the economic front. Until there is a sea change in how business and governments approach economic activity in this country no amount of copying the US policies will create an economy as dynamic as the US economy.
On social issues I do not understand the Canadian right's desire to copy the American right. Virtually all of the social policies that the American right pursues in the United States tend to resonate with a sufficient number of Americans to make it worthwhile to pursue.
The same in not true in Canada. None of those issues are front and centre in mainstream Canadian thought. In fact, with the exception of health care most Canadian are quite content not to rock the boat by bringing up those other social issues that the right is so enamoured with. As well, whenever these issues do break through the consciousness of Canadians their opinions tend to be different from those of the Canadian right.
Canada has unique issues that need to be dealt with in both the economic and social realm of Canadian society. Perhaps, the Canadian right could use their energies to come up with original thoughts on how to deal with those issues instead of just regurgitating the thoughts and policies of their cousins to the south.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Canada, a country of losers?
For most of its existance Canada has been beholden to greater powers for any advantages that it has enjoyed. This country has never really stood on its own two feet.
Since before Confederation Canada has always been dependent on other countries. It was the British from before Confederation until the Second World War and it was the United States from the end of the Second World War to the present.
It is well known that for virtually all of its existence Canada's main source of economic activity is the extraction of resources and being a branch plant economy for the big US multinationals. I could understand that this was probably necessary when our country was just starting out but you would think we would have moved on to something much greater as our country matured into an independent nation.
Of course that is not the case. Our country enjoys the advantages of having a well educated population, and a modern, industrialized economy. We should be making alot more noise on the international scene and on the world economy. Instead we have not really progressed much farther than where we were in 1867.
We are still extracting and selling our resources to other countries to be processed, instead of processing them ourselves. Very few of the companies that are doing this extracting are actually Canadian, which is no different that in 1867, except the companies doing the extracting are no longer British, they are American, Chinese and Brazilian.
Our biggest industrial companies are still subsidiaries of large American Corporations. Whenever a Canadian company does rise to prominence within the Canadian economy it tends not to last long. Nortel and JDS Uniphase are examples of that and RIM will soon be another example as it will either go bankrupt or be bought out by Apple or Microsoft in the near future.
Hell, we are seeing this everywhere. I read yesterday of a Canadian company based out of Saskatchewan, called Viterra, which was just sold to a foreign company. Viterra owned a sizable chunk of the grain elevators in the Prairies, as will as, port facilities in Thunder Bay and BC. They sold the lot to a company based in Holland, a country justifiably well known for its vast tracks of rolling wheat fields.
Even in culture we are well behind the rest of the world. Canada has a culture and has a tool to promote and highlight it in the CBC. Canada in one of only a handful of countries that have a national broadcaster. We could be using that to a great advantage but the opposite is true. The fate of the CBC is actually unknown but there is a good chance that it will be privatized or it will just disappear into nothingness.
How can we as citizens of this great country allow this to happen? Why are we standing by and watching it happening instead of putting a stop to it? Why are we not demanding that Canadian resources be processed in Canada instead of just being dug out of the ground and shipped elsewhere as raw materials? Why are we allowing successful Canadian companies to either disappear or be bought by companies from other countries?
Considering the wealth of human and natural resources this country enjoys Canada should be one of the movers and shakers in the global economy. The fact that we are not is a sad testament to the collective failure of our society to leverage those resources to the greatest advanage of all Canadians. Or to put it another way, just by taking the path of least resistance we have managed to grow an economy that is in the top ten in the world in size. Just imagine what we could do if we actually took control of our economy and began making it work for Canadians.
Since before Confederation Canada has always been dependent on other countries. It was the British from before Confederation until the Second World War and it was the United States from the end of the Second World War to the present.
It is well known that for virtually all of its existence Canada's main source of economic activity is the extraction of resources and being a branch plant economy for the big US multinationals. I could understand that this was probably necessary when our country was just starting out but you would think we would have moved on to something much greater as our country matured into an independent nation.
Of course that is not the case. Our country enjoys the advantages of having a well educated population, and a modern, industrialized economy. We should be making alot more noise on the international scene and on the world economy. Instead we have not really progressed much farther than where we were in 1867.
We are still extracting and selling our resources to other countries to be processed, instead of processing them ourselves. Very few of the companies that are doing this extracting are actually Canadian, which is no different that in 1867, except the companies doing the extracting are no longer British, they are American, Chinese and Brazilian.
Our biggest industrial companies are still subsidiaries of large American Corporations. Whenever a Canadian company does rise to prominence within the Canadian economy it tends not to last long. Nortel and JDS Uniphase are examples of that and RIM will soon be another example as it will either go bankrupt or be bought out by Apple or Microsoft in the near future.
Hell, we are seeing this everywhere. I read yesterday of a Canadian company based out of Saskatchewan, called Viterra, which was just sold to a foreign company. Viterra owned a sizable chunk of the grain elevators in the Prairies, as will as, port facilities in Thunder Bay and BC. They sold the lot to a company based in Holland, a country justifiably well known for its vast tracks of rolling wheat fields.
Even in culture we are well behind the rest of the world. Canada has a culture and has a tool to promote and highlight it in the CBC. Canada in one of only a handful of countries that have a national broadcaster. We could be using that to a great advantage but the opposite is true. The fate of the CBC is actually unknown but there is a good chance that it will be privatized or it will just disappear into nothingness.
How can we as citizens of this great country allow this to happen? Why are we standing by and watching it happening instead of putting a stop to it? Why are we not demanding that Canadian resources be processed in Canada instead of just being dug out of the ground and shipped elsewhere as raw materials? Why are we allowing successful Canadian companies to either disappear or be bought by companies from other countries?
Considering the wealth of human and natural resources this country enjoys Canada should be one of the movers and shakers in the global economy. The fact that we are not is a sad testament to the collective failure of our society to leverage those resources to the greatest advanage of all Canadians. Or to put it another way, just by taking the path of least resistance we have managed to grow an economy that is in the top ten in the world in size. Just imagine what we could do if we actually took control of our economy and began making it work for Canadians.
Full circle in Afghanistan
A couple of weeks ago a US soldier went on a rampage in an Afghan village killing many civilians. This was a tragedy and the reactions of the Afghan authorities was predictable.
What I found more surprising was the Western media reaction to it. Not too many years in the past they would have acknowledged the tragedy of the event but they would have downplayed the significance of it on the broader implications for the war. That was not the case this time. I was surprised at how many media commentators, in the US and in Canada, who are staunch supporters of the war, who stated that this presented President Obama with an excuse to pull US troops out to Afghanistan (with NATO right behind it) and who stated that he should take the opportunity.
I believe that the media have finally acknowledged to themselves that this war is unwinnable. I would have preferred if they would have come to this conclusion six or seven years ago when that fact first became apparent but I guess better late than never.
It did not have to be this way of course. It became very obvious to anybody who could look at the situation on the ground with any degree of objectivity that the Taliban was not going to go away after its ouster as the Afghan government.
The West should have acknowledged that fact and reached out to the more moderate elements of the Taliban to invite them into the new government of the country. People do not want to lead that country for the good of its people they want to lead it so that they can have a share of the spoils of the rampant corruption of the government. If the West would have offered a share of those spoils to moderates in the Taliban they would have probably accepted. That would probably have had the advantage making the last few years alot less bloody for Western forces and it might have had the added advantage of splitting the Taliban, perhaps weakening the hardliners enough to push them to the fringes.
Instead of course, George Bush decided to try to destroy the Taliban, a task that is as impossible as any effort to destroy the Democratic Party. The result was over a decade of war and the radicalization of the Taliban. If there are any moderates left in the Taliban they have no power or influence and they will not be able to stop the civil war that will erupt in Afghanistan after the West finally withdraws. A civil war the Taliban has a very good chance of winning by the way.
We all know that George Bush and his band of neo-cons had a very simplistic view of the world and they bear a great deal of the responsibility of the ongoing tradegy that is that war. However, the allies that joined Mr. Bush in this ill starred endeavour should have known better. Although it probably would have fallen on deaf ears they could have attempted to convince the Bush Administration to take a different tack. Instead they did nothing and in some cases actually enabled the Bush Administration strategy, the actions and rhetoric of the Canadian, British and French governments being particularly noticable in this regard.
So now we have come full circle. The Taliban won a civil war to rule that country after the departure of the Soviet Union and it is poised to do the same thing again after the departure of Western forces.
What I found more surprising was the Western media reaction to it. Not too many years in the past they would have acknowledged the tragedy of the event but they would have downplayed the significance of it on the broader implications for the war. That was not the case this time. I was surprised at how many media commentators, in the US and in Canada, who are staunch supporters of the war, who stated that this presented President Obama with an excuse to pull US troops out to Afghanistan (with NATO right behind it) and who stated that he should take the opportunity.
I believe that the media have finally acknowledged to themselves that this war is unwinnable. I would have preferred if they would have come to this conclusion six or seven years ago when that fact first became apparent but I guess better late than never.
It did not have to be this way of course. It became very obvious to anybody who could look at the situation on the ground with any degree of objectivity that the Taliban was not going to go away after its ouster as the Afghan government.
The West should have acknowledged that fact and reached out to the more moderate elements of the Taliban to invite them into the new government of the country. People do not want to lead that country for the good of its people they want to lead it so that they can have a share of the spoils of the rampant corruption of the government. If the West would have offered a share of those spoils to moderates in the Taliban they would have probably accepted. That would probably have had the advantage making the last few years alot less bloody for Western forces and it might have had the added advantage of splitting the Taliban, perhaps weakening the hardliners enough to push them to the fringes.
Instead of course, George Bush decided to try to destroy the Taliban, a task that is as impossible as any effort to destroy the Democratic Party. The result was over a decade of war and the radicalization of the Taliban. If there are any moderates left in the Taliban they have no power or influence and they will not be able to stop the civil war that will erupt in Afghanistan after the West finally withdraws. A civil war the Taliban has a very good chance of winning by the way.
We all know that George Bush and his band of neo-cons had a very simplistic view of the world and they bear a great deal of the responsibility of the ongoing tradegy that is that war. However, the allies that joined Mr. Bush in this ill starred endeavour should have known better. Although it probably would have fallen on deaf ears they could have attempted to convince the Bush Administration to take a different tack. Instead they did nothing and in some cases actually enabled the Bush Administration strategy, the actions and rhetoric of the Canadian, British and French governments being particularly noticable in this regard.
So now we have come full circle. The Taliban won a civil war to rule that country after the departure of the Soviet Union and it is poised to do the same thing again after the departure of Western forces.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Rogue
My two cents on the Robocall troubles that have hit the Conservatives in the last couple of days.
The fact that Stephen Harper had to answer questions about the actions of the Conservatives the day after the story broke and the fact that records show that his personal campaign paid money to Racknine is cause for concern for the Conservatives. When PMs become personally involved in potential scandals it usually is not a good thing for the party at large.
Considering these robocalls occured in up to 27 ridings it is very implausible that a single campaign working, working on a local campaign, could have found the time and the resources to pull this off by himself. Anybody with any knowledge of how the nitty gritty of electoral politics in the country works would know this.
I include the media in that group so I wonder if they will pursue the truth of this scheme with as much vim and vigour as they pursued the truth in past Liberal government scandal? I am not holding my breath.
The fact that Stephen Harper had to answer questions about the actions of the Conservatives the day after the story broke and the fact that records show that his personal campaign paid money to Racknine is cause for concern for the Conservatives. When PMs become personally involved in potential scandals it usually is not a good thing for the party at large.
Considering these robocalls occured in up to 27 ridings it is very implausible that a single campaign working, working on a local campaign, could have found the time and the resources to pull this off by himself. Anybody with any knowledge of how the nitty gritty of electoral politics in the country works would know this.
I include the media in that group so I wonder if they will pursue the truth of this scheme with as much vim and vigour as they pursued the truth in past Liberal government scandal? I am not holding my breath.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
More of the same
After about a year and $75,000, Don Drummond finally tabled his report on how to eliminate the Ontario government's budget deficit.
Coming as no surprise to anybody his prescription was for deep cuts to government services. That is what we got for the money Ontario taxpayers paid for his services. Talk about a waste of money. Really, all Premier McGuinty had to do was ask Tim Hudak for his opinion of what needs to be done to reduce the deficit and he would have provided the same advice as Mr. Drummond but it would not have cost taxpayers a penny.
There were two glaring oversights in Mr. Drummond's advice.
One was perhaps that the Ontario government should consider raising taxes. Although in fairness to Mr. Drummond his brief expressly stated he was not to consider that option, which I believe speaks volumes about the priorities of the McGuinty government and has me questionning whether his time has come to be replaced.
When the Canadian government was enjoying all of those budget surpluses (you remember those it was only 7 years ago even though it feels like a lifetime) Conservatives and the business community claimed that this was evidence that Canadians were overtaxed. Well, if governments are running deficits is that not evidence that Canadian are undertaxed?
Government services cost money. Doctors, teachers, government bureaucrats, cops, judges, etc. do not work for free. They seem to believe that they should be paid for their time and efforts in serving the citizens of their country, province or city. (The bastards!) If you are unwilling to pay them then you can expect to receive less services. That fact seems to be lost on those who use those services. They seem to expect that if it comes from the government it should not cost them anything. So, they demand these services but resent paying the taxes necessary to pay for them. Politicians in their infinite stupidity pander to that expectation instead of educating their electorate on the basics of economics. The result is these politicians have to provide these services because their citizen's demand them, they cannot raise sufficient taxes to pay for the services because their citizen's also demand low taxes, so these politicians have to borrow money to make up the difference. This goes on until someone points out the deficits are getting too big and have to be reigned in, which prompts a government to take measures to do that until the inevitable backlash against service cuts reaches critical mass and the deficit cycle begins again.
If any politician finally shows the courage to point out to the electorate that they cannot have good government services and low taxes at the same time I will vote for them, regardless of their political stripe. It is about time we all grew up and realized there is no such thing as a free lunch.
The other oversight of Mr. Drummond was he could have pointed out that budget deficits are not the end of the world. There is not a single government within the G20 that is not saddled with government debt. Indeed, the debt to GDP ratio for these countries have been rising steadily for decades. As well, budget deficits are the norm while surpluses are the exception. None of the G8 economies are running surpluses right now and many of them are running rather substantial deficits.
Has the world economy ended as many deficit hawks claim it would if deficits are left unchecked? Of course not. The only developed country that is showing any imminent signs of problems is Greece and those problems are more linked to its integration into the Eurozone than just deficits. There are other countries who are suffering under similar debt and deficits burdens as Greece that are doing just fine.
There is, of course, a limit to deficit financing. It cannot go on forever without some consequences but no one ever tries to really objectively define those limits. Mr. Drummond would have done Ontarians a great service if he would have taken a crack at defining those limits for Ontario.
There is no magic bullet for eliminating the Ontario deficit or any deficit. All options should be on the table for dealing with it, from service cuts, to tax increases, to accepting a reasonable amount of deficit financing. Mr. Drummond's report only provides us one option which is why very few of its recommendations will eventually be implemented.
Coming as no surprise to anybody his prescription was for deep cuts to government services. That is what we got for the money Ontario taxpayers paid for his services. Talk about a waste of money. Really, all Premier McGuinty had to do was ask Tim Hudak for his opinion of what needs to be done to reduce the deficit and he would have provided the same advice as Mr. Drummond but it would not have cost taxpayers a penny.
There were two glaring oversights in Mr. Drummond's advice.
One was perhaps that the Ontario government should consider raising taxes. Although in fairness to Mr. Drummond his brief expressly stated he was not to consider that option, which I believe speaks volumes about the priorities of the McGuinty government and has me questionning whether his time has come to be replaced.
When the Canadian government was enjoying all of those budget surpluses (you remember those it was only 7 years ago even though it feels like a lifetime) Conservatives and the business community claimed that this was evidence that Canadians were overtaxed. Well, if governments are running deficits is that not evidence that Canadian are undertaxed?
Government services cost money. Doctors, teachers, government bureaucrats, cops, judges, etc. do not work for free. They seem to believe that they should be paid for their time and efforts in serving the citizens of their country, province or city. (The bastards!) If you are unwilling to pay them then you can expect to receive less services. That fact seems to be lost on those who use those services. They seem to expect that if it comes from the government it should not cost them anything. So, they demand these services but resent paying the taxes necessary to pay for them. Politicians in their infinite stupidity pander to that expectation instead of educating their electorate on the basics of economics. The result is these politicians have to provide these services because their citizen's demand them, they cannot raise sufficient taxes to pay for the services because their citizen's also demand low taxes, so these politicians have to borrow money to make up the difference. This goes on until someone points out the deficits are getting too big and have to be reigned in, which prompts a government to take measures to do that until the inevitable backlash against service cuts reaches critical mass and the deficit cycle begins again.
If any politician finally shows the courage to point out to the electorate that they cannot have good government services and low taxes at the same time I will vote for them, regardless of their political stripe. It is about time we all grew up and realized there is no such thing as a free lunch.
The other oversight of Mr. Drummond was he could have pointed out that budget deficits are not the end of the world. There is not a single government within the G20 that is not saddled with government debt. Indeed, the debt to GDP ratio for these countries have been rising steadily for decades. As well, budget deficits are the norm while surpluses are the exception. None of the G8 economies are running surpluses right now and many of them are running rather substantial deficits.
Has the world economy ended as many deficit hawks claim it would if deficits are left unchecked? Of course not. The only developed country that is showing any imminent signs of problems is Greece and those problems are more linked to its integration into the Eurozone than just deficits. There are other countries who are suffering under similar debt and deficits burdens as Greece that are doing just fine.
There is, of course, a limit to deficit financing. It cannot go on forever without some consequences but no one ever tries to really objectively define those limits. Mr. Drummond would have done Ontarians a great service if he would have taken a crack at defining those limits for Ontario.
There is no magic bullet for eliminating the Ontario deficit or any deficit. All options should be on the table for dealing with it, from service cuts, to tax increases, to accepting a reasonable amount of deficit financing. Mr. Drummond's report only provides us one option which is why very few of its recommendations will eventually be implemented.
Live by the sword
The Conservatives are up in arms over the Vickileaks twitter feed and all I can ask is how does it feel to be on the receiving end of a dirty trick?
Since 2004 the Conservatives have been getting bolder in using dirty tricks as part of their political strategy, the latest being the disinformation campaign that was launched in Irwin Cotler's riding a few months ago. At first they were a little more circumspect as they remembered what happened to the Federal Progressive Conservatives after their highlighting of Jean Chretien's face in an ad campaign in 1993. That ad campaign probably contributed to the eventual destruction of that party and the Conservatives knew it. However, as they realized they were not suffering any negative political fallout from these tactics they became much bolder.
Did the Conservatives really believe that their political opponents would not notice this and begin copying these tactics?
Personally, I have to say that it is about time someone started doing it. The constant wingeing and complaining about Conservative tactics without retaliating was starting to irritate me.
I have stated here on several occasions that conservatives in North America are playing for keeps and that they will resort to any tactic that they believe will advance their agenda. I have also stated here that it is about time progressives began to stop trying to play fair and start playing to win. As much as we would all like to believe people respect you when you turn the other cheek it is a false belief.
So to Conservatives everywhere I say that you are the ones that let this particular Djinni out of its bottle so stop complaining when it comes back to bite you.
Since 2004 the Conservatives have been getting bolder in using dirty tricks as part of their political strategy, the latest being the disinformation campaign that was launched in Irwin Cotler's riding a few months ago. At first they were a little more circumspect as they remembered what happened to the Federal Progressive Conservatives after their highlighting of Jean Chretien's face in an ad campaign in 1993. That ad campaign probably contributed to the eventual destruction of that party and the Conservatives knew it. However, as they realized they were not suffering any negative political fallout from these tactics they became much bolder.
Did the Conservatives really believe that their political opponents would not notice this and begin copying these tactics?
Personally, I have to say that it is about time someone started doing it. The constant wingeing and complaining about Conservative tactics without retaliating was starting to irritate me.
I have stated here on several occasions that conservatives in North America are playing for keeps and that they will resort to any tactic that they believe will advance their agenda. I have also stated here that it is about time progressives began to stop trying to play fair and start playing to win. As much as we would all like to believe people respect you when you turn the other cheek it is a false belief.
So to Conservatives everywhere I say that you are the ones that let this particular Djinni out of its bottle so stop complaining when it comes back to bite you.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Do the Republicans really expect to win the White House?
I have been following the presidential election down south and I can only conclude that the answer to my question is not really.
Despite the troubles that President Obama has been having throughout his first term it would appear that the movers and shakers in the Republican Party have abandoned any real attempt to take it away from him. They do not seem to believe that his troubles will be enough to allow them to turf him so they are not really going to try.
Evidence of that can be found just by looking at the candidates for the Republican nomination. None of them really fire the imagination. None of them really seem to have any innovative or original policy ideas, just Republican Party boilerplate. None of them seem to have the political stature necessary to unseat a sitting president, even one as disappointing as President Obama during a protracted economic downturn.
I really have to wonder about the judgement of the decision makers in the Republican Party on this. After all they only need to look at President Clinton's election in 1992 to know what is possible. The Democrats did not have any expectations of winning the White House that year but they had to put up someone so the big names stayed out of it and allowed a bunch of unknowns to run for the nomination. The expectation was President Bush would win his second term and then one of those big names could run against Dan Quayle after that. They were wrong of course and a relatively unknown Governor from Arkansas won two terms and the opportunity for the big Democrat names was lost.
President Obama is vulnerable. He has been largely ineffective during a long economic downturn. Despite this the Republicans do not seem to be really trying to take advantage of the situation and they seem to be content to allow him to retain the White House for one more term.
Despite the troubles that President Obama has been having throughout his first term it would appear that the movers and shakers in the Republican Party have abandoned any real attempt to take it away from him. They do not seem to believe that his troubles will be enough to allow them to turf him so they are not really going to try.
Evidence of that can be found just by looking at the candidates for the Republican nomination. None of them really fire the imagination. None of them really seem to have any innovative or original policy ideas, just Republican Party boilerplate. None of them seem to have the political stature necessary to unseat a sitting president, even one as disappointing as President Obama during a protracted economic downturn.
I really have to wonder about the judgement of the decision makers in the Republican Party on this. After all they only need to look at President Clinton's election in 1992 to know what is possible. The Democrats did not have any expectations of winning the White House that year but they had to put up someone so the big names stayed out of it and allowed a bunch of unknowns to run for the nomination. The expectation was President Bush would win his second term and then one of those big names could run against Dan Quayle after that. They were wrong of course and a relatively unknown Governor from Arkansas won two terms and the opportunity for the big Democrat names was lost.
President Obama is vulnerable. He has been largely ineffective during a long economic downturn. Despite this the Republicans do not seem to be really trying to take advantage of the situation and they seem to be content to allow him to retain the White House for one more term.
Friday, January 06, 2012
Iran is not a threat to peace
Stephen Harper disagrees with me of course because I read it on the front page of the Ottawa Citizen this morning. He goes so far as to state that Iran wants to acquire and USE nuclear weapons.
Such asinine statements coming from the leader of our country just left me shaking my head.
Of course his statements are partly the result of Iran's building of nuclear reactors and the assumption that they are being built to manufacture nuclear weapons. Any assertion that they are building them to satisfy their need for electricity is ignored because, the argument goes, once they build them to produce power it would not take much to convert them to produce weapons.
The thing with that argument is the same is true of all countries that use nuclear power. Once you have a working reactor it is really a small step to move it from producing electricity to producing weapons. Canada, Germany, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and the Scandavian states, just to name a few, are just six months away from the capability of producing nuclear weapons. All it would take is the decision to do so and the conversion of their reactors would be completed in about half-a-year. That is why is is not illegal under international law to build nuclear reactors to the point where they can produce electricity. If it were there would be no legal nuclear reactors anywhere. A country only gets into legal trouble if it converts those reactors to produce weapons.
Of course, people will say that this is Iran so they cannot be trusted to play by the rules. Fair point although I would point out that they are no more guilty of breaking international rules as many other states that are considered more "respectable". However, from a practical point of view why would Iran want to build nuclear weapons? To use them? Of course not. One of their greatest enemies is Israel and that country already has hundreds of warheads and the means of delivering them. Iran has none of either so why would they begin building them and spark an arms race where they would be beginning such a race so far behind that they would lose it before it really began? If they ever actually tried to use them they would face a massive counterattack from Israel and probably the US. I know that many judge Iran by the statements of its president, who is somewhat of a loon, but we all know that the real power in that country lies with clerics behind the scenes and they have proven to be very pragmatic folks over the years. They will not risk their Islamic Revolution by being so stupid as to attack Israel with nuclear weapons. Iran's government stated last month that they have no interest in making nuclear weapons. I happen to believe them because to do so openly provides them with no advantage and a great deal of disadvantage and they would not be able to do it in secret.
Stephen Harper also made his statements as part of the ongoing campaign by hawks in the west, who want to attack Iran, trying to bring public opinion on to their side.
Hopefully they will be completely unsuccessful. If the goal of any attacks on Iran is to stop their nuclear development program they would likely fail. Iran is a modern country with a sophisticated arms industry feeding a sophisticated armed forces. They have a very capable air defence system that would play merry hell with western airforces and their armed forces are large and they are geared towards one goal and one goal only; to shut down the Strait of Hormuz. Given unlimited time and resources the West would prevail of course but the cost would not be cheap. The current western tactic of dropping bombs on their enemies from a safe altitude would not open the Strait if Iran closed it. The west would have to put both planes and ships into the danger zones and they would lose some of them. Western public opinion probably would not react too badly to the occasional news of lost airplanes but I do not believe the same could be said to daily reports of aircraft losses and the loss of one or more ships during a war with Iran.
Then there is the economic impact. In general, the economies in the west are teetering on the edge of another recession. Taking actions that would probably cause the cost of oil to double or even triple would not help matters. That would probably cause public opinion towards a third war in that region of the world, in a decade, to sour rather quickly.
Iran is no angel in the international community but they are not the devil either and they are not lead by a bunch of suicidal individuals bent on taking their enemies to Hell with them in a rain of fire. They bear watching as they develop their nuclear power capability but the overblown rhetoric that we saw today from Mr. Harper and from others in the West during the past few months is not useful at best and dangerous at worst. It could very well provide the hawks in the various western capitals the cover they require to begin a war with Iran that would result in the unnecessary loss of life of many Western military personnel as well as causing great economic upheaval that would result in the unnecessary loss of livelihoods of a great many citizens in the West.
Such asinine statements coming from the leader of our country just left me shaking my head.
Of course his statements are partly the result of Iran's building of nuclear reactors and the assumption that they are being built to manufacture nuclear weapons. Any assertion that they are building them to satisfy their need for electricity is ignored because, the argument goes, once they build them to produce power it would not take much to convert them to produce weapons.
The thing with that argument is the same is true of all countries that use nuclear power. Once you have a working reactor it is really a small step to move it from producing electricity to producing weapons. Canada, Germany, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and the Scandavian states, just to name a few, are just six months away from the capability of producing nuclear weapons. All it would take is the decision to do so and the conversion of their reactors would be completed in about half-a-year. That is why is is not illegal under international law to build nuclear reactors to the point where they can produce electricity. If it were there would be no legal nuclear reactors anywhere. A country only gets into legal trouble if it converts those reactors to produce weapons.
Of course, people will say that this is Iran so they cannot be trusted to play by the rules. Fair point although I would point out that they are no more guilty of breaking international rules as many other states that are considered more "respectable". However, from a practical point of view why would Iran want to build nuclear weapons? To use them? Of course not. One of their greatest enemies is Israel and that country already has hundreds of warheads and the means of delivering them. Iran has none of either so why would they begin building them and spark an arms race where they would be beginning such a race so far behind that they would lose it before it really began? If they ever actually tried to use them they would face a massive counterattack from Israel and probably the US. I know that many judge Iran by the statements of its president, who is somewhat of a loon, but we all know that the real power in that country lies with clerics behind the scenes and they have proven to be very pragmatic folks over the years. They will not risk their Islamic Revolution by being so stupid as to attack Israel with nuclear weapons. Iran's government stated last month that they have no interest in making nuclear weapons. I happen to believe them because to do so openly provides them with no advantage and a great deal of disadvantage and they would not be able to do it in secret.
Stephen Harper also made his statements as part of the ongoing campaign by hawks in the west, who want to attack Iran, trying to bring public opinion on to their side.
Hopefully they will be completely unsuccessful. If the goal of any attacks on Iran is to stop their nuclear development program they would likely fail. Iran is a modern country with a sophisticated arms industry feeding a sophisticated armed forces. They have a very capable air defence system that would play merry hell with western airforces and their armed forces are large and they are geared towards one goal and one goal only; to shut down the Strait of Hormuz. Given unlimited time and resources the West would prevail of course but the cost would not be cheap. The current western tactic of dropping bombs on their enemies from a safe altitude would not open the Strait if Iran closed it. The west would have to put both planes and ships into the danger zones and they would lose some of them. Western public opinion probably would not react too badly to the occasional news of lost airplanes but I do not believe the same could be said to daily reports of aircraft losses and the loss of one or more ships during a war with Iran.
Then there is the economic impact. In general, the economies in the west are teetering on the edge of another recession. Taking actions that would probably cause the cost of oil to double or even triple would not help matters. That would probably cause public opinion towards a third war in that region of the world, in a decade, to sour rather quickly.
Iran is no angel in the international community but they are not the devil either and they are not lead by a bunch of suicidal individuals bent on taking their enemies to Hell with them in a rain of fire. They bear watching as they develop their nuclear power capability but the overblown rhetoric that we saw today from Mr. Harper and from others in the West during the past few months is not useful at best and dangerous at worst. It could very well provide the hawks in the various western capitals the cover they require to begin a war with Iran that would result in the unnecessary loss of life of many Western military personnel as well as causing great economic upheaval that would result in the unnecessary loss of livelihoods of a great many citizens in the West.
Friday, December 09, 2011
Lots of smoke, very little fire
After several years of negotiations Stephen Harper and Barack Obama finally announced the North American perimeter agreement.
The agreement is not an actual treaty. Instead it is a non-binding set of sub-agreements covering many facets of the relationship between Canada and the United States.
The question is why would both governments take this approach?
From the Canadian perspective I believe the Harper government saw what happened to the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada after it rammed the FTA down the throats of Canadians and decided not to risk a repeat. It is a simple fact that although the majority of Canadians do not actively dislike the United States they also do not actively like or trust it. Making binding treaties with them that could have implications for Canadian sovereignty is fraught with risks as different groups, who do not like the US, use the general distrust of Canadians to fight that treaty and hammer the government that negotiated it.
From an American perspective the political situation in Washington is toxic and any treaty the President would put forward would be rejected on spec by the Republicans. The result would be the real possibility of the US Congress rejecting any treaty negotiated by the President and he would not want that to happen during an election year. Negotiating a binding treaty at this point would just set him up for failure.
Will this agreement significantly change anything in the Canada/US relationship? Probably not.
Without the force of law to compel the two governments to implement this agreement in full there is no incentive to do so. The really significant changes in the agreement will require legislative action in both countries to be implemented and that is just not going to happen. Even the minor changes that can be brought about by simple changes to existing regulations could be stymied by bureaucratic inertia and the lack of political will to push these changes forward.
Again in the United States, the poisoned and rancid political situation would stand in the way of any legislation to implement the major provisions of the agreement. Even if the President were to make the attempt of introducing the necessary legislation he has shown on many occasions that he lacks the spine to fight for them. Whenever he has experienced push-back from the Republicans he has caved, including for his signature initiatives. I could only imagine his reaction to Republican objections to legislation about issues that he really does not care that much about.
In Canada our government has demonstrated many times that it will only use its precious political capital on legislation that it believes will make its base happy or on legislation it believes will buy it votes. Nothing in this agreement will meet those two criteria so this government will not be pushing too hard to implement all of the provisions of it.
This agreement was more about show than substance. It was good for a photo-op but in the end it will not change much.
The agreement is not an actual treaty. Instead it is a non-binding set of sub-agreements covering many facets of the relationship between Canada and the United States.
The question is why would both governments take this approach?
From the Canadian perspective I believe the Harper government saw what happened to the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada after it rammed the FTA down the throats of Canadians and decided not to risk a repeat. It is a simple fact that although the majority of Canadians do not actively dislike the United States they also do not actively like or trust it. Making binding treaties with them that could have implications for Canadian sovereignty is fraught with risks as different groups, who do not like the US, use the general distrust of Canadians to fight that treaty and hammer the government that negotiated it.
From an American perspective the political situation in Washington is toxic and any treaty the President would put forward would be rejected on spec by the Republicans. The result would be the real possibility of the US Congress rejecting any treaty negotiated by the President and he would not want that to happen during an election year. Negotiating a binding treaty at this point would just set him up for failure.
Will this agreement significantly change anything in the Canada/US relationship? Probably not.
Without the force of law to compel the two governments to implement this agreement in full there is no incentive to do so. The really significant changes in the agreement will require legislative action in both countries to be implemented and that is just not going to happen. Even the minor changes that can be brought about by simple changes to existing regulations could be stymied by bureaucratic inertia and the lack of political will to push these changes forward.
Again in the United States, the poisoned and rancid political situation would stand in the way of any legislation to implement the major provisions of the agreement. Even if the President were to make the attempt of introducing the necessary legislation he has shown on many occasions that he lacks the spine to fight for them. Whenever he has experienced push-back from the Republicans he has caved, including for his signature initiatives. I could only imagine his reaction to Republican objections to legislation about issues that he really does not care that much about.
In Canada our government has demonstrated many times that it will only use its precious political capital on legislation that it believes will make its base happy or on legislation it believes will buy it votes. Nothing in this agreement will meet those two criteria so this government will not be pushing too hard to implement all of the provisions of it.
This agreement was more about show than substance. It was good for a photo-op but in the end it will not change much.
Sunday, December 04, 2011
Crossing a line
I have written several times in this space that I believe that it is silly for anybody to make a big deal about a cabinet minister using military aircraft to travel, even if that travel may be for personal reasons. Ours is the only G8 country that expects members of the cabinet to travel commercial.
That being said I have to say that Peter MacKay had no business using the Cormerant helicopter to get out a fishing camp in Labrador.
The military has a whole fleet of aircraft available whose sole purpose is to move people, in luxury and otherwise. If he wants to use any one of these aircraft as his personal air taxi I have no problem with that. That is what they are there for.
The Cormerants on the other hand are there for Search and Rescue. The only people they move are SAR Techs and the victims of accidents. They are not meant to be used as taxies. Canada does not have many of these aircraft so we really cannot spare one for the personal transportation of a cabinet minister, even if it was not the "on-call" aircraft.
What would have happened if while this helicopter was off flying the minister around a major air or sea accident would have taken place requiring the services of all the SAR aircraft in the area? Thankfully, we did not have to find out but the potential was there, particulary at this time of year in that part of the world.
Mr. MacKay's utter lack of good judgement in this case is breathtaking so here is a piece of advice for him. Stay off the yellow birds.
That being said I have to say that Peter MacKay had no business using the Cormerant helicopter to get out a fishing camp in Labrador.
The military has a whole fleet of aircraft available whose sole purpose is to move people, in luxury and otherwise. If he wants to use any one of these aircraft as his personal air taxi I have no problem with that. That is what they are there for.
The Cormerants on the other hand are there for Search and Rescue. The only people they move are SAR Techs and the victims of accidents. They are not meant to be used as taxies. Canada does not have many of these aircraft so we really cannot spare one for the personal transportation of a cabinet minister, even if it was not the "on-call" aircraft.
What would have happened if while this helicopter was off flying the minister around a major air or sea accident would have taken place requiring the services of all the SAR aircraft in the area? Thankfully, we did not have to find out but the potential was there, particulary at this time of year in that part of the world.
Mr. MacKay's utter lack of good judgement in this case is breathtaking so here is a piece of advice for him. Stay off the yellow birds.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Economic Storm Clouds Brewing
It is only a matter of time before Greece defaults on its debts. Italy is on the brink of its own debt crisis. The United States has not recovered from the Great Recession of 2008 and appears to be heading for a second one. The projected economic growth rate for China is expected to decrease by as much as 2.5 percentage points next year, which would still give it very positive economic growth but which could be the pin that finally pops the extremely inflated real estate bubble in that country.
Any one of these events on their own could dump the world economy into the crapper. The fact that more than one of these events could happen within the next 6-12 months would be distasterous for the world economy, including Canada's. Although, we should be really worried about China. That is the country that is buying most of our natural resources, which is the sector of the economy that is keeping up Canada's economic growth. If China runs into a serious bout of economic trouble the economic recession that has been hammering Canada's industrial sector will come to its resources sector and the whole of the Canadian economy will go into a deep and probably prolonged recession.
What are we to do?
Do not count on central banks. Interest rates in the Western world are at or near zero so the central banks' ability to stimulate the economy by loweing interest rates is very limited.
That would leave only governments to take up the slack with fiscal measures to stimulate the economy. However, do not count on them. Any measures they take will probably just make things worse. Governments are completely unable to stop or reduce the duration of recessions. Unfortunately, most people do not realize that so they demand governments to act and when they do the situation invariably gets worse, which leads to demands for more action which leads increasingly desperate governments to take action, any action, that gives the appearance that they are dealing with the recession when in fact they are usually screwing things up more. At any rate, we should be watching what governments do after the next recession. They may not be able to stop or reduce the duration of a recession but they can make the recovery from one more even across their societies by what they do after the economy begins to bounce back.
Do not count on businesses either. They will demand that governments hand them billions of dollars to stay afloat "to save jobs" but they will retrench and lay people off by the 10s of thousands. As well, as they did in 2008 they will stay on the sidelines waiting for someone else to make the investments that will be necessary to finally pull the economy out of any recession.
So really, you can only count on yourself. Scary thought is it not?
Any one of these events on their own could dump the world economy into the crapper. The fact that more than one of these events could happen within the next 6-12 months would be distasterous for the world economy, including Canada's. Although, we should be really worried about China. That is the country that is buying most of our natural resources, which is the sector of the economy that is keeping up Canada's economic growth. If China runs into a serious bout of economic trouble the economic recession that has been hammering Canada's industrial sector will come to its resources sector and the whole of the Canadian economy will go into a deep and probably prolonged recession.
What are we to do?
Do not count on central banks. Interest rates in the Western world are at or near zero so the central banks' ability to stimulate the economy by loweing interest rates is very limited.
That would leave only governments to take up the slack with fiscal measures to stimulate the economy. However, do not count on them. Any measures they take will probably just make things worse. Governments are completely unable to stop or reduce the duration of recessions. Unfortunately, most people do not realize that so they demand governments to act and when they do the situation invariably gets worse, which leads to demands for more action which leads increasingly desperate governments to take action, any action, that gives the appearance that they are dealing with the recession when in fact they are usually screwing things up more. At any rate, we should be watching what governments do after the next recession. They may not be able to stop or reduce the duration of a recession but they can make the recovery from one more even across their societies by what they do after the economy begins to bounce back.
Do not count on businesses either. They will demand that governments hand them billions of dollars to stay afloat "to save jobs" but they will retrench and lay people off by the 10s of thousands. As well, as they did in 2008 they will stay on the sidelines waiting for someone else to make the investments that will be necessary to finally pull the economy out of any recession.
So really, you can only count on yourself. Scary thought is it not?
Tuesday, November 08, 2011
The "Occupy" Movement
With each passing year it is getting more difficult for ordinary citizens in the Western world to live well. Everything is becoming more expensive, from food to education to shelter to transportation. The middle class is shrinking and those who still remain there do so by means of credit. Most ordinary citizens of the Western world know that they are just one economic shock, international, national or local, from economic ruin. But for the most part it is just a slow erosion of the economic well being of ordinary citizens.
This trend has continued for decades and no government, of any political stripe, in any western country has been able to stop that erosion. Indeed, this erosion has accelerated.
The result is more and more ordinary citizens have turned away from politics, as demonstrated by the continuing trend of increasingly lower voter turnout in most Western democracies. This is disinheartening as part of the means of stopping this continued erosion is politics.
So, it is with some satisfaction that I see the creation of the "Occupy" movement. Finally, ordinary citizens are beginning to make their voices heard. Certainly many in this movement are activists but there are enough ordinary people who just want to see change to assert this movement is not just a slow motion G20 protest. Maybe it is a sign that political apathy can be reversed.
So, will the "Occupy" movement change anything?
No.
The key reason is the movement is targeting the symptom of the problem and not the underlying condition.
The 2008 recession was caused by the excesses of Wall Street and other corporate interests and that is a fact. However, the reason why they were allowed to go to such excess was the US government's decision to relax financial rules and regulations governing the work of Wall Street and the big financial players in the country. The result was a financial meltdown not seen since the 1930s that required the US government to bail out corporate America with a bailout package of more than $700,000,000,000. Considering the damage that Wall Street did to the world economy it would have been logical that US law makers would have reinstated some of the tougher financial regulations to prevent a repeat. Of course, that did not happen because Wall Street and other corporate interests took a portion of that $700 billion aid package and used it to lobby US lawmakers to keep things the way they were. They were successful. It is ironic really. Corporate interests fucked things up so much that they almost destroyed the world financial system. They demanded taxpayers funds to be used to pull their nuts out of the fire and then used that same taxpayers money to lobby the government to maintain the conditions that lead to them fucking things up to begin with.
That is the underlying problem. The voice of ordinary citizens in now completely drowned out by the very well funded voice of corporations through their lobby groups. They have proliferated to the point that ordinary citizens cannot put forward the consistant and sustained efforts necessary to convince policy makers to listen to their point of view. It is now a simple fact in the western democracies that money buys access. Corporations have the money and ordinary citizens do not. Therefore, corporations have the access and ordinary citizens do not.
Until ordinary citizens realize this and demand change to this situation nothing will change for the better for them. If the "Occupy" movement wants to begin that process they will have to change their focus. Instead of occupying Wall Street, set up their camps on the Washington Mall and demand the government begins governing for the people again, as it states in the Constitution. Of course, such protests would be broken up pretty quick for "security" reasons.
The "Occupy" movement is a reason for some cautious hope that ordinary citizens can eventually be shaken out of their apathy to redress the growing inbalance in addressing their interests over corporate interests but it still has a long way to go and you can be certain that the corporate interests will be using all available resources to maintain the current imbalance.
This trend has continued for decades and no government, of any political stripe, in any western country has been able to stop that erosion. Indeed, this erosion has accelerated.
The result is more and more ordinary citizens have turned away from politics, as demonstrated by the continuing trend of increasingly lower voter turnout in most Western democracies. This is disinheartening as part of the means of stopping this continued erosion is politics.
So, it is with some satisfaction that I see the creation of the "Occupy" movement. Finally, ordinary citizens are beginning to make their voices heard. Certainly many in this movement are activists but there are enough ordinary people who just want to see change to assert this movement is not just a slow motion G20 protest. Maybe it is a sign that political apathy can be reversed.
So, will the "Occupy" movement change anything?
No.
The key reason is the movement is targeting the symptom of the problem and not the underlying condition.
The 2008 recession was caused by the excesses of Wall Street and other corporate interests and that is a fact. However, the reason why they were allowed to go to such excess was the US government's decision to relax financial rules and regulations governing the work of Wall Street and the big financial players in the country. The result was a financial meltdown not seen since the 1930s that required the US government to bail out corporate America with a bailout package of more than $700,000,000,000. Considering the damage that Wall Street did to the world economy it would have been logical that US law makers would have reinstated some of the tougher financial regulations to prevent a repeat. Of course, that did not happen because Wall Street and other corporate interests took a portion of that $700 billion aid package and used it to lobby US lawmakers to keep things the way they were. They were successful. It is ironic really. Corporate interests fucked things up so much that they almost destroyed the world financial system. They demanded taxpayers funds to be used to pull their nuts out of the fire and then used that same taxpayers money to lobby the government to maintain the conditions that lead to them fucking things up to begin with.
That is the underlying problem. The voice of ordinary citizens in now completely drowned out by the very well funded voice of corporations through their lobby groups. They have proliferated to the point that ordinary citizens cannot put forward the consistant and sustained efforts necessary to convince policy makers to listen to their point of view. It is now a simple fact in the western democracies that money buys access. Corporations have the money and ordinary citizens do not. Therefore, corporations have the access and ordinary citizens do not.
Until ordinary citizens realize this and demand change to this situation nothing will change for the better for them. If the "Occupy" movement wants to begin that process they will have to change their focus. Instead of occupying Wall Street, set up their camps on the Washington Mall and demand the government begins governing for the people again, as it states in the Constitution. Of course, such protests would be broken up pretty quick for "security" reasons.
The "Occupy" movement is a reason for some cautious hope that ordinary citizens can eventually be shaken out of their apathy to redress the growing inbalance in addressing their interests over corporate interests but it still has a long way to go and you can be certain that the corporate interests will be using all available resources to maintain the current imbalance.
Saturday, October 08, 2011
Low Voter Turnout
Voter turnout for the Thursday election in Ontario was the lowest it has ever been and it continues a trend that has been occuring for more than two decades. This is not unique to Ontario as other provinces are experiencing the same trend, we are seeing it at the federal level and we are seeing it in other western countries where there are no laws making voting mandatory.
Seeing this trend I am reminded of the quote from Plato at the top of my blog.
Why is this trend occuring?
I think the main reason is that most of the populations of the western democracies believe politics is no longer relevent to their lives. They see the political classes in their respective countries engaging in short-sighted partisanship where the short-term interests of the political players trumps the broader interests of the societies in which they exist and that dynamic remains the same regardless of which party is in power.
Such a situation in untenable. It will eventually come back to haunt the societies that are experiencing it.
So how do we fix the problem?
Making voting mandatory is one solution but it is just a band-aid. It does not fix the underlying malaise that is the root cause of low voter turnout. As well, some of the western governments that do not already have it are predisposed to reducing what they consider to be the unreasonable burden governments already place on their citizens. Making voting mandatory would go against that predisposition.
The real solution is to make politics relevent again but that is easier said than done.
However, it is necessary for democracy to survive. I know many people believe democracy is the pinnacle of political development and that it will last forever but the same was believed of feudalism, mercantilism and communism. History proved those beliefs to be false as they all collapsed under the weight of their own contradictions. Democracy is not immune to this.
If democracy is to survive those who cherish it will have to revive it by taking it out of the hands of the current political classes of the western world. Failure to do so will eventually cause democracy to suffer the fates of the political systems it replaced. I am not smart enough to know how it will happen, wether it happens quickly or gradually, and I cannot say what will replace it but I do believe that it is inevitable unless we fight to save it.
Then again it might already be too late.
Seeing this trend I am reminded of the quote from Plato at the top of my blog.
Why is this trend occuring?
I think the main reason is that most of the populations of the western democracies believe politics is no longer relevent to their lives. They see the political classes in their respective countries engaging in short-sighted partisanship where the short-term interests of the political players trumps the broader interests of the societies in which they exist and that dynamic remains the same regardless of which party is in power.
Such a situation in untenable. It will eventually come back to haunt the societies that are experiencing it.
So how do we fix the problem?
Making voting mandatory is one solution but it is just a band-aid. It does not fix the underlying malaise that is the root cause of low voter turnout. As well, some of the western governments that do not already have it are predisposed to reducing what they consider to be the unreasonable burden governments already place on their citizens. Making voting mandatory would go against that predisposition.
The real solution is to make politics relevent again but that is easier said than done.
However, it is necessary for democracy to survive. I know many people believe democracy is the pinnacle of political development and that it will last forever but the same was believed of feudalism, mercantilism and communism. History proved those beliefs to be false as they all collapsed under the weight of their own contradictions. Democracy is not immune to this.
If democracy is to survive those who cherish it will have to revive it by taking it out of the hands of the current political classes of the western world. Failure to do so will eventually cause democracy to suffer the fates of the political systems it replaced. I am not smart enough to know how it will happen, wether it happens quickly or gradually, and I cannot say what will replace it but I do believe that it is inevitable unless we fight to save it.
Then again it might already be too late.
Election Night Coverage and Other Thoughts
Who in the CTV and Global braintrust thought it would be a good idea to have former Ontario premiers and other hacks from the various political parties as analysts? Their reactions to how things unfolded was totally predictable spin, quite useless in explaining what we were watching unfold Thursday night. After watching that for 30 minutes I turned it off and only went back a few time during the evening to check the seat ticker.
Predictably the Liberal "analysts" stated it was a good night for the Liberals while the Ontario PC and NDP "analysts" stated it was a lousy night for the Liberals and a great night for their parties. Indeed, listening to Ernie Eves, I was almost believing the Ontario PC Party was winning on Thursday night.
Cutting through all of the spin here is what we are left with. The Liberals won the election. They won a minority government but they only came up short of a majority by one seat. That is it. Everything else that was said on Thursday night was spin, speculation and conjecture.
How all of this plays out in the coming months and years remains to be seen.
Things could go badly for the Liberals. There is no denying that is a possibility but they are not the only party that has to worry about the future.
Pay attention to the Ontario PC Party. Virtually all of their gains came from rural ridings, which is the base for Randy Hillier and his band of Tea Party wannabees. It will be interesting to see what happens if they decide to flex their new found muscle within the Ontario PC Party and how Tim Hudak responds to that. Any sign of internal dissent would not be good news for a party that may face a snap election at any time and if the more radical instincts of the Hillier wing of that party begins to seep into the Party's policies it could frighten alot of urban voters enough to hold their nose and vote for the party that is currently in the best position to keep them at bay, namely the Liberals.
Predictably the Liberal "analysts" stated it was a good night for the Liberals while the Ontario PC and NDP "analysts" stated it was a lousy night for the Liberals and a great night for their parties. Indeed, listening to Ernie Eves, I was almost believing the Ontario PC Party was winning on Thursday night.
Cutting through all of the spin here is what we are left with. The Liberals won the election. They won a minority government but they only came up short of a majority by one seat. That is it. Everything else that was said on Thursday night was spin, speculation and conjecture.
How all of this plays out in the coming months and years remains to be seen.
Things could go badly for the Liberals. There is no denying that is a possibility but they are not the only party that has to worry about the future.
Pay attention to the Ontario PC Party. Virtually all of their gains came from rural ridings, which is the base for Randy Hillier and his band of Tea Party wannabees. It will be interesting to see what happens if they decide to flex their new found muscle within the Ontario PC Party and how Tim Hudak responds to that. Any sign of internal dissent would not be good news for a party that may face a snap election at any time and if the more radical instincts of the Hillier wing of that party begins to seep into the Party's policies it could frighten alot of urban voters enough to hold their nose and vote for the party that is currently in the best position to keep them at bay, namely the Liberals.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Polled
I just answered a poll from Ekos about a North American Customs agreement.
It will be interesting to see the estimates of this poll, provided they are published.
It will be interesting to see the estimates of this poll, provided they are published.
Saturday, August 06, 2011
It's about time!
Word out of the United States is a bond rating agency has downgraded the United States credit rating one notch from its AAA rating. This has created the predictable reaction from the US government and political class but for me my reaction is: What took them so long?
Since before Reagan this is a government that has:
Now if the American political class was smart and forward thinking they would look at this event as a wake-up call and the adults within their ranks would begin pushing the radicals and wingnuts to the fringes, where they belong, and work together to begin resolving this problem.
Not that we should hold our breath on that score.
The President, who should be the one leading the charge on this, is a major disappointment and it is increasingly obvious that he lacks the vision and the spine to take up this necessary task. Unfortunately, there is no one on the other side of the American political divide who can do it either. The adults within the Republican Party are so afraid of a small minority of radicals and wingnuts within their ranks that they are paralyzed and powerless to suggest let alone do what needs to be done to fix this.
In short the American political class is so caught up in their petty, short-term political interests to do what is necessary to right the American ship.
More and more governments around the world are looking at the situation in the US and they will be taking steps to insulate themselves from any fallout of it on their countries. As those processes proceed the relevancy of the US will decrease, probably at an increased rate as time goes on.
In a century or two historians are going to look upon the events of the past few months as the trigger for the beginning of the fall of the American Empire.
Since before Reagan this is a government that has:
- Spent close to half-a-trillion dollars a year on defence despite the fact that there is no longer any threat to the US by any other country on the planet and the fact the US miliary has only won one war since end of the Second World War. Criminy, they lost the war in Iraq, are going to lose the war in Afghanistan and have been hopelessly incapable of getting rid of a dried up and desicated regime in Libya. Talk about a waste of money.
- Spent more on non-military spending that the rest of the G-20 combined.
- Lowered taxes on the very rich and on corporations, the two groups most capable of paying taxes without any undo hardship, reducing revenues just as they are increasing spending.
- Generally, living beyond its mean with that situation accelerating at a time when it is becoming increasingly evident that the government and the country are becoming less and less capable of meeting their obligation.
Now if the American political class was smart and forward thinking they would look at this event as a wake-up call and the adults within their ranks would begin pushing the radicals and wingnuts to the fringes, where they belong, and work together to begin resolving this problem.
Not that we should hold our breath on that score.
The President, who should be the one leading the charge on this, is a major disappointment and it is increasingly obvious that he lacks the vision and the spine to take up this necessary task. Unfortunately, there is no one on the other side of the American political divide who can do it either. The adults within the Republican Party are so afraid of a small minority of radicals and wingnuts within their ranks that they are paralyzed and powerless to suggest let alone do what needs to be done to fix this.
In short the American political class is so caught up in their petty, short-term political interests to do what is necessary to right the American ship.
More and more governments around the world are looking at the situation in the US and they will be taking steps to insulate themselves from any fallout of it on their countries. As those processes proceed the relevancy of the US will decrease, probably at an increased rate as time goes on.
In a century or two historians are going to look upon the events of the past few months as the trigger for the beginning of the fall of the American Empire.
Saturday, July 30, 2011
The United States is screwed
Regardless of how the budget ceiling crisis is resolved in the United States in the coming days it is obvious that the US political class is, in all likelyhood, permanently split beyond any reconciliation.
There was a time not too many years in the past where the two parties, and their activists, in the United States disagreed on the means of getting things done but they agreed on the ends, the objectives for the government and Amercian society. That consensus began breaking down under Reagan and it accelerated under Clinton, creating a schism that has continued to grow until we see the chasm between the Democrats and the Republicans we now see.
The most recent crisis is only going to cause that gap to grow more and to cement itself into a permanent situation. The result is more of these self-inflicted crises will occur that will cause the already gradual decline of the US in the world to accelerate until Americans find themselves overtaken by other states like China, India and Brazil. In other words they will suffer the same fate as Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union. The successor states will certainly take care not to offend the sensibilities of the US, at least until this diminished state drives the US into a new isolationism, but they will still be the ones making all of the important decisions in the world.
We are probably only a decade or so away from this situation. Barring a radical change in how the American political class conducts itself the decline of the US is probably irreversible.
The question for Canada is does it have a political class that recognizes this reality and is taking action to reduce our dependance on our deteriorating neigbbour to the South? Of course not. It is quite obvious that the current government and its supporters are completely oblivious to the long-term threat the current situation in Washington poses to Canada. However, it is also quite obvious that the part of the Canadian political class opposed to the current government lacks the vision to see the threat as well.
So, I guess you can probably say that Canada is also screwed.
There was a time not too many years in the past where the two parties, and their activists, in the United States disagreed on the means of getting things done but they agreed on the ends, the objectives for the government and Amercian society. That consensus began breaking down under Reagan and it accelerated under Clinton, creating a schism that has continued to grow until we see the chasm between the Democrats and the Republicans we now see.
The most recent crisis is only going to cause that gap to grow more and to cement itself into a permanent situation. The result is more of these self-inflicted crises will occur that will cause the already gradual decline of the US in the world to accelerate until Americans find themselves overtaken by other states like China, India and Brazil. In other words they will suffer the same fate as Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union. The successor states will certainly take care not to offend the sensibilities of the US, at least until this diminished state drives the US into a new isolationism, but they will still be the ones making all of the important decisions in the world.
We are probably only a decade or so away from this situation. Barring a radical change in how the American political class conducts itself the decline of the US is probably irreversible.
The question for Canada is does it have a political class that recognizes this reality and is taking action to reduce our dependance on our deteriorating neigbbour to the South? Of course not. It is quite obvious that the current government and its supporters are completely oblivious to the long-term threat the current situation in Washington poses to Canada. However, it is also quite obvious that the part of the Canadian political class opposed to the current government lacks the vision to see the threat as well.
So, I guess you can probably say that Canada is also screwed.
Wednesday, May 04, 2011
Fill out your Census Form
I received my a letter yesterday asking me to complete the Census and it gave me the opportunity to do it on-line.
I typed in the access code and then complete it. It took me 7 minutes to complete for a family of two.
After I submitted it I was informed that I was chosen to complete the new National Household Survey and that I could complete it right then. I did and it took me 40 minutes to complete the information for my wife and I.
The interface was good and easy to use and there were plenty of instruction. The one time I did make a mistake the application popped an error message and let me go back to fix it.
I know alot of Liberals and progressives reacted very negatively to the government's decision to eliminate the long form census last summer so I would urge you to put your money where your keyboard is and complete the Census asap. And if you are chosen for the National Household Survey complete it as well.
I typed in the access code and then complete it. It took me 7 minutes to complete for a family of two.
After I submitted it I was informed that I was chosen to complete the new National Household Survey and that I could complete it right then. I did and it took me 40 minutes to complete the information for my wife and I.
The interface was good and easy to use and there were plenty of instruction. The one time I did make a mistake the application popped an error message and let me go back to fix it.
I know alot of Liberals and progressives reacted very negatively to the government's decision to eliminate the long form census last summer so I would urge you to put your money where your keyboard is and complete the Census asap. And if you are chosen for the National Household Survey complete it as well.
Tuesday, May 03, 2011
You do not owe anything to Canadians Mr. Ignatieff
Since nobody else will probably do it I am going to pay tribute to Mr. Ignatieff and provide him with some parting advice.
Mr. Ignatieff had the attributes that could have made him a fine PM. There is no doubting his abilities and brilliance as one does not become the head of one of the most prestigious departments of one of the most prestigious universities in the world by being a dolt. I believe his natural abilities combined with his life experience would have put him in good stead for dealing with the myriad issues that are facing Canada and that are being largely ignored by our out of touch political elite.
What I found most impressive about him was his choice of how he wanted to serve Canada and Canadians when he decided to return to Canada.
Considering his background and where he was coming from Canadian universities like McGill, Queens, U of T, etc. would have been falling over themselves to offer him the presidencies of those institutions if he would have let it be known that he was available. He could have shaped the young minds of Canadians for years or he could have gone into business or some other vocation that would have allowed him to influence Canadian society without having to expose himself to the bullshit of the rotted political culture in this country.
Instead of taking that route he decided to go into politics. I cannot think of a more thankless job than being a politician. The hours are long and you have to give up anything resembling a private life. Every so often you have to overcome the ignorance and apathy of the electorate just to hang on to your job. This is true even if you are just a back bencher. If you actually manage to take the helm of a political party you then have to deal with the fact that a significant number of people will think you are an asshole, and that is just amongst members of your own party. Your opponents from other political parties would use much stronger language to describe your perceived shortcomings.
Despite this Mr. Ignatieff decided to to serve Canadians by being an elected member of our Parliament and then the leader of a major political party. And he was we resoundingly reputiated and rejected by those he wished to serve.
So Mr. Ignatieff, here is my advice. You have resigned as leader of the Liberal Party and you do not seem to be someone who wants to go off into a quiet retirement so find yourself a new challenge where ever you can find it. If that means that you have to leave the country again then sobeit. Certainly, many will crow that they were right about you but who cares. Canadians rejected you so you owe them nothing. Go and live the rest of your life where ever is best for you.
While you are there think about us here back in Canada and lament the fact that your experience will act as a cautionary tale for any other capable men and women, from all points political spectrum, and will cause them to think twice before deciding to serve their people and country as elected official. Thus leaving us to be governed by navel gazing professional politicians and hacks, with no vision, no scruples and no skills outside of being able to play politics.
Mr. Ignatieff had the attributes that could have made him a fine PM. There is no doubting his abilities and brilliance as one does not become the head of one of the most prestigious departments of one of the most prestigious universities in the world by being a dolt. I believe his natural abilities combined with his life experience would have put him in good stead for dealing with the myriad issues that are facing Canada and that are being largely ignored by our out of touch political elite.
What I found most impressive about him was his choice of how he wanted to serve Canada and Canadians when he decided to return to Canada.
Considering his background and where he was coming from Canadian universities like McGill, Queens, U of T, etc. would have been falling over themselves to offer him the presidencies of those institutions if he would have let it be known that he was available. He could have shaped the young minds of Canadians for years or he could have gone into business or some other vocation that would have allowed him to influence Canadian society without having to expose himself to the bullshit of the rotted political culture in this country.
Instead of taking that route he decided to go into politics. I cannot think of a more thankless job than being a politician. The hours are long and you have to give up anything resembling a private life. Every so often you have to overcome the ignorance and apathy of the electorate just to hang on to your job. This is true even if you are just a back bencher. If you actually manage to take the helm of a political party you then have to deal with the fact that a significant number of people will think you are an asshole, and that is just amongst members of your own party. Your opponents from other political parties would use much stronger language to describe your perceived shortcomings.
Despite this Mr. Ignatieff decided to to serve Canadians by being an elected member of our Parliament and then the leader of a major political party. And he was we resoundingly reputiated and rejected by those he wished to serve.
So Mr. Ignatieff, here is my advice. You have resigned as leader of the Liberal Party and you do not seem to be someone who wants to go off into a quiet retirement so find yourself a new challenge where ever you can find it. If that means that you have to leave the country again then sobeit. Certainly, many will crow that they were right about you but who cares. Canadians rejected you so you owe them nothing. Go and live the rest of your life where ever is best for you.
While you are there think about us here back in Canada and lament the fact that your experience will act as a cautionary tale for any other capable men and women, from all points political spectrum, and will cause them to think twice before deciding to serve their people and country as elected official. Thus leaving us to be governed by navel gazing professional politicians and hacks, with no vision, no scruples and no skills outside of being able to play politics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)