The world has yet again borne witness to a senseless mass shooting in the United States. I have lost count of how many times I have read about and seen them in the media in the 40 or so years I have been alive.
The usual suspects in the United States are coming out of the wood work to decry this tragedy and to pin it on a single individual. "This is just the act of one disturbed individual," they say. "Increased gun control would not solve this problem," they say. "If someone in the crowd would have had a gun themselves the death toll would have been much lower because they could have taken the guy down," they say, as if real life is like a Hollywood action movie.
To a certain extent I am beginning to agree with these people. I believe most countries in the West have experienced this kind of tragedy at least once in the last quarter century but they seem to happen more frequently and with greater regularity in the United States.
The question is why? Is it because of the ease with which it is possible to obtain firearms? That would be the easy answer but all Western countries allow their citizens to own guns. Certainly, they control them much more than the US but if someone like the suspect in this shooting wanted to obtain a gun they could do it. Unfortunately, people with the intent to kill do not have a big sign on their forehead indicating as much when they go through whatever process they need to go through to obtain a firearm.
I believe there is a much deeper cause for the carnage we see on a regular basis in the United States. As a society it is in a state of decay and when a society decays like that it produces the likes of yesterday's gunman. It produces people who become alienated from that society and that alienation engenders a sense of isolation, an isolation that if allowed to grow and fester leads to a deep anger that will eventually need an outlet.
It is true that if guns in the United States were strictly controlled these individuals would still find a way of obtaining them and perpetrating these acts. You only need to read and watch the news coverage from yesterday to see that this guy was rather methodical and patient in planning and implementing this act so a thing like gun control would not have prevented this tragedy.
Then again, when a society is in such a state of decay as the US it is folly to allow firearms to be so readily available, particularly firearms that have been designed with the single purpose of efficiently killing large numbers of other human beings like the ones uses yesterday. Strict gun control would not prevent all of these tragedies but it would prevent many of them and it would probably reduce the death toll for those that were not prevented. Gun control would also prevent many more of the more mundane actions that lead to the thousands of gun deaths in the US, the ones that happen every day as a matter of routine and do not make the international news.
However, Americans are not interested in that. They have indicated many times by their actions that they consider yesterday's tragedy and the ongoing tragedy of thousands of guns deaths a year in the US as acceptable losses to maintain their "freedom". Yes they will make all the right noises about how senseless and how tragic these shootings are but that has not prevented gun control from becoming the "third rail" in American politics.
Most Americans do not see the deep decay in their society so there is no hope of the root cause of yesterday's tragedy being addressed and they also will not consider gun control as a way to reduce the carnage resulting from gun violence in their country. So, we and they can continue to expect these mass shootings to happen again and again and I believe that deep down they are OK with that.
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Sunday, June 24, 2012
A few more thoughts
To continue my post from yesterday.
F-35s A while back I wrote a post questioning how the Harper government would react to the AG report that slammed their handling of this issue. I stated that they had the opportunity to rethink the whole process for the good of the Canadian Air Force and for Canadians by reducing the amount of politics that had infested this file. I also stated that they could do what Jean Chretien did and make the issue more political than it already is. I questioned which approach the Harper government would take although I had a feeling that they would take the Chretien approach. It appears I am right, which is not surprising because this government always lets politics trump good judgement and bad judgement for that matter. Only two outcomes can come from this. The Canadian Airforce will have to wait decades before they finally receive replacements for the F-18s or Canadians will be saddled with a huge bill for new fighter aircraft that will not meet all of the needs of the Canadian Air Force, which will have to make due with them for over 30 years.
Dutch Disease Mr. Mulclair learned a valuable lesson. Tactics that work in the closed politics of Quebec do not work very well in the open politics of Canada. There are too many diverse interests in the broader Canadian political scene to allow for the type of politics he displayed recently. Fortunately for him and the NDP he has three years to learn this and maybe he will break the streak of provincial politicians who become leaders of federal political parties only to crash and burn in a spectacular fashion. I would not hold my breath though if you are an NDP supporter. The irony of this whole situation is his arguments did have some merit but he just did not take them far enough. The current government's focus on the resource industries while it criminally ignores the manufacturing industries in this country will come back to haunt them and the country. If either of the Opposition Parties can come up with a way to bring that situation into focus in a more constructive fashion they would be doing Canada a great service. (Don't hold your breath on that score however.)
Microphones in our Airports Mr. bin Laden must be laughing his ass off in Hell. With one act he managed to do what countless Soviet politicians, diplomats, soldiers, spys, and agent provoceteurs failed to do during half-a-century of the Cold War, namely, cause the people of the West to accept increasing limitations on their rights and freedoms. I am certain that some old Soviet spymaster in a Russian nursing home is kicking himself for not thinking of paying international terrorists to strike directly at the US. The irony of this situation is the Soviet Union was a threat to our political institutions and our way of life while bin Laden and his ilks have never been and never will be. Which is not stopping elements of the ruling classes of the West, who have a more authoritarian bent, from hyping up the terrorist threat for their own political ends. The government finally backed off from activating these microphones (for now) after they took a great deal of political heat over them but the fact that someone actually thought putting these microphones in place was a good idea speaks volumes on how much citizens of the West have accepted giving up their rights and freedoms in the name of "security".
F-35s A while back I wrote a post questioning how the Harper government would react to the AG report that slammed their handling of this issue. I stated that they had the opportunity to rethink the whole process for the good of the Canadian Air Force and for Canadians by reducing the amount of politics that had infested this file. I also stated that they could do what Jean Chretien did and make the issue more political than it already is. I questioned which approach the Harper government would take although I had a feeling that they would take the Chretien approach. It appears I am right, which is not surprising because this government always lets politics trump good judgement and bad judgement for that matter. Only two outcomes can come from this. The Canadian Airforce will have to wait decades before they finally receive replacements for the F-18s or Canadians will be saddled with a huge bill for new fighter aircraft that will not meet all of the needs of the Canadian Air Force, which will have to make due with them for over 30 years.
Dutch Disease Mr. Mulclair learned a valuable lesson. Tactics that work in the closed politics of Quebec do not work very well in the open politics of Canada. There are too many diverse interests in the broader Canadian political scene to allow for the type of politics he displayed recently. Fortunately for him and the NDP he has three years to learn this and maybe he will break the streak of provincial politicians who become leaders of federal political parties only to crash and burn in a spectacular fashion. I would not hold my breath though if you are an NDP supporter. The irony of this whole situation is his arguments did have some merit but he just did not take them far enough. The current government's focus on the resource industries while it criminally ignores the manufacturing industries in this country will come back to haunt them and the country. If either of the Opposition Parties can come up with a way to bring that situation into focus in a more constructive fashion they would be doing Canada a great service. (Don't hold your breath on that score however.)
Microphones in our Airports Mr. bin Laden must be laughing his ass off in Hell. With one act he managed to do what countless Soviet politicians, diplomats, soldiers, spys, and agent provoceteurs failed to do during half-a-century of the Cold War, namely, cause the people of the West to accept increasing limitations on their rights and freedoms. I am certain that some old Soviet spymaster in a Russian nursing home is kicking himself for not thinking of paying international terrorists to strike directly at the US. The irony of this situation is the Soviet Union was a threat to our political institutions and our way of life while bin Laden and his ilks have never been and never will be. Which is not stopping elements of the ruling classes of the West, who have a more authoritarian bent, from hyping up the terrorist threat for their own political ends. The government finally backed off from activating these microphones (for now) after they took a great deal of political heat over them but the fact that someone actually thought putting these microphones in place was a good idea speaks volumes on how much citizens of the West have accepted giving up their rights and freedoms in the name of "security".
Saturday, June 23, 2012
An Omnibus Post?
This post is just some quick thoughts on some issues that have caught my eye over the last few weeks.
The Euro Crisis It has been rather interesting to watch the slow motion destruction of the Euro. The helplessness of the politicos in Europe to prevent it from happening is palpable as indicated by their elation at the Greek election results, which just staved off the inevitable. What I find more interesting is how the conservative thinkers and politicians in the Eurozone will still not relent on the policies that they are demanding from Greece. Do these conservatives really believe that the Euro will be saved by destroying the economy of one of the users of that currency? Only an ideologue would believe such claptrap. The only way the Euro is saved is if they show a little bit of flexibility. If they do not they will just cause that which they are trying to prevent.
Egypt The military is very clever in that country. Throw their former boss under the bus during the revolution. Delay elections as long as possible to allow the population to cool off and then rig the elections and the constitution to allow them to maintain the real power in the country. The ones that thought they would be the beneficiaries of the revolution are left sputtering in rage and surprise and they and their supporters will certainly try to recreate the protests of the revolution but the majority of Egyptians will just turn away in resignation and nothing will change in that country. I wrote a post when Mr. Mubarak was ousted last year that there would be no change in Egypt as a result of his ouster and sadly I was right. Of course, now the military government will be completely illegitimate in the eyes of most Egyptians but they can live with that. Such arrangements have worked well all over the world before so they see no reason why it cannot be made to work there.
Syria Mr. Assad is obviously not as smart as the Egyptian military. He finds himself embroiled in a civil war whose outcome is far from certain. The only certainty in all of that sad situation is the world will not intervene.
Cheating during elections There seems to be a pattern emerging with regards to the Conservatives not following election laws in this country. They are not doing it as a party and it would appears that some individual candidates are not following them either. We can expect the same from them in 2015 (2016?) so I wonder what the Dippers and the Liberals are going to do to counter that.
Supply Management The Harper Government wants a seat at the table of the Pacific free trade talks and in order to do that he will probably have to put Canada's Supply Management System on the table. That system is extremely popular in the rural areas of Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes. You know, those places where the Liberals have been moribund for more than a decade. If the Liberals entertain any hopes of becoming relevant again they had better fight to protect the Supply Management System. If they cede this issue to the NDP they are done and if they are so stupid as to actually side with those that will dismantle the system then we will be watching them suffer the same fate as the Progressive Conservatives, circa 1993, during the next election. I know all of the arguments against the system as I have made some of them but those arguments have existed since the system was set up and it has still lasted for more than four decades. The reason of course is obvious, those who benefit from it fight to keep it and they punish anybody who would seek to tamper with it. Anybody who knows the realities of politics knows that facts and logic are often trumped by base politics. That is the reason why I have seen John Baird and Randell Denley signs on the lawns of a subsidized housing community during previous elections. If Liberals will finally accept that simple fact and conduct themselves accordingly maybe they can take advantage of any ill feelings that might arise in rural Canada to political benefit and hope that those centrists voters in urban Canada, who would never vote NDP, grow tired enough of the Conservatives to switch to the only other party in this country that they would trust the economy to, the Liberals.
The Euro Crisis It has been rather interesting to watch the slow motion destruction of the Euro. The helplessness of the politicos in Europe to prevent it from happening is palpable as indicated by their elation at the Greek election results, which just staved off the inevitable. What I find more interesting is how the conservative thinkers and politicians in the Eurozone will still not relent on the policies that they are demanding from Greece. Do these conservatives really believe that the Euro will be saved by destroying the economy of one of the users of that currency? Only an ideologue would believe such claptrap. The only way the Euro is saved is if they show a little bit of flexibility. If they do not they will just cause that which they are trying to prevent.
Egypt The military is very clever in that country. Throw their former boss under the bus during the revolution. Delay elections as long as possible to allow the population to cool off and then rig the elections and the constitution to allow them to maintain the real power in the country. The ones that thought they would be the beneficiaries of the revolution are left sputtering in rage and surprise and they and their supporters will certainly try to recreate the protests of the revolution but the majority of Egyptians will just turn away in resignation and nothing will change in that country. I wrote a post when Mr. Mubarak was ousted last year that there would be no change in Egypt as a result of his ouster and sadly I was right. Of course, now the military government will be completely illegitimate in the eyes of most Egyptians but they can live with that. Such arrangements have worked well all over the world before so they see no reason why it cannot be made to work there.
Syria Mr. Assad is obviously not as smart as the Egyptian military. He finds himself embroiled in a civil war whose outcome is far from certain. The only certainty in all of that sad situation is the world will not intervene.
Cheating during elections There seems to be a pattern emerging with regards to the Conservatives not following election laws in this country. They are not doing it as a party and it would appears that some individual candidates are not following them either. We can expect the same from them in 2015 (2016?) so I wonder what the Dippers and the Liberals are going to do to counter that.
Supply Management The Harper Government wants a seat at the table of the Pacific free trade talks and in order to do that he will probably have to put Canada's Supply Management System on the table. That system is extremely popular in the rural areas of Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes. You know, those places where the Liberals have been moribund for more than a decade. If the Liberals entertain any hopes of becoming relevant again they had better fight to protect the Supply Management System. If they cede this issue to the NDP they are done and if they are so stupid as to actually side with those that will dismantle the system then we will be watching them suffer the same fate as the Progressive Conservatives, circa 1993, during the next election. I know all of the arguments against the system as I have made some of them but those arguments have existed since the system was set up and it has still lasted for more than four decades. The reason of course is obvious, those who benefit from it fight to keep it and they punish anybody who would seek to tamper with it. Anybody who knows the realities of politics knows that facts and logic are often trumped by base politics. That is the reason why I have seen John Baird and Randell Denley signs on the lawns of a subsidized housing community during previous elections. If Liberals will finally accept that simple fact and conduct themselves accordingly maybe they can take advantage of any ill feelings that might arise in rural Canada to political benefit and hope that those centrists voters in urban Canada, who would never vote NDP, grow tired enough of the Conservatives to switch to the only other party in this country that they would trust the economy to, the Liberals.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Quebec Student Protests are an Example of the Purest Form of Democracy
Warren Kinsella has already mentioned this over at his website but I thought I would throw in my two cents.
I have read several pundits and commentators over the last few days that have been quite critical of the student protests claiming that they are undermining our democracy.
Hell, Macleans even infers that the students have become the new "ruling class" in Quebec. We could only wish there was some truth to that assertion.
It is no coincidence that the most critical pundits are those that are on the conservative side of the political spectrum. In a previous post on this blog I mentioned that the balance of influence between corporations and individuals has been badly skewed in favour of corporations. For conservatives they believe that is how it should be and any movement that might bring that balance of influence on to a more even keel is considered a threat.
I would like to say that calling these demonstrations a threat to democracy is just a political tactic but my experience debating with conservatives indicates to me that a sizable number of them actually believe what the say. They actually believe that ordinary citizens expressing their displeasure towards a government policy or just a government is somehow undemocratic. Most of the time it is the organized fashion of the protests that they get hung up on. Someone writing a letter to the editor or to their Member of Parliament is democratic but a group of people with the same goals organizing to push for the realization of those goals is not.
As I have stated before I believe North America needs more examples of the type of democracy the students in Quebec have been engaged in. Whether you agree with their demands or not they are demonstrating that ordinary citizens with a little organization and alot of committment can tip the balance of influence back towards ordinary citizens (at least for a little while) and remind the real ruling class on this continent that their grip on power is not as firm as they would like to believe.
I have read several pundits and commentators over the last few days that have been quite critical of the student protests claiming that they are undermining our democracy.
Hell, Macleans even infers that the students have become the new "ruling class" in Quebec. We could only wish there was some truth to that assertion.
It is no coincidence that the most critical pundits are those that are on the conservative side of the political spectrum. In a previous post on this blog I mentioned that the balance of influence between corporations and individuals has been badly skewed in favour of corporations. For conservatives they believe that is how it should be and any movement that might bring that balance of influence on to a more even keel is considered a threat.
I would like to say that calling these demonstrations a threat to democracy is just a political tactic but my experience debating with conservatives indicates to me that a sizable number of them actually believe what the say. They actually believe that ordinary citizens expressing their displeasure towards a government policy or just a government is somehow undemocratic. Most of the time it is the organized fashion of the protests that they get hung up on. Someone writing a letter to the editor or to their Member of Parliament is democratic but a group of people with the same goals organizing to push for the realization of those goals is not.
As I have stated before I believe North America needs more examples of the type of democracy the students in Quebec have been engaged in. Whether you agree with their demands or not they are demonstrating that ordinary citizens with a little organization and alot of committment can tip the balance of influence back towards ordinary citizens (at least for a little while) and remind the real ruling class on this continent that their grip on power is not as firm as they would like to believe.
Saturday, May 19, 2012
The Assault on EI Begins
Earlier in the week it was reported that the Conservative government is proposing changes to EI, which will make it more difficult for people to get EI and once they do get it make it more difficult to keep receiving benefits. And in a particular case of nastiness they will make it really difficult for people who need EI more than once.
Today, in both the Ottawa Citizen and the National Post we see stories about how EI is damaging Canda, particularly in the Maritimes and Quebec.
Coincidence?
The government's proposed changes to EI and the defence of those changes by the two newspapers I mentioned is just typical of the conservative mindset.
For conservatives, people are not people, they are not even citizens. They are just economic entities moving within the economy and they are to be handled in such a way as to make that economy as efficient as possible. It would never occur to conservatives that those individuals who might not want to move from a high unemployment part of Canada to a lower unemployment part of Canada are people who have set down roots in their current communities. They have family and friends, their families have their own roots and to throw that all away to move to another part of the country would be difficult, emotionally and logistically. As well, many Canadians have bought into the conservative mantra that "jobs for life" no longer exist so they are hesitant to move because they may just have to do it all over again when the economic winds shift, as they always do.
Conservatives also realize that people are also voters and they can vote against them if they pursue polices people do not want or agree with. (The inconsiderate pricks, don't they know that conservatives and their corporate enablers have their best interests at heart.) Again the conservative mindset is not to think of voters as people but they think of them as political entities to be manipulated, hence today's stories trashing EI.
Today was just the opening salvo of the assault on EI and I am certain we will see more of it in the coming weeks and month. I will leave it up to others to discuss whether the Conservative government and their allies will succeed and whether they will suffer for it politically.
Today, in both the Ottawa Citizen and the National Post we see stories about how EI is damaging Canda, particularly in the Maritimes and Quebec.
Coincidence?
The government's proposed changes to EI and the defence of those changes by the two newspapers I mentioned is just typical of the conservative mindset.
For conservatives, people are not people, they are not even citizens. They are just economic entities moving within the economy and they are to be handled in such a way as to make that economy as efficient as possible. It would never occur to conservatives that those individuals who might not want to move from a high unemployment part of Canada to a lower unemployment part of Canada are people who have set down roots in their current communities. They have family and friends, their families have their own roots and to throw that all away to move to another part of the country would be difficult, emotionally and logistically. As well, many Canadians have bought into the conservative mantra that "jobs for life" no longer exist so they are hesitant to move because they may just have to do it all over again when the economic winds shift, as they always do.
Conservatives also realize that people are also voters and they can vote against them if they pursue polices people do not want or agree with. (The inconsiderate pricks, don't they know that conservatives and their corporate enablers have their best interests at heart.) Again the conservative mindset is not to think of voters as people but they think of them as political entities to be manipulated, hence today's stories trashing EI.
Today was just the opening salvo of the assault on EI and I am certain we will see more of it in the coming weeks and month. I will leave it up to others to discuss whether the Conservative government and their allies will succeed and whether they will suffer for it politically.
Friday, May 18, 2012
Quebec Student Strikes
One thing I have always admired about Quebecers is their lack of tolerance of their governments giving them what they perceive to be a bad deal. It does not matter what group it is or the political stripe of the government that is committing the perceived wrong, they make it very difficult for any government to do so without consequences.
We are seeing that this mind set runs deep and it runs thoughtout the province, including in the youth. I say good on them.
On the merits of their case I cannot say that I blame the students for their actions. They enjoy the lowest tuition rates in the country and they would like to keep it that way. As well, they know that the proposed tuition hikes are only the beginning. Once they start they will not stop. They only need to look at all of the other provinces in Canada where governments have been raising tuitions for the last 20+ years. The reason why they are doing so is the wet noodle reaction of student organizations to the proposed hikes. The student organizations make all sorts of noise about "access to education being a right" but they never really took action to back up their words.
I daresay that this might not be a problem in Quebec. The current proposal will be enacted because for the Charest government to back down now would be a political disaster but the events of the last four months will probably give future Quebec governments pause before proposing more tuition increases in the future.
Indeed, if the PQ Party has any political smarts left they should be planning on promising to roll back any tuition hikes in the coming election in an effort to take political advantage of a suddenly energized youth vote.
It is good to see that there is still one last jurisdiction on the continent where the people of that place are unwilling to let their government give them the shaft without putting up one hell of a fight. Now if only the rest of the continent would follow their example.
We are seeing that this mind set runs deep and it runs thoughtout the province, including in the youth. I say good on them.
On the merits of their case I cannot say that I blame the students for their actions. They enjoy the lowest tuition rates in the country and they would like to keep it that way. As well, they know that the proposed tuition hikes are only the beginning. Once they start they will not stop. They only need to look at all of the other provinces in Canada where governments have been raising tuitions for the last 20+ years. The reason why they are doing so is the wet noodle reaction of student organizations to the proposed hikes. The student organizations make all sorts of noise about "access to education being a right" but they never really took action to back up their words.
I daresay that this might not be a problem in Quebec. The current proposal will be enacted because for the Charest government to back down now would be a political disaster but the events of the last four months will probably give future Quebec governments pause before proposing more tuition increases in the future.
Indeed, if the PQ Party has any political smarts left they should be planning on promising to roll back any tuition hikes in the coming election in an effort to take political advantage of a suddenly energized youth vote.
It is good to see that there is still one last jurisdiction on the continent where the people of that place are unwilling to let their government give them the shaft without putting up one hell of a fight. Now if only the rest of the continent would follow their example.
Friday, April 06, 2012
Ah, so that's what it takes
I have always wondered what it would take to make the Harper government change its mind on one of its "signature" initiatives and now I know.
It takes a political two by four. I had a feeling.
Canada needs to replace its F-18s. No industrialized country can do without a fully capable air force. I have no problem with the government's desire to buy new fighter/strike aircraft. My problem is we can only do so once every 30 years or so. As a result, it is imperative that we get it right otherwise we will be stuck with the wrong aircraft for a very long time. That means the process should be designed to identify the operational needs of the Canadian airforce and then go out and find the aircraft that best meets those needs.
Although it is naive to believe some politics will not seep into such a process a government that lets politics take over the process is doing Canada a great disservice.
Now we get to see how this government reacts to this situation. Will it react like the Chretien government did or will it do the right thing?
After the Chretien government cancelled the EH-101 contract it did its best to disqualify that helicopter from the running to replace the Sea Kings because they believed they would look like idiots to cancel a signed contract only to sign another one for the same aircraft a few years later. (They would have been right.) The only problem was the EH-101 met Canada's needs so they could not really disqualify it without cranking the process, which lead to lawsuits, which lead to so many delays in buying new helicopters we still have not replaced the Sea Kings.
So now we get to see what this government does.
Considering this government has proven it places political considerations above all else I think it is pretty safe to say that we are witnessing the beginning of the 'Sea King' saga all over again and that it will be another decade or so before the Canadian Airforce sees new figher/strike aircraft.
It takes a political two by four. I had a feeling.
Canada needs to replace its F-18s. No industrialized country can do without a fully capable air force. I have no problem with the government's desire to buy new fighter/strike aircraft. My problem is we can only do so once every 30 years or so. As a result, it is imperative that we get it right otherwise we will be stuck with the wrong aircraft for a very long time. That means the process should be designed to identify the operational needs of the Canadian airforce and then go out and find the aircraft that best meets those needs.
Although it is naive to believe some politics will not seep into such a process a government that lets politics take over the process is doing Canada a great disservice.
Now we get to see how this government reacts to this situation. Will it react like the Chretien government did or will it do the right thing?
After the Chretien government cancelled the EH-101 contract it did its best to disqualify that helicopter from the running to replace the Sea Kings because they believed they would look like idiots to cancel a signed contract only to sign another one for the same aircraft a few years later. (They would have been right.) The only problem was the EH-101 met Canada's needs so they could not really disqualify it without cranking the process, which lead to lawsuits, which lead to so many delays in buying new helicopters we still have not replaced the Sea Kings.
So now we get to see what this government does.
Considering this government has proven it places political considerations above all else I think it is pretty safe to say that we are witnessing the beginning of the 'Sea King' saga all over again and that it will be another decade or so before the Canadian Airforce sees new figher/strike aircraft.
Tuesday, April 03, 2012
The Calgary School must be fuming
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)