Today Justice Brown ruled that Occupy Toronto would not get a permanent injunction blocking the city's enforcement of bylaws relating to the use of the park.
I read the actual judgment. Here is a link:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/73349925/Batty-v-City-Toronto-Application-Final-Nov-21-11
The reporters who cover this will necessarily be more succinct than Justice Brown's 54 page ruling, however they have oversimplified to the point where they miss some very important points.
Justice Brown ruled that Occupy Toronto was in fact engaging in protected expression. He also spoke well of the issues they raised. Environmentalism, aboriginal rights and inequality are valid and important issues regardless of disagreement over particular views on policy fixes.
He also found that there were others who had Charter rights that should be protected. His ruling was an attempt to balance the competing rights.
This was a case about charter rights. The written laws are quite clear and OccupyTo was in violation of City bylaws. Their only hope lay in convincing a judge that their Charter rights supersede the local bylaws.
In my opinion, the people at St James park made some tactical errors that were fatal to their chances in court.
First they did not "practice what they preach." Justice Brown noted that for all of their talk about decision by consensus and horizontal democracy, they did not seek the consensus or input of local residents. Rather than practice inclusion, they excluded the concerns of area residents. He further said that they were simply not "good neighbours."
Second, their application asked for an "indefinite" injunction against enforcement of city bylaws. His Charter analysis made repeated use of words like "reasonable". Charter rights are clearly not absolute and restrictions must be proportionate and reasonable. By asking for a ruling that would allow them to stay in St James 'forever', they asked that their Charter rights be given a status that is absolute in a way that few things are.
Third, the affidavits filed by area residents allege that there have been several cases of intimidation, harassment and even assault committed against residents. The intimidation is something I've heard about from some friends who live in the area, but it has not been well reported in the media. No cross examinations were conducted as this was just a motion. If the allegations are true, then the Charter rights of others were being directly, and negatively, affected by Occupy's presence in St James Park.
Justice Brown's most scathing comments were not his own but a quote from an area resident's email which read (in part):
"I also believe the use of the park is as much their right, as it is mine. However, it is notappropriate for them to use the park in a manner that prevents me from using the park comfortably. Especially now where it appears to be more about testing how long theycan stay, rather than having a specific purpose. One of the issues they were protestingwas their perception of corporate greed; that corporations only care about their success,and have no concern for the well-being or lives of others. It seems Occupy Toronto hastaken this mentality. They appear to believe their residence is most important, and therights of everyone else to use the park do not matter"
This is the crux of the problem preventing Occupy's message from taking hold and spreading amongst more than a few die hards. I've seen many comments online from people who support Occupy but make the point that they would have greater support amongst their fellow citizens if they did a few things differently. Adopting some of the same tactics and mindset of the stereotypical 1% is clearly not helpful as they look hypocritical.
The issues raised by Occupy are real and valid. They require serious consideration. It is my hope that such a serious discussion will happen once the focus is no longer about Occupy's presence in St James Park. The people of the OccupyTo movement should move on and focus their message. They should then find another way to spread their message once they have moved on.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Monday, November 14, 2011
Support the Troops?
Another Remembrance day has come and gone. A few more veterans have passed on and, unfortunately, more young soldiers now carry the tag of "veteran."
It is well known that Remembrance day is not a celebration of war but a day to pay tribute to those who fell in war. It is a day to honor their sacrifice and be thankful for what we have. Of course such sentiments should not be limited to one day out of the whole year and it is a sad fact that society has often fallen short of that, not so lofty, standard.
The Vietnam war coincided with the "make love not war" generation and as such there were some natural conflicts. It was a shameful episode in American history when returning veterans were greeted with jeers and called baby killers. Many young men who served their country honorably did not get the parade that they deserved because society was so very divided on their mission...which they did not choose.
With the passage of time, perceptions changed. John McCain and John Kerry each ran for President and each was given respect for their service. Their tales of service were tales of honor and heroism not shame. Hollywood got into the act. I remember at the end of Rambo, Sly Stallone's character was asked by Colonel Trautman what he wanted. John Rambo declared "I want what they (rescued MIA's) want. I want to be loved by my country as much I love it."
With this cultural shift it has become fashionable to say that one supports the troops. However this innocuous sounding phrase has been twisted at times.
I recently posted a message on the "Occupy Toronto" site reminding them that Remembrance Day was coming up and that it would be appropriate to mark the event. Several people responded positively.....others did not.
Others stated that while they "support the troops", the real support lies in opposing all wars.(many of the comments were far less benign and generous)
This made me wonder what "support the troops" really meant. Does it mean to blindly support and agree with any military deployment? Of course not. Amongst family and friends I've made the point that the most supportive thing anyone can do is to be honest. ie. tell me when you think i'm wrong.
So what is the intention behind supporting the troops and why do they need support?
Well to answer the second question first, soldiers need support because they need to believe in a higher cause. They need to believe it because no rational person would choose to put their life on the line otherwise. They need that support because they live in fear. Part of the training soldiers undergo involves what to do if one is captured. They must face death, severe injury and even the possiblity of being tortured in enemy hands. Soldiers should know that they are on a mission from orders given by the government of the people and that they are behind them and their mission 100%. In other words, they need to know that society "has their back."
The intention behind supporting the troops should be to reassure them and to make them feel good about their mission (which they did not choose). Too often, it appears that "I support the troops" is used to pat oneself on the back before expressing a view that is anything other than supportive. In such cases, one speaks the words but actually, the intention is to support one's own viewpoint. This is twisted.
So here is my suggestion: If you support the troops and want to say "I got your back" then say so. If you really dislike the military and any foreign intervention, then say what you mean without saying that you support the troops.
Supporting the troops should be about them....not you!
It is well known that Remembrance day is not a celebration of war but a day to pay tribute to those who fell in war. It is a day to honor their sacrifice and be thankful for what we have. Of course such sentiments should not be limited to one day out of the whole year and it is a sad fact that society has often fallen short of that, not so lofty, standard.
The Vietnam war coincided with the "make love not war" generation and as such there were some natural conflicts. It was a shameful episode in American history when returning veterans were greeted with jeers and called baby killers. Many young men who served their country honorably did not get the parade that they deserved because society was so very divided on their mission...which they did not choose.
With the passage of time, perceptions changed. John McCain and John Kerry each ran for President and each was given respect for their service. Their tales of service were tales of honor and heroism not shame. Hollywood got into the act. I remember at the end of Rambo, Sly Stallone's character was asked by Colonel Trautman what he wanted. John Rambo declared "I want what they (rescued MIA's) want. I want to be loved by my country as much I love it."
With this cultural shift it has become fashionable to say that one supports the troops. However this innocuous sounding phrase has been twisted at times.
I recently posted a message on the "Occupy Toronto" site reminding them that Remembrance Day was coming up and that it would be appropriate to mark the event. Several people responded positively.....others did not.
Others stated that while they "support the troops", the real support lies in opposing all wars.(many of the comments were far less benign and generous)
This made me wonder what "support the troops" really meant. Does it mean to blindly support and agree with any military deployment? Of course not. Amongst family and friends I've made the point that the most supportive thing anyone can do is to be honest. ie. tell me when you think i'm wrong.
So what is the intention behind supporting the troops and why do they need support?
Well to answer the second question first, soldiers need support because they need to believe in a higher cause. They need to believe it because no rational person would choose to put their life on the line otherwise. They need that support because they live in fear. Part of the training soldiers undergo involves what to do if one is captured. They must face death, severe injury and even the possiblity of being tortured in enemy hands. Soldiers should know that they are on a mission from orders given by the government of the people and that they are behind them and their mission 100%. In other words, they need to know that society "has their back."
The intention behind supporting the troops should be to reassure them and to make them feel good about their mission (which they did not choose). Too often, it appears that "I support the troops" is used to pat oneself on the back before expressing a view that is anything other than supportive. In such cases, one speaks the words but actually, the intention is to support one's own viewpoint. This is twisted.
So here is my suggestion: If you support the troops and want to say "I got your back" then say so. If you really dislike the military and any foreign intervention, then say what you mean without saying that you support the troops.
Supporting the troops should be about them....not you!
Friday, November 4, 2011
Markets vs People
One of the dividing lines between Conservative thoughts and Liberal thoughts can be seen in their attitudes towards markets and people.
I've heard it described as Conservatives think that markets are good and people are bad. Liberals think that people are good and markets are bad.
This rather succinct description is disturbingly accurate. If you were to put that caption underneath a broadcast of a politician's speech it would be so obvious.
The so-called "cultural conservatives" are a good example of the former. They will espouse a philosophy that calls for deregulation or the more evocative "cutting the red tape." At the same time they will pound away at moral decay and family breakdown. They will lecture ordinary people that they are not living their lives right. They believe that free markets are inherently good and any restrictions on the operations of a free market are inherently bad. On the other hand, people are inherently bad and must be admonished. These "conservatives" favour small government in fiscal matters but big government (with lots of laws and prohibitions) in personal matters.
The liberals will talk about "putting people first" and will strenuously oppose any attempt to legislate moral values. They want the government out of the bedrooms of the nation as they typically believe in unfettered personal freedom. At the same time they will lecture the corporations and markets for behaving badly. They favour small, limited government in personal matters but an expansive government that taxes, regulates and enforces good behaviour on the part of markets.
They are both wrong. They are wrong because they forget one important fact: The markets are an extension of human behaviour. Markets often behave irrationally because it is the reaction of people behind the market. When "markets" panic, it is in fact "people" who are panicking. The only expression of panic or optimism that markets have is the investment or withdrawal of money. This money belongs to people....in many cases, ordinary, middle income people who collectively pool their money into mutual funds or pension funds.
As a trader who deals with markets, I have had many occasions to discuss markets with others. The term "market" has become so abstract that people often think of it as some mystical force that doesn't follow norms of behaviour.
A market is simply a place where like minded people can meet to buy/sell something. It can fruits, textiles or financial instruments. In all cases, a market is a place where someone tries to sell something a higher price while someone else tries to buy it at a lower price.
Recently the Greek sovereign debt crisis has spawned numerous headlines that declare that "market" does/doesn't like a proposal and reacts negatively. In truth, it is really people who are reacting and not some abstract living entity called the market.
Both conservatives and liberals are ultimately wrong about "markets vs people.' Both human behaviour and market behaviour should be subject to some regulation and neither should be seen as inherently good or bad. It can never be either since it is composed of many people. People are inherently good but there are some definite bad apples. The same could be aid about markets
I've heard it described as Conservatives think that markets are good and people are bad. Liberals think that people are good and markets are bad.
This rather succinct description is disturbingly accurate. If you were to put that caption underneath a broadcast of a politician's speech it would be so obvious.
The so-called "cultural conservatives" are a good example of the former. They will espouse a philosophy that calls for deregulation or the more evocative "cutting the red tape." At the same time they will pound away at moral decay and family breakdown. They will lecture ordinary people that they are not living their lives right. They believe that free markets are inherently good and any restrictions on the operations of a free market are inherently bad. On the other hand, people are inherently bad and must be admonished. These "conservatives" favour small government in fiscal matters but big government (with lots of laws and prohibitions) in personal matters.
The liberals will talk about "putting people first" and will strenuously oppose any attempt to legislate moral values. They want the government out of the bedrooms of the nation as they typically believe in unfettered personal freedom. At the same time they will lecture the corporations and markets for behaving badly. They favour small, limited government in personal matters but an expansive government that taxes, regulates and enforces good behaviour on the part of markets.
They are both wrong. They are wrong because they forget one important fact: The markets are an extension of human behaviour. Markets often behave irrationally because it is the reaction of people behind the market. When "markets" panic, it is in fact "people" who are panicking. The only expression of panic or optimism that markets have is the investment or withdrawal of money. This money belongs to people....in many cases, ordinary, middle income people who collectively pool their money into mutual funds or pension funds.
As a trader who deals with markets, I have had many occasions to discuss markets with others. The term "market" has become so abstract that people often think of it as some mystical force that doesn't follow norms of behaviour.
A market is simply a place where like minded people can meet to buy/sell something. It can fruits, textiles or financial instruments. In all cases, a market is a place where someone tries to sell something a higher price while someone else tries to buy it at a lower price.
Recently the Greek sovereign debt crisis has spawned numerous headlines that declare that "market" does/doesn't like a proposal and reacts negatively. In truth, it is really people who are reacting and not some abstract living entity called the market.
Both conservatives and liberals are ultimately wrong about "markets vs people.' Both human behaviour and market behaviour should be subject to some regulation and neither should be seen as inherently good or bad. It can never be either since it is composed of many people. People are inherently good but there are some definite bad apples. The same could be aid about markets
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Greek Tragedy....again
The overnight news is that Greece will put the EU rescue package to a referendum.
Up until this latest rescue package, all prior efforts can best be described as:
"Hey Greece is in trouble, they have borrowed too much and they are having trouble borrowing more. Let's ride to the rescue by co-signing some loans for them."
Imagine the surprised looks on central bankers faces when they realized that more debt did not help a country with too much debt.
The latest rescue package seemed to finally grasp the point that if too much debt is the problem, then more debt is not a solution. It imposed a 50% 'voluntary' haircut on some investors of bonds. The haircut would have reduced Greece's debt but it was bizarre and selective in it's application. Some holders of Greek debt would be kept whole while others would take the "voluntary" haircut which would not be considered a default event for some inexplicable reason.
I think that the referendum will see the rescue package voted down. Right now the markets are falling due to the increased uncertainty. When the Greeks reject this plan, a formal default will be triggered and holders of Greek bonds will take much bigger haircuts.
Greece will hit rock bottom and have great difficulty borrowing money in the bond market, however this is a necessary step to beginning a recovery.
Stay tuned folks...this drama is far from over.
Up until this latest rescue package, all prior efforts can best be described as:
"Hey Greece is in trouble, they have borrowed too much and they are having trouble borrowing more. Let's ride to the rescue by co-signing some loans for them."
Imagine the surprised looks on central bankers faces when they realized that more debt did not help a country with too much debt.
The latest rescue package seemed to finally grasp the point that if too much debt is the problem, then more debt is not a solution. It imposed a 50% 'voluntary' haircut on some investors of bonds. The haircut would have reduced Greece's debt but it was bizarre and selective in it's application. Some holders of Greek debt would be kept whole while others would take the "voluntary" haircut which would not be considered a default event for some inexplicable reason.
I think that the referendum will see the rescue package voted down. Right now the markets are falling due to the increased uncertainty. When the Greeks reject this plan, a formal default will be triggered and holders of Greek bonds will take much bigger haircuts.
Greece will hit rock bottom and have great difficulty borrowing money in the bond market, however this is a necessary step to beginning a recovery.
Stay tuned folks...this drama is far from over.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Occupy Toronto (and Wall Street)
The past several weeks have seen the phenomenon of people "occupying" Wall Street and then similar protests emerged in other places including Toronto. They call themselves the 99% who do not own a massively disproportionate share of society's wealth. Their complaints are many and proposed solutions varied. But they have a point even if they lack focus.
Comparisons to the Arab Spring are inappropriate. They do live in a democratic society and the power of the ballot box is what the Arab protesters were demanding. The 99% in the USA and Canada have the power of the ballot which most of humanity does not. However that doesn't mean that they don't have the right to express their frustrations nor do over the top comparisons make their sentiment irrelevant.
I'm going to focus on one concrete example of why they have a point. They generally say that the deck is stacked and the game is essentially unfair. One example sticks out like a sore thumb and that example is the firm known as Goldman Sachs.
Have a look at this impressive list of Goldman alumni.
http://www.trendsresearch.com/reports/goldman-inter.pdf
The number of Goldman alums who populated senior positions in the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations is striking. Whether it be a Democrat or Republican in the White House, it seems that Goldman Sachs has a seat at the table.
It is more disturbing when one considers the bizarre decisions related to bailouts. Many in the financial community were scratching their heads when Bear Stearns (small) was bailed out while Lehman (medium) was not and AIG (large) was. It happened in that sequence and one wonders why little Bear and large AIG were too important to fail while Lehman (medium) was not. Could it be that Lehman was a competitor of Goldman while AIG was a huge customer of Goldman??
Most have forgotten now but years earlier, another financial crisis was looming as a massive hedge fund called Long Term Capital Management collapsed. Their massive trading book threatened the financial system as an unwind of large positions would cause big market distortions. The federal reserve worked behind the scenes to avoid such a scenario. It was detailed in a book called "When Genius Failed" by Roger Lowenstein.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_9_32/ai_65160621/
(I highly recommend this book as it was very good at explaining complex financial transactions in a way that most people could understand it.)
During negotiations to save LTCM, Lowenstein recounts the behaviour of Goldman employees. As a prospective bidder, they were allowed access to a data room of LTCM's secret trading positions. After viewing the data they went back to their desks and began trading against LTCM's positions. ie, if LTCM was short 30 year bonds and long 29.5 year bonds, Goldman would buy the 29.5 and sell the 30's. This has the effect of increasing LTCM's losses and putting Goldman in a position to benefit from the resulting fire sale.
Nowadays, actions like these are considered "Market abuse" by regulators and would subject the firm to sanctions.
Ronald Reagan once said "Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty." I wonder if a firm like Goldman is so well connected that the feeling that the deck is stacked (as espoused by the 99% protestors) does not have some validity?
The example of Goldman Sachs is an American one and we Canadians love to be smug about how we are so much better than the Americans: "Hey we have universal health care." "Hey we didn't have a sub prime crisis."
Will we be so smug in saying "Hey the Governor of the Bank of Canada used to work at Goldman Sachs"???
Comparisons to the Arab Spring are inappropriate. They do live in a democratic society and the power of the ballot box is what the Arab protesters were demanding. The 99% in the USA and Canada have the power of the ballot which most of humanity does not. However that doesn't mean that they don't have the right to express their frustrations nor do over the top comparisons make their sentiment irrelevant.
I'm going to focus on one concrete example of why they have a point. They generally say that the deck is stacked and the game is essentially unfair. One example sticks out like a sore thumb and that example is the firm known as Goldman Sachs.
Have a look at this impressive list of Goldman alumni.
http://www.trendsresearch.com/reports/goldman-inter.pdf
The number of Goldman alums who populated senior positions in the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations is striking. Whether it be a Democrat or Republican in the White House, it seems that Goldman Sachs has a seat at the table.
It is more disturbing when one considers the bizarre decisions related to bailouts. Many in the financial community were scratching their heads when Bear Stearns (small) was bailed out while Lehman (medium) was not and AIG (large) was. It happened in that sequence and one wonders why little Bear and large AIG were too important to fail while Lehman (medium) was not. Could it be that Lehman was a competitor of Goldman while AIG was a huge customer of Goldman??
Most have forgotten now but years earlier, another financial crisis was looming as a massive hedge fund called Long Term Capital Management collapsed. Their massive trading book threatened the financial system as an unwind of large positions would cause big market distortions. The federal reserve worked behind the scenes to avoid such a scenario. It was detailed in a book called "When Genius Failed" by Roger Lowenstein.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_9_32/ai_65160621/
(I highly recommend this book as it was very good at explaining complex financial transactions in a way that most people could understand it.)
During negotiations to save LTCM, Lowenstein recounts the behaviour of Goldman employees. As a prospective bidder, they were allowed access to a data room of LTCM's secret trading positions. After viewing the data they went back to their desks and began trading against LTCM's positions. ie, if LTCM was short 30 year bonds and long 29.5 year bonds, Goldman would buy the 29.5 and sell the 30's. This has the effect of increasing LTCM's losses and putting Goldman in a position to benefit from the resulting fire sale.
Nowadays, actions like these are considered "Market abuse" by regulators and would subject the firm to sanctions.
Ronald Reagan once said "Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty." I wonder if a firm like Goldman is so well connected that the feeling that the deck is stacked (as espoused by the 99% protestors) does not have some validity?
The example of Goldman Sachs is an American one and we Canadians love to be smug about how we are so much better than the Americans: "Hey we have universal health care." "Hey we didn't have a sub prime crisis."
Will we be so smug in saying "Hey the Governor of the Bank of Canada used to work at Goldman Sachs"???
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Steve Jobs
I run the risk of getting some hatemail for this post but I want to state at the start that I am not running down Steve Jobs. He was clearly at the forefront of creating some great consumer products and it is very sad that he has passed.
This post is not about Steve Jobs but rather the bizarre celebrity obsessed culture that magnifies the importance of famous people. Steve Jobs is really secondary to my point.
The newspaper headlines say that he was a "visionary" and that he "changed the world."
I'm not sure how to define a "visionary" but did he really change the world? I own several ipods and I have an Iphone 4. I'm happy to have these because I get to listen to music, watch videos and play Angry Birds.
So I imagined a world without Apple products. Hmm...i would still listen to music. I had a cell phone before Apple started producing them and probably would have one now. I'm not sure about Angry Birds...maybe, maybe not. But how would the world be different?
Racism would still plague too many societies. Economic downturns will hurt many vulnerable people. Israel and the Palestinians would probably still be at odds.
My Iphone is "cool" and I was very happy when i got it and started playing with it. I have yet to get an Ipad but it looks pretty "cool" too. I suppose Apple products have made many people feel special and "cool"....at least until everyone has one.
But that brings me to my next point. How many people have Apple products? I don't know the actual numbers...but I am willing to guess that a fraction of 1% of humanity owns any Apple products. It is probably the wealthiest fraction of 1% of humanity as well. However that fraction feels "cool" when they listen to their Ipod or talk on their Iphone or watch a movie on their Ipad. Is watching the Matrix on an Ipad is much much better than on a Hi Def TV?
This news coverage reminded me of a time in 1997. Diana Spencer (the former Princess of Wales) had died in a car accident. Tributes flowed and a mountain of flowers appeared at various spots around the world. A famous person had died in a car accident and people who had never met her (but had seen her on TV) cried as if a family member had passed.
As we watched the coverage on a trading floor TV, a senior trader I was working with declared "this is a disgrace, if mother Theresa had died there wouldn't be so much coverage." Suddenly the cosmos decided it was time to give people a clue. Seconds after he said that, the news text below the live coverage of Diana's wedding said "Breaking news, Mother Theresa has died."
A few days later, the networks scrambled to ensure that Mother Theresa's death received as much coverage as Diana's.
It is sad that Steve Jobs died. It was sad that a runner at the Montreal Marathon died two weeks ago. One was more famous but neither changed the world.
Fame does not make one human tragedy more tragic....despite the way the news media reacts.
This post is not about Steve Jobs but rather the bizarre celebrity obsessed culture that magnifies the importance of famous people. Steve Jobs is really secondary to my point.
The newspaper headlines say that he was a "visionary" and that he "changed the world."
I'm not sure how to define a "visionary" but did he really change the world? I own several ipods and I have an Iphone 4. I'm happy to have these because I get to listen to music, watch videos and play Angry Birds.
So I imagined a world without Apple products. Hmm...i would still listen to music. I had a cell phone before Apple started producing them and probably would have one now. I'm not sure about Angry Birds...maybe, maybe not. But how would the world be different?
Racism would still plague too many societies. Economic downturns will hurt many vulnerable people. Israel and the Palestinians would probably still be at odds.
My Iphone is "cool" and I was very happy when i got it and started playing with it. I have yet to get an Ipad but it looks pretty "cool" too. I suppose Apple products have made many people feel special and "cool"....at least until everyone has one.
But that brings me to my next point. How many people have Apple products? I don't know the actual numbers...but I am willing to guess that a fraction of 1% of humanity owns any Apple products. It is probably the wealthiest fraction of 1% of humanity as well. However that fraction feels "cool" when they listen to their Ipod or talk on their Iphone or watch a movie on their Ipad. Is watching the Matrix on an Ipad is much much better than on a Hi Def TV?
This news coverage reminded me of a time in 1997. Diana Spencer (the former Princess of Wales) had died in a car accident. Tributes flowed and a mountain of flowers appeared at various spots around the world. A famous person had died in a car accident and people who had never met her (but had seen her on TV) cried as if a family member had passed.
As we watched the coverage on a trading floor TV, a senior trader I was working with declared "this is a disgrace, if mother Theresa had died there wouldn't be so much coverage." Suddenly the cosmos decided it was time to give people a clue. Seconds after he said that, the news text below the live coverage of Diana's wedding said "Breaking news, Mother Theresa has died."
A few days later, the networks scrambled to ensure that Mother Theresa's death received as much coverage as Diana's.
It is sad that Steve Jobs died. It was sad that a runner at the Montreal Marathon died two weeks ago. One was more famous but neither changed the world.
Fame does not make one human tragedy more tragic....despite the way the news media reacts.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Montreal Marathon Memories
Last week I was thinking that I might write up a blog post about my experience at the Montreal Marathon. Unlike my prior two marathons, I went into this one feeling pretty confident. Although my training could have been better, there is no question that it was much much better than Niagara Falls (Oct 2010) or Mississauga (May 2011).
I lived in Montreal for 2 years in my early twenties but as a student, I rarely ventured out of the McGill Ghetto. I registered for the Montreal Marathon in part to see parts of the city that I had never seen.
Overall, I decided that I miss Montreal and did not do it justice when i lived there. We started at a park on Ile St Helene. It is a beautiful park. As we walked onto Pont Jacques Cartier, I looked over and saw an amusement park. "What you have an amusement park here?" I said....not quite realizing how silly I sounded.
The race itself had a fairly flat start and finished uphill.....mean and nasty trick by the organizers I'd have to say.
It was very warm and humid but I had a good race. I finished in 3:36 which beat my Mississauga time by 18 minutes. I was very happy with my time but subsequent news has made that seem very insignificant.
At the 41 km mark, I passed a scene where a man was flat on his back and EMS were performing chest compressions. His eyes were open and rolled back. Seeing this sent shivers up my spine. He was clearly in very bad shape.
After the race I found out that this young man (32 years old) had died of a suspected heart attack. The EMS staff who were trying to revive him as I ran by were unsuccessful at getting his heart to start again. He was pronounced dead at the hospital shortly after.
I'll be honest.....I was very shaken by this. Despite running a full marathon I did not sleep much that night. Usually running a marathon means I get a good night's sleep. I couldn't get the image of his face out of my head.
This young man has since been identified as Jean-Francis Presseau. My heart goes out to his family and friends.
His results on sports stats show that this was his third half marathon in the last 13 months. His times were impressive. He broke 1:30 in a race this past April.
Those times indicate that he was a very good runner. Most of the people in the marathon clinic i attend would not beat his time.
We still don't know for sure what killed him. The coroner has ordered an autopsy. It may well be that he had an undetected pre-exisitng condition.
I don't know if there are lessons to be drawn from this. For sure, life is too short. One minute you're here and the next......
This won't make me stop running. I don't think that the occasional death during a race should dissuade other people from running. I am more guilty than most of pushing myself to complete exhaustion. Whether that was the cause in this case or not is irrelevant. It's not smart.
Life is a journey TO a destination. For one fellow runner, the journey ended at Pie IX and Rosemount on Sept 25th, 2011. Everyone else....keep running but be careful out there!!
Montreal is a beautiful city and I hope to go back to run again.
I lived in Montreal for 2 years in my early twenties but as a student, I rarely ventured out of the McGill Ghetto. I registered for the Montreal Marathon in part to see parts of the city that I had never seen.
Overall, I decided that I miss Montreal and did not do it justice when i lived there. We started at a park on Ile St Helene. It is a beautiful park. As we walked onto Pont Jacques Cartier, I looked over and saw an amusement park. "What you have an amusement park here?" I said....not quite realizing how silly I sounded.
The race itself had a fairly flat start and finished uphill.....mean and nasty trick by the organizers I'd have to say.
It was very warm and humid but I had a good race. I finished in 3:36 which beat my Mississauga time by 18 minutes. I was very happy with my time but subsequent news has made that seem very insignificant.
At the 41 km mark, I passed a scene where a man was flat on his back and EMS were performing chest compressions. His eyes were open and rolled back. Seeing this sent shivers up my spine. He was clearly in very bad shape.
After the race I found out that this young man (32 years old) had died of a suspected heart attack. The EMS staff who were trying to revive him as I ran by were unsuccessful at getting his heart to start again. He was pronounced dead at the hospital shortly after.
I'll be honest.....I was very shaken by this. Despite running a full marathon I did not sleep much that night. Usually running a marathon means I get a good night's sleep. I couldn't get the image of his face out of my head.
This young man has since been identified as Jean-Francis Presseau. My heart goes out to his family and friends.
His results on sports stats show that this was his third half marathon in the last 13 months. His times were impressive. He broke 1:30 in a race this past April.
Those times indicate that he was a very good runner. Most of the people in the marathon clinic i attend would not beat his time.
We still don't know for sure what killed him. The coroner has ordered an autopsy. It may well be that he had an undetected pre-exisitng condition.
I don't know if there are lessons to be drawn from this. For sure, life is too short. One minute you're here and the next......
This won't make me stop running. I don't think that the occasional death during a race should dissuade other people from running. I am more guilty than most of pushing myself to complete exhaustion. Whether that was the cause in this case or not is irrelevant. It's not smart.
Life is a journey TO a destination. For one fellow runner, the journey ended at Pie IX and Rosemount on Sept 25th, 2011. Everyone else....keep running but be careful out there!!
Montreal is a beautiful city and I hope to go back to run again.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Death, Taxes and Stupidity
It's been said that the only certainties in life are death and taxes. With respect to taxes, I'd suggest that stupidity also follows along.
I have watched with great despair as politicians debate tax rates. Nowhere is this discussion more perverse and misguided than in the United States.
Tax the rich because they can afford it....say Democrats.
There is a problem of overspending not undertaxation.....say Republicans.
Both sides are being equally stupid and simplistic but I shall focus on an argument often made by Republicans.
Virtually every Republican with broad name recognition has at some point made the argument that cutting taxes will increase government revenues by stimulating the economy and creating jobs which will lead to higher tax revenue as more people earn taxable income and at higher rates.
When Ronald Reagan made this a part of platform in 1980, a fellow Republican named George H.W. Bush gave it the rather caustic label of "voodoo economics." So which is it? Do lower taxes result in higher tax revenues or do lower taxes result in lower tax revenues?
Well the truth is that both were right which only makes the debates happening now even sillier.
Take an example of a marginal tax rate of 99% which is increased to 100%. This will certainly result in lower tax revenues as people will have zero incentive to work since they will get to keep none of the fruits of their labour. So it is fairly easy to see that a cut in tax rates from 100% to 99% will increase tax revenues. My guess is that a cut from 99% to 98% will have a similar effect.
Is there a point at which cutting taxes results in lower revenues then? Well of course. A cut from 1% to 0% might increase economic activity but it most certainly will result in a reduction in taxes to zero. My educated guess would be that if you halve the marginal tax rate from 2% to 1%...then this will also result in lower tax revenue.
The above example would lead to a conclusion that somewhere below 100% there is a level at which raising taxes results in lesser tax revenue and somewhere above 1%, there is a level at which cutting taxes would result in lesser tax revenue. So somewhere between 0 and 100% is a tax rate below which cutting taxes will result in lower revenues and above which raising the rate leads to lower revenue.
So basically anywhere other than the optimal point would result in lower tax revenues. Now I don't know where that optimal level is and it might not even be the same level from one year to the next. However, I do know that the highest rate in US history was 94%. (Does that seem awfully close to 100%?) When Reagan came into office, the rate was 70%. Currently it stands at 33%.
It is most irritating when I hear politicians talking about stimulating the economy by cutting taxes. Listening to some Republicans you would think that Moses came down from the Sinai with a commandment that says "Thou shalt cut taxes....always and forever more."
Paying taxes is not like famine and pestilence where the ideal number is always lower...but you wouldn't know that from listening to some Republicans.
As my simple example shows, there would be a point at which lower tax rates would result in lower tax revenue. This should serve as a caution to Democrats as well. Raising taxes on the wealthy should not be done for reasons of class warfare or resentment. The goal should be to raise money for government operation and in doing so, they should be mindful of not creating a disincentive to earn more income.
When someone says "raise taxes on the wealthy", i often ask to what level should it be raised? Usually there is no answer because it really wasn't thought through beyond "they're rich so they should pay more." When someone says "cut taxes because it will stimulate the economy and lead to more revenues", i will ask to what level it should be cut.
Both sides simply want "more" or 'less" without asking themselves what the "RIGHT" level of taxes should be. My guess is that the United States is pretty much at a point where cutting taxes will lead to lesser revenues not more. My guess is that an increase to the marginal tax rate would lead to greater government revenues. I think it's probably 10% higher before it becomes a cause of lower revenues.
I don't know what the right number is but I do know that I don't ever hear politicians speaking of the 'right' level of taxes.
I have watched with great despair as politicians debate tax rates. Nowhere is this discussion more perverse and misguided than in the United States.
Tax the rich because they can afford it....say Democrats.
There is a problem of overspending not undertaxation.....say Republicans.
Both sides are being equally stupid and simplistic but I shall focus on an argument often made by Republicans.
Virtually every Republican with broad name recognition has at some point made the argument that cutting taxes will increase government revenues by stimulating the economy and creating jobs which will lead to higher tax revenue as more people earn taxable income and at higher rates.
When Ronald Reagan made this a part of platform in 1980, a fellow Republican named George H.W. Bush gave it the rather caustic label of "voodoo economics." So which is it? Do lower taxes result in higher tax revenues or do lower taxes result in lower tax revenues?
Well the truth is that both were right which only makes the debates happening now even sillier.
Take an example of a marginal tax rate of 99% which is increased to 100%. This will certainly result in lower tax revenues as people will have zero incentive to work since they will get to keep none of the fruits of their labour. So it is fairly easy to see that a cut in tax rates from 100% to 99% will increase tax revenues. My guess is that a cut from 99% to 98% will have a similar effect.
Is there a point at which cutting taxes results in lower revenues then? Well of course. A cut from 1% to 0% might increase economic activity but it most certainly will result in a reduction in taxes to zero. My educated guess would be that if you halve the marginal tax rate from 2% to 1%...then this will also result in lower tax revenue.
The above example would lead to a conclusion that somewhere below 100% there is a level at which raising taxes results in lesser tax revenue and somewhere above 1%, there is a level at which cutting taxes would result in lesser tax revenue. So somewhere between 0 and 100% is a tax rate below which cutting taxes will result in lower revenues and above which raising the rate leads to lower revenue.
So basically anywhere other than the optimal point would result in lower tax revenues. Now I don't know where that optimal level is and it might not even be the same level from one year to the next. However, I do know that the highest rate in US history was 94%. (Does that seem awfully close to 100%?) When Reagan came into office, the rate was 70%. Currently it stands at 33%.
It is most irritating when I hear politicians talking about stimulating the economy by cutting taxes. Listening to some Republicans you would think that Moses came down from the Sinai with a commandment that says "Thou shalt cut taxes....always and forever more."
Paying taxes is not like famine and pestilence where the ideal number is always lower...but you wouldn't know that from listening to some Republicans.
As my simple example shows, there would be a point at which lower tax rates would result in lower tax revenue. This should serve as a caution to Democrats as well. Raising taxes on the wealthy should not be done for reasons of class warfare or resentment. The goal should be to raise money for government operation and in doing so, they should be mindful of not creating a disincentive to earn more income.
When someone says "raise taxes on the wealthy", i often ask to what level should it be raised? Usually there is no answer because it really wasn't thought through beyond "they're rich so they should pay more." When someone says "cut taxes because it will stimulate the economy and lead to more revenues", i will ask to what level it should be cut.
Both sides simply want "more" or 'less" without asking themselves what the "RIGHT" level of taxes should be. My guess is that the United States is pretty much at a point where cutting taxes will lead to lesser revenues not more. My guess is that an increase to the marginal tax rate would lead to greater government revenues. I think it's probably 10% higher before it becomes a cause of lower revenues.
I don't know what the right number is but I do know that I don't ever hear politicians speaking of the 'right' level of taxes.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Marathon Inspiration 1984
By the time of the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles, I had entered my teens. I had grown to love sports and had begun learning important life lessons through sporting competitions.
I had watched the "Miracle on Ice" of 1980 when a team of Collegiate American Hockey players defeated the heavily favoured Soviet Big Red Machine. As a hockey fan I was thrilled to see my New York Islanders emerge as 4 time Stanley Cup Champions after so many years on the periphery. Magic Johnson and Larry Bird were going mano a mano in what was a team sport.
The lessons learned were that David can slay Goliath, teamwork can pay off and sometimes a white guy can win the NBA Championship...LOL!
Into this mix the cold war era Summer Olympics came along. For the first time, women were competing for a Gold medal in the marathon. I watched on TV, captivated, as Joan Benoit (USA) broke away from the pack and widened her lead right into the finish. She ran the final lap in the LA Coliseum without any of her competitors in sight. She crossed the finish line to the cheers of the partisan American crowd and the networks were happy.
However the truly inspiring moment was yet to come. Way back from Joan Benoit was Gabrielle Anderson of Switzerland. She had been overcome by heat and when she entered the stadium she was not a picture of grace. She looked terrible to say the least.
But she was still moving (barely). She waved away medical personnel lest she be disqualified. She stumbled around and couldn't move in a straight line and her body was leaning awkwardly the whole way.
BUT SHE DIDN'T QUIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Watching Gabrielle Anderson collapsing over the finish line in 37th place made quite an impression on this 14 year old boy.
Now through the magic of youtube I was able to view her finish again 27 years later and it still gave me the chills.
Joan Benoit won the Gold Medal that day. It's a common saying in sports that "nobody ever remembers who came second." True enough! For me the most memorable person at the first women's Olympic Marathon in 1984 finished 37th.
The language of the commentary is not important. If you watch the video....well judge for yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZFNiuuApFU&feature=related
I had watched the "Miracle on Ice" of 1980 when a team of Collegiate American Hockey players defeated the heavily favoured Soviet Big Red Machine. As a hockey fan I was thrilled to see my New York Islanders emerge as 4 time Stanley Cup Champions after so many years on the periphery. Magic Johnson and Larry Bird were going mano a mano in what was a team sport.
The lessons learned were that David can slay Goliath, teamwork can pay off and sometimes a white guy can win the NBA Championship...LOL!
Into this mix the cold war era Summer Olympics came along. For the first time, women were competing for a Gold medal in the marathon. I watched on TV, captivated, as Joan Benoit (USA) broke away from the pack and widened her lead right into the finish. She ran the final lap in the LA Coliseum without any of her competitors in sight. She crossed the finish line to the cheers of the partisan American crowd and the networks were happy.
However the truly inspiring moment was yet to come. Way back from Joan Benoit was Gabrielle Anderson of Switzerland. She had been overcome by heat and when she entered the stadium she was not a picture of grace. She looked terrible to say the least.
But she was still moving (barely). She waved away medical personnel lest she be disqualified. She stumbled around and couldn't move in a straight line and her body was leaning awkwardly the whole way.
BUT SHE DIDN'T QUIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Watching Gabrielle Anderson collapsing over the finish line in 37th place made quite an impression on this 14 year old boy.
Now through the magic of youtube I was able to view her finish again 27 years later and it still gave me the chills.
Joan Benoit won the Gold Medal that day. It's a common saying in sports that "nobody ever remembers who came second." True enough! For me the most memorable person at the first women's Olympic Marathon in 1984 finished 37th.
The language of the commentary is not important. If you watch the video....well judge for yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZFNiuuApFU&feature=related
Monday, September 12, 2011
An Orange Tide for Ontario??T
hThe Ontario election campaign has barely begun but we have already seen the two frontrunners get bogged down in a bizarre issue.
Liberal Premier McGuinty has promised a tax credit to companies that hire foreign trained professionals. Conservative leader Hudak has labelled it affirmative action for "foreigners". Not true replies McGuinty, it is meant for Canadian citizens who were foreign trained but have been in Canada for less than 5 years. Hudak has been accused of being divisive.
I find this whole issue and the reactions rather bizarre. I don't like affirmative action as a matter of principle but I'm not sure this qualifies as affirmative action. That being said, labeling Canadian citizens "foreigners" is completely offensive. Am I Canadian because I've been a citizen for longer than 5 years or am I still somewhat of a foreigner? I've always thought that when one becomes a Canadian citizen, you are Canadian from that day forward. That being said, if this is such a great idea, why did Dalton McGuinty wait until an election campaign 8 years after he took office to present this great idea??? He could have presented it and implemented it at any time during the past 8 years.
This whole debate makes both of them look silly. It's possible that the voters of Ontario will decide that both of them are right....about the other and vote for neither.
This silliness has created an opportunity for Andrea Horwath to woo disaffected voters. It has been decades since Ontario's disastrous experience with an NDP government. Former NDP Premier Bob Rae is now the leader of the Federal Liberal Party and the face of the NDP is now Jack Layton. In other words, the NDP brand in Ontario has been completely washed clean of the Rae years by Jack Layton's success and Rae's defection to the Liberals.
It is very early and the leaders debates have yet to happen. If Andrea Horwath can introduce herself to the voters and show that she is ready for prime time, she could pull off an upset. The ground is fertile, can she step up and seize the opportunity?
Liberal Premier McGuinty has promised a tax credit to companies that hire foreign trained professionals. Conservative leader Hudak has labelled it affirmative action for "foreigners". Not true replies McGuinty, it is meant for Canadian citizens who were foreign trained but have been in Canada for less than 5 years. Hudak has been accused of being divisive.
I find this whole issue and the reactions rather bizarre. I don't like affirmative action as a matter of principle but I'm not sure this qualifies as affirmative action. That being said, labeling Canadian citizens "foreigners" is completely offensive. Am I Canadian because I've been a citizen for longer than 5 years or am I still somewhat of a foreigner? I've always thought that when one becomes a Canadian citizen, you are Canadian from that day forward. That being said, if this is such a great idea, why did Dalton McGuinty wait until an election campaign 8 years after he took office to present this great idea??? He could have presented it and implemented it at any time during the past 8 years.
This whole debate makes both of them look silly. It's possible that the voters of Ontario will decide that both of them are right....about the other and vote for neither.
This silliness has created an opportunity for Andrea Horwath to woo disaffected voters. It has been decades since Ontario's disastrous experience with an NDP government. Former NDP Premier Bob Rae is now the leader of the Federal Liberal Party and the face of the NDP is now Jack Layton. In other words, the NDP brand in Ontario has been completely washed clean of the Rae years by Jack Layton's success and Rae's defection to the Liberals.
It is very early and the leaders debates have yet to happen. If Andrea Horwath can introduce herself to the voters and show that she is ready for prime time, she could pull off an upset. The ground is fertile, can she step up and seize the opportunity?
Thursday, September 8, 2011
President Obama's Jobs Plan
With the United States mired in an economic slump and fears growing of a double dip recession, President Obama did what he does best.....he gave a speech.
Obama's skills as an orator are well known. I don't think the Oval Office has had a better orator post Reagan. However, his plan is doomed to fail.
I have heard that one definition of insanity is repeating the same behaviour and expecting a different result. So what is the Obama jobs plan? Well it's a $447 billion dollar package of tax cuts and public works spending....to be paid for later. Excuse me but haven't we seen this before? What does anyone think that a half trillion dollar program of spending will do for the economy what three years of trillion dollar deficits did not?
Bill Gross (of PIMCO) speaking on CNN stated flat out that it will not work because the unemployment problem in the United States is a result of structural changes resulting from technological change and the migration of jobs to cheap labour countries like China. A modest lowering of payroll taxes will not suddenly cause businesses to start hiring. Bill Gross is right.
However let me take a step back and address a more fundamental assumption that everyone seems to be labouring under. How exactly did it become a fundamental underlying assumption that the economy will continuously grow at rates that will lead to ever greater prosperity? Everything I've read in my studies of economics says that boom and bust are part of something called the business cycle. Recessions are as much a part of growth as death is to life.
Recessions aren't all bad. During boom times, people drive more, eat more, waste more and save less. Why wouldn't they? Greater future prosperity makes thrifty ways seem pointless. The environment suffers and the garbage dumps fill up while waistlines expand. During recessions, businesses become more efficient, energy costs are costs that need to be cut, lights are turned off more and carbon emissions go down.
Stimulus spending will not work now because it simply attempts to fast forward future consumer demand to the present. This works temporarily but there is a limit. The downgrading of US Treasury debt to less than triple A tells us that this point is near. That point was reached after a decade of deficit financed prosperity under George W Bush. That is certainly not Obama's fault but it does mean that the stimulus gun has no more bullets that are effective. Besides, bringing forward future growth to today inevitably means a hangover of low growth.
It is now time for society to readjust their expectations, live with lower growth and wait until the gloom passes. It may take years or even a decade or two....that is simply a reflection of how long and prosperous the boom was. It's time to recover from the hangover and there is no quick way to do it.
Obama's skills as an orator are well known. I don't think the Oval Office has had a better orator post Reagan. However, his plan is doomed to fail.
I have heard that one definition of insanity is repeating the same behaviour and expecting a different result. So what is the Obama jobs plan? Well it's a $447 billion dollar package of tax cuts and public works spending....to be paid for later. Excuse me but haven't we seen this before? What does anyone think that a half trillion dollar program of spending will do for the economy what three years of trillion dollar deficits did not?
Bill Gross (of PIMCO) speaking on CNN stated flat out that it will not work because the unemployment problem in the United States is a result of structural changes resulting from technological change and the migration of jobs to cheap labour countries like China. A modest lowering of payroll taxes will not suddenly cause businesses to start hiring. Bill Gross is right.
However let me take a step back and address a more fundamental assumption that everyone seems to be labouring under. How exactly did it become a fundamental underlying assumption that the economy will continuously grow at rates that will lead to ever greater prosperity? Everything I've read in my studies of economics says that boom and bust are part of something called the business cycle. Recessions are as much a part of growth as death is to life.
Recessions aren't all bad. During boom times, people drive more, eat more, waste more and save less. Why wouldn't they? Greater future prosperity makes thrifty ways seem pointless. The environment suffers and the garbage dumps fill up while waistlines expand. During recessions, businesses become more efficient, energy costs are costs that need to be cut, lights are turned off more and carbon emissions go down.
Stimulus spending will not work now because it simply attempts to fast forward future consumer demand to the present. This works temporarily but there is a limit. The downgrading of US Treasury debt to less than triple A tells us that this point is near. That point was reached after a decade of deficit financed prosperity under George W Bush. That is certainly not Obama's fault but it does mean that the stimulus gun has no more bullets that are effective. Besides, bringing forward future growth to today inevitably means a hangover of low growth.
It is now time for society to readjust their expectations, live with lower growth and wait until the gloom passes. It may take years or even a decade or two....that is simply a reflection of how long and prosperous the boom was. It's time to recover from the hangover and there is no quick way to do it.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Jack Layton's Legacy
The passing of Jack Layton united Canada in grief today. People who would never have considered voting for him (such as myself) were equally moved by his story and his words.
I first heard of Jack Layton 20 years ago when he was running for Mayor of Toronto. He lost to June Rowlands. He also had unsuccessful runs for a seat in Parliament twice before finally meeting. It took a long time and a lot of losing campaigns before he became an overnight success.
During the mayoral campaign, Layton came across like an angry young man berating a kind old lady. In the recent federal election, he was a very different man. Gone was the simmering anger. He spoke plainly in a way that voters could understand him.
One of the ironic things about the last election is that Harper campaigned against the three other parties as being in bed with separatists. How ironic that Harper did not slay the separatist dragon but one of the men supposedly in bed with Gilles Duceppe decimated the Bloc's Ottawa headcount to a number that could be counted on one hand not including the thumb.
Jack Layton greatest legacy lies in Quebec. Many Canadians outside of Quebec had Jack Layton's sunny demeanour and working class french to thank for sparing us the sight of separatists in Ottawa rising to ask questions during question period. The last election was a great result for Canadian Federalism and Jack Layton was the key driving force behind Quebec's change in direction.
Since that is his greatest legacy, it is also the area in which his legacy can be most easily squandered. Layton's successor must find a way to hold on to Official Opposition status at the very least in the next election. If he/she does not, then the last election result will be seen as a fluke result that will not be repeated. If that happens, then Layton's legacy will be squandered.
It will be very difficult for the NDP to do anywhere near as well as they did in 2011. Jack Layton's presence will so dominate that his successor will pale in comparison. A new leader from Quebec runs a high level of risk of alienating NDP voters in english Canada. Some candidates such as, Thomas Mulcair are simply too unstable to appeal to many people in or out of Quebec.
The NDP is not my party and I have never voted for the NDP. However as a Canadian, I fervently hope that the NDP can carry on Layton's legacy. It was Jack Layton's presence as leader that eliminated the travesty known as the Bloc Quebecois. All Canadians should be greatful and hope that the NDP will continue to block the Bloc from a resurgence.
A strong and durable NDP will be the ultimate tribute to Jack Layton. RIP Jack!
I first heard of Jack Layton 20 years ago when he was running for Mayor of Toronto. He lost to June Rowlands. He also had unsuccessful runs for a seat in Parliament twice before finally meeting. It took a long time and a lot of losing campaigns before he became an overnight success.
During the mayoral campaign, Layton came across like an angry young man berating a kind old lady. In the recent federal election, he was a very different man. Gone was the simmering anger. He spoke plainly in a way that voters could understand him.
One of the ironic things about the last election is that Harper campaigned against the three other parties as being in bed with separatists. How ironic that Harper did not slay the separatist dragon but one of the men supposedly in bed with Gilles Duceppe decimated the Bloc's Ottawa headcount to a number that could be counted on one hand not including the thumb.
Jack Layton greatest legacy lies in Quebec. Many Canadians outside of Quebec had Jack Layton's sunny demeanour and working class french to thank for sparing us the sight of separatists in Ottawa rising to ask questions during question period. The last election was a great result for Canadian Federalism and Jack Layton was the key driving force behind Quebec's change in direction.
Since that is his greatest legacy, it is also the area in which his legacy can be most easily squandered. Layton's successor must find a way to hold on to Official Opposition status at the very least in the next election. If he/she does not, then the last election result will be seen as a fluke result that will not be repeated. If that happens, then Layton's legacy will be squandered.
It will be very difficult for the NDP to do anywhere near as well as they did in 2011. Jack Layton's presence will so dominate that his successor will pale in comparison. A new leader from Quebec runs a high level of risk of alienating NDP voters in english Canada. Some candidates such as, Thomas Mulcair are simply too unstable to appeal to many people in or out of Quebec.
The NDP is not my party and I have never voted for the NDP. However as a Canadian, I fervently hope that the NDP can carry on Layton's legacy. It was Jack Layton's presence as leader that eliminated the travesty known as the Bloc Quebecois. All Canadians should be greatful and hope that the NDP will continue to block the Bloc from a resurgence.
A strong and durable NDP will be the ultimate tribute to Jack Layton. RIP Jack!
Saturday, August 6, 2011
The Real Downgrading of America
Today Standard and Poors downgraded long term debt of the United States from the highest rating of AAA to AA+. The other two major agencies have not downgraded but have warned of the possibility.
This is the first time in history that US Federal government debt has had anything other than the top rating so many people haven't really ever considered this and are unsure of the consequences. Even financial experts aren't so sure.
Many products and pricing methods in Finance are built around the concept of what is known as the "risk free rate." This is useful for calculating things like the "Present Value" of future cash flows. (ie. the opportunity cost of not having money today that you could then invest at the 'risk free rate.') Nothing is ever truly risk free but having the highest possible credit rating is as good as you can get.
There is a knock on effect of a downgrade of US Sovereign debt. It is a principle that the Sovereign must always have the highest credit rating in the country. The idea behind this is very simple: A nobleman can't be AAA while the King is AA since the King can simply choose to tax the nobleman to pay his obligations. As a result, Apple Computer may have had more cash in their bank account than the US Treasury did for a time last week, but their credit rating still cannot be higher than the Treasury. This knock on effect may increase borrowing costs for many US companies down the line.
The Standard and Poors downgrade statement made a particular point of saying that a deficit reduction plan had to be 'credible' and that the dysfunctional way in which the Executive and Legislative branches are interacting was a factor. I don't think that anyone who followed the recent debate and brinksmanship around raising the debt ceiling could argue with these criticisms.
As a practical matter, this downgrade may not have any big immediate effects. There are three major ratings agencies and the others have not yet followed suit. (if the other dominoes fall, then the USA is on the same slippery slope as Greece)
The S&P doesn't have a mandate for social commentary but their statement still pointed us to the real historical downgrading of America: before Congress got dysfunctional, society became dysfunctional and voted that way.
The real problem is a downgrading of the values of shared sacrifice that once existed in America. Where people once dutifully stood in ration lines to support the effort to defeat the Axis powers, people now see shopping on credit as their patriotic duty. In a way, one can hardly blame them. President George W. Bush and Mayor Giuliani told them to do just that.
Every debate around the budget comes down to various interest groups basically saying one of two things:
My suggested plan will fix the deficit (unlike the current plans) and probably trigger a severe recession (just as the current plan will). Recessions are painful but they are inevitable. They are inevitable because sustained growth creates the conditions that lead to recession. (I don't want to write a textbook here so I won't go into that much more now.)
My suggested plan would not get a single vote in Congress. It offends every constituency and enforces shared sacrifice. Therefore, my plan is not aligned to the values of America right now. What a pity.
This is the first time in history that US Federal government debt has had anything other than the top rating so many people haven't really ever considered this and are unsure of the consequences. Even financial experts aren't so sure.
Many products and pricing methods in Finance are built around the concept of what is known as the "risk free rate." This is useful for calculating things like the "Present Value" of future cash flows. (ie. the opportunity cost of not having money today that you could then invest at the 'risk free rate.') Nothing is ever truly risk free but having the highest possible credit rating is as good as you can get.
There is a knock on effect of a downgrade of US Sovereign debt. It is a principle that the Sovereign must always have the highest credit rating in the country. The idea behind this is very simple: A nobleman can't be AAA while the King is AA since the King can simply choose to tax the nobleman to pay his obligations. As a result, Apple Computer may have had more cash in their bank account than the US Treasury did for a time last week, but their credit rating still cannot be higher than the Treasury. This knock on effect may increase borrowing costs for many US companies down the line.
The Standard and Poors downgrade statement made a particular point of saying that a deficit reduction plan had to be 'credible' and that the dysfunctional way in which the Executive and Legislative branches are interacting was a factor. I don't think that anyone who followed the recent debate and brinksmanship around raising the debt ceiling could argue with these criticisms.
As a practical matter, this downgrade may not have any big immediate effects. There are three major ratings agencies and the others have not yet followed suit. (if the other dominoes fall, then the USA is on the same slippery slope as Greece)
The S&P doesn't have a mandate for social commentary but their statement still pointed us to the real historical downgrading of America: before Congress got dysfunctional, society became dysfunctional and voted that way.
The real problem is a downgrading of the values of shared sacrifice that once existed in America. Where people once dutifully stood in ration lines to support the effort to defeat the Axis powers, people now see shopping on credit as their patriotic duty. In a way, one can hardly blame them. President George W. Bush and Mayor Giuliani told them to do just that.
Every debate around the budget comes down to various interest groups basically saying one of two things:
- Cut my taxes and raise taxes on these other people.
- Don't cut my benefits, cut someone else's.
Both Democrats and Republicans are equally guilty of this.
The 2011 Federal Budget contained spending of $3.8 trillion dollars and revenue (taxes) of $2.2 trillion leading to a deficit of $1.6 trillion. This means that for every one dollar collected in taxes, the government was spending one $1.72. That is an absolutely irresponsible level of spending.
Here is my suggestion for how America can fix this problem of values and get their AAA credit rating back:
- Raise taxes on the wealthy.
- Raise taxes on the not wealthy.
- Cut Democratic sacred cow social programs like Social Security, Welfare, Medicare and Unemployment Insurance.
- Cut Republican sacred cows like National Defence, Corporate welfare subsidies, Ethanol subsidies.
In short, taxes go up for EVERYONE and benefits are cut for EVERYONE. How can this be fair? It's fair because when $1.72 of spending exists for every $1.00 in taxes, the entire society is living beyond its means.
Those on the right will talk of how certain social programs cost too much. By and large, these programs benefit urban dwellers and minorities. They will ignore any talk of ethanol subsidies which benefit rural white farmers.
The left is equally guilty of playing class warfare politics of division. They will always say that taxes should go up for the "rich". This is a red herring because the rich already pay higher taxes and there simply aren't enough of them earning $250,000 + to fix this fiscal imbalance. This plays right into the attitude of "let someone else pay." Why shouldn't the middle class pay more? The only reason nobody says that is because the middle class is where most voters are.
My suggested plan will fix the deficit (unlike the current plans) and probably trigger a severe recession (just as the current plan will). Recessions are painful but they are inevitable. They are inevitable because sustained growth creates the conditions that lead to recession. (I don't want to write a textbook here so I won't go into that much more now.)
My suggested plan would not get a single vote in Congress. It offends every constituency and enforces shared sacrifice. Therefore, my plan is not aligned to the values of America right now. What a pity.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Pension Folly
An amazing argument is playing out across the public and private sectors across several nations.
This argument deals with defined benefit pension plans.
The problem is very simple to define and (in theory) just as easy to solve. Whether we are talking about Social Security, the Canada Pension Plan or various public or private sector pension plans the problem is the same. Current workers pay premiums that fund the benefits for retirees. The benefits are paid out without any real connection to what those workers paid into the plan in the first place.
As an example, one pension plan I am aware of pays out (for life) based on the following formula: 2% x the number of years of service x average of your salary in the final 3 years. If one lives a very long time, the retiree will receive much much more than was paid in.
This problem afflicts all such pension plans. Social Security (USA) sets payments to begin at the age of 65. At the time that the program came into inception (1935) the average lifespan of workers was 67. Today it is around 80 and increasing.
The aging of the population and reduced birth rates has lead to projections that the worker-retiree ratio (which was 10-1) will soon reach 2-1.
In short, the program is fundamentally flawed. It is simply not built to deal with negative demographic trends. In fact, it was always doomed to fail since the human population simply cannot keep growing forever...certainly not at the rates that it had been.
So why all the hue and cry when corporations or governments try to fix this obvious problem? It points to a cultural shift in values. Where such programs were once a sign that society takes care of each other, now it has become a game of hanging onto your spoils and damn the consequences for everyone else.
Personally, I don't want to saddle my children and grandchildren with debt to pay for my retirement. If we want to avoid the fate of nations like Greece, then we need to eliminate or at least radically reform the way cherished programs like CPP work. Otherwise we are just sweeping today's problems under the rug for our children to deal with.
If anyone wants my advice, I suggest saving enough for your retirement assuming that you will get bupkus from the Canada Pension Plan. It's the right thing to do and the safe thing to do....cuz that might be the case anyway.
This argument deals with defined benefit pension plans.
The problem is very simple to define and (in theory) just as easy to solve. Whether we are talking about Social Security, the Canada Pension Plan or various public or private sector pension plans the problem is the same. Current workers pay premiums that fund the benefits for retirees. The benefits are paid out without any real connection to what those workers paid into the plan in the first place.
As an example, one pension plan I am aware of pays out (for life) based on the following formula: 2% x the number of years of service x average of your salary in the final 3 years. If one lives a very long time, the retiree will receive much much more than was paid in.
This problem afflicts all such pension plans. Social Security (USA) sets payments to begin at the age of 65. At the time that the program came into inception (1935) the average lifespan of workers was 67. Today it is around 80 and increasing.
The aging of the population and reduced birth rates has lead to projections that the worker-retiree ratio (which was 10-1) will soon reach 2-1.
In short, the program is fundamentally flawed. It is simply not built to deal with negative demographic trends. In fact, it was always doomed to fail since the human population simply cannot keep growing forever...certainly not at the rates that it had been.
So why all the hue and cry when corporations or governments try to fix this obvious problem? It points to a cultural shift in values. Where such programs were once a sign that society takes care of each other, now it has become a game of hanging onto your spoils and damn the consequences for everyone else.
Personally, I don't want to saddle my children and grandchildren with debt to pay for my retirement. If we want to avoid the fate of nations like Greece, then we need to eliminate or at least radically reform the way cherished programs like CPP work. Otherwise we are just sweeping today's problems under the rug for our children to deal with.
If anyone wants my advice, I suggest saving enough for your retirement assuming that you will get bupkus from the Canada Pension Plan. It's the right thing to do and the safe thing to do....cuz that might be the case anyway.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Gay Marriage - everybody seems to be missing the point
Today i'm going to blog about the Gay Marriage debate currently roiling the United States. While the topic is certainly controversial, I don't think that my opinion will be.
The fundamental mistake in our marriage laws is not that they exclude same sex relationships. The fundamental mistake is that such laws exist at all.
Historically the rules of marriage were governed by a religious institution and codified into law. Now this didn't lead to much dissension when an overwhelmingly Catholic country codified the standards as defined by the Vatican. However in this age of multicultural societies with multiple faiths, this is no longer meaningful or appropriate.
Why should the laws of Canada reflect the standards of the Anglican Church and the Catholic Church? I'll give you an example....under the laws of Canada, marrying your first cousin is permitted. This is surprising to many. Marrying your first cousin is allowed by the Anglican Church and the Catholic Church. However, it is not allowed under Eastern Orthodox Christianity.
There is no reciprocity with religious organizations. While a marriage in a Catholic Church is recognized as legitimate under law, the same does not apply in reverse. As one who has been divorced, I could not marry a Catholic girl in Church because in the eyes of the Catholic Church, I am still married. Rather curious since I am not Catholic and my ex wife is Hindu.
Those who claim to oppose gay marriage ostensibly for the purpose of defending the traditional definition of marriage should be asked which "traditional" type of marriage they are defending. Is it a Catholic/Anglican definition of marriage? There are "traditional" marriages in other faiths such as Islam and the Church of Latter Day Saints which would be considered invalid under the laws of Canada and the United States.
Really the "threat" to a traditional view of marriage comes from attempting to codify it.
Here is a really radical idea: Government should get out of the business of defining marriage. It's really not the place of Government to take one religion's standards and make them apply to all. A religious "Marriage" should be defined by the controlling religious authority. ie the Vatican can decide for Catholics and an Ayatollah can define marriage for Shiite Muslims.
I've attended communions in Catholic churches. Communions are not defined in law but it doesn't seem to make it any less meaningful to those who are receiving communion and their families.
As to the economic aspect of marriage such as rights of survivorship for property, pension etc, any two (or more) legally competent individuals should be able to sign a contract pooling their resources and agreeing on how to divide up assets upon dissolution of the contract.
Recently elderly sisters applied to the European Commission on Human Rights claiming that they were being discriminated against since they did not have rights of survivorship while a lesbian couple would. They lost the case but the pointed out an obvious flaw to same sex marriage as currently applied. Why is their sisterly relationship less valid than a same sex partnership?
In fact, if any two people should decide to live together in a platonic relationship, should their relationship not get the same recognition simply because they aren't having sex with each other?
My pension is something that I have earned by contributing. My employer's contribution is a form of compensation. I should be able to designate anyone I want to be a beneficiary....regardless of whether the beneficiary is a wife, husband, partner or friend.
Really I'm saying that it's a silly debate. Government should only do what only government can do. In this case, the Government should simply repeal marriage laws and replace them with a law allowing competent adults to enter an economic relationship if they wish, without passing judgment based on the rather bizarre issue of whether they are in a relationship where they are having sex with each other or not.
The fundamental mistake in our marriage laws is not that they exclude same sex relationships. The fundamental mistake is that such laws exist at all.
Historically the rules of marriage were governed by a religious institution and codified into law. Now this didn't lead to much dissension when an overwhelmingly Catholic country codified the standards as defined by the Vatican. However in this age of multicultural societies with multiple faiths, this is no longer meaningful or appropriate.
Why should the laws of Canada reflect the standards of the Anglican Church and the Catholic Church? I'll give you an example....under the laws of Canada, marrying your first cousin is permitted. This is surprising to many. Marrying your first cousin is allowed by the Anglican Church and the Catholic Church. However, it is not allowed under Eastern Orthodox Christianity.
There is no reciprocity with religious organizations. While a marriage in a Catholic Church is recognized as legitimate under law, the same does not apply in reverse. As one who has been divorced, I could not marry a Catholic girl in Church because in the eyes of the Catholic Church, I am still married. Rather curious since I am not Catholic and my ex wife is Hindu.
Those who claim to oppose gay marriage ostensibly for the purpose of defending the traditional definition of marriage should be asked which "traditional" type of marriage they are defending. Is it a Catholic/Anglican definition of marriage? There are "traditional" marriages in other faiths such as Islam and the Church of Latter Day Saints which would be considered invalid under the laws of Canada and the United States.
Really the "threat" to a traditional view of marriage comes from attempting to codify it.
Here is a really radical idea: Government should get out of the business of defining marriage. It's really not the place of Government to take one religion's standards and make them apply to all. A religious "Marriage" should be defined by the controlling religious authority. ie the Vatican can decide for Catholics and an Ayatollah can define marriage for Shiite Muslims.
I've attended communions in Catholic churches. Communions are not defined in law but it doesn't seem to make it any less meaningful to those who are receiving communion and their families.
As to the economic aspect of marriage such as rights of survivorship for property, pension etc, any two (or more) legally competent individuals should be able to sign a contract pooling their resources and agreeing on how to divide up assets upon dissolution of the contract.
Recently elderly sisters applied to the European Commission on Human Rights claiming that they were being discriminated against since they did not have rights of survivorship while a lesbian couple would. They lost the case but the pointed out an obvious flaw to same sex marriage as currently applied. Why is their sisterly relationship less valid than a same sex partnership?
In fact, if any two people should decide to live together in a platonic relationship, should their relationship not get the same recognition simply because they aren't having sex with each other?
My pension is something that I have earned by contributing. My employer's contribution is a form of compensation. I should be able to designate anyone I want to be a beneficiary....regardless of whether the beneficiary is a wife, husband, partner or friend.
Really I'm saying that it's a silly debate. Government should only do what only government can do. In this case, the Government should simply repeal marriage laws and replace them with a law allowing competent adults to enter an economic relationship if they wish, without passing judgment based on the rather bizarre issue of whether they are in a relationship where they are having sex with each other or not.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Brian Burke, Sports and Sports Writers
I often blog about sports. Other than my angry rants about politics, sports is my favourite topic. I've written about the importance of sport in my life from childhood til the present day. Playing and following different sports are very good avenues for learning many of life's lessons: the value of teamwork, sportsmanship, the value of preparation and hard work. However we sometimes forget that sport is important, in large part, because it is so very unimportant.
When I watch the Toronto Maple Leafs play my favourite sport of hockey, I know that it's not the end of the world if they should lose (Thank Goodness!!!). When the US Olympic team of collegiate players beat the mighty Russians at Lake Placid, it was called the "Miracle on Ice." But it was no miracle really. There were two teams on the ice and one of them had to lose. Yes Team USA were a bunch of collegians and the Russians were pros...it wasn't exactly Lazarus rising from the dead four days later!
With that in mind, I found it very jarring to read a column by Steve Simmons about a Canada Day visit to Afghanistan by Toronto Maple Leafs General Manager Brian Burke.
http://www.torontosun.com/2011/07/01/burke-off-to-afghanistan
Steve Simmons takes issue with Brian Burke accepting an invitation to visit our troops serving in Afghanistan on Canada day. He seems to think it a dereliction of duty on Mr Burke's part to be available by phone on the first day that free agents can be signed. He says that the "optics for Leafs fans are terrible." He calls this putting "his own self interests ahead of those of the team."
Many strong comments have been made on the Toronto Sun website in response to Simmons' column. They are almost uniformly disgusted by what he wrote. I took heart from the response by readers. They were able to see the value and importance of what Burke did and were not swayed by the amazingly short sighted view expressed by Simmons.
Brian Burke has been in the news for real life matters before. His openly gay son was tragically killed in a car accident and he has been a regular marcher in Toronto's Pride Parade. When you saw this cranky, gruff speaking old Irishman speaking of the loss of his son, I couldn't help but think of how I would feel in his position. This was real life and made me think of real life matters. What if my son grew up and told me he was gay? Well I can say without the slightest hesitation that I wouldn't love him any less. Why would I?
I can also admit that there once was a time in my life where I would have been far less tolerant in my outlook. We all (hopefully) grow and mature and learn to see things for their real importance. Sports were a part of that maturation process for me.
I hope everyone playing pro sports realizes that they are extremely privileged to be getting paid to play a game for kids. I hope that most sports writers feel lucky to be getting paid to do what many guys do at a bar during Hockey Night in Canada....which is express their alcohol fueled opinions about various players.
Brian Burke obviously knows what is really important and what is not. Steve Simmons hasn't a clue. I feel sorry for Simmons to be living in such an insular world where free agent signings for a hockey team are more important than our troops risking life and limb in Kandahar.
Recently we saw the city of Vancouver get a black eye when some citizens didn't realize how unimportant the Stanley Cup really is. They took to the streets and rioted when their team didn't win. How pathetic. It was just a game after all.
So it is with Steve Simmons. He has embarrassed himself and his newspaper with his pathetic attempt to be serious, and in the process, showed that he should never be taken seriously. It is certainly not a crime to be stupid......thank goodness for Steve Simmons.
BTW, Brian Burke is American. When was the last time an American expressed his gratitude to the Canadian troops holding down the most dangerous part of Afghanistan? Ah who cares? The Leafs just signed Clarke MacArthur to a two year contract.
When I watch the Toronto Maple Leafs play my favourite sport of hockey, I know that it's not the end of the world if they should lose (Thank Goodness!!!). When the US Olympic team of collegiate players beat the mighty Russians at Lake Placid, it was called the "Miracle on Ice." But it was no miracle really. There were two teams on the ice and one of them had to lose. Yes Team USA were a bunch of collegians and the Russians were pros...it wasn't exactly Lazarus rising from the dead four days later!
With that in mind, I found it very jarring to read a column by Steve Simmons about a Canada Day visit to Afghanistan by Toronto Maple Leafs General Manager Brian Burke.
http://www.torontosun.com/2011/07/01/burke-off-to-afghanistan
Steve Simmons takes issue with Brian Burke accepting an invitation to visit our troops serving in Afghanistan on Canada day. He seems to think it a dereliction of duty on Mr Burke's part to be available by phone on the first day that free agents can be signed. He says that the "optics for Leafs fans are terrible." He calls this putting "his own self interests ahead of those of the team."
Many strong comments have been made on the Toronto Sun website in response to Simmons' column. They are almost uniformly disgusted by what he wrote. I took heart from the response by readers. They were able to see the value and importance of what Burke did and were not swayed by the amazingly short sighted view expressed by Simmons.
Brian Burke has been in the news for real life matters before. His openly gay son was tragically killed in a car accident and he has been a regular marcher in Toronto's Pride Parade. When you saw this cranky, gruff speaking old Irishman speaking of the loss of his son, I couldn't help but think of how I would feel in his position. This was real life and made me think of real life matters. What if my son grew up and told me he was gay? Well I can say without the slightest hesitation that I wouldn't love him any less. Why would I?
I can also admit that there once was a time in my life where I would have been far less tolerant in my outlook. We all (hopefully) grow and mature and learn to see things for their real importance. Sports were a part of that maturation process for me.
I hope everyone playing pro sports realizes that they are extremely privileged to be getting paid to play a game for kids. I hope that most sports writers feel lucky to be getting paid to do what many guys do at a bar during Hockey Night in Canada....which is express their alcohol fueled opinions about various players.
Brian Burke obviously knows what is really important and what is not. Steve Simmons hasn't a clue. I feel sorry for Simmons to be living in such an insular world where free agent signings for a hockey team are more important than our troops risking life and limb in Kandahar.
Recently we saw the city of Vancouver get a black eye when some citizens didn't realize how unimportant the Stanley Cup really is. They took to the streets and rioted when their team didn't win. How pathetic. It was just a game after all.
So it is with Steve Simmons. He has embarrassed himself and his newspaper with his pathetic attempt to be serious, and in the process, showed that he should never be taken seriously. It is certainly not a crime to be stupid......thank goodness for Steve Simmons.
BTW, Brian Burke is American. When was the last time an American expressed his gratitude to the Canadian troops holding down the most dangerous part of Afghanistan? Ah who cares? The Leafs just signed Clarke MacArthur to a two year contract.
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Royal Visit to Canada
The newspapers have given lots of coverage to the visit to Canada of William and Kate (aka, the Duke and Duchess of York).
The Toronto star has posted pictures of the three days they have been here so far.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1018492--william-and-kate-buoy-spirits-of-sick-visit-children-and-couples-at-rideau-hall?bn=1
So far they have attended a cooking workshop in Montreal.....this should prove very useful since the Royal Family is well known to cook their own meals?
They also attended a ceremonial tree planting at Rideau Hall. Prince William is shown holding a shovel.....how apt!!!
Another photo shows them visiting veterans and war brides. This one really got my dander up!! Will and Kate should have felt honoured to be in the company of people who have led such meaningful lives.
Why is Quebec Premier Jean Charest taking time to visit with the Royal Nothings? I could ask the same of Prime Minister Harper. The Governor General I can understand since he doesn't really have a job to do.
Why are our tax dollars being spent on such pathetic meaningless tributes to people who have really done nothing much in life to be worthy of such acclaim. George Will once wrote of Paris Hilton that her's "is the purest form of celebrity, unsullied by accomplishment, she is famous for being famous."
Our Royal Family is one notch lower than Paris Hilton in my books. At least she made a movie that was watched by many.
The Toronto star has posted pictures of the three days they have been here so far.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1018492--william-and-kate-buoy-spirits-of-sick-visit-children-and-couples-at-rideau-hall?bn=1
So far they have attended a cooking workshop in Montreal.....this should prove very useful since the Royal Family is well known to cook their own meals?
They also attended a ceremonial tree planting at Rideau Hall. Prince William is shown holding a shovel.....how apt!!!
Another photo shows them visiting veterans and war brides. This one really got my dander up!! Will and Kate should have felt honoured to be in the company of people who have led such meaningful lives.
Why is Quebec Premier Jean Charest taking time to visit with the Royal Nothings? I could ask the same of Prime Minister Harper. The Governor General I can understand since he doesn't really have a job to do.
Why are our tax dollars being spent on such pathetic meaningless tributes to people who have really done nothing much in life to be worthy of such acclaim. George Will once wrote of Paris Hilton that her's "is the purest form of celebrity, unsullied by accomplishment, she is famous for being famous."
Our Royal Family is one notch lower than Paris Hilton in my books. At least she made a movie that was watched by many.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Mission Accomplished Redux?
In May of 2003, George W Bush landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln in a flight suit and gave a speech to announce the end of "major combat operations" in Iraq. Behind him hung a banner that proclaimed "Mission Accomplished."
For years Bush was ripped in the media for this stunt and it was warranted. The mission was not close to being accomplished and major combat operations continued for years.
Today we see his successor announcing the partial withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan because "the tide of war is receding." If he is right that the tide of war is "receding" then he is wrong to be withdrawing troops now.
Did American troops leave Europe after the Battle of the Bulge? (the Nazis never mounted another offensive) Perhaps Truman should have withdrawn from Korea when American forces approached the Yalu river? (the North Korean army was in tatters and on the run) Maybe after Guadalcanal, the Admiral Nimitz should have directed the Pacific fleet back to port since the tide was war receding. (Japan was no threat to advance at that point)
If in fact Obama is right that the tide of war is receding (kinda sounds like "mission accomplished" cross dressing as something else) then this is the time to intensify efforts to really put the foot down on Al Quada's (and the Taliban's) throat. If he is right then this is the time to march for victory. However I don't think he is right. Most experts on the region do not view Afghanistan in isolation. They view the problem in terms of Afghanistan-Pakistan. For years Americans have been frustrated by the safe havens the Taliban now has in Pakistan. They complain constantly about the duplicitous actions of the Pakistani Secret Service (ISI) who have been known to inform targets before the Americans strike. It was for this very reason that the hit on Bin Laden was kept from Pakistani officials until it was under way.
The problem has not changed materially with the death of Bin Laden. Afghanistan is still governed by the unpredictable and unreliable Hamid Karzai. Pakistan's ISI is still a rogue element beyond the reach of both civilian and military control. Perhaps US troops in Kabul are no answer to the problem of Pakistan, however a weakening of the US presence will surely embolden the Taliban to reach across the border to their former safe havens.
By withdrawing troops prematurely, Obama risks turning Afghanistan into his "mission accomplished" issue. It is probably no coincidence that the former Community Organizer Obama seems likely to make the same mistake as the veteran of the Texas Air National Guard. Neither of them had seen war and neither of them have studied war's implications and strategies. George H.W. Bush declared an end to combat operations after 100 hours of the ground war during the first Gulf war. His mission was accomplished. But then he had seen war up close. He was a decorated veteran of WWII. He possessed a wisdom that has been lacking in all of his successors thus far.
For years Bush was ripped in the media for this stunt and it was warranted. The mission was not close to being accomplished and major combat operations continued for years.
Today we see his successor announcing the partial withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan because "the tide of war is receding." If he is right that the tide of war is "receding" then he is wrong to be withdrawing troops now.
Did American troops leave Europe after the Battle of the Bulge? (the Nazis never mounted another offensive) Perhaps Truman should have withdrawn from Korea when American forces approached the Yalu river? (the North Korean army was in tatters and on the run) Maybe after Guadalcanal, the Admiral Nimitz should have directed the Pacific fleet back to port since the tide was war receding. (Japan was no threat to advance at that point)
If in fact Obama is right that the tide of war is receding (kinda sounds like "mission accomplished" cross dressing as something else) then this is the time to intensify efforts to really put the foot down on Al Quada's (and the Taliban's) throat. If he is right then this is the time to march for victory. However I don't think he is right. Most experts on the region do not view Afghanistan in isolation. They view the problem in terms of Afghanistan-Pakistan. For years Americans have been frustrated by the safe havens the Taliban now has in Pakistan. They complain constantly about the duplicitous actions of the Pakistani Secret Service (ISI) who have been known to inform targets before the Americans strike. It was for this very reason that the hit on Bin Laden was kept from Pakistani officials until it was under way.
The problem has not changed materially with the death of Bin Laden. Afghanistan is still governed by the unpredictable and unreliable Hamid Karzai. Pakistan's ISI is still a rogue element beyond the reach of both civilian and military control. Perhaps US troops in Kabul are no answer to the problem of Pakistan, however a weakening of the US presence will surely embolden the Taliban to reach across the border to their former safe havens.
By withdrawing troops prematurely, Obama risks turning Afghanistan into his "mission accomplished" issue. It is probably no coincidence that the former Community Organizer Obama seems likely to make the same mistake as the veteran of the Texas Air National Guard. Neither of them had seen war and neither of them have studied war's implications and strategies. George H.W. Bush declared an end to combat operations after 100 hours of the ground war during the first Gulf war. His mission was accomplished. But then he had seen war up close. He was a decorated veteran of WWII. He possessed a wisdom that has been lacking in all of his successors thus far.
Friday, June 10, 2011
Miami Heat
Playing sports as a kid gave me many lessons on life to remember. Memories of joy and hurt, accomplishment and failure, friendships and rivalries......all to be cherished now.
Remember what it was like when everyone stood in a group and the two captains picked their teams one at a time until there was nobody (except you) left in the group? I've never forgotten how it felt being the last guy picked. The humiliation, the embarrassment of sticking out like a sore thumb. Of course somebody HAD to be the last one picked....who cares? I didn't like it one bit!!
Similarly remember when the two best kids wanted to play together and insisted on it? Usually they were the two biggest kids so what could you do? That kinda sucked too. One team was always stacked and it usually wasn't my team.
Being the last one picked as well as being on the team getting pummelled wasn't fun.....oh wait no it was!! I'd rather be picked last than not play the game. I'd rather lose badly than not play the game.
It is rare but not unheard of, for an underdog to win. (just think of the Miracle on Ice at the Lake Placid Olympics). Watching David struggle with Goliath was always inspiring even when Goliath slays David....cuz there is always next time.
I am not a big basketball fan. I like to play but not so much to watch. I prefer college over the NBA anytime. However, even a casual fan had to take notice when Lebron James and Chris Bosh left their teams as free agents to join up with their buddy Dewayne Wade to create a stacked team in Miami. Lebron famously declared that he is going to take his "talents to South Beach." Multiple NBA Championships were predicted and promised.
So now the Miami Heat found themselves down 3-2 to the Dallas Mavericks in the Championship finals. I am pulling for Dallas. Dallas has never won the league and had a soft reputation. This "soft" team battled back twice to defeat Miami in games 3 and 4. Dallas has one marquee player to Miami's three. They do not walk with a swagger.....why would they? They haven't done anything to swagger about.
More than anything else, I want Dallas to win to slap the stacked team in Miami. I want Dallas to win because they don't swagger. I want Dallas to win because nobody expected them to win. I want Lebron to take his talent to the golf course for the summer.
That being said, if Miami does win, that's ok. Another one of life's lessons learned through sport is that life isn't always fair.
Go Mavs!!!
Sunday, May 29, 2011
"Conservatives"???
I am a Conservative minded voter and as such I was happy to see the endless minority Parliament come to an end with a Tory majority.
It is now time for the Right Honourable Stephen Harper to produce a Conservative budget. During the minority years, I suppose it was understandable that the Conservatives produced budgets that were not dissimilar to what a Liberal or NDP administration would have produced....after all, they didn't have a majority and couldn't really govern like they did.
The Harper Conservatives strayed from Conservative principles with boneheaded moves like cutting the GST. People may not remember but the GST was originally supposed to be 9% (replacing the 13.5% Manufacturers Sales Tax). It was a sound policy to bring in the GST as the MST served as a tariff on our own exports. It was cut to 7% to make it more politically palatable despite the lack of merit behind such a move.
The Harper team cut the rate to 5%. This was unnecessary and harmful to Canada's fiscal position. It should go back to 7%...at least! Further cuts in income taxes should wait as well. Canada is in very good fiscal position only when compared with other G8 nations who are all basket cases. Canada should lead the way in eliminating the deficit and aggressively paying down the debt...which is an immoral tax upon future generations.
The Hudak team provokes similar concerns. Income tax cuts are a great idea......if we weren't running a 15 billion dollar deficit. Tax cuts should wait, spending cuts should not.
Hudak is playing politics with energy prices and I don't like it at all. Utility bills are going up because the cost of energy is going up around the world. The Green Energy Act may have its flaws but it should not be scrapped entirely. In fact, Ontario (and Canada) will become much more energy efficient if prices stay high.
Harper and Hudak talk a good game about fiscal responsibility. As Conservatives they know exactly what the right things to say are. One hopes that they actually put some of that fiscal responsibility into action.
If they do not, then they risk being labelled Tax and Spend Conservatives....and they will lose the votes of conservatives across the country. Look south for an example. This is what happened to George W Bush conservatives as they looked at the fiscal wreckage he had left.
It is now time for the Right Honourable Stephen Harper to produce a Conservative budget. During the minority years, I suppose it was understandable that the Conservatives produced budgets that were not dissimilar to what a Liberal or NDP administration would have produced....after all, they didn't have a majority and couldn't really govern like they did.
The Harper Conservatives strayed from Conservative principles with boneheaded moves like cutting the GST. People may not remember but the GST was originally supposed to be 9% (replacing the 13.5% Manufacturers Sales Tax). It was a sound policy to bring in the GST as the MST served as a tariff on our own exports. It was cut to 7% to make it more politically palatable despite the lack of merit behind such a move.
The Harper team cut the rate to 5%. This was unnecessary and harmful to Canada's fiscal position. It should go back to 7%...at least! Further cuts in income taxes should wait as well. Canada is in very good fiscal position only when compared with other G8 nations who are all basket cases. Canada should lead the way in eliminating the deficit and aggressively paying down the debt...which is an immoral tax upon future generations.
The Hudak team provokes similar concerns. Income tax cuts are a great idea......if we weren't running a 15 billion dollar deficit. Tax cuts should wait, spending cuts should not.
Hudak is playing politics with energy prices and I don't like it at all. Utility bills are going up because the cost of energy is going up around the world. The Green Energy Act may have its flaws but it should not be scrapped entirely. In fact, Ontario (and Canada) will become much more energy efficient if prices stay high.
Harper and Hudak talk a good game about fiscal responsibility. As Conservatives they know exactly what the right things to say are. One hopes that they actually put some of that fiscal responsibility into action.
If they do not, then they risk being labelled Tax and Spend Conservatives....and they will lose the votes of conservatives across the country. Look south for an example. This is what happened to George W Bush conservatives as they looked at the fiscal wreckage he had left.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Canada's Team - the Canucks
I haven't blogged about hockey in a while, strange considering it is my favourite sport.
I've never really been into cheering for the last Canadian team left in the playoffs. For one thing, the Islanders were always my team. For another, practically every team in the NHL has a roster that is filled with Canadians. In fact, it's probable that some American based teams have more Canadians on the roster than some Canadian based teams.
That being said, I am changing pace this year. I will be cheering for the Vancouver Canucks as Canada's sole remaining entry in the Stanley Cup Playoffs.
When one thinks of iconic Canadian teams, of course names like Les Canadiens and the Maple Leafs jump out. How can they not with names so, well so Canadian!! The Canucks were the 3rd Canadian based NHL team (in the modern era) and they have not won a Cup in their 40 year existence. (for the Leaf fans, that is 3 years less than Toronto's drought). However they went to the finals twice losing to my Islanders in 82 and to the Rangers in 94.
When the Canucks entered the league in 1970, they did more than make another obviously Canadian name appear on the scene. It was much more than that. The Canucks hockey team arrived just before the daring "Crazy Canucks" downhill ski team arrived. The Canucks were the first Canadian NHL team to exist west of Yonge Street, Toronto in the modern era. The Leafs had always been the team of English Canada while the Habs were the team of French Canada. Upper and Lower Canada now had to share the stage with a Western team.
Other teams have come and gone but none were so ostensibly Canadian as the Leafs, Canadiens and the Canucks. Names matter:
Edmonton Oilers - so named cuz Alberta has a lot of oil. A rather sad name.
Winnipeg Jets - the former WHA team actually became famous for the Europeans they had on the roster.
Quebec Nordiques - really? Quebec City is populated by people of Nordic heritage? Came as a surprise to me!
Ottawa Senators - the team named after our unelected Senators actually sport a picture of a Roman Centurion on their jerseys. D'oh!!
Calgary Flames - this one annoys me the most. The Atlanta Flames were so named because General Sherman burned down Atlanta at the end of the American Civil War. So when the team moved to Calgary, they became the Calgary Flames???
The Canucks are led by the Sedin twins who are Swedish. They were drafted by their then General Manager who was an American named Brian Burke. Brian Burke now runs the Toronto Maple Leafs.
Still it has been 17 years since a Canadian team held a Stanley Cup victory parade. That is too long.
Go Canucks!!!
I've never really been into cheering for the last Canadian team left in the playoffs. For one thing, the Islanders were always my team. For another, practically every team in the NHL has a roster that is filled with Canadians. In fact, it's probable that some American based teams have more Canadians on the roster than some Canadian based teams.
That being said, I am changing pace this year. I will be cheering for the Vancouver Canucks as Canada's sole remaining entry in the Stanley Cup Playoffs.
When one thinks of iconic Canadian teams, of course names like Les Canadiens and the Maple Leafs jump out. How can they not with names so, well so Canadian!! The Canucks were the 3rd Canadian based NHL team (in the modern era) and they have not won a Cup in their 40 year existence. (for the Leaf fans, that is 3 years less than Toronto's drought). However they went to the finals twice losing to my Islanders in 82 and to the Rangers in 94.
When the Canucks entered the league in 1970, they did more than make another obviously Canadian name appear on the scene. It was much more than that. The Canucks hockey team arrived just before the daring "Crazy Canucks" downhill ski team arrived. The Canucks were the first Canadian NHL team to exist west of Yonge Street, Toronto in the modern era. The Leafs had always been the team of English Canada while the Habs were the team of French Canada. Upper and Lower Canada now had to share the stage with a Western team.
Other teams have come and gone but none were so ostensibly Canadian as the Leafs, Canadiens and the Canucks. Names matter:
Edmonton Oilers - so named cuz Alberta has a lot of oil. A rather sad name.
Winnipeg Jets - the former WHA team actually became famous for the Europeans they had on the roster.
Quebec Nordiques - really? Quebec City is populated by people of Nordic heritage? Came as a surprise to me!
Ottawa Senators - the team named after our unelected Senators actually sport a picture of a Roman Centurion on their jerseys. D'oh!!
Calgary Flames - this one annoys me the most. The Atlanta Flames were so named because General Sherman burned down Atlanta at the end of the American Civil War. So when the team moved to Calgary, they became the Calgary Flames???
The Canucks are led by the Sedin twins who are Swedish. They were drafted by their then General Manager who was an American named Brian Burke. Brian Burke now runs the Toronto Maple Leafs.
Still it has been 17 years since a Canadian team held a Stanley Cup victory parade. That is too long.
Go Canucks!!!
Wither Journalism Again!!!
As most people who read/watch/listen to any news would know, last Saturday May 21st, 2011 was Judgment Day. This was the day of rapture and the world would be coming to an end. Apparently some nutjob of a preacher in Alameda, California said so and "journalists" the world over rushed to interview him and put him on the news.
Well as it turned out, the world did not end. He now claims to have miscalculated. Thus more ink (if ink is still used) was spilt on further reporting of Preacher Nut Job.
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/995652--preacher-says-he-was-5-months-off-judgment-day-will-occur-in-october?bn=1
Much has been written about the growing irrelevance of traditional media in the internet age. Why watch CNN when you can follow the trending topics on Twitter? Amidst the hand wringing about the death spiral of journalism, we find 'journalists' publishing stories about the end of the world as predicted by Preacher Nut Job.
I'd like to ask the major newspapers who reported on this story what their standards for reporting are? Does any mentally ill person with a following deserve prime time interviews? Perhaps the newspaper barons (if they still exist) feel they missed the boat on David Koresh and don't want to let the next one get away.
I am not merely expressing irritation through sarcasm. There is a story about a man in New York who spent his life savings buying ads to let everyone know that the world was ending. By giving a mainstream platform to people like this, there is a real risk of real harm being done to gullible people. "Hey it must be true, the New York Times printed it!"
There are enough gullible people in this world (many of them working as journalists) that the media should have some standards for what they report.....or just get bought out by the National Enquirer.
Well as it turned out, the world did not end. He now claims to have miscalculated. Thus more ink (if ink is still used) was spilt on further reporting of Preacher Nut Job.
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/995652--preacher-says-he-was-5-months-off-judgment-day-will-occur-in-october?bn=1
Much has been written about the growing irrelevance of traditional media in the internet age. Why watch CNN when you can follow the trending topics on Twitter? Amidst the hand wringing about the death spiral of journalism, we find 'journalists' publishing stories about the end of the world as predicted by Preacher Nut Job.
I'd like to ask the major newspapers who reported on this story what their standards for reporting are? Does any mentally ill person with a following deserve prime time interviews? Perhaps the newspaper barons (if they still exist) feel they missed the boat on David Koresh and don't want to let the next one get away.
I am not merely expressing irritation through sarcasm. There is a story about a man in New York who spent his life savings buying ads to let everyone know that the world was ending. By giving a mainstream platform to people like this, there is a real risk of real harm being done to gullible people. "Hey it must be true, the New York Times printed it!"
There are enough gullible people in this world (many of them working as journalists) that the media should have some standards for what they report.....or just get bought out by the National Enquirer.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Inspiration
I was considering blogging about my experience of running the Mississauga Marathon today. About two kilometers into the race my perspective changed.
Amidst the sound of footsteps, I heard a most unusual sound of something else hitting the pavement. I looked to my left and saw a young man with a brush cut not unlike one I wore in past life. This young man was missing his left leg and the unusual sound I heard was the sound of his prosthetic limb hitting the ground.
I chatted with him briefly. He is a member of the Royal Canadian Regiment (my old regiment) and he lost his leg just west of Kandahar about a year ago. I took a picture during the run.
The picture is of terrible quality however you can see that he has an artificial limb and from the angle of the photo you can guess one important point......he was ahead of me! This young man who lost his leg serving his country was leaving me behind. My right knee hurt....he doesn't have a left knee.
I wanted to ask to have a picture taken with him at the end and ask if I could blog about him. However he turned off as he was doing the half marathon. He was long gone by the time I finished.
I wanted to tell him that he cut a very inspiring figure. I suspect that he would have answered that he was just out for a run. He seemed that matter of fact in the few minutes I spoke to him before he left me catching his dust.
Perhaps I'll get a chance to talk to him again at the Army Run weekend in Ottawa. I had best get training if I want to keep up with him.
Amidst the sound of footsteps, I heard a most unusual sound of something else hitting the pavement. I looked to my left and saw a young man with a brush cut not unlike one I wore in past life. This young man was missing his left leg and the unusual sound I heard was the sound of his prosthetic limb hitting the ground.
I chatted with him briefly. He is a member of the Royal Canadian Regiment (my old regiment) and he lost his leg just west of Kandahar about a year ago. I took a picture during the run.
The picture is of terrible quality however you can see that he has an artificial limb and from the angle of the photo you can guess one important point......he was ahead of me! This young man who lost his leg serving his country was leaving me behind. My right knee hurt....he doesn't have a left knee.
I wanted to ask to have a picture taken with him at the end and ask if I could blog about him. However he turned off as he was doing the half marathon. He was long gone by the time I finished.
I wanted to tell him that he cut a very inspiring figure. I suspect that he would have answered that he was just out for a run. He seemed that matter of fact in the few minutes I spoke to him before he left me catching his dust.
Perhaps I'll get a chance to talk to him again at the Army Run weekend in Ottawa. I had best get training if I want to keep up with him.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Armageddon!!!!
After all of my election rants, I was going to write something more upbeat as a change of pace for my next blog post. However I have been distracted by the big news that is, apparently, front page worthy on many of the local news websites.
So what is this big news? Did Osama get killed again? Did Jerusalem fall to the Romans? No!!! The big news is that the price of gas will go up overnight by 6.5 cents a litre. How could this happen? I've watched as a reporter on the street interview angry motorists filling up. Those dastardly bankers with their "derivatives" were identified as possible culprits. Hedge funds and other speculators could be in on it as well. Then again maybe it's just the big oil companies conspiring to drive the economy into a recession such that they sell less of their product?
Some perspective is always good. When I lived in the UK, gasoline cost roughly three times as much in Ol blighty as in the Great White North. With the change in exchange rates, the cost in the UK is now roughly double that which we pay in Canada.
Despite this enormous inequity in gas prices, Brits have not been reduced to donkey pulled wagons as their primary form of transportation. Civilization has not crumbled and if you see people selling apples on the street, then you are probably in one of their somewhat charming street markets.
Brits (as well as other Europeans) have adjusted to these higher fuel prices by utilizing a very clever technology that few North Americans are aware of. It is called the smaller car. I saw many small model cars in Britain that aren't even available over here because the car companies know that they wouldn't sell. General Motors actually makes some very high quality small cars (for Europe). The Vauxhall Corsa is a very nice little car with good mileage. However it is not practical to sell in North America as you cannot fit more than 8 cases of beer inside it.
I will not endear myself to my Conservative brethren he by saying this, but the truth of the matter is that our fuel prices should be much much higher. If we ever want to break North America's addiction to tar sands and oil imported from countries ruled by dictators, then we simply have to consume less oil. Hybrids are nice but they simply won't replace regular cars fast enough to make a big difference. The only way to dramatically reduce oil consumption is by increasing its price. Gas taxes should gradually go up to be on a par with European pump prices.
People will adjust. They will drive smaller cars, take public transit, walk more and cycle more. Necessity is the mother of invention and so I would expect that fuel efficiency will increase even on large SUV's.
People will adjust, though they will probably still complain about gas prices as they walk along drinking a bottle of water that costs more per fluid ounce than the gas they just used to fill their car.
By the way, this massive 6.5 cent increase overnight that is so scandalous.....well I have a 50 litre tank. So it will cost me a whopping $3.25 extra to fill up!!!
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Looking Forward - Post Election
Canadians are now adjusting to a new political world where the Tories will govern with a majority for the first time since 1993. The New Democratic Party will serve as the Opposition while the Liberals lick their wounds and the Bloc determines whether their existence is of any relevance anymore.
Canada has a fixed election law now so the Tories will govern for the next 4 years. At that time, they will face the voters again. I think that election will be a fait accompli.
The Federal scene is once again a three party system. The new Parliament includes just 5 MP's in total who are not part of one of the three main parties. This compares with around 50 in every Parliament since 93.
The prospects for the Liberals are not good. They were decimated and landed in third place for the first time in their history. Many of their potential new leaders lost last Monday. Almost half of their suppporters from the Chretien years desserted them. Even most Liberals are saying that it will take at least two elections to rebuild their party and brand. It took over a decade for the right to unite and become a force again. It will take the Liberals a similar amount of time.
The NDP rode a wave of enthusiasm in Quebec into their status as the Official Opposition. However Quebecers are notoriously unstable with their massive mood swings.
In 2007 Quebecers made Mario Dumont's Action Democratique du Quebec the official opposition in the legislature. The ADQ was criticized for being a one man show and for having too many candidates with little or no experience.....sound familiar? In 2008, the ADQ was reduced back to a rump of 5 seats.
This election will be a high water mark for Jack Layton and the NDP. Already cracks are showing in their armour. All major newspapers have run stories ridiculing the fact that several new NDP caucus members are not yet done with their undergraduate studies. Their youngest member is also the youngest parliamentarian in Canadian history. He is 19 and plans to quit his part time job at a golf course now that he is a Member of Parliament. Ruth Ellen Brossad represents a 99% francophone riding but, apparently, she doesn't speak French.
Jack Layton will spend a lot of time over the next four years managing his caucus. However, even if he didn't have to waste time herding some unruly cats, he is very unlikely to increase his votes beyond the 30% that he got on election night. Most Canadians know enough about the NDP to know that they are not a party that has a lot of strength on fiscal matters. Canada may not be a Conservative country like America, however we are also not as left as much of Europe. The Green Party won their first seat as well. They will further split the vote on the left. The NDP simply won't get enough traction to get to a government with all of these factors at play.
So by process of elimination, I come to the conclusion that Stephen Harper will win the 2015 election by default....pretty much what happened this time as well. His opposition is weaker and it would take a miracle for some other party to form a government.
I was telling people at work that I consider this to be in the range of 80% probability. I'm thinking that might even be a bit on the low side.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Election Reflections
So the election campaign is now over except for the voting.
There has been much heated rhetoric and harsh things said. (I am not innocent)
However as the campaign is now over, I'd like to offer some sober reflections and perspective.
First Canadians are very lucky to be living in a country with a well functioning democracy. No it's not perfect and I'm not saying it is. Perhaps proportional representation would be better? Perhaps an American style system of checks and balances would be better? Perhaps an elected Senate would improve things?
All in all, Canadians have a system that is vastly superior to the system of government under which the vast majority of the human race live under. No country in Africa has a healthier democracy. India and China together account for 40% of humanity. The Islamic world is another fifth of the total. There is some overlap but easily 60% of the human race is covered right there. I haven't even mentioned Latin America and the rest of Asia. Canada's system compares pretty well.
This is not to say that we should not seek to improve things. Of course we should. However, Stephen Harper is not Saddam Hussein. Jack Layton is not Stalin and Duceppe is not Hitler. Each of them came from modest roots and have made their mommas proud.
The country of my birth only achieved real democracy decades after a coalition of troops repelled a Communist invasion. My long lost cousins in North Korea (if they exist) have never known a basic level of democracy. In recent years we saw brave Iraqi and Afghan citizens brave bullets and bombs to vote. In our parents' lifetimes Americans with darker skin braved beatings and intimidation to vote.
I saw an article in a Canadian newspaper that speculated on the effect upon voter turnout if rain is forecast for this election day. In some ways it is sad that some will not brave raindrops when there are other people who will brace bullets to vote. Though I suppose a healthy democracy might also be one where people feel safe in knowing that their fellow Canadians will make the right choice anyway. I know I am stretching here but while I cannot respect not voting as a choice, I still feel very strongly that it is each individual's choice to make.
I hope that the Conservatives win a majority but I know well that it won't be armageddon if they don't. I am proud to be Canadian and will be voting. I hope others do as well, regardless of which party they support.
There has been much heated rhetoric and harsh things said. (I am not innocent)
However as the campaign is now over, I'd like to offer some sober reflections and perspective.
First Canadians are very lucky to be living in a country with a well functioning democracy. No it's not perfect and I'm not saying it is. Perhaps proportional representation would be better? Perhaps an American style system of checks and balances would be better? Perhaps an elected Senate would improve things?
All in all, Canadians have a system that is vastly superior to the system of government under which the vast majority of the human race live under. No country in Africa has a healthier democracy. India and China together account for 40% of humanity. The Islamic world is another fifth of the total. There is some overlap but easily 60% of the human race is covered right there. I haven't even mentioned Latin America and the rest of Asia. Canada's system compares pretty well.
This is not to say that we should not seek to improve things. Of course we should. However, Stephen Harper is not Saddam Hussein. Jack Layton is not Stalin and Duceppe is not Hitler. Each of them came from modest roots and have made their mommas proud.
The country of my birth only achieved real democracy decades after a coalition of troops repelled a Communist invasion. My long lost cousins in North Korea (if they exist) have never known a basic level of democracy. In recent years we saw brave Iraqi and Afghan citizens brave bullets and bombs to vote. In our parents' lifetimes Americans with darker skin braved beatings and intimidation to vote.
I saw an article in a Canadian newspaper that speculated on the effect upon voter turnout if rain is forecast for this election day. In some ways it is sad that some will not brave raindrops when there are other people who will brace bullets to vote. Though I suppose a healthy democracy might also be one where people feel safe in knowing that their fellow Canadians will make the right choice anyway. I know I am stretching here but while I cannot respect not voting as a choice, I still feel very strongly that it is each individual's choice to make.
I hope that the Conservatives win a majority but I know well that it won't be armageddon if they don't. I am proud to be Canadian and will be voting. I hope others do as well, regardless of which party they support.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Election Time in Canada (Part 4)
Now the election is really getting interesting. The insurgent Layton campaign really does appear to have legs. The establishment Liberals are clearly in third place and the NDP is even closing in on the Conservatives in first place.
The response of the establishment mouthpieces should have been expected. Both the Globe and the Star have published stories highlighting the foibles of some NDP candidates who were anonymous until now. They have run several stories about one NDP candidate in Quebec who is employed as an assistant manager of a pub in Ottawa. She is reportedly in Las Vegas, having booked a vacation before the writ was dropped. As a single mother, we are told that she couldn't afford to cancel this vacation. There are other candidates who went on vacation during the campaign and a couple of the NDP candidates in Quebec are still in University.
The real scandal here is the reporting and the poor candidates run by ALL of the major parties. Anyone who has watched any election closely would know that the "national" parties who boast of fielding candidates in every riding often put up candidates who have no hope, no resources, no profile and (often) no campaign office. Just exactly how well known or well funded is the Liberal candidate in Red Deer, Alberta? Similarly, I wonder how 'good' the Conservative candidate is in York Centre (Bob Rae's riding). All of the major parties run candidates who, in hockey, would be called pylons.
The truth is that the Conservatives are probably running credible candidates in no more than two thirds of the ridings. I would guess that the Liberals are at about half and the NDP at much less than a third.
It is scandalous that our national parties run so many poor candidates. It should surprise no one when a few very unqualified people are elected to Parliament. Frankly the single mother/assistant pub manager (Ruth Ellen Brosseau is her name) running for the NDP may turn out to be far from the least qualified person elected.
It is scandalous that the reporting has focussed so much on such trivial matters. It should not be surprising that people have warmed to Jack Layton's 'folksy' demeanour.....that's mainly what they are reporting on. You have to read very diligently to see the reporting on the party platforms and some expert analysis on what it all means.
Yes Stephen Harper comes across as 'cold' yet 'competent.' Michael Ignatieff is 'professorial' and 'aloof.' Gilles Duceppe is 'cranky' and Jack Layton is 'folksy' and 'friendly.'
In those last two lines, I summarized about 90% of the reporting by the media. Maybe the media could start reporting some more useful information and leave that kind of nonsense to bloggers?
The response of the establishment mouthpieces should have been expected. Both the Globe and the Star have published stories highlighting the foibles of some NDP candidates who were anonymous until now. They have run several stories about one NDP candidate in Quebec who is employed as an assistant manager of a pub in Ottawa. She is reportedly in Las Vegas, having booked a vacation before the writ was dropped. As a single mother, we are told that she couldn't afford to cancel this vacation. There are other candidates who went on vacation during the campaign and a couple of the NDP candidates in Quebec are still in University.
The real scandal here is the reporting and the poor candidates run by ALL of the major parties. Anyone who has watched any election closely would know that the "national" parties who boast of fielding candidates in every riding often put up candidates who have no hope, no resources, no profile and (often) no campaign office. Just exactly how well known or well funded is the Liberal candidate in Red Deer, Alberta? Similarly, I wonder how 'good' the Conservative candidate is in York Centre (Bob Rae's riding). All of the major parties run candidates who, in hockey, would be called pylons.
The truth is that the Conservatives are probably running credible candidates in no more than two thirds of the ridings. I would guess that the Liberals are at about half and the NDP at much less than a third.
It is scandalous that our national parties run so many poor candidates. It should surprise no one when a few very unqualified people are elected to Parliament. Frankly the single mother/assistant pub manager (Ruth Ellen Brosseau is her name) running for the NDP may turn out to be far from the least qualified person elected.
It is scandalous that the reporting has focussed so much on such trivial matters. It should not be surprising that people have warmed to Jack Layton's 'folksy' demeanour.....that's mainly what they are reporting on. You have to read very diligently to see the reporting on the party platforms and some expert analysis on what it all means.
Yes Stephen Harper comes across as 'cold' yet 'competent.' Michael Ignatieff is 'professorial' and 'aloof.' Gilles Duceppe is 'cranky' and Jack Layton is 'folksy' and 'friendly.'
In those last two lines, I summarized about 90% of the reporting by the media. Maybe the media could start reporting some more useful information and leave that kind of nonsense to bloggers?
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Election Time in Canada (Part 3)
With a little over a week to go, it has finally gotten very interesting.
Iggy the American continues to underwhelm. At this point it appears as if he will lead the Liberal Party to a defeat of historic proportions. He may win more seats than John Turner did in 1984 but Turner was at least still the Leader of the Opposition. At this point it is possible that the Liberals will slide to third place.
Now some of this may be wishful thinking on my part but it is clear that the more people see of Ignatieff, the less they like him. Jack Layton is precisely the opposite. People seem to have a greater affinity for him as they see more of him. Harper has pretty much stayed unchanged. This is not surprising. As Prime Minister, he is the most well known of all of the leaders and a change in opinions of his likability were never very probable.
Pundits are rightly pointing out that we have seen this before with the NDP, (Ed Broadbent was on his way to 24 Sussex at one point according to the polls), however I do think that this time it is different.
Jack Layton has steadily increased his support during his time as leader...as has Harper. Those two trends will converge to lead to a Tory majority. (I see no reason not to stick to that prediction). I'm not yet ready to predict Jack Layton's taking up residence at Stornoway.
The most interesting question is what happens next. Michael Ignatieff will almost certainly quit as leader of the Liberals. What then? Bob Rae is the presumptive heir apparent but the people of Ontario still remember well his disastrous term as Premier. He has a lot of baggage, too much to be a real force for rebuilding the Liberal brand. There is a shocking lack of bench strength within Canada's natural governing party. The Liberals would do well to acknowledge that their spell in opposition will not be a short one and they should really commit to passing the torch to a new generation of Liberals....and I don't mean that lightweight Justin Trudeau.
I am going out on a limb on a few of these predictions but what the hey, I'm not a journalist. Who cares if i'm wrong?
Iggy the American continues to underwhelm. At this point it appears as if he will lead the Liberal Party to a defeat of historic proportions. He may win more seats than John Turner did in 1984 but Turner was at least still the Leader of the Opposition. At this point it is possible that the Liberals will slide to third place.
Now some of this may be wishful thinking on my part but it is clear that the more people see of Ignatieff, the less they like him. Jack Layton is precisely the opposite. People seem to have a greater affinity for him as they see more of him. Harper has pretty much stayed unchanged. This is not surprising. As Prime Minister, he is the most well known of all of the leaders and a change in opinions of his likability were never very probable.
Pundits are rightly pointing out that we have seen this before with the NDP, (Ed Broadbent was on his way to 24 Sussex at one point according to the polls), however I do think that this time it is different.
Jack Layton has steadily increased his support during his time as leader...as has Harper. Those two trends will converge to lead to a Tory majority. (I see no reason not to stick to that prediction). I'm not yet ready to predict Jack Layton's taking up residence at Stornoway.
The most interesting question is what happens next. Michael Ignatieff will almost certainly quit as leader of the Liberals. What then? Bob Rae is the presumptive heir apparent but the people of Ontario still remember well his disastrous term as Premier. He has a lot of baggage, too much to be a real force for rebuilding the Liberal brand. There is a shocking lack of bench strength within Canada's natural governing party. The Liberals would do well to acknowledge that their spell in opposition will not be a short one and they should really commit to passing the torch to a new generation of Liberals....and I don't mean that lightweight Justin Trudeau.
I am going out on a limb on a few of these predictions but what the hey, I'm not a journalist. Who cares if i'm wrong?
Monday, April 18, 2011
Royal Succession
Most people know that the British Monarchy's rules for succession favours male heirs over female heirs. Queen Elizabeth would have never ascended to the throne if she'd any male siblings. However some of the other provisions of the Act of Settlement are less well known.
As the monarch is also the head of the Church of England, the Act of Settlement of 1701 specifically bans Catholics from ascending to the throne. Curiously, a good Anglican Prince is also barred from succession should he have the temerity to marry a Catholic.
The current Deputy Prime Minister has mused aloud about changing the rules of succession such that any children of William and Kate would ascend to the throne based upon order of birth without regard to gender. Deputy PM Nick Clegg has stated that most people find the rules "a little old fashioned."
I must admit to nearly falling off my chair in laughter when I read that. The idea that an archaic institution ought to have "modern" rules of succession ignores the somewhat salient view that the entire monarchy is a "little old fashioned."
I find myself in a rather surprising position of opposing a change in the rules of succession. For one thing, I'm not sure why a first born (boy/girl) is necessarily more qualified to be King/Queen than a second born. I suppose one could argue that sexism is merely being eliminated while ageism is being strengthened., (to say nothing of the bias against Catholics)
I oppose a change in the rules of succession precisely because they are so "old fashioned." Eliminating the sexism while reaffirming ageism as well as the bias against Catholics shows the monarchy to be the a pointless entity. I oppose a change because the rules show clearly how absurd the whole institution is.
In this day and age, any Royal Family should only exist as a link to the past without requiring any public funds and they should have no role in government.
I think that Canada should become a republic rather than having a foreigner serve as our Head of State. However if Michael Ignatieff should be elected Prime Minister, the we would have a foreigner as head of state and an American serving as her first minister.
As the monarch is also the head of the Church of England, the Act of Settlement of 1701 specifically bans Catholics from ascending to the throne. Curiously, a good Anglican Prince is also barred from succession should he have the temerity to marry a Catholic.
The current Deputy Prime Minister has mused aloud about changing the rules of succession such that any children of William and Kate would ascend to the throne based upon order of birth without regard to gender. Deputy PM Nick Clegg has stated that most people find the rules "a little old fashioned."
I must admit to nearly falling off my chair in laughter when I read that. The idea that an archaic institution ought to have "modern" rules of succession ignores the somewhat salient view that the entire monarchy is a "little old fashioned."
I find myself in a rather surprising position of opposing a change in the rules of succession. For one thing, I'm not sure why a first born (boy/girl) is necessarily more qualified to be King/Queen than a second born. I suppose one could argue that sexism is merely being eliminated while ageism is being strengthened., (to say nothing of the bias against Catholics)
I oppose a change in the rules of succession precisely because they are so "old fashioned." Eliminating the sexism while reaffirming ageism as well as the bias against Catholics shows the monarchy to be the a pointless entity. I oppose a change because the rules show clearly how absurd the whole institution is.
In this day and age, any Royal Family should only exist as a link to the past without requiring any public funds and they should have no role in government.
I think that Canada should become a republic rather than having a foreigner serve as our Head of State. However if Michael Ignatieff should be elected Prime Minister, the we would have a foreigner as head of state and an American serving as her first minister.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Election Time in Canada (Part 2)
So we are halfway through the election campaign. As both French and English debates are done, we are more than halfway done in terms of significant milestones.
At this point, I don't see any reason to change my prediction that it will be a Conservative majority. The followup coverage of the english language debate was interesting. Michael Ignatieff's performance in the debate has been the subject of increasingly negative reviews in the media. (this is just my impression)
Current projections call for a Conservative win that falls just shy of a majority mandate. I think that this is wrong due primarily to an interesting trend in Quebec. Before the Tory breakthrough in Quebec a couple of elections ago, Quebec was a battle between the Bloc and the Liberals. It wasn't much of a battle really, the Liberals won a bunch of ridings in Montreal and the Bloc took the rest. The rise of the Tories around Quebec city (which was cemented in the last election) changed that dynamic. The rise of the NDP, beginning with the election of Thomas Mulcair in a 2007 bye election, changes the dynamic further.
Up until now, politics in Quebec has been all about sovereignty. The Bloc favours it and all other Federalist parties oppose it. However there has been an underreported distinction as well. The Bloc are a left of centre party. Ideologically, social democrats in Quebec had nowhere to go but the Bloc. The rise of the NDP changes that equation materially. Another left of centre party allows francophone social democrats to vote for a party that is not committed to the breakup of Canada.
The NDP needs a massive surge in support to elect a large number of MP's in Quebec. However, a modest surge in francophone support of the NDP may lead to the Bloc losing a number of close ridings. A bump in the number of Liberal and Conservative MP's as well as a Tory majority may be the result.
Finally I cannot write without taking one shot at Michael Ignatieff....also known as Iggy the American. Today he made an announcement before the cameras: as Prime Minister, he would convene a health care summit meeting of First Ministers within 60 days of taking office.
He looked very serious as he announced that he would take the bold and decisive step of holding a meeting. It is a continuing story line that the more people see and hear of Ignatieff, the worse his prospects become.
Stephen Harper will win this election by default....I have seen nothing that would change my mind on this point.
At this point, I don't see any reason to change my prediction that it will be a Conservative majority. The followup coverage of the english language debate was interesting. Michael Ignatieff's performance in the debate has been the subject of increasingly negative reviews in the media. (this is just my impression)
Current projections call for a Conservative win that falls just shy of a majority mandate. I think that this is wrong due primarily to an interesting trend in Quebec. Before the Tory breakthrough in Quebec a couple of elections ago, Quebec was a battle between the Bloc and the Liberals. It wasn't much of a battle really, the Liberals won a bunch of ridings in Montreal and the Bloc took the rest. The rise of the Tories around Quebec city (which was cemented in the last election) changed that dynamic. The rise of the NDP, beginning with the election of Thomas Mulcair in a 2007 bye election, changes the dynamic further.
Up until now, politics in Quebec has been all about sovereignty. The Bloc favours it and all other Federalist parties oppose it. However there has been an underreported distinction as well. The Bloc are a left of centre party. Ideologically, social democrats in Quebec had nowhere to go but the Bloc. The rise of the NDP changes that equation materially. Another left of centre party allows francophone social democrats to vote for a party that is not committed to the breakup of Canada.
The NDP needs a massive surge in support to elect a large number of MP's in Quebec. However, a modest surge in francophone support of the NDP may lead to the Bloc losing a number of close ridings. A bump in the number of Liberal and Conservative MP's as well as a Tory majority may be the result.
Finally I cannot write without taking one shot at Michael Ignatieff....also known as Iggy the American. Today he made an announcement before the cameras: as Prime Minister, he would convene a health care summit meeting of First Ministers within 60 days of taking office.
He looked very serious as he announced that he would take the bold and decisive step of holding a meeting. It is a continuing story line that the more people see and hear of Ignatieff, the worse his prospects become.
Stephen Harper will win this election by default....I have seen nothing that would change my mind on this point.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Observations of Left and Right
I've heard it said that Conservatives believe that markets are good and people are bad....hence we must trust the markets and lecture people on why they are just not living right.
I've also heard that Liberals believe that people are good and markets are bad. Hence we must trust people to make their own decisions and talk about the evils of the markets.
Of course both generalizations are pretty silly since markets are really a collection of individual spending choices....you can't have one without the other.
This kind of debate where the left and right simply talk past each other occupy enormous amounts of time in all forms of media. I find the ignorance on both sides to be more than irritating, it is downright painful.
I'll take two particular issues that are favourites of the right and left respectively......1) Deficits/Debt. 2) Climate Change.
Deficits/Debt
If you listen to the left, monstrous government debts occupy too high a place on the right's priority list. The fact of large deficits ranks way below in importance behind a growing economy and generous social programs. The right will howl in disgust that we are spending our children's money and their children's money.
They are talking right past each other and getting nowhere.
Let's have some common sense here. Let's call deficits by a descriptive name that fits. Let's call it "Spending Someone Else's Money." So when we Spend Someone Else's Money in greater numbers year after year, then there comes a time to pay the piper. It is not true that borrowing money is like taking another bucket of water out of the Niagara River. There is a limited amount of that water.
When the tipping point of excessive debt arrives (as it has for Greece and Ireland and Portugal), then it is too late to avoid severe consequences. Like most consequences, the sooner you face up to it, the less painful it is.
Climate Change
Many on the right will tell you that climate change is not a proven fact. The left will call the climate change non-believers something creative and caustic like "Members of the Flat Earth Society."
They are talking past each other and getting nowhere.
I have a newsflash for those who deny climate change......if you burn all of the oil and cut down all of the trees, THE CLIMATE WILL CHANGE!!!! Besides that it's really irrelevant whether the earth is warming due to man made pollution or whether it's part of a natural cycle. It's irrelevant because anyone with a modicum of common sense will agree that pollution is bad. Let's call pollution something more descriptive like "Fouling someone else's air."
Much as with excessive debt, when the tipping point arrives it is too late to escape severe consequences. So if some feel that we are not yet at a tipping point yet, then I say "Great, so then it's the right time to reduce emissions drastically so that we don't get to the point of man made climate change."
Generalizations are often unfair since there are many on the left who understand the importance of cutting public debt and there are many on the right who feel very strongly about a cleaner environment. However they generally get nowhere due to the demogogues on both sides.
As we are in the midst of an election campaign, I'd really love to see our leaders address these issues with a bit of common sense rather than make endless pie in the sky announcements about new spending programs that cannot possibly be met.
There is a solution to both burning issues that is just common sense. When times are tough, we should tighten our belts and not spend someone else's money.....we shouldn't do that ever. When the government doesn't stimulate the economy in such a way, then people will drive less (or drive smaller cars) and fly less and generally waste less.....and hence foul other people's air less.
Taxes should be raised (perhaps a carbon tax introduced along with a hike in the GST). Spending should be reduced even in our cherished social programs. This will reduce our deficits and make for a cleaner environment. I don't think our quality of life will suffer in the long term since necessity is the mother of invention.
I won't hold my breath waiting for one of our elected leaders to suggest any of this.
I've also heard that Liberals believe that people are good and markets are bad. Hence we must trust people to make their own decisions and talk about the evils of the markets.
Of course both generalizations are pretty silly since markets are really a collection of individual spending choices....you can't have one without the other.
This kind of debate where the left and right simply talk past each other occupy enormous amounts of time in all forms of media. I find the ignorance on both sides to be more than irritating, it is downright painful.
I'll take two particular issues that are favourites of the right and left respectively......1) Deficits/Debt. 2) Climate Change.
Deficits/Debt
If you listen to the left, monstrous government debts occupy too high a place on the right's priority list. The fact of large deficits ranks way below in importance behind a growing economy and generous social programs. The right will howl in disgust that we are spending our children's money and their children's money.
They are talking right past each other and getting nowhere.
Let's have some common sense here. Let's call deficits by a descriptive name that fits. Let's call it "Spending Someone Else's Money." So when we Spend Someone Else's Money in greater numbers year after year, then there comes a time to pay the piper. It is not true that borrowing money is like taking another bucket of water out of the Niagara River. There is a limited amount of that water.
When the tipping point of excessive debt arrives (as it has for Greece and Ireland and Portugal), then it is too late to avoid severe consequences. Like most consequences, the sooner you face up to it, the less painful it is.
Climate Change
Many on the right will tell you that climate change is not a proven fact. The left will call the climate change non-believers something creative and caustic like "Members of the Flat Earth Society."
They are talking past each other and getting nowhere.
I have a newsflash for those who deny climate change......if you burn all of the oil and cut down all of the trees, THE CLIMATE WILL CHANGE!!!! Besides that it's really irrelevant whether the earth is warming due to man made pollution or whether it's part of a natural cycle. It's irrelevant because anyone with a modicum of common sense will agree that pollution is bad. Let's call pollution something more descriptive like "Fouling someone else's air."
Much as with excessive debt, when the tipping point arrives it is too late to escape severe consequences. So if some feel that we are not yet at a tipping point yet, then I say "Great, so then it's the right time to reduce emissions drastically so that we don't get to the point of man made climate change."
Generalizations are often unfair since there are many on the left who understand the importance of cutting public debt and there are many on the right who feel very strongly about a cleaner environment. However they generally get nowhere due to the demogogues on both sides.
As we are in the midst of an election campaign, I'd really love to see our leaders address these issues with a bit of common sense rather than make endless pie in the sky announcements about new spending programs that cannot possibly be met.
There is a solution to both burning issues that is just common sense. When times are tough, we should tighten our belts and not spend someone else's money.....we shouldn't do that ever. When the government doesn't stimulate the economy in such a way, then people will drive less (or drive smaller cars) and fly less and generally waste less.....and hence foul other people's air less.
Taxes should be raised (perhaps a carbon tax introduced along with a hike in the GST). Spending should be reduced even in our cherished social programs. This will reduce our deficits and make for a cleaner environment. I don't think our quality of life will suffer in the long term since necessity is the mother of invention.
I won't hold my breath waiting for one of our elected leaders to suggest any of this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
