Chuck Speaks

Same Sex Marriage Foolishness

2012-02-18T00:06:00.000-05:00

On Jan 12th the Globe and Mail reported that the same sex marriages performed in Canada (in accordance with the laws of Canada) were only valid if they were valid in the country in which the couple actually reside. This came to light when a non-Canadian same sex couple (who were never resident in Canada) attempted to get a divorce in Canada and were told that they weren't legally married.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/same-sex-marriage-confusion-has-couples-wary-of-what-happens-next/article2301014/

This was widely reported as an "about face" by the Harper government and a threat to Canada's legal position permitting same sex marriage.

The Harper government announced that they had no intention of reopening that debate and moved to close this apparent "loophole."

Now the same newspaper is reporting that by fixing this apparent "loophole", there are now two different sets of rules for divorces for same sex vs heterosexual couples.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/bill-to-close-loophole-in-same-sex-marriages-creates-double-standard/article2342275/

The truth is that there was no double standard and that a whole lot of ink was spilt and politicans stood on their soapboxes over a non-issue.

The new legislation will indeed make it possible for a foreign same sex couple who got married in Canada to get a divorce in Canada....but it will leave financial and children's custody issues to the jurisdiction in which the couple live. In short, the only thing this will accomplish is to dissolve a marriage that does not exist legally in the country in which the same sex couple live....all of the contentious issues around a divorce at left untouched.

The truth is that the law should not have been amended. There was no loophole. In fact, the law regarding Canadian recognition of same sex marriage was the same as the law for a marriage between a man and a woman.

Canadian laws do not apply in other jurisdictions. Does anybody honestly think that they should? It's too silly to even contemplate since that would mean that foreign laws would have force in Canada.

Now I understand why a same sex couple would want their union to be legally sanctioned in a form similar to traditional marriage. I'm sure it's very emotionally uplifting for them. I'm not sure I understand why a divorcing couple would want Canada to issue a piece of paper stating that their marriage no longer exists. It would seem easier just to agree that it didn't exist since their country didn't recognize it in the first place.

However I come back to a larger issue. Why is the Government in the business of defining what is a valid marriage? We have long since passed the day when a traditional family unit was assumed to be essential to the rearing of children. Children come into this world in the absence of marriage all the time. Sometimes people even raise children in a home together as a family without ever getting a government document that approves of their status. Unmarried people even live together and sometimes don't have children!!!!!!

Government should get out of the business of defining marriage and leave that to religious authorities to define for their followers. Communions aren't any less meaningful because no level of government in Canada has defined who is eligible for a communion or not.

Financial disputes and custody battles happen in the absence of marriage and the laws should address the resolution of these matters.

Why Canada is crafting laws that have no practical effect is really beyond me. However, if i was an advisor to Stephen Harper, I would be all for it. It's a chance for a politician to not do anything but get credit for it anyways. What politician wouldn't jump at that chance?

Stalking 'Boston'

2012-02-09T21:19:00.000-05:00

So after Huntington Beach I feel that I can openly talk about stalking this girl named Boston. She might be out of my league and I might be fooling myself but i can't stop thinking about her. She keeps moving the goal posts on me....3:20, then 3:15. She says i'm not good enough but if I can run about a mile faster than I did, then she might let me in. She might be teasing me but I have to try!!!

Truth is that i've been aiming for Boston ever since my first race (4:50 at Niagara Falls 2010) but I fully deserved the rolling eyes I would have gotten if I had spoken about it out loud. It was sheer foolishness at that point.....a quality that I am well known for.

As the times got faster, (3:54 at Mississauga, May 2011), it only seemed further away. 3:36 at Montreal seemed like a breakthrough but that still meant that I had to knock off 21 minutes...or to put it in perspective...finish about 4 km ahead of where i finished. Hamilton got me down to 3:27 which is "only" 12 minutes away...but that is still over 2km faster and Hamilton had a big downhill.

3:22 at Surf City (on a flat course) is still 7 minutes away (1.5km) and my last 12km have actually gotten worse over the last 4 marathons. I've gotten faster overall but faded worse at the end.

So now I'll set myself up for failure and embarrassment (two things which I thrive on, weird I know!!!).

I'm going for Boston at the Toronto Goodlife Marathon on May 7th. I will probably fall short and that will be devastating...but then again I might not. Either way, I'll give it a go.

Only thing i know for sure is that i will be booking some physio and massages for the week after. These marathons really really hurt...a lot!!!!!

Marathon Review - Surf City Marathon (Huntington Beach, Feb 5,2012)

2012-02-07T22:37:00.000-05:00

This past Sunday I had the pleasure of running the Surf City Marathon in Huntington Beach California.

I chose this particular race mainly because I couldn't run the LA Marathon as it conflicted with Around the Bay (in Hamilton, Ontario). Also the February date was great because there is a long gap from the Hamilton marathon of last November and the Toronto Goodlife in May of 2012. Basically, it was the one race that fit best on the calendar.

I wanted to do a race in California so that I could share the experience with my family who live in sunny California. My brother, sister in law, niece, nephew and my parents made the drive down to see me race.

I was worried about how they would find a good spot near the finish line with a 3 and 5 year old in tow. As I approached the finish line, I saw the little munchkins about 5 yards from the finish line with their noses right up against the fence.....what a moment!!!!

Personally, that made my race experience great no matter what else happened. However, I'd like to share some other thoughts.

1) Aid stations - Excellent! I couldn't believe how frequent they were. I always carry a water belt during races. For the first time, I wondered why I was carrying the extra weight. I heard some aid stations ran out of cups near the busiest part of the half marathon. That's unfortunate but the organizers have taken note and that should be an easy fix for next year. Nothing is every perfect when you have 20,000 runners barrelling through.

2) Start time was 6:30 AM. At first I was worried that this was too early, however the sight of the sun rising over the horizon as we started was pretty damn cool!!

3) Crowd Support was very good. This isn't a big deal to me since I much prefer the support of familiar faces to well meaning strangers reading the name off my bib yelling "Way to go Chuck!!!" Still this is a plus.

4) The Course was very nice. My only small complaint is the number of turnarounds. I hate turnarounds as I feel that I lose momentum and retrace my steps. I'd prefer a big circle but it did give us lots of time on the PCH with the views of the ocean. One of the runners yelled out that he saw some dolphins jumping....I missed it but that would have been pretty damn cool!!!

5) The weather was picture perfect at the start.....cool and dry. At the half way mark, I found myself running along the PCH without any shade and a fierce sun. Well that sucks but the weather is the weather. I suppose if it had rained people would have complained about that.

6) The expo was superior to any of the 5 prior expos I've been to (all in Canada). Lots of freebies and reasonably priced stuff for sale.

I had a good race with my familiar fade at the end. I was on pace to qualify for Boston with tie to spare after 30km (18.6 miles). As has happened at so many of my recent races, I faded into the finish. Still I recorded a personal best at 3:22. (5 minutes better than the prior race). Since it was a flat course, if there was a handicap system in marathons, this would be a zero handicap....ie a good benchmark. I am newly inspired to work on qualifying at my next attempt in May. I need to shave off 7 minutes...doable but tough.

Overall, I give the Surf City Marathon top marks. Their staff have been very active in seeking the opinions of participants on facebook after the race. I'm sure the race experience will be even better next year!!

The EU's Fatal (Future) Flaw

2012-01-29T07:18:00.000-05:00

Of course in hindsight everything appears so much clearer.

The Euro project's currency union (of which 17 countries are a part) was flawed right from the start due to the lack of a fiscal union. Pundits from across the spectrum are now pointing out this fatal flaw. It all seems pretty obvious in retrospect. Seventeen countries are used the same currency but several members spent too much, putting the project at risk.....the other nations are powerless to stop these profligate nations.

So in response to the Greek crisis (as well as Irish crisis, Italian crisis, Spanish crisis, Portugal crisis), European leaders have introduced a mechanism by which EU headquarters in Brussels can veto a nation's budget plans if it is deemed to be unsatisfactory. This treaty was an attempt to introduce some external discipline to the nations deemed to be spending irresponsibly.

This measure is a band-aid which will work well during good times (when it is not invoked) but cause considerable social unrest and lead to ultimate failure during hard times.

Many of the problems of the European Union stem from a lack of common purpose despite the decision to be in a common boat together. Proponents of greater fiscal, political and monetary union imagined a grand project that effectively becomes "The United States of Europe." This is seen in the creation of several federal institutions such as the European Court of Justice, European Commission on Human Rights, the European Central Bank, the European Union Presidency. These institutions can sometimes override the laws of a member nation.

Yet while such federal institutions are developed, where is the accountability to the people? In the United States, the Supreme Court is the arbiter of last resort. Membership in the Supreme Court involves nomination by the President followed by Senate confirmation. A Judge can be removed via the Impeachment process.

As budget decision making moves from Athens to Brussels, how is it that the people of Greece will express dissatisfaction with budgetary decisions? They cannot vote out the bureaucrats in Brussels. Demonstrating in front of the Greek parliament would be pointless since the ultimate decisions are made in Brussels. Greeks have taken to the streets in anger over the actions of their government....imagine the anger if harsher decisions are made for them in another country. The temptation on the part of local politicians to "Campaign against those Brussels Bureaucrats" will be irresistible. This democratic deficit is not sustainable.

Europeans certainly have not accepted the level of fiscal and political union necessary to make the grand project a success. I doubt that they will ever accept such a level of integration.

European has long had forces at work attempting to "unify" the continent under common rule. This was often done through invasion, religious conversion or alliances. This has been true since all of Europe was ruled from Rome. Each of these attempts have failed and the result is a continent full of nations that act like divorced spouses. Some have attempted to put their differences aside for a common purpose (France and Germany), while others remain embittered and estranged (pick any two nations in the Balkan region).

In this complicated web of cultural differences and historical grievances, the EU is only capable of "bold" half measures. That is why this latest treat will fail. While centralizing power in Brussels appears to address the lack of fiscal union.....the lack of political union will be its undoing.

Occupy Toronto (Eviction)

2011-11-22T00:19:00.001-05:00

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.

Support the Troops?

2011-11-14T02:03:00.000-05:00

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!

Markets vs People

2011-11-04T23:49:00.001-04:00

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

Greek Tragedy....again

2011-11-01T04:56:00.000-04:00

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.

Occupy Toronto (and Wall Street)

2011-10-30T03:22:00.000-04:00

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"???

Steve Jobs

2011-10-06T11:26:00.000-04:00

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.

Montreal Marathon Memories

2011-09-26T23:50:00.000-04:00

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.

Death, Taxes and Stupidity

2011-09-22T23:53:00.000-04:00

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.

Marathon Inspiration 1984

2011-09-16T21:13:00.001-04:00

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

An Orange Tide for Ontario??T

2011-09-12T21:44:00.000-04:00

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?

President Obama's Jobs Plan

2011-09-08T22:33:00.000-04:00

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.

Jack Layton's Legacy

2011-08-23T00:45:00.000-04:00

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!

The Real Downgrading of America

2011-08-06T00:32:00.000-04:00

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:

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.

Pension Folly

2011-07-16T22:32:00.000-04:00

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.

Gay Marriage - everybody seems to be missing the point

2011-07-10T23:45:00.000-04:00

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.

Brian Burke, Sports and Sports Writers

2011-07-06T22:18:00.000-04:00

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.

Royal Visit to Canada

2011-07-02T23:12:00.001-04:00

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.

Mission Accomplished Redux?

2011-06-23T01:58:00.000-04:00

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.

Miami Heat

2011-06-10T06:29:00.000-04:00

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!!!

"Conservatives"???

2011-05-29T19:27:00.000-04:00

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.

Canada's Team - the Canucks

2011-05-24T22:24:00.000-04:00

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!!!

Wither Journalism Again!!!

2011-05-24T19:05:00.000-04:00

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.

Inspiration

2011-05-15T17:24:00.000-04:00

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.

Armageddon!!!!

2011-05-10T00:08:00.000-04:00

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!!!

Looking Forward - Post Election

2011-05-05T04:02:00.000-04:00

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.

Election Reflections

2011-05-01T23:34:00.000-04:00

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.

Election Time in Canada (Part 4)

2011-04-28T20:24:00.000-04:00

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?

Election Time in Canada (Part 3)

2011-04-23T21:04:00.001-04:00

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?

Royal Succession

2011-04-18T23:13:00.000-04:00

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.

Election Time in Canada (Part 2)

2011-04-17T23:18:00.000-04:00

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.

Observations of Left and Right

2011-04-10T23:41:00.000-04:00

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.

Election Time in Canada

2011-04-04T19:27:00.000-04:00

Canada is heading to a fourth national election in 7 years. Most people of all political stripes are suffering from election fatigue. The last three elections produced minority governments. This should not be surprising in a country where a party committed to the breakup of the country routinely wins around 50 seats in a 308 seat Parliament. Of course a party with a separatist agenda cannot be part of a coalition seeking to govern a united country so the remaining parties are faced with the daunting task of winning approximately 60% of the seats in order to have a majority of 50% in the House of Commons.

While many people understandably feel that an election that results in roughly the same balance of power as currently exists is a waste of time, they are wrong to say that this election is an unnecessary one. We have seen the Conservative Government under Stephen Harper effectively govern as a majority for the past two years as one of the opposition parties inevitably failed to show up for confidence votes in order to avoid going to the polls.

This is not healthy for democracy. The truth of the matter is that the voters gave Stephen Harper a minority government. When members of Parliament, who have been tasked by their voters to oppose the Harper government, decide to sit out a debate for fear of triggering an election, they dishonour the voters who elected them. This is not to say that a party in opposition should not work with the governing party if they can get part of their platform enacted. However if that is the case, then the only honourable thing to do is to show up in the House of Commons and vote in support of the Government. This nonsense where the leader of an opposition party shows up to vote against the governing party while most of his caucus is absent to ensure that an election is not triggered is sheer stupidity. It is this type of shenanigan that turns many people off from the political process.

Now onto my prediction for this election. I am going to predict a Conservative majority that shows how unhealthy our democracy is.

We saw Jean Chretien win three consecutive majority governments with support that ranged a few points on either side of 40%. He had the advantage of a splintered right wing that couldn't get their act together. Neither the Progressive Conservatives under Jean Charest/Peter McKay nor the Reform/Alliance crowd under Preston Manning/Stockwell Day were in any position to govern. In effect, he won by default.

This election will be a Conservative victory by default. The Liberal party of Canada is led by Michael Ignatieff who has been subjected to some devastating attack ads by the Tories pointing to his 30 year absence from Canada. The ads make the point that "He didn't come back for you."

These ads are devastating because they are so very true. It is well known that Ignatieff chose to live, virtually his entire adult life, outside of Canada. Strictly speaking, having some experience living in another country is not a disqualifier.....in fact it is generally a plus. Living in another country for a time gives one a broader view of the world and might enhance one's ability to think outside the box. I've lived outside Canada for part of my adult life and am so very glad that I had that experience.

However there is a point at which it is not a plus. There is a point where one has chosen not to be Canadian and has decided that life is better elsewhere. There is a point where one can no longer effectively relate to fellow Canadians. I don't know exactly where that point is (it may be different for different individuals) but I can't escape the feeling that Michael Ignatieff crossed that point a long time ago.

It is not disputed that Michael Ignatieff has lived virtually his entire adult life outside of Canada. It is well known that he came back to Canada after Liberal emmissaries visited Harvard and dangled the prospect of succeeding Paul Martin to become Prime Minister. He did in fact run (unsuccessfully) to succeed Paul Martin at the first available opportunity.

It is also well known that his writings include articles where he wrote of "When we invaded Iraq...." Canada did not invade Iraq. Just who exactly was he referring to??

I am Conservative in my political leanings but this is not an ideological argument against Ignatieff. In fact, as Liberals go his ideology is much more to my liking than most. (Bob Rae? gag!!!!)

To put it in simple terms, he may have a Canadian passport but he is not Canadian. How can he relate to people that he has chosen to live apart from for as long as he could make his own decisions?

Ignatieff is not qualified to be Prime Minister and as such the Tories will win by default. This is very unfortunate for democracy in Canada.

To put any personal conflict of interest to rest, I will not be returning to Korea to run for President. I am proud of my roots but I am Canadian. That is a choice that I have made.

I'm a Former fan of the Toronto Maple Leafs

2011-01-15T23:10:00.002-05:00

Those who have known me a long time know that I grew up a fan of the New York Islanders.

My introduction to hockey came shortly after immigrating from Korea. As a five year old, I was living in Queens, New York. This was in 1975 so New York City was a very different place. Times Square was not a place where you would take a child unless you really wanted them to see neon lights, prostitutes and drug dealers.

(If you want to see what Times Square looked like back then, watch this video by Pat Benatar http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjY_uSSncQw )

In this new environment I remember watching a strange and magical sport on TV. The New York Islanders were playing their cross town rivals, the New York Rangers. I was captivated by this game where men seemed to move with such grace and power while walking on knives. The Rangers had a habit of beating the Islanders back then and as a child feeling awkward in a strange place, I took pity on the Islanders and their sorry bullied state.

We moved a lot when I was a child. We first came to Canada when I was 8 and moved to Toronto briefly before moving on to Alberta and then back to Toronto.

The year 1980 was a magical one for this young hockey fan. The team that I took pity on as they got bullied by their big city rivals, rose to become Stanley Cup Champions!!

The Islanders went on to win 4 straight Stanley Cups....this is a feat that has not been matched since then. I scoff at the talk of different "dynasty" teams such as the Oilers, Red Wings, Devils and Penguins. The definition of a dynasty is an "unbroken" reign. No team has won more than 2 Cups in a row since. Those other teams are all false dynasties. The Islanders won 19 playoff series in a row. No other team has won more than 11 in a row since. Mike Bossy scored 50+ goals in 9 consecutive seasons....not even Wayne Gretzky can say that.

Moving to Toronto provided another team to take pity on....and how!! It was inevitable that a young hockey fan living in Toronto would eventually end up pulling for the Maple Leafs. The year 1984 saw Toronto start 2-0 on the back of two overtime victories with a young tandem of Allan Bester and Ken Wregget in goal. Alas that start did not presage a victory parade down Yonge Street. The Leafs finished 21st overall.....and for those too young to realize how bad that was, the NHL had but 21 teams at the time.

Even that pitiful finish did not dim the enthusiasm of die hard Leafs fans (of whom I was one by then). The last overall finish gave the Leafs the top pick which they used to pick future Captain Wendel Clark. This kid from Kelvington, Saskatchewan was all heart and muscle. He would take on and beat up guys much bigger than he. I remember skipping school to line up for playoff tickets. Attending playoff games at Maple Leaf Gardens was an experience I'll always remember....what an atmosphere, what emotion, what fun!!!!

In the years that followed, the Leafs bounced between Stanley Cup semi finalists and mediocrity. In recent years, MLSE has become the most profitable hockey operation in the world.....and consistent losers on the ice. I've had the good (?) fortune to attend a number of Leafs games in recent years. However, I am not sitting in the cheap seats. I am usually in the private box owned by my employer entertaining clients. For those who have not attended in a private box, it is a somewhat surreal experience. It is a room that holds about 12 people with an attractive young lady tending the bar. She will bring you a drink since it would be so very onerous to walk the 5 feet to get a drink yourself. You get to munch on sushi, ribs and when you go to sit in the platinum seats to watch the game, that very nice young lady will bring you a Haagen Daas ice cream bar during the game. All in all, I would much rather be in the cheap seats at Maple Leaf Gardens!!!!

The last few years have not been kind to Leafs fans. The most profitable hockey team in the world last made the playoffs in 2005. This year they will (barring a miracle) miss the playoffs for the 6th consecutive year. MLSE continues to rake in the $$$ with condo developments and other sports teams. Leafs fans continue to pay top dollar to see a losing team.

I was so completely disgusted that last year I resolved to cheer against the Leafs. This proved far more satisfying as they finished 29th overall in a 30 team league. I am cheering against them again this year. Despite a 4-0 start, the Leafs quickly crashed back to earth and now sit 25th overall.

I love hockey and I still don't hate the Leafs. (I'm not a Habs fan after all!!!). Still I think that the hockey fans of Toronto would do well to administer some tough love. If MLSE can still ring the till without producing a good product, why would they ever try harder?? I will cheer against the Leafs until they prove me wrong. I refuse to buy any Leafs merchandise and I will not pay for a ticket (the last point is a tad disingenuous since I haven't paid for a ticket in some time but you get my point).

People of Toronto, stop being played for such a bunch of suckers....boycott the Leafs!!! Here's hoping that Hamilton gets a team so that there will be at least one NHL calibre team in the area!!

Miracle on Ice 2011

2011-01-06T01:21:00.000-05:00

I am still in California finishing off my late Christmas break and as such was unable to watch today's Gold Medal game in the World Junior Hockey Championships.

Nonetheless, the headlines that speak of an "Epic Collapse" and broken Canadian hearts speak to the result.

A Canadian team is always favoured in any hockey championship. It doesn't matter if the oddsmakers say that the Americans were pre-tournament favourites (as the defending champs were this time around)...the expectation is still that the Gold will either be won by Canada or must be won by beating Canada in a shock upset.

So today Team Canada surrendered a 3-0 lead that they carried into the 3rd period to lose 5-3. As a Canadian I am disappointed. As a hockey fan, I am not. As a sports fan, I find it heartening.

The Russians used to be famous for their training techniques that created superbly conditioned athletes that often rolled over the opposition. Seeing something as simple as a line change was a thing of beauty. Unlike standard North American hockey where a line change is preceded by dumping the puck deep into the opposition end, the Russians would change their forward line by passing the puck back to a retreating defence pairing. When fresh forwards jumped over the boards, the defence would send a pass forward and change themselves without ever relinquishing possession.

The Big Red machine was brought to heel some time ago and they were no longer able to roll over Canadian teams. Their mystique disappeared. It was said that Russians were superb athletes who were well conditioned and well coached. However they lacked the "heart" of the Canadians. It was said that hockey simply meant more to Canadian kids who would sacrifice their bodies and play with a level of emotion and desperation that Russian automatons simply lacked.

That is true no more. The Russians found themselves in a 3-0 hole and scratched and clawed their way back. They showed .....well a lot of heart.

Good for them. Congratulations to Russia for showing such spirit.

Congratulations to Canada too. Silver really ain't too bad!!!

"Journalism" again

2011-01-03T01:49:00.001-05:00

I am sometimes accused of not doing my homework or glossing over some important details. I have a long history of the former stretching back to primary school days and I occasionally plead guilty to the second.

This article in the Toronto Star caught my eye today.

http://www.thestar.com/business/article/914809--academics-critical-of-skyrocketing-pay-for-ceos?bn=1

I will not take issue with the view that CEO pay has skyrocketted....it clearly has. I don't know at what level a CEO's pay is excessive....is it twice the national average or 300 times the national average. There must be a dividing line in there somewhere but I don't know where it is.

I take issue with one particular point in this article which states:

"The CEO pay figures may even be underestimated owing to a change in the way stock option compensation is reported, according to the report. Corporations used to report the amount of income that executives actually realized when they cashed in their options. Beginning in 2008, rather than reporting the amount their executives realized during the year by cashing in options, they reported a statistical estimate of what the options might have been worth in the market when they were granted”.

Let me explain why this particular point is so unsavoury to me. Stock options are typically granted such that the "strike price" is higher than the current stock price. So an executive who receives options that expire in 5 years with a current stock price of $50 dollars might have options with a 'strike price' of $75. This means that in 5 years the options are worth something only if the the stock is trading above $75.00.

So what is this option worth today if the stock price needs to rise by 50% plus a penny for the option to be worth a penny?? The tax code treats them as if they are worth nothing today and value is assessed at expiry. If the options are "exercised" due to a price that is higher than the strike price in 5 years, then the value above the strike price is treated as income. This is the actual cash that the executive receives and as such makes sense.

However is it really fair to say that an exec who receives one million stock options today has received nothing? If so many people would be volunteering to receive many such nothings.

Valuing these options is not easy. The key factor in determining the "fair value" on the date of issue is the volatility of the underlying stock. A stock that is very very low in volatility is less likely to rally by 50% than a stock that is very very volatile.

The formula for valuing these options is called Black-Scholes.

By assessing the value of the options and attributing that to the executive's income in the year in which it is granted, a more accurate picture of the exec's income for the year comes into focus. This does not cause the exec's earnings to be understated. On the contrary, it would be higher than if only the cash income was counted.

Additionally, such deferred compensation (which only yields cash after a significant increase in share price) aligns the CEO's financial well being with the long term interests of the shareholders. It is good for corporate governance and should be encouraged rather than used to make a false point about CEO pay.

Not every reader of the newspaper has worked as an options market maker, and the author of the article clearly hasn't either, however it would not have taken much to get the right background on stock options.

Why Government Doesn't Work

2010-12-17T01:29:00.000-05:00

We saw a clear example of why governments fail to do the right things this week in the United States.

The position of the Obama Administration was clear: The Bush tax cuts should not be allowed to continue on for wealthy Americans earning more than USD 250,000 a year. This would be irresponsible as it would nearly a trillion dolllars to the national debt over the next decade at a time when the federal government is bleeding red at unprecedented levels. However in a time of economic stagnation, unemployment benefits should be extended such that workers could be guaranteed up to 99 weeks of unemployment benefits.

The position of the Republicans was also clear: The unemployment benefits should not be extended at a time when the federal government is bleeding red at unprecedented levels. However in a time of economic stagnation, taxes needed to stay lower for all Americans including the wealthiest.

These two seemingly irreconcilable views led to an agreement that has now passed both Houses of Congress. The package will extend the tax cuts for everyone (including the wealthy) and extend unemployment benefits to 99 weeks. Neither side seems to worry too much about the impact on the levels of red ink that the government is showing.

This was a game of chicken in which both sides blinked and it led to an irresponsible deal. The Bush tax cuts should have been allowed to expire.......on everyone. The unemployment benefits should not have been extended. Especially irresponsible was a cut to Social Security payroll taxes. The SS system is headed for bankruptcy which will require higher taxes and a delayed retirement age.....why cut the contribution rate now?

It is true that recessions are not the best time to raise taxes but is there ever a really good time to raise taxes? If these hard choices are not made now, then there is a heightened risk that a much more draconian budget would have to come in when the bond markets flee US Treasuries as they have done to various eurozone countries.

Remember that the accumulated national debt is simply a way of passing on our credit card bills to our children. It's wrong. It's immoral. Elected officials should know better.

Ask the Irish and the Greeks whether they wish they had made these hard choices a few years ago.

Resurgent Republicans

2010-11-06T00:02:00.000-04:00

So now that the mid term elections are done and President Obama faces a decidedly less friendly Congress, it has been shown again that political prognostication is a very tricky game.

Two years ago a surge of new voters propelled Barack Obama into the White House and his party had large majorities in both houses of Congress. The GOP's epitaph was being written and the talk was of a permanent Democratic majority. A scant 18 months later, a Republican Speaker will be third in line for the Presidency.

Much attention has been directed towards the Tea Party and some of their more dubious candidates and views. Yet for all the rallies and anger they expressed, their most effective action has been the simple democratic exercise of voting at the primary and election levels.

Their voices would have amounted to nought if the Obama surge voters of 2008 showed up at the polls in 2010. The reason why the Democrats lost by such a big margin is quite simply that their own voters either did not show up to vote or switched sides when they got to the ballot box.

The question of how the Obama administration managed to simultaneously energize the opposition and dispirit their own supporters is one that many pundits are chewing over. A recurring theme is Obama's seeming aloofness and professorial demeanor. He doesn't come across like someone rolling up his sleeves to do the work. Both Presidents Bush caught a lot of flak for fishing or golfing too much. CNN reports that Obama has golfed more in his two years in office that George W Bush did in 8 years.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/SPORT/golf/04/20/golf.obama.bush/index.html

The pundits appear unanimous in saying that this mid term election result means nothing for his re-election prospects in two years. Two years is a long time in politics and they should be careful about drawing too many comparisons to Clinton's mid term losses of 94 coupled with his re-election 2 years later.

This is a very different situation for a number of reasons:

Speaker elect John Boehner is not Newt Gingrich. Gingrich came up as a grenade thrower with sharp rhetoric that offended many. John Boehner comes across like a grown up.
The Republicans do not have a majority in the Senate. As a result, many of the more extreme elements of the party face some checks and balances within the Legislative branch. A government shutdown is not likely.
This is a very different Republican party than the one that ascended in 94. Amongst their new class of Congressman are two African Americans representing majority white districts. They are the first black Republicans in Congress since JC Watts retired in 2002. Additionally two of their State Governors (Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Nikki Haley of South Carolina) are Indian. One of their most prominent figures is Sara Palin.
These Republicans are different in their outlook and approach as well. On election night Speaker elect Boehner stated that there would be no celebrations while so many Americans are unemployed. This was very smart politics. I also heard one Republican speaking to CNN who said that the Republicans deserved to be voted out of office before as they did not stick to their principles. He referred to this election result as a second chance. There is a far more mature outlook and a responsible attitude to the power they now wield.

President Obama does indeed need to follow Clinton's lead by working with the Republicans. He had such large majorities that he did not need to do so. The people decided that they didn't much like the results. By contrast Clinton's administration had some of their signature achievements while working with Republicans. It was Republican votes that ensured passage of Welfare Reform and NAFTA. The people liked that so much they re-elected Clinton and kept the Republicans in control in Congress.

So far, Obama has shown little evidence that he gets it. The Economist wrote an editorial in the aftermath called "Obama's Tin Ear."

His aloofness will soon start to come across as arrogance. At that point, he assures himself a legacy as a single term President.

US Mid Term Election Prediction - II

2010-10-31T20:22:00.001-04:00

A lot has changed in the 3 weeks since i made my predictions about Tuesday's US mid term elections.

If you listen to the pundits, the Republican wave has been building. Some (such as Dick Morris) speak of 100 Democrat congressional seats being in play. Recent polls have shown a marginal improvement for
Democrats as some races that were toss ups have moved to leaning Democrat.

Strangely, the recent election of Rob Ford as Mayor of Toronto leads me to think that I may have been wrong to predict a narrow Republican victory. Rob Ford's candidacy was similar to many of the so called "Tea party" candidates that have shocked the two party establishment by knocking off incumbent Republicans in primaries (such as Senator Bennett of Utah and Murkowski of Alaska. Tea party candidates were often unconventional and politically incorrect. They are not polished and come across as more than a little amateurish......yet they have won some races that they really shouldn't have.

The phenomenon that put Rob Ford in the Mayor's office and Scott Brown into Ted Kennedy's Senate seat is an expression of widespread voter anger. Many of the establishment politicians seem to have been a little slow in recognizing (and harnessing) this anger. The voters are angry and the anger will generate high turnout amongst the most aggrieved.

The people should be angry. They have seen their tax dollars go to bailing out auto workers who earn much more than the average American or Canadian. They have seen their taxes bailing out Wall Street bankers....nuff said on that one.

If current trends hold then the Republicans should sweep into power in the House and perhaps even the Senate. The GOP leadership should be careful in what they wish for. If they are thinking ahead to 2012, then it might be better for them if they don't take the Senate. When the GOP took over both houses in 1994, the subsequent conflicts raised the standing of Bill Clinton and helped him get re-elected a short 2 years later.

If Obama loses the ability to push his projects through Congress, then he will be left to make speeches. Obama's is a great speaker and the more speeches he gives (combined with fewer policy initiatives, the more likely his re-election.

Obama was not particularly good at managing the public perception of his policies:

The right hated Health Care reform and the left was furious that he took the public option off the table so early.
The left doesn't like the fact that he is 'surging' another 30,000 troops into Afghanistan while the right complained that he took 8 months to make that decision.

Bill Clinton was actually liberated by the loss of Congress in 1994. When the Liberal base was in the minority, he made deals with Gingrich and his gang to pass welfare reform and NAFTA. These became his signature accomplishments.

The GOP should count their blessings if they don't get the Senate and the House had best get to work on pushing substantive legislation rather than another shutdown of the Federal government. If they are smart, they will coopt many Democratic agenda items such as Climate Change and Health Care reform.

Conservatives don't favour pollution and they don't like the idea of people dying for lack of Health Care. There is a lot of fertile ground for them to make real proposals. They should do so with haste.

Final Prediction

GOP wins north of 50 seats in the House and the Senate is a 50-50 saw off.

Mayor Rob Ford

2010-10-25T20:41:00.000-04:00

So now it appears that Toronto has elected Councillor Rob Ford as Mayor in a landslide.

I wrote about the Mayoral election on Aug 23rd when it appeared that Ford was the clear frontrunner in a field of poor candidates. Since that time former Deputy Premier George Smitherman has been endorsed by the Toronto Star (predictable) and the Globe and Mail (sadly also predictable). The editorial boards and columnists have been agog at the possibility that the people might elect Councillor Ford.

Heather Mallick of the Toronto Star wrote on Sept 20 that Rob Ford was an "angry, pink faced man with an oversized head." She also described his supporters as a "monstrous regiment of angry, old, white, male voters." She compared voting for Ford to "sleeping with someone to get revenge on your spouse."

Really does Heather Mallick call herself a journalist? Those comments are not reporting and they are not fit for the editorial page either. She is just plain offensive....much like Rob Ford!

The self appointed intellects all hated the idea of Rob Ford as Mayor. I can't stand Rob Ford. I do think he is a buffoon....a worthy successor to the legacy of Mel Lastman and frankly a worthy successor to the polished intellectual buffoon David Miller.

I can't speak for anyone else but I found the media attacks against Rob Ford offensive and patronizing to the voters. It might have pushed some more voters into the Ford column....the media onslaught certainly didn't seem to have helped the former front runner George Smitherman.

Democracy is flawed. Whether you voted for Bob Rae or Mike Harris, you have reason to agree after those two gentlemen were elected Premier of Ontario.

US November Election Predictions

2010-10-11T23:08:00.000-04:00

Now that there are mere weeks to go before American voters get to pass a midterm judgment on the Obama Presidency, I will make some predictions.

First some observations.

I am still amazed that the nation that calls itself the Leader of the Free World still has so many shortcomings in the practice of Democracy. In the last midterms of 2006, 34 members of Congress ran unopposed by a major party candidate. People like to say that it is a two party system......well in that case i would expect at least two candidates in each district. 34 members ran unopposed, far more ran with only token opposition.

Gerrymandering (both racial and simply partisan) have created a wealth of safe districts where the incumbent only ever faces a threat in the party primary. George Will called this the ultimate perversion of Democracy....a system where politicians choose their voters rather than the voters choosing their politician.

A Republican tide has been predicted by most commentators. Most predictions call for gains that exceed those of the 1994 election that ended 44 years of Democratic majority rule in the House. In 1994 not a single incumbent Republican Congressman, Senator or Governor was defeated.

However some key differences are worth noting. While many pundits are saying that Obama and Clinton both overreached in the first two years of their mandate, Clinton was elected with 43% of the popular vote. Obama won 52%. This is a key difference since the Perot voters did not have a candidate in the race in 94. Obama voters do.

In 1994, the Republican landslide was a shock to everyone. Virtually nobody saw it coming. In 1994 the Speaker of the House lost his own district. The Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee also got voted out along with several incumbents who did not even commission polls because they thought that they were so safe. This time, Democrats are putting resources into races where defeat was previously unthinkable....such as Representative Barney Franks of Massachusetts.

This year everyone sees the wave coming and so the Democrats have time to batten down the hatches.

I am surprised and perplexed at the Democrats for their lack of message. The signature achievement of the first two years of Obama's term is Health Care Reform. A complex measure like this has many good and bad points. Everybody knows that the Democrats passed it with only token Republican support. Why are they running away from it rather than emphasizing the good points? By ceding the fight, they have allowed the Republicans to paint Health Care reform as 'unpopular'.....and by doing so it becomes a huge negative. A plethora of news stories point out that Dems are not even mentioning health care in their campaigns. People...you passed it now take the credit for the good points!!! If they were going to act like they needed to hang their heads in shame upon passing it then they shouldn't have voted for it.

The President's party loses seats in the midterms generally speaking. George W Bush bucked this trend in 2002 in the wake of 9-11 but it generally holds true.

My prediction:

1) The Republicans will gain control of the House by a slim margin.....they will not win the 100 seats that some are predicting.
2) The Republicans will gain 9 Senate seats to create an evenly balanced Senate. VP Joe Biden breaks ties so this means that Dems effectively maintain control.

Most of the Democrats who are voted out will be Conservative Democrats and as such the agenda for Congress will not change much. The more interesting thing to watch for is whether this new crop of Republicans will actually produce someone who is a viable Presidential candidate. Nobody had heard of Barack Obama until he won election to the Senate in 2004.

The Republicans had best hope so because none of Sara Palin, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee or Newt Gingrich are electable.

Of course i could be very very wrong. Considering that there was not a single African American Congressman who represented a majority white district......I didn't think that America was capable of electing a black man to be President.

Nobel Peace Prize Part II

2010-10-10T22:36:00.000-04:00

The Chinese government has reacted to the Nobel Peace prize award by placing Liu Xiaobo's wife under house arrest. Her 'crime' was informing her husband that he had won the Nobel Peace Prize.

While the newspapers have reported these facts, the international outrage has been muted. Once this news cycle ends, this story is likely to be forgotten.

Some of us are old enough to remember the cultural, economic and diplomatic boycotts imposed against a nation that repressed 80% of their citizens due to the colour of their skin. The boycotts worked and South Africa emerged as a democratic nation that has the highest living standard in sub-saharan Africa.

Why is a nation that represses nearly 100% of its citizens less deserving of outrage and condemnation? Is it that important to keep getting cheap stuff at Walmart?

Twenty five years ago Artists United Against Apartheid released the following video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjWENNe29qc

Today, Hollywood's silence is matched by the diplomatic corps to say nothing of the corporate world and the IOC.

Nobel Peace Prize Regains its Noble Purpose

2010-10-08T11:53:00.000-04:00

Today the Nobel Committee awarded the Peace Prize to a jailed Chinese dissident who had the audacity to call for multi-party democracy in China. As a younger man, he was a leader of the Tiananmen Square uprising. He shepharded many students out of Tiananmen Square just prior to the tanks rolling in.

Liu Xiaobo is in jail and is unaware of the honour that he has received. In fact most of China is unaware as State censors scrambled broadcasts of the ceremony as it was carried live by CNN and the BBC.

With this award, the Nobel Peace Prize regains much of the lustre that it had lost in recent years as unworthy recipients such as Barack Obama and Al Gore were honoured.

Mr Liu is a worthy addition to the pantheon that includes people such as Bishop Desmond Tutu and Mother Theresa who worked tirelessly to lift people out of oppression and poverty. The Nobel Committee displayed great wisdom in honouring FW De Clerk alongside Nelson Mandela for jointly leading South Africa beyond Apartheid. Many others were inspiring leaders for peace and justice who richly deserved their place.

The wisdom of this choice can be seen in the reaction of the Chinese government. First they tried to preempt the award by threatening the government of Norway by calling it a hostile action. After it was announced, they decried the awarding of such an honour upon a 'criminal.' Humanity would be well served if only more such 'criminals' existed in our midst.

The world has moved on since Tiananmen Square and that is a stain upon humanity. The Chinese nation suffers from less material poverty but threatens more of their neighbours militarily and more of the world economically. Even the United States treads carefully lest they offend such a valuable trading partner.

The images of tanks rolling over students were horrifying to the world. How soon they forget.

The most indelible image for me is of a lone student standing before the tanks. His courage and defiance should be remembered today.

Captain Robert Semrau - Update

2010-10-05T14:06:00.000-04:00

Captain Semrau was found guilty of Disgraceful Conduct and today his sentence was handed down. He was reduced in rank to 2nd Lieutenant and dismissed from the Armed Forces.

This was the right and just result. From the evidence presented at trial he did not have murder on the mind. The prosecution's own evidence indicated that it was a mercy killing.

It was still wrong but it was not murder.

Now Robert Semrau can go about rebuilding his life as a civilian. His case should serve as a lesson to serving members of the military. Doing the right thing is difficult. As an officer he needed to follow orders which did not include killing a wounded combatant....even as an act of mercy.

It is especially important that the difficult issues that this case presented did not cause the system to take a pass on rendering judgment.

Good luck to Robert Semrau as he gets on with life. His actions may yet serve to make the Canadian military a better place.

A Change of Pace

2010-09-04T00:38:00.000-04:00

Today I decided to take a break from my usual ranting about the latest annoyance and talk about something that isn't talked about enough....friendships.

The past couple of years have seen enormous changes in my life. I went from living in Britain with an expectant wife to living in Canada and then going through a difficult divorce.

Most of my friends have heard the gory details and I won't go into them in detail here. Besides, that would miss the point really.

While I went through this most difficult phase of my life, I experienced many emotions. I experienced fear, anger, despair, righteous indignation and a bunch of other not so nice feelings. However through it all I was also experiencing feelings of gratitude. This was due to the love and support that I received from my many friends.

During the time leading up to the court battle, I was feeling especially vulnerable. Being falsely accused of plotting your wife's murder can have that effect. Those of you who haven't stood before a judge to answer such allegations will just have to take my word for it. It sucks!!! LOL

Even after it became clear that those allegations were not going to carry any weight, I was still faced with the prospect of picking up my son 6 times a week. What else would I be accused of when there were no witnesses around?

Into this unpleasant situation, 35 different friends of mine stepped forward to accompany me during transitions to ensure that I was not alone. This went on for over a year and I had somebody accompany me for all but 2 transitions. Looking back, this was truly remarkable. Some of these friends drove from long distances to help me for a 5 minute transition. I find it amazing that not a single friend started finding themselves 'busy' on repeated occasions until I no longer asked. It would have been completely understandable if they had because it was onerous. Yet they didn't.

In addition, there were numerous occasions where my friends spent time with Krishna and myself. I found myself turning invitations down because there simply aren't enough hours in enough days. I am truly blessed!

It is too soon to say whether this story ultimately has a great ending or not. I have joint custody of my son and we spend a lot of time together. In fact, I get more time with him than many dads who live near their children. Krishna is an amazingly happy and well adjusted little boy.....and extraordinarily handsome too!

I have the means to fly over to see him regularly. Not every guy in my situation could do that. I am blessed!

When I visit in Britain, one of my good friends and her husband welcome us into their home every time. Even when I visit for weekends in Britain, Krishna has a consistent bed to sleep in and a place to leave his toys and clothes. I am blessed!

When he visits Canada, again the invitations are more numerous than we can accept.

Divorce is not something that I recommend. It is extremely destructive and some people never get their balance back after going through it. It would be foolish for me to pretend that I haven't been damaged by the experience, but it would be truly ignorant to fail to see the good side that it brought out in so many of my friends. Their loyalty and support were more than I could ever hope to repay. But I suppose that is the whole point of such true friends....they don't expect anything for what they give. Still I owe them a debt and I will be working to repay that debt.

I am not an easy person to get along with. I am opinionated, mouthy and often ill mannered. I am headstrong and, often, don't listen well. I don't deserve the great friends that I have and so I treasure them.

Before Krishna moved away, a friend from church gave Krishna a gift and wrote inside that he should take good care of his mommy. This was truly heartwarming.

I hope that Krishna grows up to take good care of his mommy. He is a great kid and I don't deserve such a great son. I am blessed.

Nobody is naive enough to believe that I don't have some residual negative feelings. But I am human. Time is working its magic in healing those wounds.

All I can say at this point is that I couldn't have made it through this nasty process without my friends. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have a lot of money....but I can't imagine them being richer than me..thanks to the wealth of friends that I have.

For that I am truly blessed!

Toronto's Next Mayor

2010-08-23T23:43:00.000-04:00

I find politics fascinating. I remember watching the 1976 Presidential debates between Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. Since I was merely 6 years old my memories are scant. From the 1980 election onwards, my interest level grew and my memories remain vivid.

Canadian politics has produced fewer larger than life figures than our neighbours to the south. In part that may simply be a result of the fact that we don't tend to mythologize our leaders as Americans do. We don't have a Mount Rushmore. A Canadian Prime Minister rarely uses Teddy Roosevelt's "Bully Pulpit" to the extent American Presidents do. Ronald Reagan often went on the airwaves to ask the citizens to call their Congressman if he wasn't getting his priorities through. A Prime Minister has no need to engage in such banal pursuits. The Right Honourable one can simply order his caucus to vote as he pleases.....no need to involve the citizens.

It is a little known fact that the person in Canada who has the largest direct voter mandate is in fact the Mayor of Toronto. The Prime Minister is merely a Member of Parliament representing one riding while the Mayor of Toronto is directly voted in by citizens of 22 Federal ridings. It is also not very well known that from a Constitutional standpoint, there is no such thing as a municipal level of Government. The City of Toronto is incorporated under the laws of the Province of Ontario.

Leaving small technicalities like the Constitution aside, it is a fact that more people vote directly for the Mayor of Toronto than any other office in the land. It is the current Mayor's race that has me more baffled and amused than any other recent election.

Councillor Rob Ford is the clear front runner. He is 11 points ahead of former Deputy Premier of Ontario George Smitherman....according to a poll released today. The mind boggles.

Now it must be said that the amalgamated mega city of Toronto has not been around very long. Toronto has had but two mayors. The first was Mel Lastman who made Toronto a laughing stock by calling in the army after a bad snowstorm and telling a reporter that he didn't want to go to Africa because he hates snakes and might end up in a boiling pot of water with natives dancing around. (If Lastman had spent any time in some of Toronto's parks, he might have seen snakes nearer to home).

After two terms of Mel Lastman's buffoonery (the fine citizens of Toronto re-elected him with 80% of the vote for a second term), the people turned to an American born, British raised Harvard graduate named David Miller. Mayor Miller was a very smart man whose standing as mayor was torpedoed after engaging the unions in a long garbage strike only to give in at the end. People understandably asked what the point of forcing the strike was when he just ended up backtracking anyway.

So now along comes Rob Ford with a record as a right winger in a left wing city. He had a DUI conviction which he was apparently not very forthcoming about. He allegedly had to stop coaching high school football after roughing up a player. He has stated that Toronto should not welcome any more immigrants. He has said that AIDS is preventable as long you don't do drugs and aren't gay.

Despite all of his bluster and revelations about his past, he continues to lead the field. I can't explain it.

Perhaps the people are tired of charming politicians who hide behind a facade. Perhaps they like the fact that a buffoonish Rob Ford is more of an average citizen than some other candidates. Perhaps they feel that he is so bad that he can't possibly be hiding something worse (nowhere to go but up?).

I don't really know how Rob Ford can be the frontrunner in this race. I am no longer a Toronto resident and as such I can't vote. If I could, I really don't know who amongst this sad lot I would vote for. Perhaps therein lies the answer? Perhaps a paucity of good candidates means that the people are choosing between various degrees of bad. How sad that the race for the largest direct voter mandate in Canada might be won by default.

Lottery Fever

2010-08-07T23:38:00.000-04:00

The Toronto Star reports that the government of Ontario is considering legalized online gambling.

http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/844961--ontario-set-to-bet-on-legalized-online-gambling?bn=1

Ontario would be joining a trend towards expansion of government run gambling. The government approach to many vices seems to follow a trend of initial prohibition followed by monopolization. It is true of gambling and in certain places (Ontario) it is true of the distribution of alcohol. One wonders if they will follow that approach to marijuana and prostitution if they should ever be made fully legal?

The arguments in favour of increased gambling rely mainly upon the fact that it is very lucrative for governments around the world. Additionally, the age of the internet means that a jurisdiction that practices prohibition still sees their citizens gambling online through internet sites that are domiciled in more permissive jursidictions.

I did a google search on the demographics of lottery players. I found a plethora of studies that found that lottery players tended to be less educated and have less disposable income. It naturally follows (and several studies confirmed) that those who were of an ethnic group who were economically disadvantaged were also more likely to buy lottery tickets and to spend more.

This makes sense since lotteries offer hope. It is natural that those who are poor and/or lacking in hope would grasp at a straw offering that hope. I do see the good that comes from that. It may be too much to lecture the poor that they should just save the $5 that they spend on lotteries weekly and put it into a savings account. That kind of sensible advice is better received by those who don't need it as much.

Still I cannot help but feel that a lottery is an insidious form of taxation. The profits flow to the government from the people. No tangible product is given in exchange for the cost of the lottery ticket.....it is strictly the possibility of a win that is being sold. A losing ticket (which just very slightly outnumber the winning tickets) leaves the holder of that ticket without hope and without $5. Government run gambling operations appeal mostly to those who are poor, desperate or stupid. I recognize that there are some who spend a few dollars just to have some fun, however that is not where the bulk of the revenue comes from.

It is an insidious tax because it is regressive in its application. It disproportionately affects those who can afford it the least. It is particularly insidious because it is a form of taxation that generates less anger. There were protests in the streets when the GST was introduced and more when the HST came in. Both of these were measures that were more efficient and progressive in their application than a lottery. Obviously income taxes are also unpopular and more progressive in application. Yet lotteries are often greeted with cheers and long lineups.

I know that other jurisdictions are becoming more permissive. However, this is a moral issue. If gambling is such a vice that it ought to be banned, then the government shouldn't be running it as a monopoly. It is harmful and dumb. Simply because other places exploit the poor and hopeless doesn't mean that we should act like lemmings and do the same thing. By that rationale we should legalize a host of more obviously offensive activities such that dollars aren't flowing to some far away places where anything goes.

Say no to more gambling.

Stimulus and Recession in Simple Terms

2010-07-28T23:19:00.000-04:00

I studied Economics in University, though my marks would indicate that I didn't attend many classes or read much of the material. Nonetheless I find myself reading economic reports on a daily basis as a part of my job. I often wait with bated breath for various reports that are released at 830 am.

This brief issued by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office makes for some sober reading.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/116xx/doc11659/07-27_Debt_FiscalCrisis_Brief.pdf

To make a long story short, soaring deficits may cause debt to reach crisis levels.

At this point I think that its helpful to simplify things so that the dimmer lights who occupy all parts of the political spectrum can understand.

If we borrow $100 to 'stimulate' the economy through tax cuts, infrastructure spending, etc, etc.......there comes a time when we need to pay it back. If it's in one year then we will need to pay back about $102. If its in 5 years we will need to pay back $110. (I have assumed away compounding to keep it simple, and assumed an interest rate of 2%). Paying that back means increasing taxes by $110 or cutting infrastructure spending by $110 or reducing social services by $110.....or some combination thereof.

The math is very simple.....to "stimulate" the economy with a $100 deficit means reversing the stimulus by more than $100 since we will need to pay interest.

This example makes some very poor assumptions that are helpful to the arguments for deficit stimulus spending.

I have made the bad assumption that $100 of stimulus will actually result in $100 of 'value' and that none will be lost due to inefficient allocation. This is a very poor assumption.
I have made the ridiculous assumption that there is no compounding of interest. The reversal of stimulus would be much greater if interest is compounded.
I have made the assumption (nay fantasy) that the deficit will be repaid in 5 years.....an appalling bad assumption. Just how bad would the pro-deficit argument look if we assume that it takes 30 years to pay it back? Even 30 years is a very rosy assumption.
I have made the assumption that there is no "crowding out" effect where government spending incents the private sector to spend less.
I have made the assumption that the expansion of the government into a greater share of GDP does not result in inefficiencies.

Despite all of these very rosy assumptions that are helpful to the pro-deficit view, we are left with the simple math that says that $100 of stimulus will result in a reversal of $110 of negative stimulus over the next 5 years.

I have ignored one giant elephant in the room and that is the multiplier effect. It is the idea that when the economy is stimulated by $100, it actually results in increased economic activity of a number greater than $100....say $160. If this is uniformly true then the argument for stimulus is stronger.......except that I have never understood why the multiplier effect doesn't also work in reverse when the stimulus is withdrawn.

I once heard a saying that the only role of Economic Projections is to make Astrology look respectable. (I would provide the citation if I could remember where I saw it.) If we can't accurately predict the path of GDP, then I don't understand how we could possibly predict a secondary derivative like a multiplier effect.

If the multiplier effect is valid, I also don't understand why we don't favour ever higher deficits as the path to endless prosperity.

To borrow a phrase from George H.W. Bush....a lot of this is Voodoo Economics. The truth is that our current deficits are just a way to pay for the standard of living to which we have become accustomed by raiding our children's education fund.

Our leaders have failed to speak some basic truths to the people. Hard times are necessary. Recessions are bad and so is death......but both are necessities in the grand scheme of things. No society has ever achieved 100% employment and no society ever will and it's not necessarily a good thing to strive for.

After 9-11, George W. Bush implored people to go shopping and enjoy life because otherwise Al Quada wins. I can't recall another time in history when a nation went to war and simultaneously went out for dinner and a movie. That attitude still permeates society.

Hard times build character. I treasure the memories of a childhood without material excess. I recall eating a piece of (what I now know was terrible) cheese on a plane as we immigrated from Korea. I realize now that our diet in Korea must have been very very low in fat. I declared that cheese the best thing I had ever tasted!!

I couldn't possibly bring myself to impose a false poverty on my son so that he can learn about what life is like for so many. However I do feel sad that he will probably never have such experiences. Although if we keep spending money we don't have, then he and many other children of today will have those experiences in reverse...and that would be tragic and represent a failure on our part.

GM Again

2010-07-23T00:14:00.000-04:00

Today GM announced that it was going to spend $3.5 billion to purchase a sub-prime car lender. CEO Ed Whitacre said that the lack of a financing arm (since GMAC was sold off in 2007) put GM at a competitive disadvantage with buyers who had trouble getting credit.

I've read over the stories a few times and am completely stunned. A few points to consider:

GM seems to have trouble producing cars good enough to sell at a profit. Since they've shown that they are a car company that is not very good at producing cars, what makes them think that they are going to be so good at evaluating the creditworthiness of those who have been deemed to be not worthy of credit....and hence are subprime borrowers?
What will happen if the economy turns south again and these sub prime car borrowers stop making payments? Will GM suffer losses that will require another bailout?
If GM has $3.5 billion kicking around in the bank, perhaps they should pay back some of the $40 billion that is still outstanding to the taxpayers?
Was there another buyer for this sub prime lender? If so why is a taxpayer owned entity trumping a private sector bid? If not, then isn't this just another bailout one step removed?

We will soon see another absurdity. The government will divest itself of GM via, what may be, the largest public offering of stock in history. To do this GM will engage several banks (some of which have been bailed out by the taxpayers). GM will pay an underwriting fee to the Investment banks. So the car company that got bailed out by the taxpayers will be paying an enormous fee to the banks that got bailed out by the taxpayers.

The depressing thing about this whole thing is that it just seems to keep getting more absurd. The seeds for the credit crunch were sown during the Clinton Administration. George W Bush became a tax and spend Conservative who created a moral hazard with an orgy of bailouts. Barack Obama has followed in their footsteps. At each step the policy decisions seem to get worse and worse.

Captain Robert Semrau

2010-07-21T06:43:00.000-04:00

By all accounts Captain Semrau is a good soldier, a family man and friend to many. He has been convicted of Disgraceful Conduct and faces 5 years in jail. He is the first Canadian soldier ever convicted due to the act of shooting an unarmed combatant.

Many have called his act of killing a wounded Taliban fighter an act of mercy and in keeping with the soldier's code to end the suffering of a combatant. The facts as presented by the prosecution state that after a Taliban ambush, a wounded insurgent was found with severe wounds that were too severe to treat in situ. There are accounts that state that the situation was too hostile for a medevac. One of his legs was blown off, the other nearly severed and his entrails were hanging out. The consensus view is that this insurgent would surely have died anyways and that it was only a question of how long he suffered before succumbing to his wounds. Apparently, Captain Semrau eliminated the question by shooting the man twice.

I recall an episode of Law and Order where the point was made that if a man jumps off a tall building and is plummeting to a certain death, the act of shooting him in mid air is still an act of murder as it hastened his death. This is consistent with a discussion in a Criminal law class I attended however it is really Ivory Tower mental masturbation.

Obviously I was not in court to hear the evidence but it seems to me that he did the humane thing by ending the suffering of this wounded human being. The fact that he was an enemy combatant and a member of the Taliban does not negate his status as a human being deserving of compassion.

Capt Semrau's motivations then are to be commended. However the jury was right to convict him of Disgraceful Conduct.

The Geneva Conventions state that a wounded enemy combatant ought to receive the same standard of care as a wounded friendly combatant. I don't know if Captain Semrau would have committed the same act of mercy if the wounded man were a member of his Regiment (which is also my old Regiment). However that is irrelevant really. The Geneva Conventions are always inconvenient and at times impractical. In coming to the conclusion that I did, I ignored the Geneva Conventions.

The problem I have with his act of mercy is that allowing it as an exception would set a precedent that could too easily be abused. When thousands of soldiers die on the battlefield, a coroner does not conduct autopsies on each corpse to determine the cause of death and the likelihood of survival after the fact. In many cases (including this one) the body is simply unavailable.

It is a myth that soldiers are trained and disciplined to such an extent that their emotions do not factor into their reactions. If soldiers were merely such automatons, the words "troop morale" would scarcely be uttered. The truth is that soldiers in battle experience intense feelings of fear, rage and hatred. How would you feel if your buddy was killed in an ambush? How would you react if you had a chance to exact some revenge? Allowing an individual soldier to pass sentence and allow "mercy" to be a defence that could result in exoneration is a loophole that many body bags would pass through.

As an officer he needs to maintain good order and discipline. His actions were prejudicial to good order and discipline. However, I still feel nothing but sympathy for Captain Semrau. He served in Afghanistan in the British Army and then with the Canadian army. He was a volunteer who was serving his country. Most of us never encounter a situation that presents such moral dilemmas and so we can sit back in our comfortable chairs and pass judgment on this man who risked life and limb to serve in a faraway land. The truth is that I feel sick to my stomach for saying that what he did was wrong. What he did was right in so many ways.

I think that Captain Semrau is a better person than most . What he did might have been humane and deserving of some praise but he must now accept that he must accept punishment. Perverse as it may seem, it might be the case that he was right to do what he did and it is right that he was judged guilty of a crime.

King Lebron, CB4 and Dwayne

2010-07-11T23:19:00.000-04:00

Much of the North American sporting world spent the middle of this week digesting the most important news since the resurrection of Christ.(or so it seemed). The three big name free agents in the NBA chose a team. Lebron James of Cleveland, Chris Bosh of Toronto and Dwayne Wade have all agreed to sign with the Miami Heat.

Sportswriters (has there ever been a more useless profession?) have been yakking up the airwaves expressing their views of whether Miami can win the NBA Championship.

To the cacophony of voices, I shall add my own.

Miami will NOT win the NBA Championship. Right now its not even clear if they would make the finals. Boston's big three might be as good as Miami's and they have a better supporting cast. The LA Lakers had a big four when Karl Malone and Gary Payton joined Shaquille Oneal and Kobe Bryant in LA 8 years ago. They did not win.

The Miami Heat have instantly become the most hated team in the NBA with their arrogance and predictions of championships. Still it is a team game and their egos will clash and they will be knocked out by a team with fewer stars who play as a team.

Lake Toews

2010-07-10T01:06:00.000-04:00

This Sunday, the Manitoba Legislature will have a ceremony to name a lake north of Flin Flon after Jonathan Toews.

So what did this 22 year old do to earn this special recognition? Well in his third season in the National Hockey League, he played for the Stanley Cup winning Chicago Blackhawks. Apparently he is also an avid fisherman.

Premier Greg Selinger says that the young Mr Toews has earned the right to have a lake named after him like the many war heroes who earned this recognition posthumously.

I'm not sure where to begin. Shall I begin with the waste of tax dollars in holding a ceremony in the Legislature? Shall I wonder whether Premier Selinger has weightier matters to attend to? Shall I wonder if the lake will be renamed if Jonathan Toews should become an athlete at the centre of a scandal? (a remote possibility given the stellar rap sheets of other millionaire athletes.

This one is too dumb to spend too much time on. A team of 20, or so, individuals wins the Stanley Cup every spring. Each year 20 young men achieve something worthy of the consideration of a Provincial Legislature.

Should Wayne Gretzky have a lake named after him for each of his four Stanley Cups? For that matter perhaps Larry Murphy should have four lakes named after him. Larry who?

The truth of the matter is that Jonathan Toews is a great young hockey player. Each and every paramedic or emergency room doctor in Manitoba is more deserving of an honour like this than the young Mr Toews. Each and every soldier serving in Afghanistan is more deserving. The average citizen in a run of the mill job is as deserving of Jonathan Toews.

I hope that Jonathan Toews goes on to live a great life filled with many accomplishments. I hope he does so that he can point to Lake Toews with pride and not embarrassment.

60 Years Ago today the Cold War turned Hot in Korea

2010-06-26T00:37:00.000-04:00

Russian trained communist troops poured across the 38th parallel to invade South Korea. This was a pivotal moment for the Cold War as Communist expansion took a more aggressive turn.

It was a shining moment for the United Nations as the Security Council condemned the invasion and authorized member nations to supply troops to repel the invasion. It was the last shining moment for the United Nations. It was only made possible because the Soviet Union had boycotted the Security Council and hence did not use their veto.(a mistake they would not repeat) One lasting legacy of the Korean war were the endless vetoes that prevented the Security Council from becoming anything more than a debating society.

Member nations (led by the United States) poured troops into South Korea and held the North Korean advance around the southern port of Pusan. The Pusan perimeter held until General McArthur outflanked the enemy by landing at Inchon and cutting off supply lines. The North Koreans collapsed and the Allies pushed the remaining communist troops to the Yalu river. At this point Communist China entered the war and pushed the allies back to the present DMZ. Stalemate ensued for 2 years before an armistice was signed.

It was during this war that my mother's family escaped the north. My grandmother fled the north with my mother and uncle. She was separated from my grandfather at the time. Unlike so many other families who were never reunited, the found each other after the war and settled in Seoul. However like so many families, my grandmother left behind 6 brothers in the north. She lived the rest of her life never knowing what happened to them.

It is a strange feeling watching the North Korean team at the World Cup. I can't cheer for them but it has occurred to me that one of my cousins could be playing for the North.

During a visit to Wolseley barrack in London, Ontario, I read the Honour Roll of members of the Royal Canadian Regiment who fell in Korea. I was deeply moved that they gave their lives in a far away land for a people they did not know. I enrolled shortly thereafter.

It is always controversial when troops are sent to fight in foreign wars. Many have forgotten that conscription to fight Hitler nearly tore Canada apart as English Canada voted to send troops to Europe while Quebec voted against. The ultimate worth of the sacrifice of our young men is often not readily apparent. I'm sure that it was not universally popular amongst Canadians to send our soldiers to Korea.

I don't know if its enough that Korea is now the world's 8th largest economy and a vibrant trading partner for Canada. Korea hasn't always been a truly democratic nation in the aftermath of the war but is now so. I don't know if that is enough to justify the sacrifice.

Koreans sent troops to Vietnam to assist in a very similar struggle. The President of Korea wrote an op ed piece today expressing gratitude for the sacrifice of 60 years ago.

The truth is that the worth of a sacrifice cannot (should not) be measured in balance of trade figures. Ultimately history will judge whether the struggle was worthy or not. History's yardstick is not always consistent and may use different standards.

All I can say now is that i'm grateful that the world stood up against aggression and restored freedom to a small and insignificant country far away from here. The people who were liberated live in prosperity and freedom today. The people who lived north of the 38th parallel live lives filled with desperation and starvation.

Though the war ended in stalemate resulting in divided families and a nation torn asunder, the contrast is unmistakable and may provide the greater lesson to history:

Communism is an evil ideology and fighting it was worthwhile.

BP's Gusher

2010-06-23T18:48:00.000-04:00

The latest twist is that a collision with an underwater submersible has damaged the cap that BP installed on their underwater gusher. That means that oil is now flowing into open water at a rate of 5,000 barrels per day.....oh wait no its 10,000 barrels a day.....oh wait no, its between 60,000 and 100,000 barrels a day. However they don't really know.

Every one of BP's bandaids that have been applied to this spill have now failed and oil is flowing into he gulf unchecked. We are told that this could continue until BP drills 4 'relief well' in August.

I am not an engineer with specialized knowledge of deep sea drilling. I have no expertise on anything to do with anything here. However it doesn't take any specialized knowledge to know that every one of BP's approaches has resulted in abject failures. Has it occurred to anyone that if drilling four new holes in the ocean floor is as successful as all other attempts to stop this spill, then we could be looking at even more oil in the gulf?

Like i say i don't know the technical details of what a relief well means. I'm sure that it will be done very safely and the odds of them opening up another gusher a mile below the surface are absurdly low. Does anyone really blame me for being so cynical?

General McChrystal`s Big Mistake....and Obama`s

2010-06-23T12:14:00.000-04:00

General Stanley McChrystal made a big mistake. He says so, his Commander in Chief says so as well as the Defence Secretary and Joint Chiefs of Staff.

He and his staff should not have allowed Rolling Stone Magazine such unfettered access in a time of war. Having done so, he compounded the mistake by speaking too freely.

Many of the individual criticisms made by he and his staff have merit and have been spoken by many in Congress and the media. It doesn`t matter whether he was right on the merits of the criticisms or not. Arguably it is worse that his comments have merit because they are more destabilizing.

As the man in charge of the Afghanistan theatre, General McChrystal is responsible for motivating the troops and getting them ready to do the job. If he felt that his hands were being tied by politicians in Washington, then he has a responsibility to resign.....not to pop off to Rolling Stone magazine.

McChrystal must go. His actions reflect poor judgment and border on insubordination. This is clear.

So then why are Obama, Defence Secretary Gates and various members of the Chain of Command issuing statements of disappointment in the General? Why are they all talking to the press about McChrystal's "error in judgment."

Obama should have fired McChrystal and ordered him home immediately. The rest of them should have shut up. Sadly, this kind of public vacillation supports some of McChrystal's complaints about indecivenesss.

It's ironic and very troubling.

Does Obama have it in him to make the hard (or even the easy) decisions? This is starting to look like a second term for the Carter administration.

World Cup so far

2010-06-22T12:29:00.000-04:00

The group stage of the World Cup is nearing a close.

Congratulations are in order to the South Africans. They did not advance but they finished 1-1-1 by beating France. This was a very respectable result of which they can be proud.

Greece has won their first World Cup match ever. This was helped by scoring their first goal ever at this tournament.

Along with the many minnows who have upset the big nations there have been frequent (far too frequent) displays of diving and feigning of injuries. This is cheating and is the biggest blight upon this event. The same statement can be made every 4 years. When will FIFA do something about this culture of diving?

As much as sports teaches us about the right way to do things, it also teaches us that cheaters often do prosper. Who can forget Diego Maradona winning the World Cup after scoring with a handball?

This year Thierry Henry's handball put France into this tournament at Ireland's expense. Irish hearts were broken and polls showed that the French population were embarrassed at their team's entry. This was set right today when France bowed out going winless amidst recriminations and infighting.

France is a great football nation. They will be back and will do themselves proud. However at this World Cup they went out as they should have because they did not deserve to be there.

Aid and Comfort to the Enemy

2010-06-21T15:36:00.000-04:00

US Law prohibits the "material support or resources" of foreign organizations designated by the State Department to be terrorist organizations.

In the case of the Attorney General v. Humanitarian Law project, The Supreme Court upheld the law in the face of arguments by Humanitarian Law that this prohibition infringed upon their First Amendment rights.

The majority decision correctly held that any American had a First Amendment right to express support for the aims of an organization no matter how odious. They ruled that this did not apply to the provision of material, expert training or personnel to the organization.

To put it into layman's terms, it is fine for any American to say that the Taliban represented a golden age for Afghanistan but it is illegal to provide personnel, material or expert advice as support for the Taliban.

The remarkable thing about this ruling is that the 6-3 majority brought the 5 conservative justices together with the dean of the liberal wing, Justice John Paul Stevens. That justices Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor would uphold a "right" to supply terrorists with material and personnel as a free speech right is shocking and offensive.

Voices of dissent in times of war are often shouted down with accusations that the dissenters are giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy. That accusation is often used as an unfair and over the top bullying effort to silence dissent. How remarkable that 3 justices of the Supreme Court would allow for actual aid and comfort to be supplied to the enemy.

It is rare that I applaud Justice Stevens for being on the right side of a SCOTUS ruling. His presence on the right side of this ruling makes it something other than the usual left-right split on the Supreme Court. The 3 dissenting justices are left looking ridiculous.

World Cup 2010

2010-06-13T20:21:00.000-04:00

I often write about the beauty of sport. There are so many life lessons that can be learned through participaton (even as a spectator) in sports. Different life lessons are often learned through individual sports vs team sports however both are important.

Among my favourites:

1) David can slay Goliath when one compensates for a lack of talent with superior effort.
2) Contests are more often won in practice. (admittedly a variation on Sun Tzu)
3) Life isn't always fair. Sometimes the good guys don't win. Sometimes cheaters prosper. You should still display sportsmanship.

The first world cup of soccer to be held on the continent of Africa is currently being held in South Africa. Soccer is probably the most global of all sports in participation and appeal. North America has been a laggard on this front until very recently.

That South Africa has emerged from Apartheid as a leading African nation is a wonderful thing. Living standards across Africa are poor but less so in South Africa. Hosting the World Cup after so many years of being banned from most sporting competitions sends a powerful message.

South Africa scored the first goal of the tournament in their 1-1 draw with Mexico. The symbolism and spirit cannot be denied. This World Cup might be more momentous than the 2002 World Cup in Japan/korea in terms of the effect upon the host nation.

However much i appreciate sports, it's also true that too many people overestimate the impact of sport in an economic sense. Many taxpayer dollars have been squandered in its pursuit.

Montreal's Olympic Stadium now sits mostly empty as a white elephant to the folly of the 1976 games. It was finally paid for 30 years after the Olympics at a total cost of 1.6 billion dollars.

So what will South Africa do with 10 similar stadiums?

Several first round games have been played in front of sparse crowds. So how many bums will fill the seats when the World Cup is not being hosted?

Perhaps i'm being overly negative but while sports provides important life lessons, it usually doesn't truly change the nature of a city hosting it. While Winnipeg's social pride was wounded when they lost the Jets of the NHL, getting an NHL team back will not result in a sea change. Winnipeg will still not be Toronto even if they end up having a better hockey team.

I hope i'm wrong but i just don't see how several of these stadums will pay for themselves once the Wordl Cup is done. South Africa may just end up with a billion dollar hangover when this is all done.

They are still a poor country...perhaps the money could have been better spent/

Congratulations to the Chicago Blackhawks.....poor Leafs fans!

2010-06-10T01:16:00.000-04:00

The New York Rangers ended a 50 year streak of futility when they captured the Stanley Cup in 1994.

Tonight the Chicago Blackhawks won Lord Stanley's mug to end a 49 year streak of futility.

This leaves the Toronto Maple Leafs with the longest drought at 43 years. During that period of time, 23 Cups have been won by teams that did not even exist when Toronto last celebrated. Included in that list are such notable hockey hotbeds such as Carolina, Anaheim and Tampa Bay.

No point really.....other than the LEAFS SUCK!!!

Congrats to Chicago!

The Helen Thomas Era Ends

2010-06-08T19:41:00.000-04:00

Helen Thomas's career has been long and distinguished. She began covering President elect Kennedy in 1960 and has covered every President since. It was well known that she was no friend of Republicans and no friend of Israel, still admiration for her was nearly universal. Her seat in the press gallery was directly in front of the President and she was a formidable adversary for any politician.

The end of her career was a rather sad spectacle. At the age of 89 she attended the White House celebration of Jewish Heritage month and inexplicably told a rabbi that the Jews should "get the hell out of Palestine" and "go home." She suggested that they return to Poland, Germany and America.

Germany and Poland were countries in which many Jews were born and raised for generations. It is also the case that the most notorious Nazi death camps were also situated there.

Helen Thomas was a teenager during Kristallnacht. She was an adult when Hitler invaded Poland. Throughout her entire life (and before) Jews lived in Palestine. During her long life, Jews ceased to be a significant part of the population of many Arab countries.

It could be said that these facts should lead to her condemnation as she should have really known better. However it is also the basis for some forgiveness. What she said was very offensive. However she is almost 90 now. I couldn't help but feel some sympathy for her as Ari Fleischer (Bush Administration) and Lanny Davis (Clinton Administration) eviscerated her publicly and disavowed their past friendship and respect.

If you were lucky enough to have a grandmother who was deep into her 80's, would you be embarrassed if she said something off colour or would you smile knowing that she has lived a life worthy of respect?

I once attended a military dinner where a number of retired officers attended. An old man barked at me and asked me if i was Japanese. I smiled and said "No sir, I'm Korean. We were fighting the Japanese behind the lines." A somewhat less old man came up to me and apologized for the old major's tone with me. I told him that no apologies were necessary. That "old man" was a decorated veteran of the Italian campaign and deserved respect. Sure he might have gone a little batty but I chose to cut him some slack. He had earned it.

Helen Thomas was right to retire. She probably should have done so earlier. Lanny Davis and Ari Fleischer should stand down. There is no valour in beating up on an old woman. They should throw her a big party to celebrate her retirement and honour her life. She deserves it.

Serving your Country....again

2010-05-19T14:16:00.000-04:00

In these times of (relative) peace, serving your country often means playing a sport for your national team. Players often talk about the honour of "playing for their country" in tones that would make it appear that they were sacrificing life and limb to do so.

It is rare that a sporting federation (with a vested interest in promoting the commercial appeal of the game) would be the one giving us some perspective.

http://www.iihf.com/nc/home-of-hockey/news/news-singleview/article/saying-no-to-your-country.html

Szymon Szemberg has drawn criticism for naming and shaming players who declined the call to represent their country at the Hockey World Championships and the lame excuses they give. He is right to do so.

Among his best observations:

"How can a player who is 22 or 25 or 27, and who was just eliminated from the playoffs be tired? Tired is a miner who works in a damp pit in Miktivka, in the Donetz Plateau in Ukraine, who never sees daylight and who provides living for a family of five in a modest two-room apartment. That is tired."

"Tired is a divorced mother with two young kids who double shifts as a nurse assistant and cleaning lady to make ends meet."

"Why is a 22-year-old Sidney Crosby tired when a 34-year-old Ryan Smyth is answering the bell for his country despite having represented Canada at the Worlds already on eight occasions?"

Professional athletes live a privileged life. They should remember that when they make such lame excuses.

Honouring those who served

2010-05-18T13:12:00.000-04:00

Two news items have struck a chord with me today.

In Afghanistan, Colonel Geoff Parker of the Royal Canadian Regiment (my old Regiment) became the highest ranking casualty amongst Canadians who have served in Afghanistan.

In Conneticut, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is in the news over revelations that he had spoken of his time serving in Vietnam and of how painful it was to be spat at upon his return. Only problem is that he never served in Vietnam. He received 5 deferments and then joined the Marine reserves to avoid combat.

AG Blumenthal's spoken words are powerful and right on their merits. It was inexcusable that young boys who were conscripted into a war received such treatment upon their return. America has spent a long time coming to terms with how wrong that was.

Richard Blumenthal's pathetic atttempts to curry favour while campaigning in front of Veterans groups only serve to aggravate that injustice. Before this he was the overwhelming favourite to replace Senator Chris Dodd as United States Senator from Conneticut.

His military history is not that different from mine. I served as a reservist and never served in combat. The idea of falsely claiming to have served in combat dishonours those who did serve and is so offensive that Blumenthal would be lucky not to get a punch in the jaw from a veteran who did serve.

For those who see this story in partisan tones, I would ask how they would feel if it had come to light that Governor George W Bush had claimed to have served in Vietnam while campaigning for higher office. How much would your blood boil?

Col Parker attended basic training in Gagetown at the same time i did but i did not know him. A close friend of mine reported directly to him when he started his service in the Regular Forces.

These two news stories from either side of the border highlight the best and worst of our society. There are those who serve nobly and make the ultimate sacrifice and there are those who lay claim to an honour they did not earn. I will be attending Col Parker's memorial service. Richard Blumenthal will drop out of the race if he has any honour at all.

He is unfit for the office he seeks.

Prayers for Col Parker's family and his young children.

Times Square Bomber

2010-05-04T17:52:00.000-04:00

The story is still unfolding but here is what we know so far.....based on news reports.

Faisal Shahzad drove an SUV that was filled with propane canisters, solid fertilizer and some firecrackers to Times Square. It appears that he meant for this to create a large explosion.

Upon being arrested he has been forthcoming (according to reports) and he has claimed that he trained in camps in West Pakistan.

It is not often that there is mirth to be found in attempted terrorist actions but some rather humourous thoughts come to mind.

1) How is it that the terror camps of Pakistan can turn out fighters that have become so adept at creating IED's that disable tanks and kill coalition soldiers can also turn out a guy who thinks that any fertilizer can be made to explode? Really a box of manure won't blow up?

2) Propane canisters could be very deadly if they exploded throwing shrapnel in all directions. However it would require more heat than some firecrackers and burning fertilizer.

3) If he really trained at a camp in Pakistan, did he flunk out?

One wonders if this person is really someone who is mentally disturbed with some visions of grandeur. If this is the quality of terrorists being churned out of Pakistan, then there wouldn't be very much to worry about.

Wither Journalism

2010-05-01T23:18:00.000-04:00

On August 10, 2009 the Globe and Mail published an article by Jane Taber that carried the headline "Can a busy female politician give reliable evidence? A judge says no."

The article goes on to reprint comments from many individuals slamming the judge's sexist comments. There is only one problem with this article....the judge didn't say that.

MPP Lisa McLeod was giving evidence in the influence peddling trial of Ottawa mayor Larry O'brien. In her evidence SHE claimed that she could not remember some details accurately due to her busy schedule. She impugned her own testimony and the judge properly rejected her evidence.

The Ontario Press Council upheld a ruling against the Globe for publishing an opinion piece without labelling it as an editorial piece. They were right to do so since it was clearly an expression of opinion. However they should have gone further because this article did not report the facts, it reported falsehoods and then fashioned an opinion based on untruths. It failed basic standards of decency let alone journalism.

The Globe reported the Press Council's ruling in the middle of page 8. They should have put it on the front page. This kind of shoddy reporting/editorializing will only accelerate the decline of print media. They should be ashamed of themselves.

General Motors

2010-04-25T10:00:00.000-04:00

CEO Ed Whitacre can be seen on commercials on both sides of the border proudly declaring that he GM has paid back government loans with interest 5 years ahead of schedule.

A reality check is in order. GM paid back $8 billion worth of loans. This is true enough. However this is nothing more than a whopper of a lie by omission. GM was bailed out with a combination of loans and equity. The equity portion was $50 billion. GM no longer has any public shareholders....it is entirely owned by the taxpayers and unions.

The commercial gives the impression that the taxpayers have been paid back and that GM is on the rebound. Time will tell whether GM will recover or not. The truth is that GM is not worth anywhere close to $50 billion and the taxpayers are sitting on a huge loss on their equity investment.

Spending money to advertise a lie of omission just shows, once again, that GM is clueless. This was not a good deal for taxpayers and some truth in advertising would be a welcome change.

Public Transit Bee in my Bonnet

2010-04-19T12:16:00.000-04:00

Those who live on the Lakeshore GO line have been enduring months of construction and upgrades to the tracks and platforms.

In my case, Clarkson has seen the addition of an extra track (now 3 tracks) and the installation of elevators on the platform.

Most people say that they can't wait for the improvements to be completed so that there will be more express trains and there is hope that off peak trains might run more than hourly.

This makes sense. More trains during the rush hours and more frequent off peak trains will surely motivate more people to take the train rather than drive.

There is only one small problem with this: They haven't added any more parking to the GO stations.

I have had the experience of taking off peak trains. When i used to drive to the station, I couldn't park once the morning crowd had arrived. Every day i see dozens of cars parked illegally at my station as every legal spot is filled. GO officers dutifully ticket those cars.

GO transit states that the lakeshore line carries an average of 80 people on off peak trains.....which is just slightly below the capacity of 1200 per train.

I wonder how many more people would eschew the drive into the city in favour of the near empty GO trains if only they could find parking?

Tiger Woods

2010-04-17T21:38:00.000-04:00

The entire world knows that Tiger Woods had a sex scandal. Many people who've never watched golf and wouldn't know which end of a 9 iron to use when putting off the tee know all about Eldrick Woods's marriage.

He has earned close to a billion dollars in endorsements by pushing his image as the best golfer in the world with a stunning wife, beautiful children and multi-racial background. He has invented his own ethnic designation by calling himself "Cablinasian" which incorporates his caucausian, black, indian and asian backgrounds.

In short, Tiger Woods sold his image to the core.

In the aftermath of the scandal, he entered a treatment program and then held a press conference where he apologized to those he had disappointed but asked for privacy and that his family be left alone.

Then the day before he returns to play at the Masters (the most prestigious golf tournament in the world), we see this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FjYMwPirrI

A new ad by Nike with Tiger staring blankly into the camera while the voice of his late father asks "what have you learned."

I'm not sure what his father thinks of this voice over. Obviously its impractical to ask him.

Here is some advice for Tiger: If you want to guard your family's privacy, stop using them for publicity stunts like this. Shut up and play golf, that's what you are good at and if that is all you did, then people would leave you alone.

Graham James

2010-04-04T19:05:00.001-04:00

The pardon system in Canada is something of an unknown to me. Frankly i probably know more about the American system of Presidential pardons than i do about the Canadian system.

Today's news that convicted pedophile Graham James was pardoned three years ago is illuminating.

According to the Canadian Press

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ex-coach-graham-james-pardoned-for-sex-abuse-that-rocked-nhl/article1522464/

the parole board "does not generally take into account the nature of the crime"

This is surprising to say the least. Why doesn't the seriousness of a crime matter when seeking a pardon?

Apparently the 2006-7 year saw 14,581 applications for pardon. (7672 were for lesser offences and the other 7076 were for indictable offences) of which only 103 were declined. Even assuming that all of the denied applications were for serious offences, this implies a 98.5% success rate amongst those seeking a pardon.

The mind boggles. Sheldon Kennedy and Theo Fleury are two of Graham James's victims. They need to live with their pain for the rest of their lives.

How is it that the criminal who betrayed their trust, and abused his position of authority to sexually abuse them as kids, is able to effectively clean his record of these crimes? How is it that convicted criminals can have such a high success rate at obtaining a whitewash of their records?

It is bad enough that he was sentenced to only 3 and a half years for his crimes. That he is now walking free with a pardon behind him is offensive to the core. What am i missing here?

Closing the barn door after the SUV is gone

2010-04-02T23:21:00.000-04:00

The American love affair with big cars is well known. Less well known is the fact that SUV's (with their appalling mileage) were not subject to the same emission standards and mileage regulations as other passenger vehicles because they were classified as trucks.

So now the Obama administration has finally ended this absurdity....as of 2016!!! As of that model year SUV's will be subject to much more stringent regulations. The minimum mileage requirement of 29 MPG is three times that of the Hummer.

This move is a welcome change and is long overdue. However it is so long overdue that it is practically unnecessary. High oil prices have sent SUV sales figures plunging. People who drive these monstrous vehicles are met with dirty looks and open scorn. People aren't buying them anymore.

The point has been made that the government funded bailouts of GM and Chrysler gave them the leverage needed to force through these regulations. I wonder if it is lost on many that had these regulations been in place 10 years ago, GM might have been producing smaller cars sooner and may not have needed the bailouts when their profitable SUV divisions began bleeding red??

The SUV classification as light trucks survived the administration of a Texas oil President as well as that of a Bubba from Arkansas. A cynic might suggest that the Obama administration made this "courageous" decision at a time when the SUV voters are fewer than ever.

Don't get me wrong.....i'm glad the classification was changed. However any economic and environmental benefits have already largely been accrued by higher oil prices. This change will have minimal effect. The Feds have closed the barn door long after the horse is gone.

Ann Coulter

2010-03-25T17:13:00.000-04:00

I find many of Ann Coulter's writings offensive. Despite my Conservative leanings I don't like many of the things that she says. She is a little too "way out there." I find Michael Moore offensive for similar reasons. I think that they are flip sides of the same coin in that most Conservatives and Liberals will agree that both of these individuals are offensive and play fast and loose with the truth too often.

That being said, the cancellation of Ann Coulter's speech at the U of Ottawa has inspired editorials denouncing the intimidation tactics used against her. She has received more publicity than her hostile rantings deserve. The milquetoast Globe and Mail wrote a strongly worded opinion piece in support of her right to speak.

Usually i cringe at her writings. Have a look at her latest post titled "O'Canada":

http://www.anncoulter.com/

I cringed at this one because i agreed with so much of what she said (for a change).

She gained more notoriety and a greater platform for her views. That is the ultimate result of the University of Ottawa's attempts to silence her. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Chris Chelios

2010-03-11T00:11:00.000-05:00

Any fan of hockey knows who Chris Chelios is. I was still in my teens when he broke into the NHL in 1984. I thought he was a dirty player who took a lot of cheap shots.

Flyer fans will never forgive him for his hit on Brian Propp that knocked him out with a concussion. He was not an easy player to like and i most certainly did not like him. He always played on teams i cheered against and his style of play was infuriating to the opposition.

However today, he is an inspiration to me. After being cut by the Detroit Red Wings in the off season, he could not land another NHL job. He did what any true hockey player would do......he found a team where he could play.

It was a minor league team but that didn't matter. Chris Chelios would rather do anything than not play hockey.

Today he was called up by the Atlanta Thrashers and will play in the NHL once again......this time at age 48!!

That Chris Chelios is still good enough to play with kids less than half his age in the most competitive hockey league in the world is inspiring. I don't think he'll last long enough to break Gordie Howe's record age of 52.....but i won't bet the farm that he won't make it.

The Honourable Rahim Jaffer

2010-03-10T00:19:00.000-05:00

Rahim Jaffer was first elected to the House of Commons as a 25 year old Reform party member. He was considered a rising star by a Reform party eager to appeal to minority constitutents.

Mr Jaffer was different than most Reform/Canadian Alliance/Conservative MP's. He was an immigrant, dark skinned and muslim. It was good that a person of such a background could feel comfortable in those parties. It would have been better if he had been more of a grownup.....but that may be a bit much to ask of a 25 year old.

He is no longer a Member of Parliament, having been voted out in 2008. However he is very much in the news due to his arrest and subsequent events. He was charged with speeding, exceeding the blood alcohol limit and cocaine possession. The plea bargain resulted in a $500 dollar fine along with a guilty plea of careless driving. The other charges were dropped.

The presiding judge acknowledged in his comments that Mr Jaffer had caught a "break".

As a private citizen, Mr Jaffer's obligations are different. He doesn't need to speak publicly about what happened. Nonetheless, some Canadians have some understandable questions.

1) Did he receive special treatment as a former Parliamentarion? It was a provincial judge appointed by Ontario's Attorney General Jim Flaherty. Mr Flaherty is now Finance Minister.
2) What happened to the cocaine possession charge. Why was this dropped?

Mr Jaffer may not have to answer publicly but the people are understandably concerned. If the cocaine possession evidence was suppressed due to police misconduct, then there is a public interest in knowing.

Some members of the Ontario Government should be speaking up now. This does smell and looks like a privileged person getting special treatment. It would be in the pubic interest to disabuse the public of such an impression......if indeed the facts support that view.

Bailout Folly

2010-03-01T06:29:00.000-05:00

The runaway freight train of Government bailouts is nearing its logical conclusion. Unfortunately, it will climax before returning to a point of sanity.

Over the last couple of years we witnessed the spectacle of taxpayer funds being used to prop up car companies building cars that the consumer did not want to buy.....or certainly not in sufficient numbers to keep the automakers in the black.

Equally obscene was the bailout of banks who were seemingly incapable of managing money.

Isn't a bank supposed to be good at managing money above all else? Shouldn't the world's largest car company know how to build a car and make a profit at the same time?

The 'moral hazard' is coming home to roost in a most spectacular fashion as several entire countries are now on the verge of needing bailouts. In the European Union, the so called PIIGS (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, Spain) are said to be in dire straits and will soon need bailouts. Greece is in the worst shape and could default in a matter of weeks if they are not bailed out.

Now here is where the bailouts go from bad policy to downright offensive. Greece has a mandatory retirement age of 63. Any bailout of Greece would have to be spearheaded by Germany....mandatory retirement age of 67. The German people are rightly asking why they are being asked to work to 67 in order to finance retirement for Greeks beginning at age 63. The argument may oversimplify but is valid.

Some may have forgotten but the bailouts of the banks and GM/Chrysler have a similar problem. The average assembly line worker at GM earns more and has better health care coverage than the average American by a significant margin. Bank employees....nuff said.

So the question is this: If you are a single working mom earning something close to the national average, how do you feel about some of your taxes going to safeguard the jobs of bankers and autoworkers who earn a lot more than you? If that doesn't make you angry enough, then consider that since the bailouts were funded with deficit financing, so that your son/daughter will be paying for these bailouts in the future.

Miracle on Ice 2010

2010-02-28T01:46:00.000-05:00

At the start of the preliminary round men's hockey game between Team Canada and Team USA, a Canadian fan held up a sign invoking Al Michaels' famous call at the end of the USA-Russia game at Lake Placid in 1980.

He asked "Do you believe in miracles" as the team of collegiate American boys defeated the Big Red Machine.

The sign asked "Do you believe in miracles". Just below, it answered itself with a "NO".

For me Olympic hockey has lost much of its lustre since watching that famous upset at Lake Placid. Canada won gold at Salt Lake City and as a Canadian I was happy. However, there is something strangely uninspiring about the best team with the best players winning the tournament.

The USA defeated Canada in that round robin game 5-3. However that fan was still right. This was no miracle. A solid Team USA filled with NHL players beat a star studded Team Canada filled with ......NHL players. The Canadians were favoured but it was no shock and no disgrace to lose to this American team.

They will play again in the Gold Medal Game on Sunday. These are the two best teams playing for the Gold and one of them will lose to a worthy opponent. It will be no miracle either way.

For me the great sporting moment of these Olympics was captured by Joannie Rochette. As many already know, her mother died of a heart attack shortly after arriving in Vancouver to watch her daughter skate in the Olympics.

A very emotional Rochette skated on and was third after the short program. She burst into tears at the end of her program undoubtedly thinking of her mother. After the long program she did not move up but she skated well and captured the Bronze medal.

Joannie Rochette's bronze medal was the miracle on ice this time. Watching her family and friends bursting with tears of pride as she stood on the podium it was clear that the colour of the medal did not matter. In fact, I'm sure they would have been just as proud had she not won a medal at all.

A team of millionaire professional Canadian hockey players will win either a silver or gold on Sunday. Our nation will weep if they fail to win gold and thump our collective chests if should succeed.

In a sporting sense, none of that will matter more than Joannie Rochette who reminded us that it's not whether you win or lose......it's how you play the game. She won simply by playing on.

Bravo Joannie!!!

Voodoo Economics

2010-02-02T00:24:00.000-05:00

During the Republican primaries leading up to the election of 1980, Ronald Reagan's economic plan was famously called "Voodoo economics" by his chief rival George H.W. Bush.

One of the central tenets of Reagan's plan was that tax cuts would raise the deficit in the short term but the resulting economic boom would eliminate the deficit as the economy outgrew the deficit. It worked.....well kinda. Economic growth was substantial but the deficit persisted. What Reagan hadn't counted on was the boom in spending on entitlements. The growth in entitlements was such a factor that the President who authored one of the biggest tax cuts in history ended up signing one of the biggest tax hikes in history to ensure that Social Security remained solvent.

Fast forward 30 years and President Obama has proposed a budget that totals 3.6 trillion dollars in spending. This outflow of dollars exceeds the money coming in by a staggering 1.6 trillion dollars. Putting this into terms that one can relate to, imagine a family with $50,000 in take home pay spending $90,000 per year.

Obama's budget proposal claims to cut the deficit from 11% of GDP to 4% of GDP in 4 years. This is largely based upon rosy projections for economic growth. In fact, economic growth accounts for 6 of the 7% that the deficit is forecast to decline. Note however that his own projections show the deficits climbing ever higher towards the end of his second term as baby boomers retire and start drawing Social Security.

Such deficits are not only unsustainable, they are immoral. Deficits represent a legacy of debt being passed onto our children and grandchildren. We are impoverishing future generations in order to safeguard our standard of living.

So what should be done? First off, do away with rosy economic projections. Assume a recession or two. Why are politicians always surprised that recessions come along? Second make some hard choices on taxes and spending. Raise taxes across the board. Raise the age at which one qualifies for Social Security. (The age of 65 for eligibility was introduced when the average lifespan was 67 years. Now that the average lifespan is pushing 80, upping the retirement age is warranted.)

A balanced budget amendment should be introduced. It could have some flexibility built in so that some stimulus can be introduced at times, however it should be a condition that stimulus spending can only come from past surpluses. In other words, the government should put away for a rainy day. I would ask proponents of the idea that governments should spend during recessions and run surpluses in boom times why we can't reverse the order. Governments should first save money and then spend it during a recession. When that money runs out, so should the stimulus.

These are very simple common sense ideas. They are not likely to see the light of day in Washington or Ottawa.

Canada's Fiscal Deficit

2010-01-31T00:23:00.000-05:00

Canada stands alone amongst G7 nations as the only nation that did not bail out its banks during the recent financial crisis. It was not because our banks did not get hurt by the Sub-Prime meltdown. Several billion dollars in charges were taken by our banks and indirect effects hurt them as well. However they were strong enough to withstand the storm without going cap in hand to the taxpayers. Canadians should be proud.

Canada also went into the recent downturn with a history of budget surpluses. Many proponents of Keynesian economics favour deficit spending during recessions coupled with surpluses during periods of growth. Canada is the only member of the G7 to have practiced this. The other nations all had deficits during the growth years.

Now that we are past the worst of the recession (according to some), it is time to ask how we dig ourselves out of this deficit so that we can start paying down our national debt before the next crisis hits.

Obviously stimulus spending will end. However that is not enough. The current government has cut the GST twice since taking office to 5%. This was always a triumph of politics over sound policy.

There are only two ways to get the deficit back into surplus. 1) Cut spending massively 2) Raise taxes.

Spending will simply not be cut enough to make this happen. Taxes must go up. The question then is what taxes should go up.

On this point there is simply no debate as a matter of policy. The GST is a consumption tax that is applied fairly and evenly. It does not create disincentives to work and is most efficient in administration....especially since so many provinces have harmonized.

If the Tories want to show that they are reliable stewards of the nation's finances, they will bite the political bullet and raise the GST back to 7%. It's the right thing to do. Somehow i am doubtful that this will happen.

No We Can't

2010-01-28T13:13:00.001-05:00

It is remarkable how far Barack Obama's star has fallen. One year ago he had a favourable rating of 70%. Democrats, Republicans and Independents were hopeful that he did represent a change.

One year on Democratic leaning newspapers are struggling to conceal their disappointment over a year of relative inaction. Some are openly critical. The Toronto Star wrote that his administration is starting to get the air of a single term to it.

In the wake of the Massachusetts special election which reduced the Democratic majority in the Senate to 59-41, Obama urged his party not to "run for the hills." This is astounding. Losing a filibuster proof majority was simply losing a power that eluded every administration since early in the Carter administration.

Astounding as it was, he needed to say that. The loss of Massachusetts means that every Democratic seat across the nation is in play. California Democrats (who are used to being re-elected with token opposition) are planning to spend aggressively. In past election cycles, Democrats did not need to use resources in California. Bill Clinton in 96 and Al Gore in 2000 did not spend a single dollar in the state of California. They didn't have to. Millions spend to ensure the safety of Senator Boxer will not be spent on more marginal and vulnerable seats such as Majority Leader Harry Reid's seat in Nevada.

Faced with this changed landscape, Obama did what he does best.....he gave a speech. Sadly that is no longer enough. He has been in office for a full year and has little, save a Nobel Peace Prize, to show for his time in office. If Obama is as smart as they say, then he will pivot quickly as Bill Clinton did after the elections of 94 lead to the rise of Newt Gingrich.

Obama needs to move to the middle. America is not a Liberal country. He is out of step with his nation.

Legal Mumbo Jumbo - Update

2010-01-21T07:16:00.001-05:00

On December 14th i wrote of the English case of Munir Hussain who, along with his brother, chased down and beat a home invader with a cricket bat leaving the criminal brain damaged. He and his brother were convicted and sentenced to jail terms.

The Lord Chief Justice has suspended the sentence of Mr Hussain and reduced the sentence of his brother. He noted that he rarely sees defendants in such cases of the high standing that these two men had. He ruled that mercy was justified.

It is just that Mr Hussain should not serve time in jail. He and his family had been through a terrifying ordeal in which they were tied up and their lives threatened. It is offensive that Mr Hussain is deemed worthy of 'mercy' for it should never have even been at issue.

The subjective concept of what is "reasonable" is littered throughout Common Law yet is never adequately defined. What would a "reasonable" person do after being tied up along with his wife and children and having their lives threatened? Is it "reasonable" to expect him to assess what is "reasonable" under the law in the minutes after the sanctity of his home was violated and the lives of his family threatened?

There is a proposal to change the legal standard so that people like Mr Hussain are only charged if their actions are "grossly disproportionate." This is a sensible move since the judicial system seems to have a warped view of that which is reasonable and will engage in prosecutions that bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Bush Redux

2010-01-20T04:50:00.001-05:00

President Barack Obama is beginning to show a pattern of repeating the mistakes of his two least favourite Presidents of recent years. His silence as he vacationed away after the attempted terror attack on Christmas day evoked memories of George H.W. Bush fishing at Kennebunkport as the nation prepared for war. He has gone on to adopt George W Bush's successful surge strategy in an attempt to pacify Afghanistan.

Perhaps his biggest mistake (and also biggest copy cat move) was to declare that he had a sweeping mandate for change in the wake of an election victory. After his 2004 reelection victory, George W Bush declared that he had "political capital" which he was going to use. Friendly majorities in both Houses of Congress would pass Social Security reform enabling Americans to divert part of their Social Security contributions into privately managed accounts that could invest in the never ending stock market boom. (that is even funnier/sadder when you thing about it now)

After the elections of 2004, pundits talked about how Karl Rove had fashioned a "Permanent Republican Majority." After the elections of 2008, pundits talked about the dispirited and disorganized Republican party which was a spent force and had lost its relevance.

Politics can be fickle because at its base it is all about people. The American people had not changed all that much from 2004 to 2008. By and large, it was the folks who put Bush into office who put Obama into office. They hadn't changed who they were, they just changed their minds and reserved the right to change their minds again.

President Obama has now campaigned for his party's candidates in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts. He is 0-3 in elections where his party had held the seat and only Virginia could be said to lean Republican. The people are pulling him back towards the centre.

Obama and the Democrats should take heed of the message that is being sent. At this point they insist that they will get slaughtered at the mid term elections if they do not pass health care reform in some form or other. This might be true if Americans didn't have a health care system to begin with. However, the idea that "anything is better than nothing", in a political sense, is just dead wrong. The desperation with which the Dems will jettison any part of the Health Care reform package (ie. universality, public option, abortion, etc) is really rubbing people (including Liberals) the wrong way. It appears unprincipled and desperate. The Democratic leadership seems to be saying that they'll win the mid term elections as long as they pass something that can be called Health Care reform.

Democrats have already started breaking ranks. Senator Jim Webb of Virginia has already called on the Senate leadership to stop all Senate votes on Health Care until Scott Brown is seated. As many as 11 House Democrats are said to be ready to vote against the Senate version of the bill. That is enough to defeat the bill.

The Democrats should not wait until after November to hear the voice of the people. If they do so, there will be fewer Democrats in Congress for whom it matters. They should go back to the drawing board and adopt an incremental approach to health care reform. If they can fashion a bill that increases coverage, reduces cost and red tape and improves health care overall, they will draw Republican support.

The Republicans are not allergic to Health Care reform. During the Clinton administration's attempts to reform the system, The late Senator John Chafee sponsored a reform bill that many Liberals marvelled at for its constructive approach. Very Liberal Senator Jay Rockefeller was especially effusive in his praise.

The people of Massachusetts have restored Checks and Balances in the short term. This is a good thing.

The Race Card already!!!!

2010-01-14T17:35:00.000-05:00

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/haiti/article/750785--underlying-racism-infects-crisis-response-study?bn=1

Professor Saucier states that racism explains the reactions of many people to disasters such as Haiti and Katrina. His study found that those with higher racist scores were less sympathetic to the predominantly African American victims of Katrina. He further predicts that the reaction to the earthquake in Haiti might be an unwillingness to help....a "blind eye" if you will.

I don't think that I needed a University study to figure out that someone with racist attitudes might not have much sympathy for the plight of my relatives in North Korea. I wouldn't expect much empathy for the victims of Katrina from a KKK sympathizer. This is the sort of study that should be met with a collective "Duh"!!!!

Besides which it is not racist to naturally feel more empathy with those who you feel more kinship with. I do think more about the suffering in North Korea than in Kashmir. That being said it is a mark of a civilized society with empathy for his fellow man that we will not simply concern ourselves with tribal loyalties only.

Thus far, the reaction of the world to the disaster in Haiti has been admirable. It is a race against time during which the first 72 hours are crucial. World leaders have dispatched supplies and troops to assist in distributing aid in a rapid fashion.

Professor Saucier should hold his second guessing for a while at least. Making such allegations as ships and planes race to save lives in Haiti is unseemly.

Prorogue Parliament and the Senate while we're at it!

2010-01-10T13:42:00.000-05:00

Critics of Prime Minister Harper's move to prorogue Parliament (again) miss the much larger point which is the dysfunctionality of our Parliamentary system.

It is a system where a minority government can effectively govern like a majority due to opinion polls that scare two of the three leaders of the opposition. It is often said that the only polls that matter are those on election day....that is not true in our system where a governing party will dissolve Parliament when the polls are favourable and where opposition parties will decline to bring down a government that does not enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons when the polls because the polls say that the opposition would lose.

Our House of Commons doesn't need to be a "House" as the vast majority of members are irrelevant. The math is very simple....if Harper wants to do something, all it takes is one of the three opposition leaders fearing an election to let Harper have his way. We saw the irrelevance of the backbencher a year ago when the three leaders of the opposition decided to get together and anoint one of them (Stephane Dion) the Prime Minister. This was unpopular with Canadians (who had decisively rejected that option). This was unpopular with Liberal members who were preparing to dump their leader. This was unpopular with Bloc members who could not forgive Dion's taunting letters on Separatism. This was unpopular with New Democrat MPs as well. After Parliament was prorogued, the united opposition fell apart and Harper was safe....now Jack Layton and Michael Ignatieff take turns propping up the Tories for fear of an election.

Harper did not win a majority the last time around. The concept of the "confidence of the house" is the problem. Why does losing a government sponsored vote mean that a new election must be held? If Health Care reform fails to pass Congress, should Obama resign the Presidency and a new election held? Or perhaps if Obama thought that the polls are favourable now, he will orchestrate a failure of a bill to trigger an election and give himself a fresh 4 year mandate. Sound ridiculous? That is exactly what Chretien did and what Harper did and what Mulroney did, etc,etc.

However silly this all sounds, it pales in comparison to the absurdity of our Senate. During this prorogue, Harper will appoint Senators (as is his right under our current system) and will give the Tories the majority in the Senate. So the Senate will swing from a Liberal majority to a Conservative majority. Neither of these parties has managed with win a majority from the Canadian people since the election of 2000.

William F Buckley once said that Canada was saddled with the most feeble Conservative party in the English speaking world. How sad that we now have the most feeble Liberal party in the English speaking world.

Our democracy is weaker for it however the people don't really seem to care. Perhaps that is the real problem.

Barrack Herbert Walker Obama

2010-01-01T03:16:00.000-05:00

Those with short memories will not recall the thrashing that George H.W. Bush took in the media for vacationing in Kennebunkeport during the Gulf crisis in 1990.

While troops were massing to liberate Kuwait, the Commander in Chief was seen on the nightly news casting a fishing line at his family's property in Maine. Many parents of servicemen about to risk their lives in a faraway land were mightily annoyed at the scenes of relaxation.

In truth I think that the criticism was unfair. A President ALWAYS has important matters to deal with and should still be able to take a vacation. In fact, I think that the nation and the world would be better served with a President who wasn't couped up in Washington at times like that.

However, in the 24 hour news cycle that exists in the world today, perceptions matter. Bush was damaged politically by that impression and wise political heads took care not to repeat that mistake.

In the wake of the recent attempted bombing of Northwest Airlines, it is worth asking if Obama has any experienced political advisors on his roster. It did not create a good image to continue his vacation in Hawaii while his Homeland Security Director declared that "the system had worked." In truth, only a failure of the detonation prevented tragedy......the system did everything possible to allow this terrorist to do his work.

It seems that the system had worked in so far as identifying the individual and placing him on a watch list. When the terrorist father (a prominent economist) raised the alarm to the US Embassy, the information was passed along to the CIA However the various agencies did nothing with that information and he eluded screening systems to smuggle the explosives on board. The system did everything except its one overriding goal which is to prevent terror attacks.

This happened on Obama's watch. It was his Homeland Security director who declared that all was fine with the system. The agencies that failed did so on his watch.

Quite apart from the merits of the screening systems, it is important for Americans to have faith in their government to protect them. That faith was shaken partly based on merit and partly based on the incredibly dumb ways in which the aftermath was handled.

Preventing terrorism should not be a political issue....neither Dems nor Republicans favour terrorists. However Obama is President and he must exude more competence than he has on this matter. The public is not being unreasonable to expect their President to appear to be handling this seriously from the start.

History Denied

2009-12-29T15:54:00.001-05:00

At one point both the New Orleans Saints and Indianapolis Colts were at 13-0 this season. Sports reporters breathlessly reported on the "historic" season each team was on the verge of. They wrote about the possibility of two undefeated teams meeting in the Super Bowl with perfection on the line and assured whatever the result.

Alas, those sports writers will have to find weightier matters to write about (perhaps Tiger Woods's latest travails) as both teams lost a game. In fact New Orleans has lost two. As both teams get ready for the playoffs and focus on their real goal of winning a Super Bowl (nothing historic there it happens every year) they may in fact suffer more losses.

I recall that after Mickey Mantle had a liver transplant, the hospital held a press conference attended by many sports journalists. After a question inquiring about the health status of the liver donor, a doctor replied "you're a sports journalist aren't you?"

CNN sent me a "Breaking News Alert" after each of these teams lost their first game. Perspective has truly been lost in a historic way.

Happy Holidays to the Goldman Family of Tinton, NJ

2009-12-25T02:11:00.000-05:00

This holiday season will be especially sweet for Sean Goldman and his father David Goldman.

In 2004, four year old Sean Goldman was taken to Rio by his Brazilian born mother and kept there against the wishes of his father David Goldman. She informed him that she wanted a divorce and would be remaining in Brazil.

Thus began a 5 year ordeal for the Goldmans which only ended when the Brazilian Supreme Court ordered Sean returned to his father. Sadly Sean's mother died during childbirth in 2008 but his stepfather and his Brazilian family insisted on fighting to keep him there.

This case shows a shocking lack of respect for the rule of law and international treaties. Let's be clear about what happened here. This was a case of parental abduction full stop. His mother should have been charged with a felony. Brazil, as a signatory to the Hague convention, should have immediately had the police at her door to have Sean sent back to the United States until his custody was resolved.,

The fact that it took so long (even after the death of his mother) is something that i find absolutely chilling. What is the point of the Hague convention when it is so blatantly ignored for 5 years? The fact that the Brazilian Supreme Court ruled correctly does not mitigate the outrage, it aggravates it because it confirms what was known in 2004.....Sean Goldman should not have been removed from his father in this manner.

There will undoubtedly be trauma yet to come for young Sean as he gets to know the father that he has not grown up with for most of his young life. He will have to adjust to a new language, culture, school system and make new friends.

It is shocking that the Brazilian court system would allow this to happen in such a clear cut case. It is also shocking that his family in Brazil insisted that the handover not happen in private and insisted on doing it before a media circus. One can't help but wonder if the system would be even slower to act if his mother hadn't died so tragically.

Putting a child through this absurd process is abuse. I'm sorry but i can't come up with a kinder word to describe what has happened here. His family in Brazil, along with the cooperation of several levels of the Brazilian judiciary committed abuse. They may not be guilty of a crime in a strict legal sense, however there is no question that they are guilty of a moral crime.

A final chilling thought: how many other cases like this are out there without the sunlight of publicity moving things in the right direction??

Obama's Copenhagen and Health Care legacies

2009-12-23T01:14:00.000-05:00

The Obama administration was widely creditted with saving the Copenhagen talks with a last minute pledge to raise USD 100 billion in funds for climate change aid for developing countries.

If indeed this action "saved" the accord, it is worth asking what exactly it was that got saved. The accord is not legally binding. This accord sets no targets and will be reviewed in 6 years. In short, it was an agreement to agree at some future point in time. The more alarmist views (which is also increasingly the consensus view) is that the world will have already reached the tipping point in 6 years if it has not done so already.

Perhaps it is most telling that in describing this agreement to agree, President Obama hailed the agreement as being "meaningful." Truly meaningful agreements do not need to be described as such.

A similar story is being played out in the Health care debate now progressing through Congress. In an effort to placate Conservative Democrats and ram a bill through by Christmas, the Democrats have allowed two Senators (Lieberman and Nelson) to impose their own terms and conditions on the bill. It is truly stunning to note that during the Democratic primaries of 2008, there was much discussion about a Canadian style single payer system. The single payer system died early and in its place was a milder "public option." The public option was jettisoned later on. The dems have made it clear that only option that would not be considered is not passing a bill. This of course strengthened the hands of Senators Lieberman and Nelson.

This kind of "agree at any cost" approach is unworthy of a great nation and will prove harmful in the long run.

One wonders where this approach might lead if applied to other areas of policy disagreements. When will President Obama stand up and say "no deal."???

Tragedy

2009-12-17T12:17:00.000-05:00

The front page of the New York Times is reporting on the death of Chris Henry.

Chris Henry is a wide receiver for the Cincinnatti Bengals of the National Football League. News reports indicate that he had jumped into the back of a pickup truck being driven by his fiance after a domestic argument. He was trying to get into the front of the truck when he fell off and suffered his fatal injuries.

Weighty issues are being discussed on the networks such as "how will his teammates be able to carry on and prepare for this weekend's match with the San Diego Chargers."

So one might ask why exactly his death is being described as tragic by so many people and merits space on the front page of the New York Times? Well he is famous of course. Actually i'd never heard of him and i actually follow the NFL.

Apparently he had a troubled life including several brushes with the law. Maybe he was a good person who had a troubled history. Maybe not....who knows?

The only thing i know for sure is that his death is not rendered more tragic because of his fame.......despite the news coverage indicating otherwise.

Legal Mumbo Jumbo

2009-12-14T14:36:00.000-05:00

In a recent case in england, a man was jailed for 30 months after he and his brother chased down some knife wielding criminals who had invaded their home and assaulted his family members. One of his sons escaped to sound the alarm and an uncle arrived to help chase down the thugs. One of the home invaders was beaten with a cricket bat and left brain damaged.

This case (and the case of Toronto grocer David Chen) raise the issue of how far one can go in protecting one's private property and family.

In both cases, legal scholars make arguments as the Judge in the england case made in his ruling:

"“It may be that some members of the public, or media commentators, will assert that the man Salem deserved what happened to him at the hands of you and the two others involved, and that you should not have been prosecuted and need not be punished," said the judge.

“However, if persons were permitted to take the law into their own hands and inflict their own instant and violent punishment on an apprehended offender rather than letting justice take its course, then the rule of law and our system of criminal justice, which are the hallmarks of a civilised society, would collapse.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6956044.ece

Indeed this judge would have us believe that the actions of this man would cause anarchy if left unpunished. Why innocent people might resort to assaulting home invading criminals with shocking regularity.

This type of reasoning shows that too many legal scholars live in ivory towers separated from the real world. In the real world, the police are far too slow in their reactions to do anything but collect evidence after the fact. In the real world, there are significant deterrents to an outbreak of vigilantism.....such as fear and the fact that it is usually the criminals who are armed.

This is the kind of paper based reasoning that sees the wolves and the deer as equal under the law and subject to the same rights and limitations. If a mother deer were to trample a wolf to defend her offspring, these judges would be calling for the shooting of that deer lest it lead to an outbreak of wolficide at the hands of these awful deer who did not know where "reasonable force" ends and "assault" begins.

If you know anyone who has walked down a street worried about being assaulted by a rogue shopkeeper or homeowner, then you should probably question the company that you keep. If however you have ever worried about walking down a street worried about being assaulted by a criminal on the street, then you live in the real world.

One wonders where these judges live.

Why Politicians Lose the Respect of the People

2009-12-08T16:12:00.000-05:00

Following is the text of comments made by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid about Republican opposition to the Obama Health Care bill:

"Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all Republicans have come up with is this: Slow down, stop everything, let's start over. You think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right. In this country, there were those who dug in their heels and said, Slow down, it's too early. Let's wait, things aren't bad enough about slavery. When women want to vote, slow down, there will be a better day to do that. The day isn't quite right. This body was on the verge of guaranteeing civil rights to everyone, regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today. History is repeating itself before our eyes. There are now those who don't think it is the right time to reform health care. If not now, when?"

Senator Reid's outrageous comments sound like the desperate flailings of a man on the losing side of a debate. Comparing the Health Care Reform bill to the struggles for Abolition, Women's Suffrage and Civil Rights trivializes those important historical achievements and diminishes the credibility of his own effort.

It might be worth pointing out that the first Republican President was also known as the Great Emancipator. It might be worth noting that the civil rights struggle saw a Democratic party that fractured with southern segregationists splitting with the party while Republicans registered African American voters. It might be worth pointing these things out if Senator Reid's comments were worthy of rebuttal, but they are really not.

It is small wonder that he is trailing in his campaign for re-election this year.

Populist Foolishness

2009-12-07T13:02:00.000-05:00

Companies that have received government bailouts have become the favourite whipping posts of politicians. The auto companies and major banks have been subject to restrictions on executive compensation to widespread cheers from the proletariet masses.

These moves appeal to the common folk who are angry that taxpayer funds were needed to prevent these private companies from going under and creating havoc. However such measures were always wrong on the merits.

In recent days it has come to light that companies such as Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) have suffered the loss of over 1,000 top producers due to restrictions on compensation. They have opted to leave for companies that did not take government bailouts and hence were not subject to restrictions on pay. General Motors fired Rick Wagoner and now have fired Fritz Henderson. What quality CEO will they find when they are subject to pay restrictions? Lee Iacocca was headhunted into Chrysler in the late 70's and turned that company around (also with government loan guarantees which were repaid early and in full). Would such a top executive take the helm of GM or Citibank when he knows that his pay could be multiples higher if he/she chose to work at another company?

Citibank is in negotiations to pay back TARP money so that they will not be subject to restrictions on compensation. Citibank has been the subject of poaching raids by other financial institutions who target their top talent with bonuses that a TARP restricted firm cannot pay.

Lost in all of the class warfare inspired outrage is an important point: the individuals that lost so much money and endangered their firms were all fired. The comp restrictions are targetting people who made money without taking such silly risks.

Lost also is the fact that the government bailouts were largely in the form of a purchase of a part of the company by the government. RBS is 80% owned by the British government and Citi is 30% owned by the US Treasury. They will recoup their taxpayer funded investments most effectively by keeping top producers on the payroll...not by driving them away!

Perhaps the most singularly stupid move comes from Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling who is preparing to introduce a bonus tax on bankers. Perhaps Mr Darling is not aware but Britain is not a particularly big place. The money that is earned by British banks and used to pay bonuses aren't necessarily British sourced money. The introduction of such a tax will prompt banks to flee Canary Wharf and set up shop in other countries where they can do the same business. In short, it will result in less money for British coffers and fewer jobs in Britain.

Some have even raised the possibility of a human rights complaint to the ECHR as it is unprecedented for a tax to be levied on a particular profession only. However there is an election coming up in Britain so i don't expect such stupidity to fall by the wayside. British citizens will comfort themselves in the knowledge that a banker earning 2 million pounds a year will pay more taxes than a soccer player earning 10 million pounds.

Apologies for the rambling nature of this post but I feel that i am still more coherent than the poorly thought out policies being made by elected officials.

President Nero has Stopped Fiddling.....or has he?

2009-12-07T00:21:00.000-05:00

President Obama finally announced his decision on Afghanistan after 3 months (1 year?) of dithering.

His plan calls for an Iraq style surge of 30,000 troops who will begin withdrawing in July of 2011. This apparent setting of a deadline drew a furious response from people like John McCain that announcing a disengagement in advance would embolden the Taliban and give them a tactical advantage. Of course it should be noted that John McCain is an acknowledged and widely respected expert on military matters.....quite unlike President Obama.

Chastened aides have gone out to the airwaves to say that July of 2011 is only a target and a withdrawal would depend upon "progress" and "stability" in Afghanistan. Still missing from their vocabulary are words like "victory" and "win." No doubt a decision on a withdrawal would be drawn out anyways.

The Taliban (and the world) should be told that the surge will last until the Taliban are defeated. This is the quickest route to an early withdrawal and anyone who has learned the lessons of history would know that.

Ivan the Terrible Redux

2009-12-02T00:32:00.001-05:00

John Demjanjuk's legal saga has been in the news for nearly 30 years.

It was in 1981 that Israel first sought extradition of the man who was later accused of being "Ivan the Terrible."

US authorities stripped him of his citizenship on the basis that he had lied on his citizenship application in the 50's and deported him to Israel. He was found guilty and sentenced to death in 1988.

In 1993, the Israeli Supreme Court overturned his conviction based upon evidence in the form of written statements of former camp guards who identified another man as being Ivan the terrible. The authors of these written statements were executed by the Soviets in a post war purge. The Israeli Supreme Court decision drew a clear line of distinction for Israel as the sole multi party democracy in the Middle East that also has the maturity as a nation to acquit an accused Holocaust participant.

It would not have been an easy day for the Simon Weisenthal Center and Holocaust survivors but it was the right decision. The conviction of Nazi War criminals is too important a matter to be supported by flimsy evidence.

So what has happened to Demjanjuk since?

He was returned to the United States where his citizenship was restored but then extradited to Germany where is now being tried for being a guard at the Sobibor concentration camp.

The evidence that is available would seem to indicate that he was indeed, at least, a junior member of the SS. (He was only 20 years old when his native Ukraine was invaded by Germany and 24 by the end of the war and so a junior role is plausible.) That being said the trial should not be continued.

There is no Statute of Limitations for a number of crimes and crimes against humanity are certainly amongst them. That being said it is worth remembering why such statutes exist in the first place. Memories fade, witnesses die and physical evidence degrades. This applies to both incriminating and exculpatory evidence.

The Nazis reign of terror ended 64 years ago. Even a new conscript at the end of the war would be in his 80's. Trials of Nazi War criminals were important, and cathartic, events for a world reeling from the horrors of the Holocaust. They have now outlived their usefulness in that regard. War Crimes trials are trivialized once they move on from prosecuting the brain trust to the pawns.

The Simon Weisenthals of the world should know that they did important and valuable work. However they should now realize that a combination of their success and the passing of time has completed their work.

To continue on at this point risks undoing some of the good work that has been done by recording some unjust convictions and that should not part of their legacy.

Cash for Good Spending Ideas

2009-11-27T13:23:00.001-05:00

The "Cash for Clunkers" program gave Americans generous rebates for trading in their old cars for newer and more efficient cars. Hot on its heels is a new program that will give rebate incentives for Americans to replace their old appliances.

The idea behind these programs is to bring forward major household purchases from some future point in time (presumably when the car/applicance needs replacing) to the present (when the car/appliance is working fine.) The goal is to stimulate the economy by incentivizing consumers to replace the car/dishwasher when they would not do so otherwise....hence creating jobs in building those appliances/cars.

These programs are wrapped in a veneer of environmentalism by replacing an older (presumably less energy efficient model) with a shiny new model that is more energy efficient. However I haven't seen any studies being quoted to suggest that replacing large vehicles/appliances before their time has any useful net environmental benefit. (It may well be that the carbon emissions during the production phase of the newer appliances will outstrip the benefits of lower future energy use.)

It makes sense that no environmental studies are being quoted because the point of these programs isn't the environment. The point is to stimulate demand and jobs. There is no question that increased demand will create jobs in the short term. The dearth of future demand as the market gets sated early might well cost more jobs....but hey maybe then the recession will be over anyways.

It is truly bizarre that the federal government is now subsidizing the purchase of cars, dishwashers, refrigerators and dryers. So widespread is this stimulus spending that one wonders if anyone is spending any of their own money to buy things? So what will happen when the trillion dollar deficits being used to fund these programs create a national debt that future generations have to pay for??

Would you be happy knowing that you bought a new dryer that your grandchildren will still be paying for into their middle age? If not then i suppose you could comfort yourself by knowing that buying a new energy efficient dryer that will save energy for the next 20 years will help to ensure that the planet is saved for future generations.

Of course that only holds true if you don't replace that 5 year old dryer and 5 yr old car when the next recession (and stimulus package) hits in 5 years.....or less!

Is President Nero Done Fiddling?

2009-11-25T15:36:00.000-05:00

Indications in the news media are that President Obama will soon announce a surge of some 30,000 troops to "finish the job" in Afghanistan. This falls short of the 40,000 troops that his General McChrystal has asked for.

Anonymous aides are saying that President Nero will be stressing a hawkish commitment to finish the job as well as communicating the message that the commitment is not open ended.

President Obama is the Commander in Chief and the US Military answers to the civilian authority. However he has no experience in military matters. His military experience falls short of the widely ridiculed service records of Dan Quayle and George W Bush. By failing to heed the advice of his commander on the ground, he risks providing insufficient resources to "get the job done."

More concerning is the fact that words like "victory" and "win" seem to be lacking in their dictionary.

A commitment to train up the local forces to take over from American troops as they make their exit is a formula that was tried in a prior conflict. That conflict was Vietnam. An open ended commitment to victory has also been tried in both World Wars.

He who forgets the lessons of history is doomed to repeat its mistakes. It is good that President Obama has put his fiddle away. It would have been better if he could have come to a sounder decision and done so sooner.

History Devalued

2009-11-23T12:35:00.000-05:00

Two years after the New England Patriots made "history" by going 16-0 in the regular season (before losing in the Super Bowl), the media hordes are beginning to note that "history" may be made again this season.

Currently the Indianapolis Colts and New Orleans Saints are both 10-0.

You may recall that Tom Brady led the Patriots to the first ever 16-0 season and that this was "historic" because the only other team to have a perfect season did so in a shorter 14 game season in 1972. It was also "historic" because the 16th game was of such interest that it was triple cast on three different networks. Indeed a wall certainly fell on that day.

So the next 6 weeks promises to be a momentous time in the "history" of mankind as one or both of Peyton Manning or Drew Brees leads their respective teams to a perfect 16-0 season. The Indianapolis Colts have actually won 19 straight regular season games but that is not as relevant to "history" as having a perfect season.

As the media publicity machine cranks up and we begin to lead the nightly news with biographical profiles of Peyton Manning (hey did you know that his brother Eli won a Super Bowl with the Giants as well and his dad Archie used to be a quarterback in the NFL too?????) and the less well known Drew Brees, ask yourself if anyone of this nonsense qualifies as anything more than mildly interesting to even sports fans.

There is a beauty to sport and many lessons on life. The lesson here is that media hyperbole will often distort a simple game into something that sounds far more important. Don't buy in. There is no David vs Goliath struggle here and no magical insights into mankind.

This is just a rush for ratings and sponsor dollars. I will read about it and maybe watch a game or two....but i certainly won't remember this any more than Tom Brady's "historic" season two years ago.....except with irritation.

The Ugly Game

2009-11-19T13:11:00.001-05:00

A few days ago i wrote about an inspiring moment that showed the best of sport. Today I must express my disappointment at what has happened to the most universal of sports....soccer. It is known as the beautiful game yet it is anything but.

Yesterday evening Ireland played France in the Stade de France with qualification for the World Cup on the line. It was the second leg of a two game aggregate score match. A tied aggregate score (after overtime) is decided on the basis of who scored the most goals as a visitor. If it is still tied, then it goes to penalty kicks.

There is no question that Ireland was a heavy underdog. France was a finalist in the last World Cup and had won the 'away' leg 1-0. Ireland is a nation of 3 million without the history of success on the world stage.

Yet the scrappy Irish team got the away goal and finished regulation up 1-0 levelling the score in aggregate at 1-1 and even on away goals. A tremendous upset was in the cards as they went to overtime.

In overtime, Thierry Henry used a handball manouevre worthy of a basketball player to set up the winning goal. The referee did not see what 80,000 spectators saw. After the game Henry admitted to the handball and the French press are besides themselves with embarrassment.

Any soccer match i have watched is marred by the spectacle of grown men who are supposed to be world class athletes falling over like they've been shot at the slightest brush. The swan dives and histrionics are embarrassing to watch. This pathetic lack of sportsmanship teaches all the wrong lessons to the children watching.

Irish eyes should still be smiling today. They have nothing to be ashamed of. The French.....if there is any justice, they will be eliminated early on the World Cup where they don't belong anyways.

European Union

2009-11-17T23:57:00.001-05:00

European integration has been moving along since the Treaty of Maastrict of 1993. There have been grandiose predictions of political integration into what would become a "United States of Europe."

Much like in the times of Jefferson and Washington, there is much debate about how much sovereignty will be retained by member states. Some member states such as Britain have opted to be part of the common market while retaining their own currency and monetary policy.

With the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon, the EU Presidency will no longer be held on a rotating basis by one of the member nations. Instead it will become a permanent office with fixed terms. There is talk of a European army that could function as a rapid deployment force with the EU President serving as the Commander in Chief.

Despite the self professed sophistication of European nations, they have gone about this in a most unsophisticated way. Tony Blair was considered a front runner to be the first EU President. Yet despite his interest and profile, it appears that Tony Blair will not be successful. He has failed to successfully lobby the member nations in the back rooms where the deal is done. Some small nations are said to insist that the President come from a smaller nation. Some of the larger nations simply do not want a Brit to lead the EU.

Hey I have an idea: maybe the Executive leader of 500 million people ought to be elected rather than selected through backroom deals??

While this may be a revolutionary idea on a continent where several 'sophisticated' countries continue to have hereditary monarchs as heads of state, it would seem to be an obvious choice.

The European Union is a dynamic economic entity where goods and labour move freely. It has helped to create prosperity throughout its member nations. However the record on non-commercial matters is shameful.

When the former Yugoslavia descended into chaos and genocide, the powerful nations of Europe did not act. Sadly this is a continuation of patterns established during the rise of the Third Reich. The great powers let tragedy unfold in their very own backyard (some would say that it is more apt to say that it happened in their living room.) As in the Great War and the Second World War, the killing did not stop until a duly elected President of the United States of America ordered his nation's military into action.

Europeans bemoan the fact that America often acts as the world's policeman yet the EU is richer and more populous than America. The United States of Europe could act as a democratic counterweight and/or partner to the United States of America and this would be good for the world.

But first they need to figure out how to create a strong and duly elected office of the President. They need not reinvent the wheel. They can just look across the pond to find an example......unless they are too sophisticated to do so.

Miracle on Ice

2009-11-17T00:27:00.000-05:00

While the major news networks have now marked the fall of the Berlin Wall 20 years ago, today I turn to another anniversary that is coming up. In Feb it will be 30 years since the "Miracle on Ice" at Lake Placid.

This was another Cold War era battle with all of the additional drama and symbolism. It was East vs West. The Winter Olympics were being held in Lake Placid, New York while the Summer Olympics were scheduled for Moscow later that year. (some may recall that both winter and summer versions of the Olympics were held in the same year until fairly recently). Jimmy Carter was considering a boycott of the Moscow Summer Games as a protest against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. He would later make good on his threat and the Soviet Bloc countries would dominate the medal podiums at the summer games.

Despite all of the Cold War rhetoric, the Miracle on Ice was something more important in the eyes of a child. It was the beauty of sport and a metaphor on life.

Russian hockey players did not play in the NHL as they do now. At the time, the best Russian players played for Central Red Army while the best North American players played in the NHL. The Olympics were open only to "amateurs" which the Russians were technically as they were paid to be soldiers not hockey players. The best North Americans were pros and therefore ineligible for the Olympics.

As you might expect, the Russian players were older, more talented and more experienced than the team of college players that made up the American team. It was a battle of men against boys. In a pre-Olympic exhibition game, the Big Red Machine demolished the American team 10-3. The Soviet Olympic team seemed to demolish all who stood in their way and they were prohibitive favourites to win the Gold.

Yet the scrappy American team under Coach Herb Brooks shocked the world by defeating the Soviet Union in the semi finals and then Finland to win the Gold. I still get chills when i see the replay of the moment when a bunch of hustling youngsters threw their sticks in the air as the buzzer went and the Russians went down to defeat.

The lessons learned were many:

Stand up to the bully in the playground.
You can make up for lack of talent with hard work and a never say die spirit.
Never ever listen to the naysayers and defeatists.
Miracles do happen.

Some of the players went on to have careers in the NHL. Ken Morrow followed up his Gold Medal by winning 4 Stanley Cups with the New York Islanders. However most of the roster did not go on to have hockey careers of note. Captain Mike Eruzione didn't do much. Goalie Jim Craig filled the stands for an Atlanta Flames home game before it became obvious he couldn't play in the NHL.

The majority of the players on that team went on to have ordinary careers and live ordinary lives. They couldn't play in the NHL because......well because they weren't that good. However for one shining moment in Feb of 1980, they stood as the best in the world. They did it with teamwork and hustle and provided a shining example of what is right in the world of sports.