Robocalls and Elections

I wasn't sure what to make of the robo-call controversy where Liberal votes were allegedly suppressed via robocalls that directed voters to the wrong polling stations.

The media were as quick as ever to jump in and fan the flames of controversy. We have heard that as many as 30 ridings were affected....however it should be noted that some newspapers asked their readers to report to them if they received robocalls during the last election.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1137496--did-you-get-a-mysterious-robo-call-during-last-year-s-federal-election

Such a request is sure to draw out complaints that have nothing to do with voter suppression so the report of 30,000 complaints being made to Elections Canada should be taken with a grain of salt until the facts come out.

At this point it appears that there is a smoking gun in only one riding. If it turns out that it was a campaign that was widespread enough to stain the election results....then the Prime Minister should dissolve Parliament and call an election. If however it turns out to have happened only in Guelph where the Liberals won in any case.....then the result should be criminal prosecution of those responsible.

A basic question for me is whether robo-calls can be banned entirely. Since they do deal with a political issue, such expressions do get a greater level of charter protection....however I don't think many people would view a computer dialed phone call with a recorded message as anything other than annoying.

If it passes Charter muster, I'd love to see robocalls banned entirely.

The Greek Bailout Part ????

The latest bailout of Greece by the European is likely to fail. The cuts to pensions and the minimum wages have caused the citizens to rise up in the worst rioting years.

The situation is ridiculous. Let's put this in perspective....Greece has agreed to not repay 53% of the money that they have borrowed from private lenders. In return, Greece will receive additional loans of 130 billion euros. Where can i get a deal like that?

The bailout cannot succeed without the cooperation of the Greek people. In order for the ship to be righted, the Greek people must go to work, earn money and (most importantly) pay their taxes. Without that tax revenue, these additional loans will go into default like before.

The politicians can all agree (as they mostly have) that Greece has no choice but to accept the terms of the bailout....but the citizens seem to disagree. Large numbers of the citizenry are not going to work....they are going on strike and protesting. Neither of these actions does anything other than reduce the tax base. Greek newspapers have published photos of German Chancellor Angela Merkel dressed up as a Nazi. This is beyond the pale....unless the Nazis made a habit of paying the credit card bills of nations that spent too much (if they did, history did not record this benevolence)...such caricatures trivialize the Third Reich.

You can only lead a horse to water. The Greek government has mismanaged their finances and the Greek people are blocking a resolution. This is the lay of the land. With this background, a messy default, exit from the Euro and a chaotic depression is the likely result. This is what the people have chosen and this is why the bailout is likely to fail.

Same Sex Marriage Foolishness

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'

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)

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

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)

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?

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

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

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.