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!
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Saturday, August 6, 2011
The Real Downgrading of America
Today Standard and Poors downgraded long term debt of the United States from the highest rating of AAA to AA+. The other two major agencies have not downgraded but have warned of the possibility.
This is the first time in history that US Federal government debt has had anything other than the top rating so many people haven't really ever considered this and are unsure of the consequences. Even financial experts aren't so sure.
Many products and pricing methods in Finance are built around the concept of what is known as the "risk free rate." This is useful for calculating things like the "Present Value" of future cash flows. (ie. the opportunity cost of not having money today that you could then invest at the 'risk free rate.') Nothing is ever truly risk free but having the highest possible credit rating is as good as you can get.
There is a knock on effect of a downgrade of US Sovereign debt. It is a principle that the Sovereign must always have the highest credit rating in the country. The idea behind this is very simple: A nobleman can't be AAA while the King is AA since the King can simply choose to tax the nobleman to pay his obligations. As a result, Apple Computer may have had more cash in their bank account than the US Treasury did for a time last week, but their credit rating still cannot be higher than the Treasury. This knock on effect may increase borrowing costs for many US companies down the line.
The Standard and Poors downgrade statement made a particular point of saying that a deficit reduction plan had to be 'credible' and that the dysfunctional way in which the Executive and Legislative branches are interacting was a factor. I don't think that anyone who followed the recent debate and brinksmanship around raising the debt ceiling could argue with these criticisms.
As a practical matter, this downgrade may not have any big immediate effects. There are three major ratings agencies and the others have not yet followed suit. (if the other dominoes fall, then the USA is on the same slippery slope as Greece)
The S&P doesn't have a mandate for social commentary but their statement still pointed us to the real historical downgrading of America: before Congress got dysfunctional, society became dysfunctional and voted that way.
The real problem is a downgrading of the values of shared sacrifice that once existed in America. Where people once dutifully stood in ration lines to support the effort to defeat the Axis powers, people now see shopping on credit as their patriotic duty. In a way, one can hardly blame them. President George W. Bush and Mayor Giuliani told them to do just that.
Every debate around the budget comes down to various interest groups basically saying one of two things:
My suggested plan will fix the deficit (unlike the current plans) and probably trigger a severe recession (just as the current plan will). Recessions are painful but they are inevitable. They are inevitable because sustained growth creates the conditions that lead to recession. (I don't want to write a textbook here so I won't go into that much more now.)
My suggested plan would not get a single vote in Congress. It offends every constituency and enforces shared sacrifice. Therefore, my plan is not aligned to the values of America right now. What a pity.
This is the first time in history that US Federal government debt has had anything other than the top rating so many people haven't really ever considered this and are unsure of the consequences. Even financial experts aren't so sure.
Many products and pricing methods in Finance are built around the concept of what is known as the "risk free rate." This is useful for calculating things like the "Present Value" of future cash flows. (ie. the opportunity cost of not having money today that you could then invest at the 'risk free rate.') Nothing is ever truly risk free but having the highest possible credit rating is as good as you can get.
There is a knock on effect of a downgrade of US Sovereign debt. It is a principle that the Sovereign must always have the highest credit rating in the country. The idea behind this is very simple: A nobleman can't be AAA while the King is AA since the King can simply choose to tax the nobleman to pay his obligations. As a result, Apple Computer may have had more cash in their bank account than the US Treasury did for a time last week, but their credit rating still cannot be higher than the Treasury. This knock on effect may increase borrowing costs for many US companies down the line.
The Standard and Poors downgrade statement made a particular point of saying that a deficit reduction plan had to be 'credible' and that the dysfunctional way in which the Executive and Legislative branches are interacting was a factor. I don't think that anyone who followed the recent debate and brinksmanship around raising the debt ceiling could argue with these criticisms.
As a practical matter, this downgrade may not have any big immediate effects. There are three major ratings agencies and the others have not yet followed suit. (if the other dominoes fall, then the USA is on the same slippery slope as Greece)
The S&P doesn't have a mandate for social commentary but their statement still pointed us to the real historical downgrading of America: before Congress got dysfunctional, society became dysfunctional and voted that way.
The real problem is a downgrading of the values of shared sacrifice that once existed in America. Where people once dutifully stood in ration lines to support the effort to defeat the Axis powers, people now see shopping on credit as their patriotic duty. In a way, one can hardly blame them. President George W. Bush and Mayor Giuliani told them to do just that.
Every debate around the budget comes down to various interest groups basically saying one of two things:
- Cut my taxes and raise taxes on these other people.
- Don't cut my benefits, cut someone else's.
Both Democrats and Republicans are equally guilty of this.
The 2011 Federal Budget contained spending of $3.8 trillion dollars and revenue (taxes) of $2.2 trillion leading to a deficit of $1.6 trillion. This means that for every one dollar collected in taxes, the government was spending one $1.72. That is an absolutely irresponsible level of spending.
Here is my suggestion for how America can fix this problem of values and get their AAA credit rating back:
- Raise taxes on the wealthy.
- Raise taxes on the not wealthy.
- Cut Democratic sacred cow social programs like Social Security, Welfare, Medicare and Unemployment Insurance.
- Cut Republican sacred cows like National Defence, Corporate welfare subsidies, Ethanol subsidies.
In short, taxes go up for EVERYONE and benefits are cut for EVERYONE. How can this be fair? It's fair because when $1.72 of spending exists for every $1.00 in taxes, the entire society is living beyond its means.
Those on the right will talk of how certain social programs cost too much. By and large, these programs benefit urban dwellers and minorities. They will ignore any talk of ethanol subsidies which benefit rural white farmers.
The left is equally guilty of playing class warfare politics of division. They will always say that taxes should go up for the "rich". This is a red herring because the rich already pay higher taxes and there simply aren't enough of them earning $250,000 + to fix this fiscal imbalance. This plays right into the attitude of "let someone else pay." Why shouldn't the middle class pay more? The only reason nobody says that is because the middle class is where most voters are.
My suggested plan will fix the deficit (unlike the current plans) and probably trigger a severe recession (just as the current plan will). Recessions are painful but they are inevitable. They are inevitable because sustained growth creates the conditions that lead to recession. (I don't want to write a textbook here so I won't go into that much more now.)
My suggested plan would not get a single vote in Congress. It offends every constituency and enforces shared sacrifice. Therefore, my plan is not aligned to the values of America right now. What a pity.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Pension Folly
An amazing argument is playing out across the public and private sectors across several nations.
This argument deals with defined benefit pension plans.
The problem is very simple to define and (in theory) just as easy to solve. Whether we are talking about Social Security, the Canada Pension Plan or various public or private sector pension plans the problem is the same. Current workers pay premiums that fund the benefits for retirees. The benefits are paid out without any real connection to what those workers paid into the plan in the first place.
As an example, one pension plan I am aware of pays out (for life) based on the following formula: 2% x the number of years of service x average of your salary in the final 3 years. If one lives a very long time, the retiree will receive much much more than was paid in.
This problem afflicts all such pension plans. Social Security (USA) sets payments to begin at the age of 65. At the time that the program came into inception (1935) the average lifespan of workers was 67. Today it is around 80 and increasing.
The aging of the population and reduced birth rates has lead to projections that the worker-retiree ratio (which was 10-1) will soon reach 2-1.
In short, the program is fundamentally flawed. It is simply not built to deal with negative demographic trends. In fact, it was always doomed to fail since the human population simply cannot keep growing forever...certainly not at the rates that it had been.
So why all the hue and cry when corporations or governments try to fix this obvious problem? It points to a cultural shift in values. Where such programs were once a sign that society takes care of each other, now it has become a game of hanging onto your spoils and damn the consequences for everyone else.
Personally, I don't want to saddle my children and grandchildren with debt to pay for my retirement. If we want to avoid the fate of nations like Greece, then we need to eliminate or at least radically reform the way cherished programs like CPP work. Otherwise we are just sweeping today's problems under the rug for our children to deal with.
If anyone wants my advice, I suggest saving enough for your retirement assuming that you will get bupkus from the Canada Pension Plan. It's the right thing to do and the safe thing to do....cuz that might be the case anyway.
This argument deals with defined benefit pension plans.
The problem is very simple to define and (in theory) just as easy to solve. Whether we are talking about Social Security, the Canada Pension Plan or various public or private sector pension plans the problem is the same. Current workers pay premiums that fund the benefits for retirees. The benefits are paid out without any real connection to what those workers paid into the plan in the first place.
As an example, one pension plan I am aware of pays out (for life) based on the following formula: 2% x the number of years of service x average of your salary in the final 3 years. If one lives a very long time, the retiree will receive much much more than was paid in.
This problem afflicts all such pension plans. Social Security (USA) sets payments to begin at the age of 65. At the time that the program came into inception (1935) the average lifespan of workers was 67. Today it is around 80 and increasing.
The aging of the population and reduced birth rates has lead to projections that the worker-retiree ratio (which was 10-1) will soon reach 2-1.
In short, the program is fundamentally flawed. It is simply not built to deal with negative demographic trends. In fact, it was always doomed to fail since the human population simply cannot keep growing forever...certainly not at the rates that it had been.
So why all the hue and cry when corporations or governments try to fix this obvious problem? It points to a cultural shift in values. Where such programs were once a sign that society takes care of each other, now it has become a game of hanging onto your spoils and damn the consequences for everyone else.
Personally, I don't want to saddle my children and grandchildren with debt to pay for my retirement. If we want to avoid the fate of nations like Greece, then we need to eliminate or at least radically reform the way cherished programs like CPP work. Otherwise we are just sweeping today's problems under the rug for our children to deal with.
If anyone wants my advice, I suggest saving enough for your retirement assuming that you will get bupkus from the Canada Pension Plan. It's the right thing to do and the safe thing to do....cuz that might be the case anyway.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Gay Marriage - everybody seems to be missing the point
Today i'm going to blog about the Gay Marriage debate currently roiling the United States. While the topic is certainly controversial, I don't think that my opinion will be.
The fundamental mistake in our marriage laws is not that they exclude same sex relationships. The fundamental mistake is that such laws exist at all.
Historically the rules of marriage were governed by a religious institution and codified into law. Now this didn't lead to much dissension when an overwhelmingly Catholic country codified the standards as defined by the Vatican. However in this age of multicultural societies with multiple faiths, this is no longer meaningful or appropriate.
Why should the laws of Canada reflect the standards of the Anglican Church and the Catholic Church? I'll give you an example....under the laws of Canada, marrying your first cousin is permitted. This is surprising to many. Marrying your first cousin is allowed by the Anglican Church and the Catholic Church. However, it is not allowed under Eastern Orthodox Christianity.
There is no reciprocity with religious organizations. While a marriage in a Catholic Church is recognized as legitimate under law, the same does not apply in reverse. As one who has been divorced, I could not marry a Catholic girl in Church because in the eyes of the Catholic Church, I am still married. Rather curious since I am not Catholic and my ex wife is Hindu.
Those who claim to oppose gay marriage ostensibly for the purpose of defending the traditional definition of marriage should be asked which "traditional" type of marriage they are defending. Is it a Catholic/Anglican definition of marriage? There are "traditional" marriages in other faiths such as Islam and the Church of Latter Day Saints which would be considered invalid under the laws of Canada and the United States.
Really the "threat" to a traditional view of marriage comes from attempting to codify it.
Here is a really radical idea: Government should get out of the business of defining marriage. It's really not the place of Government to take one religion's standards and make them apply to all. A religious "Marriage" should be defined by the controlling religious authority. ie the Vatican can decide for Catholics and an Ayatollah can define marriage for Shiite Muslims.
I've attended communions in Catholic churches. Communions are not defined in law but it doesn't seem to make it any less meaningful to those who are receiving communion and their families.
As to the economic aspect of marriage such as rights of survivorship for property, pension etc, any two (or more) legally competent individuals should be able to sign a contract pooling their resources and agreeing on how to divide up assets upon dissolution of the contract.
Recently elderly sisters applied to the European Commission on Human Rights claiming that they were being discriminated against since they did not have rights of survivorship while a lesbian couple would. They lost the case but the pointed out an obvious flaw to same sex marriage as currently applied. Why is their sisterly relationship less valid than a same sex partnership?
In fact, if any two people should decide to live together in a platonic relationship, should their relationship not get the same recognition simply because they aren't having sex with each other?
My pension is something that I have earned by contributing. My employer's contribution is a form of compensation. I should be able to designate anyone I want to be a beneficiary....regardless of whether the beneficiary is a wife, husband, partner or friend.
Really I'm saying that it's a silly debate. Government should only do what only government can do. In this case, the Government should simply repeal marriage laws and replace them with a law allowing competent adults to enter an economic relationship if they wish, without passing judgment based on the rather bizarre issue of whether they are in a relationship where they are having sex with each other or not.
The fundamental mistake in our marriage laws is not that they exclude same sex relationships. The fundamental mistake is that such laws exist at all.
Historically the rules of marriage were governed by a religious institution and codified into law. Now this didn't lead to much dissension when an overwhelmingly Catholic country codified the standards as defined by the Vatican. However in this age of multicultural societies with multiple faiths, this is no longer meaningful or appropriate.
Why should the laws of Canada reflect the standards of the Anglican Church and the Catholic Church? I'll give you an example....under the laws of Canada, marrying your first cousin is permitted. This is surprising to many. Marrying your first cousin is allowed by the Anglican Church and the Catholic Church. However, it is not allowed under Eastern Orthodox Christianity.
There is no reciprocity with religious organizations. While a marriage in a Catholic Church is recognized as legitimate under law, the same does not apply in reverse. As one who has been divorced, I could not marry a Catholic girl in Church because in the eyes of the Catholic Church, I am still married. Rather curious since I am not Catholic and my ex wife is Hindu.
Those who claim to oppose gay marriage ostensibly for the purpose of defending the traditional definition of marriage should be asked which "traditional" type of marriage they are defending. Is it a Catholic/Anglican definition of marriage? There are "traditional" marriages in other faiths such as Islam and the Church of Latter Day Saints which would be considered invalid under the laws of Canada and the United States.
Really the "threat" to a traditional view of marriage comes from attempting to codify it.
Here is a really radical idea: Government should get out of the business of defining marriage. It's really not the place of Government to take one religion's standards and make them apply to all. A religious "Marriage" should be defined by the controlling religious authority. ie the Vatican can decide for Catholics and an Ayatollah can define marriage for Shiite Muslims.
I've attended communions in Catholic churches. Communions are not defined in law but it doesn't seem to make it any less meaningful to those who are receiving communion and their families.
As to the economic aspect of marriage such as rights of survivorship for property, pension etc, any two (or more) legally competent individuals should be able to sign a contract pooling their resources and agreeing on how to divide up assets upon dissolution of the contract.
Recently elderly sisters applied to the European Commission on Human Rights claiming that they were being discriminated against since they did not have rights of survivorship while a lesbian couple would. They lost the case but the pointed out an obvious flaw to same sex marriage as currently applied. Why is their sisterly relationship less valid than a same sex partnership?
In fact, if any two people should decide to live together in a platonic relationship, should their relationship not get the same recognition simply because they aren't having sex with each other?
My pension is something that I have earned by contributing. My employer's contribution is a form of compensation. I should be able to designate anyone I want to be a beneficiary....regardless of whether the beneficiary is a wife, husband, partner or friend.
Really I'm saying that it's a silly debate. Government should only do what only government can do. In this case, the Government should simply repeal marriage laws and replace them with a law allowing competent adults to enter an economic relationship if they wish, without passing judgment based on the rather bizarre issue of whether they are in a relationship where they are having sex with each other or not.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Brian Burke, Sports and Sports Writers
I often blog about sports. Other than my angry rants about politics, sports is my favourite topic. I've written about the importance of sport in my life from childhood til the present day. Playing and following different sports are very good avenues for learning many of life's lessons: the value of teamwork, sportsmanship, the value of preparation and hard work. However we sometimes forget that sport is important, in large part, because it is so very unimportant.
When I watch the Toronto Maple Leafs play my favourite sport of hockey, I know that it's not the end of the world if they should lose (Thank Goodness!!!). When the US Olympic team of collegiate players beat the mighty Russians at Lake Placid, it was called the "Miracle on Ice." But it was no miracle really. There were two teams on the ice and one of them had to lose. Yes Team USA were a bunch of collegians and the Russians were pros...it wasn't exactly Lazarus rising from the dead four days later!
With that in mind, I found it very jarring to read a column by Steve Simmons about a Canada Day visit to Afghanistan by Toronto Maple Leafs General Manager Brian Burke.
http://www.torontosun.com/2011/07/01/burke-off-to-afghanistan
Steve Simmons takes issue with Brian Burke accepting an invitation to visit our troops serving in Afghanistan on Canada day. He seems to think it a dereliction of duty on Mr Burke's part to be available by phone on the first day that free agents can be signed. He says that the "optics for Leafs fans are terrible." He calls this putting "his own self interests ahead of those of the team."
Many strong comments have been made on the Toronto Sun website in response to Simmons' column. They are almost uniformly disgusted by what he wrote. I took heart from the response by readers. They were able to see the value and importance of what Burke did and were not swayed by the amazingly short sighted view expressed by Simmons.
Brian Burke has been in the news for real life matters before. His openly gay son was tragically killed in a car accident and he has been a regular marcher in Toronto's Pride Parade. When you saw this cranky, gruff speaking old Irishman speaking of the loss of his son, I couldn't help but think of how I would feel in his position. This was real life and made me think of real life matters. What if my son grew up and told me he was gay? Well I can say without the slightest hesitation that I wouldn't love him any less. Why would I?
I can also admit that there once was a time in my life where I would have been far less tolerant in my outlook. We all (hopefully) grow and mature and learn to see things for their real importance. Sports were a part of that maturation process for me.
I hope everyone playing pro sports realizes that they are extremely privileged to be getting paid to play a game for kids. I hope that most sports writers feel lucky to be getting paid to do what many guys do at a bar during Hockey Night in Canada....which is express their alcohol fueled opinions about various players.
Brian Burke obviously knows what is really important and what is not. Steve Simmons hasn't a clue. I feel sorry for Simmons to be living in such an insular world where free agent signings for a hockey team are more important than our troops risking life and limb in Kandahar.
Recently we saw the city of Vancouver get a black eye when some citizens didn't realize how unimportant the Stanley Cup really is. They took to the streets and rioted when their team didn't win. How pathetic. It was just a game after all.
So it is with Steve Simmons. He has embarrassed himself and his newspaper with his pathetic attempt to be serious, and in the process, showed that he should never be taken seriously. It is certainly not a crime to be stupid......thank goodness for Steve Simmons.
BTW, Brian Burke is American. When was the last time an American expressed his gratitude to the Canadian troops holding down the most dangerous part of Afghanistan? Ah who cares? The Leafs just signed Clarke MacArthur to a two year contract.
When I watch the Toronto Maple Leafs play my favourite sport of hockey, I know that it's not the end of the world if they should lose (Thank Goodness!!!). When the US Olympic team of collegiate players beat the mighty Russians at Lake Placid, it was called the "Miracle on Ice." But it was no miracle really. There were two teams on the ice and one of them had to lose. Yes Team USA were a bunch of collegians and the Russians were pros...it wasn't exactly Lazarus rising from the dead four days later!
With that in mind, I found it very jarring to read a column by Steve Simmons about a Canada Day visit to Afghanistan by Toronto Maple Leafs General Manager Brian Burke.
http://www.torontosun.com/2011/07/01/burke-off-to-afghanistan
Steve Simmons takes issue with Brian Burke accepting an invitation to visit our troops serving in Afghanistan on Canada day. He seems to think it a dereliction of duty on Mr Burke's part to be available by phone on the first day that free agents can be signed. He says that the "optics for Leafs fans are terrible." He calls this putting "his own self interests ahead of those of the team."
Many strong comments have been made on the Toronto Sun website in response to Simmons' column. They are almost uniformly disgusted by what he wrote. I took heart from the response by readers. They were able to see the value and importance of what Burke did and were not swayed by the amazingly short sighted view expressed by Simmons.
Brian Burke has been in the news for real life matters before. His openly gay son was tragically killed in a car accident and he has been a regular marcher in Toronto's Pride Parade. When you saw this cranky, gruff speaking old Irishman speaking of the loss of his son, I couldn't help but think of how I would feel in his position. This was real life and made me think of real life matters. What if my son grew up and told me he was gay? Well I can say without the slightest hesitation that I wouldn't love him any less. Why would I?
I can also admit that there once was a time in my life where I would have been far less tolerant in my outlook. We all (hopefully) grow and mature and learn to see things for their real importance. Sports were a part of that maturation process for me.
I hope everyone playing pro sports realizes that they are extremely privileged to be getting paid to play a game for kids. I hope that most sports writers feel lucky to be getting paid to do what many guys do at a bar during Hockey Night in Canada....which is express their alcohol fueled opinions about various players.
Brian Burke obviously knows what is really important and what is not. Steve Simmons hasn't a clue. I feel sorry for Simmons to be living in such an insular world where free agent signings for a hockey team are more important than our troops risking life and limb in Kandahar.
Recently we saw the city of Vancouver get a black eye when some citizens didn't realize how unimportant the Stanley Cup really is. They took to the streets and rioted when their team didn't win. How pathetic. It was just a game after all.
So it is with Steve Simmons. He has embarrassed himself and his newspaper with his pathetic attempt to be serious, and in the process, showed that he should never be taken seriously. It is certainly not a crime to be stupid......thank goodness for Steve Simmons.
BTW, Brian Burke is American. When was the last time an American expressed his gratitude to the Canadian troops holding down the most dangerous part of Afghanistan? Ah who cares? The Leafs just signed Clarke MacArthur to a two year contract.
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Royal Visit to Canada
The newspapers have given lots of coverage to the visit to Canada of William and Kate (aka, the Duke and Duchess of York).
The Toronto star has posted pictures of the three days they have been here so far.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1018492--william-and-kate-buoy-spirits-of-sick-visit-children-and-couples-at-rideau-hall?bn=1
So far they have attended a cooking workshop in Montreal.....this should prove very useful since the Royal Family is well known to cook their own meals?
They also attended a ceremonial tree planting at Rideau Hall. Prince William is shown holding a shovel.....how apt!!!
Another photo shows them visiting veterans and war brides. This one really got my dander up!! Will and Kate should have felt honoured to be in the company of people who have led such meaningful lives.
Why is Quebec Premier Jean Charest taking time to visit with the Royal Nothings? I could ask the same of Prime Minister Harper. The Governor General I can understand since he doesn't really have a job to do.
Why are our tax dollars being spent on such pathetic meaningless tributes to people who have really done nothing much in life to be worthy of such acclaim. George Will once wrote of Paris Hilton that her's "is the purest form of celebrity, unsullied by accomplishment, she is famous for being famous."
Our Royal Family is one notch lower than Paris Hilton in my books. At least she made a movie that was watched by many.
The Toronto star has posted pictures of the three days they have been here so far.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1018492--william-and-kate-buoy-spirits-of-sick-visit-children-and-couples-at-rideau-hall?bn=1
So far they have attended a cooking workshop in Montreal.....this should prove very useful since the Royal Family is well known to cook their own meals?
They also attended a ceremonial tree planting at Rideau Hall. Prince William is shown holding a shovel.....how apt!!!
Another photo shows them visiting veterans and war brides. This one really got my dander up!! Will and Kate should have felt honoured to be in the company of people who have led such meaningful lives.
Why is Quebec Premier Jean Charest taking time to visit with the Royal Nothings? I could ask the same of Prime Minister Harper. The Governor General I can understand since he doesn't really have a job to do.
Why are our tax dollars being spent on such pathetic meaningless tributes to people who have really done nothing much in life to be worthy of such acclaim. George Will once wrote of Paris Hilton that her's "is the purest form of celebrity, unsullied by accomplishment, she is famous for being famous."
Our Royal Family is one notch lower than Paris Hilton in my books. At least she made a movie that was watched by many.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Mission Accomplished Redux?
In May of 2003, George W Bush landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln in a flight suit and gave a speech to announce the end of "major combat operations" in Iraq. Behind him hung a banner that proclaimed "Mission Accomplished."
For years Bush was ripped in the media for this stunt and it was warranted. The mission was not close to being accomplished and major combat operations continued for years.
Today we see his successor announcing the partial withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan because "the tide of war is receding." If he is right that the tide of war is "receding" then he is wrong to be withdrawing troops now.
Did American troops leave Europe after the Battle of the Bulge? (the Nazis never mounted another offensive) Perhaps Truman should have withdrawn from Korea when American forces approached the Yalu river? (the North Korean army was in tatters and on the run) Maybe after Guadalcanal, the Admiral Nimitz should have directed the Pacific fleet back to port since the tide was war receding. (Japan was no threat to advance at that point)
If in fact Obama is right that the tide of war is receding (kinda sounds like "mission accomplished" cross dressing as something else) then this is the time to intensify efforts to really put the foot down on Al Quada's (and the Taliban's) throat. If he is right then this is the time to march for victory. However I don't think he is right. Most experts on the region do not view Afghanistan in isolation. They view the problem in terms of Afghanistan-Pakistan. For years Americans have been frustrated by the safe havens the Taliban now has in Pakistan. They complain constantly about the duplicitous actions of the Pakistani Secret Service (ISI) who have been known to inform targets before the Americans strike. It was for this very reason that the hit on Bin Laden was kept from Pakistani officials until it was under way.
The problem has not changed materially with the death of Bin Laden. Afghanistan is still governed by the unpredictable and unreliable Hamid Karzai. Pakistan's ISI is still a rogue element beyond the reach of both civilian and military control. Perhaps US troops in Kabul are no answer to the problem of Pakistan, however a weakening of the US presence will surely embolden the Taliban to reach across the border to their former safe havens.
By withdrawing troops prematurely, Obama risks turning Afghanistan into his "mission accomplished" issue. It is probably no coincidence that the former Community Organizer Obama seems likely to make the same mistake as the veteran of the Texas Air National Guard. Neither of them had seen war and neither of them have studied war's implications and strategies. George H.W. Bush declared an end to combat operations after 100 hours of the ground war during the first Gulf war. His mission was accomplished. But then he had seen war up close. He was a decorated veteran of WWII. He possessed a wisdom that has been lacking in all of his successors thus far.
For years Bush was ripped in the media for this stunt and it was warranted. The mission was not close to being accomplished and major combat operations continued for years.
Today we see his successor announcing the partial withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan because "the tide of war is receding." If he is right that the tide of war is "receding" then he is wrong to be withdrawing troops now.
Did American troops leave Europe after the Battle of the Bulge? (the Nazis never mounted another offensive) Perhaps Truman should have withdrawn from Korea when American forces approached the Yalu river? (the North Korean army was in tatters and on the run) Maybe after Guadalcanal, the Admiral Nimitz should have directed the Pacific fleet back to port since the tide was war receding. (Japan was no threat to advance at that point)
If in fact Obama is right that the tide of war is receding (kinda sounds like "mission accomplished" cross dressing as something else) then this is the time to intensify efforts to really put the foot down on Al Quada's (and the Taliban's) throat. If he is right then this is the time to march for victory. However I don't think he is right. Most experts on the region do not view Afghanistan in isolation. They view the problem in terms of Afghanistan-Pakistan. For years Americans have been frustrated by the safe havens the Taliban now has in Pakistan. They complain constantly about the duplicitous actions of the Pakistani Secret Service (ISI) who have been known to inform targets before the Americans strike. It was for this very reason that the hit on Bin Laden was kept from Pakistani officials until it was under way.
The problem has not changed materially with the death of Bin Laden. Afghanistan is still governed by the unpredictable and unreliable Hamid Karzai. Pakistan's ISI is still a rogue element beyond the reach of both civilian and military control. Perhaps US troops in Kabul are no answer to the problem of Pakistan, however a weakening of the US presence will surely embolden the Taliban to reach across the border to their former safe havens.
By withdrawing troops prematurely, Obama risks turning Afghanistan into his "mission accomplished" issue. It is probably no coincidence that the former Community Organizer Obama seems likely to make the same mistake as the veteran of the Texas Air National Guard. Neither of them had seen war and neither of them have studied war's implications and strategies. George H.W. Bush declared an end to combat operations after 100 hours of the ground war during the first Gulf war. His mission was accomplished. But then he had seen war up close. He was a decorated veteran of WWII. He possessed a wisdom that has been lacking in all of his successors thus far.
Friday, June 10, 2011
Miami Heat
Playing sports as a kid gave me many lessons on life to remember. Memories of joy and hurt, accomplishment and failure, friendships and rivalries......all to be cherished now.
Remember what it was like when everyone stood in a group and the two captains picked their teams one at a time until there was nobody (except you) left in the group? I've never forgotten how it felt being the last guy picked. The humiliation, the embarrassment of sticking out like a sore thumb. Of course somebody HAD to be the last one picked....who cares? I didn't like it one bit!!
Similarly remember when the two best kids wanted to play together and insisted on it? Usually they were the two biggest kids so what could you do? That kinda sucked too. One team was always stacked and it usually wasn't my team.
Being the last one picked as well as being on the team getting pummelled wasn't fun.....oh wait no it was!! I'd rather be picked last than not play the game. I'd rather lose badly than not play the game.
It is rare but not unheard of, for an underdog to win. (just think of the Miracle on Ice at the Lake Placid Olympics). Watching David struggle with Goliath was always inspiring even when Goliath slays David....cuz there is always next time.
I am not a big basketball fan. I like to play but not so much to watch. I prefer college over the NBA anytime. However, even a casual fan had to take notice when Lebron James and Chris Bosh left their teams as free agents to join up with their buddy Dewayne Wade to create a stacked team in Miami. Lebron famously declared that he is going to take his "talents to South Beach." Multiple NBA Championships were predicted and promised.
So now the Miami Heat found themselves down 3-2 to the Dallas Mavericks in the Championship finals. I am pulling for Dallas. Dallas has never won the league and had a soft reputation. This "soft" team battled back twice to defeat Miami in games 3 and 4. Dallas has one marquee player to Miami's three. They do not walk with a swagger.....why would they? They haven't done anything to swagger about.
More than anything else, I want Dallas to win to slap the stacked team in Miami. I want Dallas to win because they don't swagger. I want Dallas to win because nobody expected them to win. I want Lebron to take his talent to the golf course for the summer.
That being said, if Miami does win, that's ok. Another one of life's lessons learned through sport is that life isn't always fair.
Go Mavs!!!
Sunday, May 29, 2011
"Conservatives"???
I am a Conservative minded voter and as such I was happy to see the endless minority Parliament come to an end with a Tory majority.
It is now time for the Right Honourable Stephen Harper to produce a Conservative budget. During the minority years, I suppose it was understandable that the Conservatives produced budgets that were not dissimilar to what a Liberal or NDP administration would have produced....after all, they didn't have a majority and couldn't really govern like they did.
The Harper Conservatives strayed from Conservative principles with boneheaded moves like cutting the GST. People may not remember but the GST was originally supposed to be 9% (replacing the 13.5% Manufacturers Sales Tax). It was a sound policy to bring in the GST as the MST served as a tariff on our own exports. It was cut to 7% to make it more politically palatable despite the lack of merit behind such a move.
The Harper team cut the rate to 5%. This was unnecessary and harmful to Canada's fiscal position. It should go back to 7%...at least! Further cuts in income taxes should wait as well. Canada is in very good fiscal position only when compared with other G8 nations who are all basket cases. Canada should lead the way in eliminating the deficit and aggressively paying down the debt...which is an immoral tax upon future generations.
The Hudak team provokes similar concerns. Income tax cuts are a great idea......if we weren't running a 15 billion dollar deficit. Tax cuts should wait, spending cuts should not.
Hudak is playing politics with energy prices and I don't like it at all. Utility bills are going up because the cost of energy is going up around the world. The Green Energy Act may have its flaws but it should not be scrapped entirely. In fact, Ontario (and Canada) will become much more energy efficient if prices stay high.
Harper and Hudak talk a good game about fiscal responsibility. As Conservatives they know exactly what the right things to say are. One hopes that they actually put some of that fiscal responsibility into action.
If they do not, then they risk being labelled Tax and Spend Conservatives....and they will lose the votes of conservatives across the country. Look south for an example. This is what happened to George W Bush conservatives as they looked at the fiscal wreckage he had left.
It is now time for the Right Honourable Stephen Harper to produce a Conservative budget. During the minority years, I suppose it was understandable that the Conservatives produced budgets that were not dissimilar to what a Liberal or NDP administration would have produced....after all, they didn't have a majority and couldn't really govern like they did.
The Harper Conservatives strayed from Conservative principles with boneheaded moves like cutting the GST. People may not remember but the GST was originally supposed to be 9% (replacing the 13.5% Manufacturers Sales Tax). It was a sound policy to bring in the GST as the MST served as a tariff on our own exports. It was cut to 7% to make it more politically palatable despite the lack of merit behind such a move.
The Harper team cut the rate to 5%. This was unnecessary and harmful to Canada's fiscal position. It should go back to 7%...at least! Further cuts in income taxes should wait as well. Canada is in very good fiscal position only when compared with other G8 nations who are all basket cases. Canada should lead the way in eliminating the deficit and aggressively paying down the debt...which is an immoral tax upon future generations.
The Hudak team provokes similar concerns. Income tax cuts are a great idea......if we weren't running a 15 billion dollar deficit. Tax cuts should wait, spending cuts should not.
Hudak is playing politics with energy prices and I don't like it at all. Utility bills are going up because the cost of energy is going up around the world. The Green Energy Act may have its flaws but it should not be scrapped entirely. In fact, Ontario (and Canada) will become much more energy efficient if prices stay high.
Harper and Hudak talk a good game about fiscal responsibility. As Conservatives they know exactly what the right things to say are. One hopes that they actually put some of that fiscal responsibility into action.
If they do not, then they risk being labelled Tax and Spend Conservatives....and they will lose the votes of conservatives across the country. Look south for an example. This is what happened to George W Bush conservatives as they looked at the fiscal wreckage he had left.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Canada's Team - the Canucks
I haven't blogged about hockey in a while, strange considering it is my favourite sport.
I've never really been into cheering for the last Canadian team left in the playoffs. For one thing, the Islanders were always my team. For another, practically every team in the NHL has a roster that is filled with Canadians. In fact, it's probable that some American based teams have more Canadians on the roster than some Canadian based teams.
That being said, I am changing pace this year. I will be cheering for the Vancouver Canucks as Canada's sole remaining entry in the Stanley Cup Playoffs.
When one thinks of iconic Canadian teams, of course names like Les Canadiens and the Maple Leafs jump out. How can they not with names so, well so Canadian!! The Canucks were the 3rd Canadian based NHL team (in the modern era) and they have not won a Cup in their 40 year existence. (for the Leaf fans, that is 3 years less than Toronto's drought). However they went to the finals twice losing to my Islanders in 82 and to the Rangers in 94.
When the Canucks entered the league in 1970, they did more than make another obviously Canadian name appear on the scene. It was much more than that. The Canucks hockey team arrived just before the daring "Crazy Canucks" downhill ski team arrived. The Canucks were the first Canadian NHL team to exist west of Yonge Street, Toronto in the modern era. The Leafs had always been the team of English Canada while the Habs were the team of French Canada. Upper and Lower Canada now had to share the stage with a Western team.
Other teams have come and gone but none were so ostensibly Canadian as the Leafs, Canadiens and the Canucks. Names matter:
Edmonton Oilers - so named cuz Alberta has a lot of oil. A rather sad name.
Winnipeg Jets - the former WHA team actually became famous for the Europeans they had on the roster.
Quebec Nordiques - really? Quebec City is populated by people of Nordic heritage? Came as a surprise to me!
Ottawa Senators - the team named after our unelected Senators actually sport a picture of a Roman Centurion on their jerseys. D'oh!!
Calgary Flames - this one annoys me the most. The Atlanta Flames were so named because General Sherman burned down Atlanta at the end of the American Civil War. So when the team moved to Calgary, they became the Calgary Flames???
The Canucks are led by the Sedin twins who are Swedish. They were drafted by their then General Manager who was an American named Brian Burke. Brian Burke now runs the Toronto Maple Leafs.
Still it has been 17 years since a Canadian team held a Stanley Cup victory parade. That is too long.
Go Canucks!!!
I've never really been into cheering for the last Canadian team left in the playoffs. For one thing, the Islanders were always my team. For another, practically every team in the NHL has a roster that is filled with Canadians. In fact, it's probable that some American based teams have more Canadians on the roster than some Canadian based teams.
That being said, I am changing pace this year. I will be cheering for the Vancouver Canucks as Canada's sole remaining entry in the Stanley Cup Playoffs.
When one thinks of iconic Canadian teams, of course names like Les Canadiens and the Maple Leafs jump out. How can they not with names so, well so Canadian!! The Canucks were the 3rd Canadian based NHL team (in the modern era) and they have not won a Cup in their 40 year existence. (for the Leaf fans, that is 3 years less than Toronto's drought). However they went to the finals twice losing to my Islanders in 82 and to the Rangers in 94.
When the Canucks entered the league in 1970, they did more than make another obviously Canadian name appear on the scene. It was much more than that. The Canucks hockey team arrived just before the daring "Crazy Canucks" downhill ski team arrived. The Canucks were the first Canadian NHL team to exist west of Yonge Street, Toronto in the modern era. The Leafs had always been the team of English Canada while the Habs were the team of French Canada. Upper and Lower Canada now had to share the stage with a Western team.
Other teams have come and gone but none were so ostensibly Canadian as the Leafs, Canadiens and the Canucks. Names matter:
Edmonton Oilers - so named cuz Alberta has a lot of oil. A rather sad name.
Winnipeg Jets - the former WHA team actually became famous for the Europeans they had on the roster.
Quebec Nordiques - really? Quebec City is populated by people of Nordic heritage? Came as a surprise to me!
Ottawa Senators - the team named after our unelected Senators actually sport a picture of a Roman Centurion on their jerseys. D'oh!!
Calgary Flames - this one annoys me the most. The Atlanta Flames were so named because General Sherman burned down Atlanta at the end of the American Civil War. So when the team moved to Calgary, they became the Calgary Flames???
The Canucks are led by the Sedin twins who are Swedish. They were drafted by their then General Manager who was an American named Brian Burke. Brian Burke now runs the Toronto Maple Leafs.
Still it has been 17 years since a Canadian team held a Stanley Cup victory parade. That is too long.
Go Canucks!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
