Who Should I Vote For in 2015?

I must be the worst blogger in the history of the internet. I realize this is my first post in eight months. However, since no one is really reading my blog, I suppose it doesn't matter. Vicious cycle.

Canada faces a federal election this October (or sooner). Through a recent change in the election process, there is a fixed date for federal elections. In the past, of course, the election was called by the sitting government at a date more or less of their choosing, and it had to fall within the mandate period following the previous election. With the new system, the federal government can still call an early election if they think it is to their advantage (or technically they would be forced to if there was a vote of non-confidence in the House of Commons - though that is virtually impossible in a majority government situation). So, this year's federal election will be held on October 15th.

The Conservative Party of Canada earned their first majority government in 2011. This happened despite their earning only 39.6% of the votes. This 39% earned them 166 seats out of a total of 308, giving them the necessary 155 or greater to form a majority government. I am biased - I am not a conservative voter, despite my conservative fiscal leanings - but I think it is fair to say that a majority of Canadians are not represented by the current government. Roughly 60% of voters did not vote for the party that won, and of course there are many citizens who also did not vote. Many of them (minors, for example) are unable to vote. Such is the nature of parliamentary democracy. Once a party has majority rule, they can pretty much do whatever they want. Issues still need to be debated and voted on in the House of Commons, but since a bill passes with a majority vote, so long as the ruling party whips the vote they can ensure the passage of whatever bill or budget they want. For the term of their mandate, it is in many ways a dictatorship.

Any party that wins might govern this way, and in the 1990s the Liberal Party governed much the same way. They formed government with less than 50% of the votes, and with their majority in the House of Commons they pretty much did as they pleased.

The big difference with the current government is that the majority of voters (about 60%) all vote for parties that have much in common. The Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party (NDP), and the Green Party, moving more and more left of centre respectively, have much in common when compared to the Conservatives. Therefore the 60% who did not vote Conservative are probably more likely to be consistently disappointed with the government's decisions than if one of the other parties were in power.

To illustrate this point, I recently took a poll of how I should vote in the coming election. I found a webpage which allows you to fill in a number of responses to issues, and to attach a significance level to each question:

https://canada.isidewith.com/political-quiz

The poll then provides you with a breakdown of how you should vote, and how strongly your views align with each major party. The first time I did the poll, I was told that I was 98% in line with the Liberal Party. The next time I did it (answering much the same as far as I could remember), I was  98% lined up with the Greens:

What is interesting about the results, though, is that the Greens, Liberals, and NDP all line up 95% and above with how I feel about various important issues. The Conservatives line up only 21% with my views. There is a major outlier among the major political parties in Canada, and it is the governing party. According to this poll, I should be relatively content to vote Green, Liberal, or NDP. (Indeed I would say that I have yet to decide which of those parties I will vote for, if I decide to vote). The only way the Conservatives will win another majority government is if the 60% of voters who don't vote for them end up splitting their votes between the other parties. If everyone would hold their noses and vote for the Green, Liberal, or NDP candidate most likely to win in the particular riding, then the Conservatives would be reduced to an also-ran. Yes, this might mean that for many Canadians we would not see our first choice of party in power, but it might also mean that the party in power would side with us on 95% of the issues, rather than only 20% of the issues.

There is a movement afoot in Canada called ABC - Anything But Conservative. I can see their logic.

Politics is a Disgrace as Usual

My blog is a dismal failure of late. I have not had time to commit to much writing, nor perhaps have I had the inclination. Sometimes one fatigues of writing out against or for issues of importance. The world seems to chug along inevitably towards environmental disaster, increased focusing of wealth and power by fewer and fewer, and more and more corruption by governments. Sometimes you have to just think: "What's the point anymore?" However, I am compelled to write a bit partly because of a noticeable void on the blogosphere. Mr. Bruce Gerencser, perhaps Ohio's most infamous atheist, has disappeared from the web. This is a pity, as he is a fabulous writer and, with his extensive and lengthy career as a minister, he provides valuable insight to those who have left religion (or those considering such a move). Bruce has run a blog called Moving Forward in which he wrote extensively about his experience as a pastor, his leaving the church, and his other thoughts on living as a former Christian in a very Christian environment. Bruce, if you are out there, come back!

In the meantime, a few of us lesser mortals should pick up the flag and soldier on.

What is on my mind of late? Well, as usual the crazy world of the religious. I recently heard a radio interview with a local Muslim cleric who was fairly outraged that a foiled terrorist plot against a government building here in Canada had been smeared with the Islamic terrorism brand, even though it was to be committed by those seeming unconnected to traditional Islamic terrorism. I am not trying to be politically incorrect here, but the whole argument put forth that Islam is a peaceful religion is almost laughable. Sure, there are many peaceful Muslims, and there are possibly even some Muslims who are more peaceful than they would be if they did not have their religion. But, to me this argument is the same as the one that claims Christianity is a religion about loving your neighbour and treating them like you would yourself. That might be one small portion of what Christianity is about, but to say that that is only what it is about skips over some monstrous evils in the religion. Same with Islam. Why oh why do humans need religion to think they will be peaceful? Can we not just understand and accept that violence typically stems from a feeling of not being recognized in one's proper place in the human hierarchy? People who are confident in their place in the world don't typically feel the need to go out and kill others. Only those who feel slighted in some way, often because they have a falsely grandiose sense of self, feel the need to show others they are right by force.

This brings me to politics. I hate politics and I am on the verge of becoming apolitical. I have typically voted in the past because I feel that it is my duty, but it really is getting unappealing. I can't think of a single politician that I would have the option of voting for, for whom I would feel comfortable voting. I think I can honestly say that every single vote I have ever cast since I came of age has been a choice made against a candidate rather than for the one I ended up voting for. Is that really how democracy is supposed to work?

Well, for those, like myself, who think that politicians are all liars and cheats, the past few months have been an astounding reinforcement. The federal government in Canada is facing some significant scandals. The biggest of these (I mean apart from the scandal that they cheated in an election, twice) is that a senator by the name of Mike Duffy (senators are unelected and appointed basically for life in Canada - until they reach an antiquated forced retirement age) spend a shitload of money flying around the country and then claimed reimbursement from the tax-payers by breaking the rules on his official province of residence. He represents the province of Prince Edward Island in the senate, but he has lived in Ottawa for so long that he is technically a resident of Ottawa. In any case, he ended up owing the Canadian tax-payers $90,000, as sum that for some reason he couldn't afford to pay back (how could you not afford to pay it back when you've just claimed it illegally to begin with?), so the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff, Nigel Wright, cut him a personal cheque for $90,000 to help him out. Nigel Wright and Mike Duffy are not buddies, but they are of the same political party. Smell a fish? Yes, so did the media and the opposition parties. In the end Nigel Wright was forced to resign (why, if he did nothing wrong?) and the Prime Minister claims, unbelievably for a known control freak, to have had no knowledge of this payment. (The actual language released in a statement from the Prime Minister's Office was very sneaky and left a window open for someone to see how he could have known about it). What's the point of my rant? Well, it's just one more example of the kind of low-life power-hungry unethical scumbags that always seem to end up at the top of the heap in politics. Power ruins everything. The Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, one should note, gained most of his votes from conservative minded religious folks. Mr. Harper gained a majority government (after having his previous minority government defeated on a vote of no confidence based in being in contempt of parliament for cheating on the previous election) largely by campaigning on a promise of more transparency and accountability in government. Sheesh. Where do political parties find these people?

Apologies for a scattered blog post. It was my first in while.

Canadian Theocracy

For several years when current Prime Minister Stephen Harper was becoming prominent in the federal political landscape and then was leader of the opposition, there was a feeling that he had a hidden agenda that was undesirable to most Canadians in that it was regressive socially and dominated by antiquated religious dogma. The best trick Harper managed to pull was to get the public to forget about that worry and actually elect him to the highest office in the country. How he did so was by using two words: "jobs" and "economy". Stephen Harper is smart enough to realize that money makes the world go around. You are not going to get elected in Canada by talking about how gays shouldn't marry, about how abortion is wrong, and about how we should generally be a "Christian nation with good family values", whatever that means. That rhetoric might work in Republican dominated states south of the border, but not in a country like Canada that is dominated politically by the main socially progressive cities.

But, most people do care about money and about having a good job, even if they already have a good job. For some reason, when a politician talks about jobs and the economy over and over and over again like a broken record, even those people who have lots of money and a secure job start to listen and start to believe that maybe he's their best bet in the Prime Minister's office. And so, to make a long story short, Stephen Harper and his gang of religious Reform Party (Americans can read this as Tea Party) wingnuts achieved a small majority government in 2011.

And then, as surely as a leopard that has coloured over its spots with some cheap water based paint, the jobs and economy paint because to wear off and the real spots began to show through.

First, it was the Office of Religious Freedom, purportedly established at great expense to Canadian taxpayers, to promote religious freedom in a world in which religion is under attack from all sorts of places. But, of course, this office was solely intended to promote Christianity. Photo ops with the foreign minister were taken with the pope and not with imams or the Dalai Lama. Comments by readers in the popular media were overwhelmingly against this office on two counts: it was a waste of tax payers money by a government that promised fiscal restraint; and secondly it was pretty obvious that it was a thinly veiled and politically spun attempt to spread Christianity with no regard for other religions, never mind those with no religion.

Now, the Conservative government has boldly cancelled the contracts of any religious counsellor for inmates who is not Christian. Therefore, if you are a federal prisoner and happen to be Muslim or Jewish, you can only expect counselling to come from a Christian counsellor. The Muslim or Jewish counsellor you previously had, to help with your rehabilitation and help get you ready for society again, is gone. Of course, every Christian on earth has the goal of increasing the number of Christians, of converting people to the "good news". There are varying degrees of how blatant Christians are with their proselytizing, but a good Christian can hardly claim to not care that their fellow human is headed of to an eternity of hell. No, whether public or private, they want you to convert to Christianity.

Maybe this is simply a voting tactic. Maybe Stephen Harper realizes that most of his votes come from undereducated redneck conservative Christians and therefore the more of them he can create in the voter pool the better his chances of re-election. Watch next for a new law that limits immigration into Canada to places that are crazy fundamentalist Christian. If you are from the deep south or the mid-west of the U.S., well come on in. If you're from Afghanistan or France, well not so much.

But, all joking aside, this is a very frightening trend. Stephen Harper never grew out of his immature, self-serving, Bronze Aged secret agenda. He just figured out that the average Canadian wasn't going to buy it wholesale and so he had to really bury it until he got elected. Harper stopped making all his ridiculous statments about gay marriage, homosexuality, and abortion for a few years, focused on the economy and jobs in his election campaigns, finally got elected when the 65% of the electorate that hates him divided their votes between other parties, and then brought in his crazy theocratic reform.

This all illustrates a characteristic of Christianity that is absolutely deadly in politics: close-mindedness. Christians all believe they are 100% right. They have been told by God what life is all about and what is right and what is wrong, so when they get in positions of power nothing else really matters. If God didn't mention the environment in the Bible, then anything to do with care for the environment must just be some evil anti-God made-up conspiracy and can safely be ignored. If God tells you homosexuality is wrong, then it doesn't really matter how enlightened your society has become on human rights, you can just plough ahead and try to make it illegal because that is what's right. (See American politics for more examples of this type of bull-headed dogmatic "leadership". George Bush was a walking example of it. Never mind that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that the whole world thinks I'm wrong for invading Iraq, God told me to do it so I'm right). Can you imagine bringing this type of 100% right attitude into any other scenario such as a marriage, a workplace, a friendship? Disaster. Just like when religious people bring their stubborn and ignorant dogma into politics.

Why Even Have Members of Parliament Anymore?

This past week in Canada, the budget vote went through. Bill C-38 was an omnibus bill, over 400 pages long, that included many issues that really don't traditionally belong in a budget. One of the major changes is a sweeping reduction in environmental reviews for major industrial projects. Everyone in Canada, the governing Conservatives included, knows that this strategy was a way of getting unpopular legislation through all at once in a bill that pretty much has to pass. If it doesn't, then the government falls and the country goes to an election. But, the only way the legislation would not pass was if at least 10 conservative members of parliament (MPs) voted against their party, and that is not going to happen because then those very MPs would risk losing their seat in a forthcoming election. I'd be willing to bet money that there were some Conservative MPs who did not agree with everything in the bill, and who would have voted against certain issues had they been able to in separetly debated bills passing through the House of Commons, as is the norm. But, the Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, is a very shrewd and ruthless politician. He recognized the opportunity to ram through a bunch of legislation at once, force his party to vote for it, and get what he wanted a whole lot quicker and with less fuss (i.e. informed debate) than usually occurs.

So, the question is, why do we even have MPs? I mean, my Member of Parliament is a Conservative, and he voted in favour of the budget bill at every vote. I knew he was going to do so, he knew he was going to do so, and his party knew he was going to do so, no matter what debate occured in the House of Commons during the process. Isn't an MP supposed to listen to the debate and then vote accordingly? Wasn't there even one issue in there that my MP felt wasn't the greatest for his constituents? Doesn't matter. He was instructed to vote with his party and did so. So, why do I have a Member of Parliament representing me? Why not, in the next federal election, just vote for different coloured pieces of paper that represent each of the political parties in Canada? Then, the party that wins the most coloured pieces of paper can form the government and each piece of paper can sit on a seat in the House of Commons and be assumed to vote in favour of that party at every single vote. It would save a lot of time. It would save a massive amount of money in salaries, benefits, perks, and pensions. And, we'd end up with the same result: a system of government that does not serve the constituents at all, but buys votes once every 4 years with empty promises of "jobs" for peopel who already have jobs, and then does whatever they want (read: raises taxes and spending) for the next four years.

There's something missing somewhere.

It seems to be a common attitude for older generations to complain that things aren't as good as they used to be. My grandparents were always complaining that society was falling apart, that crime wasn't nearly as bad when they were young. I'm not sure that this is true, there is the argument that negative things are just reported more now than they used to be, but certainly society has changed a lot in the past century, and not all of it for the better. One thing that has changed from the Baby Boomer generation to Generation X is the seeming cost of living. As a "Gen-Xer", most of my peers had only one parent that worked while the other one (usually the mother) stayed home. Single income families were the norm, and somehow people managed to afford a mortgage (at double or triple the current interest rate), groceries, household bills, and vacations. Yet, most Gen-Xers themselves seem to be in a situation where they are married to a spouse that works, and yet with a double income household are still finding it challenging to make ends meet in terms of all those same expenses. Part of the problem is all the crap people buy these days that they never used to. Cutting out consumer electronics alone would probably solve many people's budget problems. But, there seems no doubt that money is tighter than in the previous generation.

The other thing that seems different in my generation compared to my parents' is the reduction in service. Things that my parents took for granted, like mail and milk being delivered to the front door are long gone now. Usually when you check in at an airport these days, you have to do the work yourself and you typically have to pay extra if you take more than one small bag, something my parents' generation would have rebeled at, and refused to fly. Why are things getting more and more expensive and yet the service is getting cut further and further back?

When it comes to private corporations, I think the answer is quite simple: increased profit. Corporations have figured out that they can spend much less on service than they did 40 years ago and still manage to sell the same amount of product. I suspect there has been some collusion between corporations in this regard. In a truly compettive market, no one would fly on an airline that made you do all their work if there were other airlines who offered better service for only a marginally higher price. (Also, notice that the price never decreases when service is dropped, indicating that the claim by corporations that the reduction in service is a cost-saving measure is false - it is simply a profit maximizing measure). I don't like this trend, but it is part of the capitalist way, and you can't really blame a corporation for maximizing their profit, even if it means they are essentially often selling you little more than an expensive dream. But, what about when this happens in government run services?

Governments are not in business to make money, or at least they shouldn't be. They take their citizens money to provide services for those citizens that the citizens themselves cannot afford unless purchased en masse. Yet services seem to be cut regularly without any financial return to the citizens. Take the example above of mail delivery. Almost no new neighbourhood in Canada offers delivery of mail to the front door. Virtually every new sub-division of houses has a centrally located set of mailboxes to which people have to walk or drive to pick up their mail from a de facto local post office box. This is a reduction in service in comparison to the previous generation in which all mail was delivered to the front door. So, one has to assume that this cut back in service has happened to reduce cost. Yet, where has the money gone that was saved by reducing that cost? Do I pay less tax than my parents' generation? No. I probably pay more when you include all taxes including sales taxes. So, how has government revenue (tax) gone up while expenditures have gone down?

Where did the money go?

Conservative Party of Canada Getting it All Wrong So Far...More Science Please

Anyone who reads my writing knows that I am a fan of the scientific process. Science leads us to truth. Not always immediately, nor even as quickly as we may like, but it does eventually lead us to the truth and realities of the world we live in. Hence, the best approach to any and every issue humanity ever faces is to examine the evidence with an open mind and then form your conclusion from the evidence, whether you like the conclusion or not. The history of humanity is full of examples of people going about things in exactly the opposite manner: having an agenda and trying to find evidence to fit that agenda. Religion is an obvious example: no religion would have ever sprung into existence if people had objectively examined the evidence in the world around them without agenda or assumptions. Modern governments appear to take the same flawed approach: they have an agenda, ram that agenda into action, and then find evidence to sell it to voters. Inevitably this leads to decisions being made that are not in the best interest of the citizens of the country. All parties do this. But some parties seem particularly apt at ignorning the evidence and seeking their agenda. Or perhaps another way of looking at it is that some parties have an agenda that seems particurarly bent on ignoring the stark realities of the world we live in, as established by the scientific process.

The Conservative Party of Canada currently in power, has a Minister of State for Science and Technology that does not understand the basics of science. He has openly denied evolution and then when pressed on the issue, has shown that he doesn't understand the most basic facts about the process of evolution. This is the best example of the Conservatives simply ignoring the realities of the world we live in. Evolution happens. It is a reality long since established and overwhelmingly supported by facts and data. Continuing on as if it doesn't happen is to put blinders on and pretend we live in a fairy tale. But more importantly, this is an example of the same attitude of ignoring the facts that the Conservatives take on every other issue. If one denies something so established as evolution, then one can easily also dismiss the notion that humans (and other species as well) require clean water, food, and air for survival, that chemicals introduced into our bodies will cause diseases such as cancer, and that more money and jobs is not the answer to every problem faced by Canadians.

All of this is to say, it is easy to simply disagree with everything a political party does when in power. Seemingly that is the position the official opposition, the New Democratic Party (NDP) in Canada, takes. But, more important is to oppose those decisions and policies that go against or ignore the realities of the world we live in. In that light, let's take a look at some of the decisions that the Conservative Party has taken since winning a majority in the spring of 2011, and examine why they are poor and uninformed decisions based on ignorance of the facts.

1. The new crime bill C-10.
The bill introduced to the House of Commons and labeled colloquially as "Safe Streets and Communities Act" purports to make Canadians safer (from crime) by taking a number of steps including longer mandatory sentences for certain drug related offences, increasing prison sentences for marijuana offences, and increase the power of government in monitoring its citizens through online activity (though this portion has since been reduced). The reality of the bill is that it will increase the provincial costs of incarceration though greater nubmers of convictions. The bill is expected to cost Canadian taxpayers tens of billions of dollars in the coming decade, all in an attempt to make our streets and communities safer. But, what is the greatest safety risk that most Canadians face on a daily basis? What is the activit that is most likely to lead to a parent losing a child or vice versa? What do most Canadians take part in on a daily basis that is most likely to cause pain, turmoil, loss of money, and long-term damage to their lives? Traveling in a motor vehicle. Making streets and communities safer from the gravest risk we all face on a regular basis should focus on making the daily commute safer. Most of know someone who has lost a loved one to a motor vehicle accident. How many of us know someone who has lost a loved one to a drug-related murder? Now, proponents of the bill argue that, just because crime rates are at their lowest rate in Canada in four decades, doesn't mean we can't do better and reduce crime even more. That is true, and as a society we chould always strive for better ways to keep each other safe, but the problem is that there is a finite amount of resources to do so. There are only so many billions of dollars to go around. If we spend the money on reducing the little bit of crime that we face, the money won't be there to actually make our streets and communities safer from the biggest risk we all face on a daily basis. Facts be damned though, fighting crime (whether it exists or not) looks good come election time.

2.Northern Gateway Pipeline
The Northern Gateway Pipeline is a proposed oil pipeline to run from northern Alberta to the northern coast of British Columbia (Kitimat, BC). The pipeline will move bitumen from the oil sands in northern Alberta to the coast for shipping across the Pacific Ocean, mainly to China. China is a huge energy market. If Canada is going to continue to access the oil resources available in the oil sands (which undoubtedly the country will), then movement of this oil to China makes sense economically. But, there are significant concerns over shipping it by pipeline across the Rocky Mountians, approximately 7,000 streams, creeks, and rivers, and to the coast where supertankers will travel up one of the most pristine and beautiful fjord systems in the world (and also one of the most violently stormy in the winter) to dock and load their toxic cargo. It is inevitable that and oil spill will occur if the pipeline goes ahead. Enbridge, the company proposing the pipeline, has a massive record of oil spills. Between 1999 and 2010, 804 oil spills occured on Enbridge pipelines, releasing over 168,000 barrels of toxic hydrocarbons. Given that each gallon of oil contaminates approximately 250,000 to 1,000,000 of water, that translates to up to 42,000,000 gallons of water contaminated by Enbridge in one decade. If the average North American human goes through 100 gallons of water per day (which is a reasonable estimate for showering, washing dishes and clothers, drinking, etc.), then between 1999 - 2010 Enbridge was responsible for contaminating the water for 1,150 people for a whole year. This is miniscule in comparison to the damage an oil tanker spill on the coast would do.

So, there are some significant disadvantage to this proposed pipeline. There are also some significant economic benefits. Why look at only one side of the equation though? Why only examine the economic benefits and ignore the ecological downside and risk? We all require clean air, food, and water on a daily basis. That is not negotiable or debatable. Yet, the Conservative government has already decided to support the pipeline before any of the discussion has taken place. Over the next two years, a government appointed committee will hear from all those with vested interests in the proposed pipeline, including a significant number of First Nations people who live in the areas most affected. Yet, even before this government appointed committee has heard any of the issues, the government itself has already made up its mind that the pipeline is a good idea. Talk about putting an agenda before evidence. Maybe the pipeline will be a benefit, maybe it won't. Maybe we should allow it, maybe we shouldn't. But the decision should not be made before the evidence has even been examined.


3. Plans to spend tens of billions on F-35 fighter aircraft.
Canada is a huge country. Defending it from invasion would be a huge and impractical problem for a population of only 35 million. I'm not suggesting that Canadians, like any other nation, would not try to defend their country valiantly if invaded, but I think it is safe to say that Canada is not actually defendable by Canadians for a few fundamental reasons. Firstly, there are only 35 million of us stretched over a huge area. Strategically that would spread any defence forces very, very thin. Secondly, no nation is ever going to get close to invading Canada unless the United States allows it to. America will never allow any country to invade and occupy its neighbour to the north unless it is in American interests to do so. This brings me to my third point which is to look at the only countries that have any hope of invading Canada. Though unlikely, America is at the top of the list. Geographically it would be easy for Canada to be invaded by the U.S. Canada would be completely overpowered by the huge military might of the United States. Due to my second point above, any country that invades Canada is going to do so either with America's blessing (and presumably with their help), or they are going to have to take on both Canada and the United States. In either scenario, 65 fighter aircraft are going to make not one bit of difference in the defence of the country. Yet, Canada wants to spend tens of billions of dollars on 65 F-35 fighter aircraft. The price quuotes have been all over the map. The goverment will never give a real appraisal of what the cost will be. But it is likely to be $25 - $35 billion dollars up front with another $20 - $40 billion in maintenance and ongoing costs over the next 20 years. Crazy money. And all for naught. The up front costs alone would wipe out the entire federal deficit. Yet, the Conservative Party wants to forge ahead with this unecessary and wasteful expenditure that is not based in evidence or facts.

4. Development of the Tar Sands
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper seems to think that Canada is the next Saudi Arabia. We have a massive amount of oil in Canada, some say second only to some large deposits in the Middle East. Canada is now the greatest supplier of oil to the United States, which is surprising considering the magnitude of the oil thirst of that nation. The problem is that most of the oil in Canada is located in Northern Alberta and Saskatchewan, mixed in with sand. It is not a traditional oil field in which you can pump the crude out of the ground for processing. The tar sand must be processed at a much higher energy cost and with much greater waste products than traditional oil. In addition the process takes a massive quantity of water, leaving the water impure and unusable. In decades past one could hardly blame a Prime Minister for wanting Canada to devleop its oil resources no matter the environmental cost. The amount of money available to the country is massive. But, we are not in the 1970s here. We know a lot about how the ecosystem is fragile and necessary. We know a lot about how fossil fuel use alters the environment very drastically and dangerously quickly. What should we do? Should we just leave all that oil lying in the sand in Northern Alberta? Perhaps not. But should we accelerate the extraction, build pipelines through the mountains and over rivers to the sea for export to China? Perhaps not. Isn't there a moderate approach that might be a little more carefully thought out? Yet, this Conservative government is trying to accelerate the process of selling Canada's raw resources abroad. No one seems to stop and consider the question of what happens when those resources are gone. Where will Canada be in 30 years from now when most of the oil is gone? We will have a huge economic crash if we don't start planning for that now. Prime Minister Harper will be dead by then (though his kids will be very wealthy), so he perhaps doesn't really care.

An Honest American Election

Imagine if we could get politicians to tell the truth. It's something we all pretend to long for. We all complain about how politicians go back on their promises after they are elected, about how they aren't very honest about what they can achieve while in office, or about their motivations. But, would we really want politicians to be completely honest? Perhaps their dishonesty is a comfortable curtain that keeps the ugly and frightening truth hidden from us. Perhaps we want them to sell us a nice little bed time story about how everything is going to be OK. What are politicians actually hiding from us? What would they sound like if they were forced to be totally honest? Let's fantasize about what the upcoming American presidential election might be like with honesty. Let's imagine a televised debate between Obama and Romney in which they had both been administered a truth serum, forcing them to tell the absolute truth no matter the consequences:

Moderator: Good evening. We are coming to you live from Stanford University in California where President Obama and Governor Romney, the candidates for president in the 2012 presidential election will debate the issues honestly in front of you this evening.

Before the show we flipped a coin to determine the order of the first question and Mr. President, we are starting with you. Mr. President, you have led this country for the past four years. Tell us why voters should send you back to the White House for another four years?

Obama: Good evening. Let me just start by saying I really don't want to be here. I'd rather be chain-smoking in front of the White Sox game this evening on the huge screen in the White House situation room. That TV is just enormous. But you've asked why people should vote for me. I'm smart. I might be the smartest black man this country has ever produced, and I can also give a really good speech. I think people want to know that their president is smart and I think they want to know that he'll read out a good speech on TV when they want him to.

Moderator: Thank you Mr. President, but if you could elaborate a bit more, what policies would you like to continue or implement in the next four years?

Obama: I don't think too many second term presidents think about policy too much. The second term is the time when you really get to pad your wallet. I've put in my time, I've worked really hard for the past eight years to get to where I am, and now I think it's time for me to profit from that hard work. You know, when I came to the White House in 2008, I had a net worth of only $3 million. I'm now worth about $7 million. But by the end of my second term I expect to be worth about $17 million. Once I sit on a few boards after my second term for a while I think I can reach $50 million of personal fortune. The second term is critical to a president's financial success though. That's the time when a president can help out the special interest groups and lobbyists the most since there's no accountability anymore. With no more elections to worry about, a second term president can just take care of all those wealthy corporations, removing regulations and red tape. They profit massively during a second term, and they always kick back a significant sum to the president once he retires.

The other reason I want to be re-elected is for my ego. Everyone knows that an American president's legacy is judged by whether he is a one-term or a two-term president. It's better never to be president than it is to be a one-term president, we all know that. I need that legacy to feel really good about myself. 

Moderator: OK, thank you Mr. President. Turning to you Mr. Romney. Can you tell us whey people should vote for you in 2012?

Romney: Hi everyone. Let me begin by mimicking the President's feelings that I really don't want to be here. I'd rather be back at the hotel surfing the adult TV channels. My wife isn't on this part of the campaign with me, so I've got a few hours of privacy to watch some really good porn on TV. The Mormon religion really confuses the issue of sex. I'm not sure why God gave people such a strong sex drive if we aren't allowed to use it all the time. Anyway, I find that porn is a good alternative to adultery. And, it's much safer politically.

Moderator: The vote, Mr. Romney?

Romney: Oh yeah. OK, well listen, people should vote for me because I'm a white guy and I deserve it. Simple as that. I'm a white guy who people want to vote for. There's a lot of people in America who don't trust a black man in the White House, so they can vote for me and we'll get things back to normal that way. I also agree with Obama that there's a whole lot of money to be made in the White House. I'm worth about $230 million right now, but after a couple of terms in the White House, I'm pretty sure with all my business connections I can get that up over $1 billion. I'd like to be the first billionaire president. Plus, I'm entitled to be president. I've been really good at every business I've ever run, so I kind of deserve this now.

Moderator: Mr. Obama, how do you see international relations developing over the next four years with you as president?

Obama: More of the same. More of the same slow steady decline for America. Listen, America can't compete anymore. Our workers suck compared to the Chinese, the Indians. We don't really make anything in this country anymore, and a country without manufacturing is doomed. Just look at what happened to England 100 years ago. They ruled the world but slowly their manufacturing industries died out and then their economy slouched and they faded into irrelevance. The 21st Century is going to belong to China. There ain't nothing we can do about it. China will do whatever they want in the world in the next 50 years. We can keep ruling the world for a little bit longer because we spend so goddamn much on our military that everyone is kind of scared of us. But the Chinese have got it figured out. They're biding their time and not spending that much on military. They're building economic strength first and buying up debt in other countries, then when they are the economic superpower of the world, they'll start flexing their military muscle and doing whatever they want. We all know they'll take back Taiwan first, then probably unite North and South Korea. They'll take over the oil in the Middle East and all the natural resources in Africa. Basically we're fucked, and there's nothing the president can do about it.

Listen, folks, the Chinese already own America. When you become president they brief you on a bunch of national security issues like how to use the nukes. They also brief you on a whole lot of other top secret information that the public shouldn't know about. One of the first things I learned in early 2009 when I became president, was that the Chinese already own 70% of America's debt. The public thinks it's way less than that, somewhere around 15%, but it's not. They own us. While I remember, the other thing I'd like to say here today is that the government did kill Kennedy.

Moderator: OK Mr. President, I think we're getting a bit off topic. Let me bring it back to Mr. Romney. Governor, I'll ask you the same question. How do you see international relations developing over the next four years with you as president?

Romney: Listen, once I become president, I'll sit down with my good friends the Rothschilds and hear what their plan is over the next few years. Maybe it'll be another war in the Middle East, maybe it'll be just building up the military, that's up to them. Whatever they have on the agenda we'll make sure we get 'er done. See, the president really isn't the most powerful man in the world. The president is just a puppet. Like Mr. Obama just said, we all know what happened to JFK when he tried to flex his presidential muscle too much. He actually thought he could change the world for the better and so they got rid of him. Showed everyone who was boss.

Moderator: OK, thank you Mr. Romney. Let me conclude here by asking each of you to sum up your policies over the next four years if you become president.

Obama: Like I said, a second term president doesn't really have policies. It's all about money and legacy, and a few political favors like pardoning the right people so that you'll get taken care of later on. But I guess if I'm going to be really honest here tonight, I need to let you know that Michelle wants to be the first woman president. That's right folks, I was the first black president and my wife is going to be the first woman president. Now, the Clintons, they tried this hand-off, but they fucked up. We're learned from their mistakes. We've got a plan so that Michelle will be president 8 years after I leave office.

Romney: Is this thing over yet? I really want to get back to the hotel. Well, OK, let's see. Oh yeah, my main things is that there is a ton of money to be made in health care. Everyone thinks it's about oil. Oil is nothing compared to health care for making money. Oil is gonna run out pretty soon and then the money will dry up. But people are always going to get sick. That's why I brought in universal health care in my state. I made a pile of money off that too. If I get elected I'm going to ram in this Obama care thing for keeps, but I'm going to put my name on it of course. Then I'll truly be the richest president ever. Say, does anyone else feel their underwear tingling?

The Myth of Government Job Creation...Part II

 
In a previous post I wrote about the myth of government job creation. Today in the news there is a classic example of what I'm talking about:

This story talks about how Shell is to build a liquid natural gas plant in the small northern coastal town (more of a village really) of Kitimat, BC. The project will "create" between 5,000 - 7,000 jobs. Of course, the premier of the province of British Columbia, Christy Clark, rushed to get her name all over this story and to take credit for the Shell corporation's decision to invest in B.C., saying: "We are a stable government with a business-friendly environment, so they’re very interested in British Columbia." Doubtless Clark believes that this is a part of a fantastic plan to increase the number of jobs in B.C., all part of her economic plan to...well, to where exactly?

Yes, an investment like this will bring more jobs to the town of Kitimat. So what? So, more people will move to Kitimat to take up those jobs. It is not as if there are between 5,000 - 7,000 unemployed workers in Kitimat just waiting for a new job (Kitimat's population is around 8,000 people in total). It's also not as if there are 5,000 - 7,000 unemployed people around the province or the country who are just itching to relocate to a very remote coastal village to work on a liquid natural gas plant. And, you can bet that after these 5,000 - 7,000 jobs are "created", the unemployment rate in the province will not change one bit.

So, where do the people come from when a project like this "creates" jobs? They shift from other sectors, they come from overseas, immigrants to Canada have new jobs, and people who move to Kitimat to take up the new jobs marry, have a family and have new kids who grow up and, lo and behold, need a job! Economic growth simply leads to population growth, with roughly the same unemployment following the economic growth. Certainly, during booming economic times such as a few years ago in Alberta, there are very few unemployed people and wages are comparitively high. But, Alberta is a great example of where that leads. What happened when there were so many jobs in Alberta? Wages shot up to entice people to relocate to the jobs. But real estate shot up as well, doubling in price in just a couple of years. Then the whole economic meltdown occured and suddently the natural resources weren't in demand anymore.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. What politician's like Christy Clark don't understand is that economic growth leads to population growth. Then, that larger population demands a larger economy and more jobs to support it. The cycle continues, and more jobs are "created", leading to more population growth and a greater demand for jobs.

The cycle never ends. This is why our current system is not sustainable and is ultimately doomed. We are under the false pretention that we can endlessly grow economically, which we can't. We are also under the pretense that we can endlessly harvest natural resources, which we can't. Natural resources are finite, especially hydrocarbons like oil and natural gas. Eventually they will run out. What will happen then? What will happen when we have developed our economy so much that the population has increased to a level that demands that economy to keep going? Which will crash first, the economy or the population?

Re-Thinking Charitable Status in Canada

I heard an interesting interview with Greg Oliver, President of the Canadian Secular Alliance, on the radio yesterday about the charitable status of religious organizations in Canada, and the effect of that status on tax revenues. Given the most recent federal budget in Canada, with a whopping budget deficit not expected to be in the black for another 3 - 4 years (no one can really accurately predict these things given the wide swings in global economic activity), every billion dollars of federal revenue and expenditure seems fairly relevant.

In Canada, to qualify as a charitable, an organization must fall within one of four categories of work: 1) the relief of poverty, 2) the advancement of education, 3) the advancement of religion, or 4) other purposes that benefit the community in a way the courts have said are charitable, according to an 1891 ruling in the United Kingdom (Commissioners for Special Purposes of Income Tax v. Pemsel). Number three certainly seems to stand apart from the others, and given that this definition is based on a British court ruling from over 120 years ago, perhaps it is time to revisit this definition. The other three categories seem fair enough. When asked to define charity, most people would probably say something about giving to the poor. The advancement of education is one very specific and effective way of reducing poverty and advancing society and so logically belongs in the definition of charity. In a country such as Canada with a Common Law system, the rulings of the courts are what ultimately determine much of the law. Therefore the fourth definition of charitable status (as defined by the courts) is inescapable. But the advancement of religion? Should we use tax revenue to support that cause? Surely not. 

As pointed out by the host of the interview I was listening to, religious organizations do much poverty relief work and as such should qualify for charitable status. Certainly so. Any organization, religious or secular, which performs work aimed at reducing poverty should retain its status as charitable. There are many organizations which straddle more than one of the four definitions above, and their status as charitable should remain based on whichever of the other three apply. But what about organizations that have the sole purpose of promoting religion? We do realize what this means? An organization that supports young indoctrinated men and women coming to your door to disturb you at dinner time while they launch into their sales pitch for Mormonism is supported by your tax dollars. Does that seem right? 


The financial side of things is perhaps as important as the rationale. The total tax revenue lost to Canada as a result of organizations that are defined as charitable based solely on definition three above is about $1.8 billion per annum. So, any religious organization that mixes their proselytizing with some poverty relief or education is not included in that figure. In other words, if the federal government would recognize that the advancement of religion, alone and not in conjunction with any other benefit, is not an activity it wants to support financially, Canadians would now be $1.8 billion closer to eliminating the deficit. 


The current conservative government in Canada sold Canadians on its abilities to balance the budget and eliminate the deficit (which they created while a minority government one should point out) during their five years in office. Canadians bought what they were selling. Canadians bought into the fear that said that we needed a strong hand on the tiller in this global economic storm. Yet, the government won't shore up an easy $1.8 billion along the way because they believe that the advancement of religion is an activity that is worthy of financial support by every tax payer in Canada. Just so we're clear on the dollar amount here, every single Canadian citizen pays over $50 per year specifically to promote religion. Not to help religious organizations alleviate poverty or educate children, but solely to promote religion in society.


Shame.

Budget Day Aftermath

Canada is currently a country in which dogma, superstition, fear, religious belief, and agenda rule the day over rational, reasonable, evidence-based decisions.

I have written previously about how Canada's Minister of State for Science and Technology is igorant of basic science like evolution. The man appointed to oversee science-funding decisions in the country doesn't even know how long humans have been around, or where we come from. He does, however, believe that putting on a pair of running shoes or high heels involves evolution.

So one might assume that the latest Conservative government budget was full or equally ridiculous policies. One would not be disappointed if one did so.

Canada's projected budget deficit, following the latest budget, is about $21.1 billion dollars. A lot of money, to be sure. It is no enviable task that the Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty, has over the next few years to bring that deficit back to zero by the time the next election rolls around in 2015, as the Conservatives have pledged to do. (I'm still trying to figure out what they did with the record surpluses they inherited when they came into office and managed to turn them into record deficits). No one likes to see their programmes cut, and there are no popular cuts, just less unpopular ones. Everyone can always find a problem with the budget, no matter how carefully it is put together. I'm sure I could go through Canada's budget carefully and point out all the silly waste of money (e.g. corporate tax cuts, huge prison costs associated with the lastest un-needed crime bill), but one needn't go that far to point out the irrational, fear-based approach to this budget.

The deficit is around $20 billion or so. Yet, the Conservative Party plans to spend anywhere from $35 - $90 billion (depending on cost overruns) on F-35 fighter planes for the military. That means, they plan in the next few years to throw away anywhere from 1.6 to 4.3 times the annual budget deficit. At the highest end, that means that they could do away with that one expense, and balance the budget for the rest of their mandate until 2015. With one expense cut they could avoid cuting funding to any other department in government, they could avoid cutting health-care transfer payments to provinces, they could avoid raising the retirement age from 65 to 67 (as they just did). Will they? Not a chance.

Why? Fear. Irrational fear of the same sort that keeps people scared as hell of hell and buying into religion. Canada has never once been invaded by air. We have not been invaded at all since the 19th Century. And yet we will spend between 1.6 and 4.3 times the annual budget deficit to buy fighter aircraft in case we need to repel an air attack for the first time. If we did ever face an air attack, which country(s) would be potential candidates to invade? Possibly, Russia or China, and conceivably India or the United States in a much changed world in the future where water is scarce. Would any number of F-35 fighter jets help in that case? No. Canada will never own enough fighter jets to repel an air invasion by any of those countries. It is an utter and complete waste of money based on irrational fear.

And what is the long-term cost? Well, every year that we continue with a budget deficit, as the Conservatives have committed to do until at least 2015, increases the national debt which we currently pay $30 billion annually to service with interest payments. The numbers keep going around and around like a washing machine, but somehow the laundry never quite comes out clean.

The Myth of Government Job Creation

Seemingly every political campaign nowadays boils down to the economy and jobs. Most conservative leaning parties make it their number one issue. The Conservative Party of Canada is widely acknowledged to have been elected in 2011 due to their incessant messages indicating that they are the only party capable of "strong" stewardship of the economy and of job creation. In America, the Republicans sound like a broken record on two issues: cutting government spending and job creation (never mind that the two are in conflict). The Republican message is one of massive tax cuts to corporations and leaving the market to itself so that the big employers can create lots of jobs. Many provincial governments in Canada mimic this pattern of the job creation message in election campaigns. Who can blame them? After all, it has proven very effective. People are motivated by fear and the fear of not having a job tops the list for many people.

But there are some major problems with this approach of governance. Firstly, governments are not traditionally in the business of creating jobs. Certainly the government is a very large employer itself, but in order to create government jobs there must be increased government expenditure (and therefore taxation) and most conservative minded voters are against "big government" in which the government itself employs lots of people. Traditionally the role of government is to implement law, and to run social services with tax revenues, not to "create" jobs. Now, of course, government legislation can have an effect on the economy and on job creation and unemployment rates. But, not nearly as much as people think.

The first myth is the one of corporate tax cuts. There is a belief that cuts in taxation to corporations will actually create more jobs and therefore decrease the unemployment rate. While there is some truth to this, the link is not nearly as strong as most voters think it is. In Canada, the Conservatives cut the corporate tax rate by 2% to bring it down to one of the lowest rates in the Western World. Yet, it has had virtually no effect on the unemployment rate whatsoever. In fact, the latest numbers in Canada suggest that the unemployment rate has inched upwards a bit. Many, many corporations these days are in the business of moving money around with relatively few employees rather than in the business of employing large numbers of people in manufacturing or service positions. We all know that large manufacturing corporations produce their goods in China and other places outside the country, so giving them a tax break doesn't help employ Canadians (or Americans in the States). Even of the large corporations in Canada, many do not have a massive effect on the employment rate as the corporate tax rate changes. Many of the wealthiest Canadians and Americans are in the business of trading stocks and investing, not in the business of employing people to make things. As many as 85% of the wealthiest North Americans aren't in the business of making anything at all. Cutting corporate tax rates does two things: it makes corporations richer and, not surprisingly in the modern economy of very little competition, that wealth is usually not passed on to consumers by way of lower prices. The rich get richer. Secondly, the tax cut to corporations must be made up elsewhere by the government, and of course the place it is made up is in personal tax revenues. The poor get poorer.

The second myth is that we need constant growth and job creation. Think of the unemployment rate over the past several years or even decades. It really doesn't change dramatically. It shifts up and down a few points here and there as the economy goes up and down in cycles. But an economy that creates many jobs really doesn't ever get rid of unemployment. Even in relatively negative economic times, there are always job ads in the newspapers. There are almost always jobs available. Only in the Great Depression (and not since) were there basically no jobs even for those willing to work at anything. So, a government that is elected on a "job creation" mandate is destined to fail even if they are successful in the short term by "creating" some jobs (or allowing the free market to do so). Because in the long run, the population simply goes up, immigration increases, and the actual number of unemployed stays roughly the same. At the next election cycle, the same old message of job creation can be run again, often with the same success. Nothing changes.

The third myth is that there is actually any difference between political parties in terms of job creation. Recently in Canada, a new leader was chosen for the New Democratic Party. The NDP, traditionally a left-of-centre party that has never been in power was most recently elevated to become the Official Opposition in the 2011 federal election. The new leader, Thomas Mulcair, was immediatly (on the same evening as his election to party leader) attacked by the Conservative Party as being a socialist who will raise taxes and kill job creation. The NDP undoubtedly will raise the corporate tax back up by the 2% that the Conservatives lowered it, should they be elected. But that will provide some tax relief to the rest of Canadians in their personal income taxes. The effect on job creation will be nill.

Ultimately, as so often in politics, it all boils down to fear. Without fear amongst voters the Conservatives never would be elected in Canada. Without fear the United States never would have invaded Iraq (or become involved in the Vietnam War, or countless other engagements such as the first Iraq war in 1991). Without fear, people like Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich would never stand a chance in politics. I wish for a day when more and more voters can think for themselves rather than having politicians tell them what to think. Sadly, we seem to be going in the opposite direction.

There is an old adage that the best salesman is one who begins by selling you the problem and then conveniently has the only solution to the problem they created. That seems so true in many walks of life. In religion people are sold the solution to hell after the same salesman has created the problem for them. In politics, the modern successful politician sells voters the problem of job creation and then tells them that he alone has the solution. 

Canada's Watergate Will be Swept Under the Rug..."Democracy" Continues

I'm no conspiracy theorist. I am no radical. I am an educated person with a stable long-term career who makes investments in mutual funds and real estate like any other good capitalist. I'm no "left-wing nut-bar", as Kevin O'Leary rudely labels Chris Hedges at 3:30 of this video:

No, I consider myself part of the traditional establishment. I believe in the fundamentals of capitalism that have made the Western world so wealthy and have increased life expectancy and quality of life. And yet...I find myself growing ever more sceptical about the "system".

Two things about our current system make me very uncomfortable. The first is the modern approach to capitalism. Capitalism is supposed to provide opportunities for all through a free market. The success of sellers of goods and services that are bought and sold on that market is, in theory, to be determined by the quality of their products. If you sell a nicer loaf of bread that someone else does, then more people will buy your bread. Cost, of course, also has a large bearing on that success. If someone else undercuts your price and  their product is still acceptable to the consumers, then likely they will be more successful. That is how the system is supposed to work.

But in practice what we have is a market all driven by marketing, not by quality or price of products. Think about it. When you go to by a product, be it a new computer or a pair of shoes, how often do you consider buying a product from a manufacturer that you've never heard of? No, you buy a Toshiba, Sony, or some other major name-brand product. That is all fine, and the name-brand is supposed to assure you of a certain level of quality. But, where is the opportunity for the new fledgiling capitalist in the computer market. Someone who has significant skill in manufacturing high quality computers has zero chance of any success on the open market. The major manufacturers will out-market that individual, and if that doesn't work, then they'll simply buy up his company thereby making the individual very wealthy, and put an end to their competition. This is the real key to the problem in modern capitalism: complete lack of competition. How many choices do I have if I want a cell phone provider? Maybe three. How many choices do I have if I want to open a bank account? Maybe five in Canada (all with identical products and services). How many choices do I have if I want electricity to flow into my home? One.

The second thing that makes me uncomfortable about our current system is the process of democracy, or lack thereof. I don't even have time to get started on the problems in the United States, but what is going on in Canada is equally frightening. In the last federal election, in May 2011, the Conservative Party won a majority and have been in power since. Now, in the past few weeks, reports have surfaced indicating that tens of thousands of Canadians may have had their right to vote illegally tampered with. Many Canadians receive automated telephone calls prior to the election asking them what party they were likely to vote for. If they responded that they were likely to vote for anyone other than the Conservative Party, then they were often directed to false voting addresses thereby decreasing their chances of actually being able to vote. On top of that, the automated callers often falsely identified themselves as being from Elections Canada, an independant non-partisan body. This is, of course, all illegal in an election.

The normal reponse to these reports, one would assume, would be to assist a full investigation to find out exactly what happened. No matter what party one supports, surely everyone can agree that we want a fair election process. We want all the votes to count and we want everyone who wants to vote to have their say. Yet, the government's response to this scandal has been the exact opposite of aiding an investigation. First they dismissed a young twenty-something party supporter and claimed that it was all his fault and claimed that it was an isolated incident. As reports came in or more and more fraud in tens of electoral ridings all across the country and it became obvious that a single 24-year old was probably not capable of organizing this kind of fraud, the government then blamed the opposition parties. They claimed that the Liberal Party was responsible since they had hired an American company to manage some of their election phone calls and some of the fraudulent calls had been traced to an American company. Then, it was pointed out in debate in the House of Commons that the American company hired by the Liberal Party was not the same one used in the fraudulent calls, the Conservatives did not apologize but simply claimed that it was all part of a vast smear campaign against their party by the opposition parties who were sore losers in the election. Most recently, a Conservative dominated parliamentary committee voted not to give Elections Canada more power to investigate the issue properly.

Wouldn't the simple and right answer be to investigate this openly and fully and find out what actually happened? The Conservative Party, though they have yet to be found actually guilty of anything, are certainly behaving as though they don't want the scandal investigated openly and fully. Why not?

The implications of this are enormous. My prediction is that, given there are another 3 years or more until the next election, the whole issue will be swept under the rug and voters won't care by the time the next election rolls around. In the next election campaign, the Conservative Party will claim that it is all about the economy and that they are the best suited party to foster a strong economy (despite the fact they are running massive deficits leading Canada in the same failed path that countries like Greece, Spain, and even the United States are on). Voters will not care about some theoretical scandal that happened a few years ago. They just won't care.

And yet the implication is that the Conservative Party possibly never was actually elected. We will never know who actually should have won the 2011 Canadian federal election, just as we will never know who should have won the 2000 American presidential election. No one actually knows whether Gore or Bush won more electoral college votes because the Supreme Court stopped the recount. Republicans and Democrats alike will argue until they are blue in the face that they each should have won, but the truth is that no one will ever know. The same goes for the most recent election in Canada. No one will ever know how many seats the Conservative Party should have won, and whether they actually won a majority or not.

But, this whole scandal might help explain one thing: how during the election campaign, absolutely no one, except the leader of the Conservative Party, predicted a Conservative majority. What did he know that the rest of us didn't?

Canada's Watergate

Canada looks to be following the United States of forty years ago. In January 2006, Canada had a federal election in which the Conservative Party of Canada won a minority government. Subsequently it was found that the Conservative Party had misused funds in that election, and the party was found in contempt of parliament. That contempt finding triggered another election in 2011. (There was another federal election in 2008, but the fraudulent use of funds were not public at that time, so the triggered election did not happen until 2011).

In the federal election of May 2011, the Conservative Party won their first majority government. Many Canadians seemed shocked that the Conservatives could win a majority given their illegal behaviour in the 2006 election that triggered the election in the first place. But, many people put the win down to a number of voters, particularly in Ontario, who typically vote for the Liberal Party and who worried about a surge by the leftish New Democratic Party (NDP). Afraid that the NDP might end up winning a majority, many voters seemed to vote stragegically and chose the Conservative Party over their traditional choice of the Liberal Party, since they felt that the Conservatives more closely resembled their idea of sound fiscal management than did the NDP.

However, just this week news surfaced that during the 2011 election automated telephone calls instructed voters to go to the wrong polling stations or to a location in which there was no polling station at all. Therefore these potential voters did not have an opportunity to cast their vote or to have it count. The automated phone calls (robocalls) originated from a company called Racknine which was hired by the Conservative Party during the 2011 election. The day after the news broke, 23-year old Conservative staffer Michael Sona lost his job as a result.

In the Watergate scandal, it took some time but in the end it became clear that the inappropriate behaviour reached to the very highest level of government, to President Nixon himself. One doesn't know yet how high this election fraud reaches, but one has a hard time believing that a single 23-year old party staffer is the only culprit. I think that this scandal actually might have the steam to bring down the government.

A Few Simple Observations Among Conservative Christian Neighbourhoods...

I've lived in many different places. Several countries, and many, many different towns and cities. In some places you don't really notice the political culture, in other places it is blatantly obvious. I've lived in places where the majority of the residents vote liberal and where the majority vote conservative. I find that when you live in a place where more than about 60% of the residents vote a particular way, it becomes noticeable in the culture of the area. I've also lived in areas where the particular religious culture is not evident; multicultural cities like Vancouver, Montreal, and London. I've also lived in places where almost everyone is of one religion - such as the so-called Bible Belt in both America and Canada. Often, or perhaps even typically, an area that is very Christian in its religious culture, it is conservative in its political culture. All of this experience has given me an opportunity to make a few observations that I find interesting to note when I spend time in an area in which the political and/or religious culture is distinct:


More churches. Kind of a no-brainer, but there are churches on every street corner in some Bible Belt areas. One wonders why the economy of scale lesson never caught on amongst church goers.

More pick up trucks and hummers. Not sure why pick up trucks are so popular amongst conservative voters and Christians. Do they need a large vehicle to carry Bibles? 

More mullets.

More trashy-dressed women. One might expect to see more, well, conservatively dressed women in conservative Christian areas. But you don't. You see way more tights, thongs, and high heels.

More facial hair. Without a doubt, conservatives grow more facial hair than liberals.

More people willing to mock runners. When I go for a recreational run in a predominantly liberal area, I never have a comment hurled at me from a passing car. In predominantly conservative areas it happens at least 20 - 30% of the time I run. Once, when riding my bicycle in a very conservative neighbourhood, I had someone slow down and lean out their truck window to yell: "You fucking pinko faggot!"

More guns. Guns are everywhere in conservative neighbourhoods. I've met teenagers carrying rifles in town. I've noticed way more gun ranges in conservative and Christian areas than in liberal ones. I can't say I've evern noticed that having more guns in a neighbourhood reduces the amount of violent or non-violent crime. Some might even make the outrageous hypothesis that the more guns there are in a society, the more likelihood it is that you will get shot.

More cheap coffee. Don't know what it is about conservatives, but they do enjoy drinking weak brown water rather than good coffee.

More dog shit. I do a fair bit of walking, hiking, and running for recreation. Without fail, there is far more dog shit in public parks and on sidewalks in conservative and Christian areas than in liberal ones. I do not see more dogs in these areas (in fact I would say there are fewer dogs actually out walking and more tied up in back yards), leading me to make conclusions about dog ownership rather than dog populations.

Fewer boutique shops and more box stores.


Draw your own conclusions.

Governments Going the Wrong Way

There probably always has been and likely always will be a battle of wills between those on the left and right of the political spectrum. Each side has its points though I am not very tolerant of the extremes of either position. I am a big fan of working hard and personal responsibility, yet I am as big a fan of a society that provides for those that are truly underpriveleged or in need of help.

Traditionally most Western countries have been relatively progressive. Western Europe and Canada have had a strong social safety net that provides for the ill, the aged, and gives decent free or low-cost education. The United States is generally the exception in the Western world, in that there is a very limited social safety net at the benefit of lower personal taxes than most Western countries. The mantras of "cut taxes" or "no new taxes" is almost a requisite for election in the United States, and talking about how taxes might lead to overall benefits for the majority of the population is basically a non-starter. Taxes are viewed as a necessary evil in the U.S., but I percieve that most Americans pride themselves on the fact that they pay lower taxes and that the country is one in which the American Dream of the self-made entrepeneur is possible. Here lies the paradox and the fallacy. The paradox of this position is that the very people who would most benefit from raised taxes are those most likely to vote against such a move. The undereducated, the uninsured (in terms of health coverage), those without a hope in hell of ever becoming rich through their own hard work, are always against raising taxes as they see it as some sort of government conspiracy to take what little they already have.

Taxes are about redistribution of wealth. That generally means a movement of wealth from those who have money to those who have less, often in the form of basic social services such as health care, pensions, and education. The irony of the situation in the U.S. is that most dirt-poor voters would vote against the Warren Buffet approach of taxing the rich because they perceive that it might kill their shot at the American Dream. If the government taxed the rich more, then one day when they are a billionaire they would be taxed too much. The fallacy of the situation that arises is one in which politicians are able to convince voters that tax cuts are in their benefit. Those without access to good health care, education and other social services are likely to vote in favour of tax cuts despite the fact that the very purpose of taxes is to provide them with more wealth and access to such services.This approach is pushed much more heavily by conservative politicians than by liberal ones.

Canada has recently become more conservative in governance. Canada's prime minister, Mr. Harper, is pushing an agenda of corporate tax cuts, spending on the military, and cuts to social services such as health care and pensions, in an attempt to balance the budget (a budget which was in surplus when he first came to power). Ironically, many Canadians support his agenda, despite the fact that they are likely to suffer more for it. Even in Canada there are a semmingly growing number of people who insist on protecting the American Dream from higher taxes. They don't want the rich taxed  more because it might hurt their chances of one day being very wealthy. And, most important of all to politicians, the economy can endlessly be touted as the trump card in any election because people care about keeping their job. "It's all about the economy" trumps almost any other position in any election in North America, whether in good or poor economic times.

Unfortunately, however, the effects of taxing the wealthy is almost negligible on the economy and even less important on the creation of jobs. The argument used by most conservative governments is that if the rich are taxed more then they will be less entrepeneurial and less jobs will be created. But, here is the key problem with that approach: the vast majority of the very rich are not entrepenuers. Over 85% of the very wealthy in Canada (the so-called 1%), are not entrepeneurs who create jobs with their business. Most of them are involved in making money from money through investments - the trading of commodities on a market, or the handling of other people's money. There is some job creation through this sort of financial economy, but nothing in comparison to an entrepeneur who owns a factory or a large shop.

I've never considered myself to be a conspiracy theorist by any means, but as I slowly wake up to the financial and economic realities of the world, I find myself more and more favouring the notion that governments aren't really in control of anything, but rather are controlled by relatively few people who have massive amounts of wealth.

I am not some sort of communist. I do not favour a grand equalization of wealth in society. I think that has been shown to be very counter-productuve indeed. What I am in favour of is a free market economy that is actually fairly regulated. One in which very large corporations and banks don't have any more sway than small businesses. One in which Chrysler and General Motors are not bailed out of their exceedinly poor management with billions of tax dollars. If I owned a small business and employed five people, and if I mismanaged this business to the point that I was no longer competitive in the open market and found myself not making profits for years and years, and if that forced me into bankruptcy, I should not expect the government to bail me out with a massive stimulus of tax dollars. I should go out of business.

Governments in the West often seem to be going about tackling economic issues in exactly the wrong direction. The examples above of Chrysler and GM bailouts are just the sort of thing that follow along the old trickle down economic theory. Don't even get me started on bank and financial institution bailouts. 

In Canada, there is a particularly unsavory Canadian "business" man (I put the word business in quotes because I'm don't think he is in any business at all) called Kevin O'Leary. He appears on the TV show Dragon's Den and some other tasteless and talentless entertainment shows. He passes himself off as a successful business man. He is known for being ruthless with contestents on the show who are fledgling businesspeople themselves. Yet, he makes nothing. As far as I can tell he contributes nothing of value to the economy (let alone society as a whole) other than making himself richer. He is in the "business" of making money. He's not an entrepeneur at all. He invests money in business ideas developed by other people, and he's quick to criticize their ideas without ever taking the risk of developing his own business idea. I'm amazed that more people don't see through him. O'Leary has publicly stated that any opportunity to make money should be taken, no matter what. Presumably that means that if you can make money on an environmentally dirty project in India or China that eventually increases leukemia rates in children, O'Leary would be right on board so long as he can increase his personal fortune slightly. "Go to bed each night with more money than you woke up with" is his life's guiding principle. I feel sorry for the man, but more importantly, I feel surprised and saddened that so many people aspire to be like him. People presumably think he is a success story because he has made a lot of money. But he represents the segment of society that contributes nothing of value to the economy. There's an interesting clip on You Tube of Chris Hedges patiently navigating through O'Leary's personal insults and explaining this basic concept of capitalism:

The only reason I've introducted Kevin O'Leary into this post is because he represents a great example of one of the problems with capitalism in our societies. Capitalism is a great system when it is properly regulated and controlled. But left alone with few checks and balances, it inevitably destroys the environment, ironically the economy itself, and ultimately will destroy humanity.

Modern Conservatives: Consistently Inconsistent

I heard a high school friend of mine once asked what characteristic he valued most in his friends. I was somewhat surprised to hear him say consistency. At first I thought that loyalty, love, or even common interest might be more important, but when the more I thought about it, the more I recognized that consistency really is a foundational basis of every healthy relationship. If someone is completely inconsistent, it is very difficult to establish any level of intimacy in a relationship of any kind, whether romantic, frienship, political, counselling, et cetera. We take for granted that our friends will have at least some level of consistency in their behaviourr, beliefs, and values. For someone to genuinely earn my respect, I find that I do demand consistency of them. Even if I don't know them personally, it is hard to respect someone whose views appear inconsistent. We tend to associate inconsistency as a character flaw in political candidates, a sign of weakness indicating that the candidate will simply form their views based on popularity rather than inner conviction about what is right. Even someone with whom we strongly disagree on an issue but who is consistent is much easier to communicate with than someone whose opinions are all over the map and changing daily. If you think about it, almost any human conversation, certainly any argument, demands consistency. If we perceive someone being inconsistent, we immediately call them out on it, saying things such as: "But earlier you said such and such, now you are contradicting yourself." Children are, of course, inconsistent in their position all the time, constantly changing their minds as it suits their personal needs. Consistency is a characteristic of the mature adult.

Consider for a moment the modern conservative in North America. Europe is somewhat different when it comes to political conservatism since it tends not to muddle the issues of religion and conservatism so much. It is entirely possible to be a popular conservative leader in Europe without having to be a religious wingnut. Just think of Maggie Thatcher. She might have been a wingnut, depending on your political viewpoint, but no one ever accused her of being Britain's version of Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann. In the United States, and increasingly in Canada since the union of the Progressive Conservative party (a European-style conserative party) with the Reform Party (an American-style religious conservative party), conservatism and religion are inseparable. Religious people in the U.S. generally vote Republican. In Canada, it is very rare to meet a Christian who does not vote for the Conservative Party of Canada. Many of the members of parliament in the Conservative Party in Canada rely on the Christian vote to be elected, and many of them form the basis of their political beliefs and agenda around Christianity.

It is this religious influence that infects the conservative parties in North America with an incredible inconsistency. In order to be a true believer of Christianity demands a fair amount of inconsistency. You must believe that Jesus is the son of God and you must believe that he died and rose from the dead to save humanity from their sins. Almost every Christian must believe those two things. Yet those two beliefs are completely at odds with the world in which we live. There are no documented cases of fatherless (or more specifically sperm-less) fatherhood in humanity. There are no documented cases of people ever coming to life again after being genuinely dead for three days. This inconsistency, bought into by the religious since childhood, infects their mind with an acceptance of inconsistency in the politcal arena. As long as their policial veiws are in line with their version of Christianity, then they consider themselves to be consistent.

Consider you knew nothing whatsoever about the political process and you were being introduced to it by someone else. You might, at some point, ask the differences between liberals and conservatives. In North America you would be told that conservatives are generally pro-life. But then you'd be informed that they are also generally pro-capital punishment. You'd be told that they believe it is acceptable to surgically remove part of a little boy's genitalia at birth and the right of the parents to do so should be legally protected, but you'd also be told that to do the equivalent to a female would be considered abuse and should remain illegal. You'd be told that most conservative voters believe in a religion in which peacemakers are blessed and in which it is important to respect and love other people, but then you'd also be informed that it has been conservative leaders who have started the most atrocious and illegal wars in the past fifteen years. You'd be told about the conservative viewpoint that government should be small, social spending should be limited and reduced, but then you'd be informed that conservative voters don't think the defence budget should ever be cut at all. You'd be informed that conservatives want to reduce government spending, but then you'd be told that in Canada the only government in the past generation to balance a budget has been a liberal one, and in the United States the largest deficits in history have traditionally been under conservative rule.

Many politicians of every stripe demonstrate inconsistency. Politcians, after all, want to be elected. Making statements that help them do so is more important than demonstrating consistency. Liberal politicians might be considered as inconsistent as conservative ones. But when it comes to the voters, conservatives are incredibly inconsistent. Their values and beliefs simply flow along the illogical and bizarre path laid out before them according to the Bible.

Politics and Sport...both sliding away from their gentlemanly heritage

I enjoy sports, always have. I have always enjoyed playing sports and there are many sports I have enjoyed watching, particularly ice hockey. As I age, however, I find my interest in sports waning. In particular I find little joy in watching sports on TV anymore, and my interest in participating in team sports has all but disappeared. This is not a result of a middle-aged beer gut (I don't have one) or of slowing down too much to be competitive (I think I can still outperform most young people in their physical prime). Part of the loss of interest, at least in sports on TV, is the constant barrage of marketing, something for which I have no time in life. Marketing is so pervasive on sports broadcasts these days that it is unavoidable. Gone are the days when you could walk out of the room for a refreshment or bathroom break when the commercials come on. Now, television, and particularly sports broadcasts, include marketing at every turn. The playing surfaces, and even uniforms in some cases, are littered with corporate logos. Every instant replay is sponsored by a corporation. Each half-time or pre-game show is "brought to you by" someone who wants you to buy their product. Marketing is a big turn off for me, so I've largely tuned out sports on TV. But there is another, more important factor that turns me off sports both on TV and in real life, and that is the unsportsmanlike conduct that is now often considered the norm. In the past, my perception of sports was that a set of official rules governed the game, but there were also a set of unofficial rules that governed the conduct of the players. It was understood that you were in competition to find out who would win within the set of rules. Now, the only thing that matters is winning. Now, most athletes, both professional and recreational, would rather cheat and win, or act in an unsportsmanlike manner and win, than act professionally and courteously and lose. Coaches who subcribe to this philosophy abound. "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing," is a well known quote in professional sports (which likely originates from Henry Russell Sanders but was made most popular by Vince Lombardi. Really though? Winning is the only thing? Would you really rather win and see four or five opponents (and teammates perhaps) end up in the hospital, than lose and have everyone walk away at the end of the game and go home to their families? My personal philosophy on this is the exact opposite of this quote. Sportmanslike conduct is everything. Winning within that conduct is very important.

I am no fan of C.S. Lewis's Christian writings, but his children books are generally well-written. In the last of his Narnia Septet, there is a scene in which Eustace Scrub, a young boy caught in a sword battle, yells insults at his enemies after they perform a particularly dastardly act. His leader, King Tirian hushes Eustace, and explains that an honorable warrrior has only two forms of communication with his enemies: courteous words or hard knocks. I have always felt that is an appropriate approach to the sporting arena as well.

Ice hockey is my sport of preference. It is a highly skilled and fast-paced sport. It requires teamwork, good skating skills, and a deep understanding of tactical skills to be successful at. But, there is a darker side to hockey as well. For some reason, likely historical, the culture of hockey in North America condones violence as a means to resolve conflict. Fighting is essentially allowed in ice hockey, with some relatively light penalites for the combatants. Fighting has always had its place in hockey and, while I think it does not belong in any sport, it has seemed to fit into the culture more respectfully than one might imagine. The players have typically understood that there is a time and a place for a fight, and that fighting demands accountability for generally clean play. But lately, an even nastier, dirtier, and more violent side of the game has reared its ugly head. Plays made with the intent to injure an opponent have become commonplace. Coaches have subscribed whole-heartedly to the maxim: "Winning is the only thing." If an opponent ends up in hospital, or having to take significant time off due to injury, or even having to prematurely end their career then, oh well, so long as we won the game it's just fine. An example of this was the 2011 Stanley Cup Finals, the culmination of two months of playoffs that results in the crowning of the Stanley Cup, hockey's holy grail, which hockey players spend a lifetime pursuing. Last season the Boston Bruins and Vancouver Canucks faced off in the Stanley Cup Finals. One of the themes that emerged from this series of seven hockey games was Boston's willingness to do anything to win, even if it bent or broke the rules, and certainly if it involved unsportsmanlike conduct. Several players did end up in the hospital. At least three or four Vancouver players required surgery, including one for a broken back. In the end Boston won. I'm sure they figured it was worth it. I'm sure other teams in the league that watched from the sidelines figured that their model of play was one worth eminating if it resulted ultimately in victory. I didn't. Had I been a Boston Bruin fan or even a player, I would have felt that I had cheapened the sport. I would have felt unsportsmanlike. This is not all to say that only the Boston players behaved unsportsmanlike. Many of the Vancouver players also did so, but that is not my point in this example. My point is that winning was worth behaving that way for the Boston players. Nothing else mattered, so long as they won. I would have felt like my family was disappointed in me, not proud for me winning. I would much rather lose gracefully than win through unsportsmanlike conduct.

I find there are many analogies between sport and politics and this shift seems to also be occuring in politics. I firmly believe that democratic political systems, when they were originally established, where intended to give everyone an equal voice, and then to make decisions based on the majority of opinions, assuming that everyone who cast their voice did so in an informed manner. Playing within the rules, and within the bounds of politicalmanlike (is that a word?) conduct. More than almost anything in life, I value the opportunity for everyone to have their voice heard. I hate scenarios in which people are cut off mid-sentence by someone who can shout more loudly. Inclusiveness is key to democracy. Opposition voices are an important part of the process. Not just to be heard and then disregarded, but to be heard, debated honestly, and then to contribute to the overall process of decision making.

That process never happens in politics anymore. In Canada at least, decisions are made based on party-loyal vote casting. Members of Parliament (MPs) are often asked (told) to vote along party lines to match a decision already made by the party leader, before any debate has taken place in the House of Commons. Why have the debate at all? (Indeed, I worry that that is a step we may end up taking in our political system).

An example of this approach is a decision that will be made in the coming two years here in Canada. There is a proposal, by a corporate oil giant, to build an oil pipeline from Northern Alberta to Northern British Columbia to ship Albertan oil to Asian markets (i.e. China). Currently, a process of hearing both sides of the debate on this controversial project has begun. A government body will, for the next two years, hear voices from both sides of the table. On the one side, the very well funded oil corporations will lobby the government for the economical benefits this project will undoubtedly bring. On the other side, poorly funded environmental groups, Aboriginal peoples, and local communities will lobby for their voice to be heard on the issues of safety, health, and environmental destruction. What is interesting in this process is that, already, before the process has even begun, both the Prime Minister of Canada (Stephen Harper) and one of his cabinet members, have spoken out against those with an agenda to stop the pipeline project from happening. The Prime Minister has said that those with an environmental agenda have "hijacked" the process. His cabinet minister has essentially said that those who are against the pipeline are "radicals." So where is the debate? How can the government have made a decision, in the best interests of all Canadians (not just those who voted for the current government), without having heard one day of debate from either side of the table? The decision is already made. Mark my words. The pipeline will be built, no question about it. Billions of dollars of money will win out over clean water, potential oil spills off the coast, and the destruction of Aboriginal culture everytime.

The process is rotten. Voices are not being heard. Unsportsmanlike conduct is the rule of the day in the modern political arena. What is most alarming about the above example is the classifying of one set of voices in a debate as "radical" or as having "hijacked the process with their agenda" as though they have no right to be heard in the debate. You can almost hear King Tirian scolding the Prime Minister now. But, the distinction I would draw that I suspect most of my fellow citizens would not, is that I don't believe all politicians fall into this category of win at all costs. Indeed in Canada, I would even go so far as to say that I find the win at all costs is relatively specific to the Conservative Party. In one of the leadership debates in the most recent election in spring of 2011, Stephen Harper kept referring to the bickering of the opposition parties in the House of Commons everytime his government took any action. Finally, in frustration, Michael Ignatieff, the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada at the time, told Harper that it is not bickering it is democracy. Sadly, he sounded like a tired old man whining and complaining, and it only served to illustrate to voters what Harper was saying. But, the point is, Ignatieff seemed to understand that there was a process that should be followed, that debate and dissent were part of the process. As much as he wanted to be Prime Minister, he didn't give me the impression that he would sell his own mother to do so. But even more noteable in his respect of the process before his untimely death was the leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada, Jack Layton. Layton spent a long time as a city councillor in Canada's biggest city before becoming elected to parliament and eventually becoming leader of the official opposition. I suspect the council type approach to decision making had a profound impact on his approach to politics. City councils tend to run much more like democracy should, with voices being heard and then decisions being made, than do federal politics in which the leader typically decides everything based simply on policy or party agenda. Jack Layton seemed to really have the interests of Canadians at heart. Unfortunately, perhaps because he was such a genuine person, he was attacked harshly by other parties, notably the Conservatives, as someone who was only interested in raising taxes on Canadians. Again, smeer your opponent with untruths and win at all costs.

Winning is the only thing. That is a scary proposition. The only thing. That is not to say that it is the most important thing, that somehow, if you could add up all the other things, they might be of equal value in their summation as winning is. No, it is the only thing. The other issues not only don't matter, they don't even exist. Nothing else matters at all. Hearing the voices of your opponents does not matter because it might interfere with you winnning the next election.

I dream of a government and political process that would respect the process more than winning. A party that would prefer to see the process of democracy continue in its best form than gain power themselves. A leader that recognizes that mis-representing another party's leader in an attack ad is actually counter-productive to the process of democracy, effective though it may be.