Geopolitics is about to Kill Your Children

*****PLEASE NOTE, I WROTE THIS IN JUNE, 2011 AND NEVER GOT TO FINISH. HOW DO YOU LIKE IT TODAY? *****

     Don't be stupid. Don't be naive. Be aware. If you live in Canada, the US, the UK, Israel, and certainly any NATO country, I want you to read this, share this, and talk about this. I generally will not engage in making predictions, and don't consider this to be a prediction.

     That said, I present for your consideration what I believe will come to pass, sooner than you think. As always, you are free to come to your own conclusions, my goal is always to provoke thought. I appreciate comments for and against, you don't even need to leave your name.

     Looking at big pictures can be difficult when you live in a world of instant gratification. When we are training our societies to have the attention span of a gnat, people no longer want to put two and two together, they're fine with just the two.

     Let's just get where we're going. Iran.

     Sooner rather than later we're going to war with Iran. This is not an if. It's going to happen, and sooner than I'd earlier thought. Sometimes entirely predictable geopolitical events can change course or timing, in this case, it's the timing. If you have kids in, considering joining, or nearing service age in Canada, the US, the UK and whatever NATO countries are browbeat into it, expect an Iran war and expect it to make Iraq I & II and Afghanistan look like practice. Which they were.

     We aren't going to start a war with Iran. This would be far too problematic. Iran isn't going to start a war with us, they're not insane. Neither of those things matter. Ready or not, here we go.

     It's not like this should come as a big surprise to anyone, however, it will be a big surprise to a lot of people for some reason. I find it hard to understand how so many people can know who all the celebrities are and when the last time they had a bowel movement yet care to know almost nothing about the serious things that actually affect their lives, but that's another rant for another time.

     We've seen the groundwork being laid for many years. The premise of the war was laid many years ago, but these things take time. Iraq I was about the invasion of Kuwait. It remains suspect that Saddam Hussein would invade Kuwait without some indication from the US there wouldn't really be a problem, after all, he was a strong ally of the US who armed him up to be the 5th largest active military in the world at the time. He was useful, he was a foil to Iran. No one cared that he was gassing the Kurds, they were a thorn in the side of Turkey and we would rather have Turkey on our side so it was geopolitically correct. It became an issue at that point because Saddam had passed his best before date. Oddly, the elder Bush somehow had the good sense to realize it sets a bad precedent to invade a country and kill the leader. This is the biggest of all geopolitical no-nos. Somewhere along the line, America lost that sober second thought. Possibly because Bush I was under a lot of pressure to "get" Saddam, to "finish" the job. When he realized he would be crossing a line that could have serious consequences globally, he had the fortitude to say no.

     This left the US with a couple of problems, a bit of a sticky wicket as it were. Number one, it wasn't well thought out because no one had an alternate plan in case Bush I did what he did, refuse to participate in regime change. Now they were stuck with Saddam at the helm and there was a great likelihood he could start telling stories that might cause some problems at home. There also was the probability he would now align himself against American interests. Problem number two? Belligerent Iran, the problem child. No one with that much oil is allowed to be so anti-American, why, it's un-American of them!!

     Since a military option would not be likely under President Clinton, the machine knew it had to bide its time and wait for a more likely President to take power. So the PR army moves in, suddenly, we regularly hear the two central themes in setting the table for things to come. For Iraq, evil dictator Saddam Hussein was developing "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Iran got the big prize, the "Going Nuclear" award. At any moment, it seemed, Iran could have a nuclear capability that could threaten the entire free world. During Bill Clinton's time in office these themes were widely spread by pundits and various low level talking heads, which led to a great reinforcement in the public mind that the "Axis of Evil" was the greatest threat since the invention of air.

     8 Years of Clinton gave them far more time than they needed to create the new reality. Every day someone, somewhere was discussing the chosen themes. While widely convincing the western populace of the menace we were facing, military planners and the intelligence community worked on a big piece of the overall goal of control of oil. Regime change in Iraq, and control of Iraqi oil. Then the big fish, Iran.

     Enter Bush II (the stupider one), the table was already set, all they needed to do was invite George over for dinner. They did. He ate heartily.

     That they crossed the boundary and launched an undeclared war leading to the hanging of a foreign head of state will surely come back to haunt us at some point, and what will our defense to it be? Do as we say, not as we do? In the process of ridding the world of one "problematic" person, thousands of American and British service men and women died, and civilian and "other" casualties were many times more. The goal of regime change came early, but control of oil takes time, money, and dead bodies, lots and lots of expendable people. When you add the injured, the seriously injured, the mentally destroyed, the numbers are staggering. Along the way came 9/11 and the NATO (which almost always means the US-UK-Canada triumvirate "supported" by various others) response in Afghanistan. Again, the number of lives destroyed far outweighs any sane response to a terrible terrorist attack that killed roughly 3000 global citizens (a great number were foreign nationals), as terrible as it was, the resulting misery caused is more than overkill. The second world war ended in 6 years. The first world war was over in 5.

     We've since had it revealed (far too late) the "weapons of mass destruction" was just a dream scene like all those tv shows. Osama Bin Laden is dead and people are questioning what we're doing in Afghanistan, so we're slipping out the door like a decade of death doesn't much matter anymore, because, in the no-hearted world of geopolitics, it doesn't. A major goal has been achieved that has nothing to do with Bin Laden or Hussein. It has everything to do with Iran.

     If you don't follow the connection, allow me to enlighten you.
   

     Politics is confusing to a lot of people. When you begin to immerse yourself into the geopolitical, the number of people who can actually take in these complex interactions between and among countries of similar and opposite interests narrows even further. Most people, whether they know it or not, have at the very least, a rudimentary knowledge of geopolitics. Most know no country is an island, we must deal with other countries for trade, for security, for travel, for all sorts of interesting and uninteresting things. People understand we have countries that are friends and allies, and other countries we have some level of disagreement with. Beyond that, the relationships and things done behind the scenes are immensely complicated and fraught with twists and turns, and a whole lot of ugly things go on that you could live a lifetime and never dream of, yet these things happen as a matter of course on a daily basis.

     In geopolitics, you don't have to wait for elections. You're usually too busy with conflicts. Where they are, where they're going, how big they are, the chance of spreading, where the trouble spots are, what potential issues may not be resolved with words or threats or bribes, not to mention also trying to determine where the ambitions of countries and/or groups of countries will lead them. Whew. It's fascinating, frustrating, and sometimes frightening, but it's important to have people who take the time to watch and talk about these bigger issues.

     Most of the people of my generation were lucky enough to have lived most of our lives without war. Of course, the big change for us came with the TV war, Viet Nam. It wasn't much less horrific for those of us watching from outside the US. This was the first "proxy" war where the great powers actually got drawn in. It could have been far more dangerous than it was had it ever escalated to the point where US and Soviet troops had actually had to engage one another. Russia had their own comeuppance in Afghanistan when the US armed Osama Bin Laden & company who routed the Russian Bear. Payback, geopolitics-style. The good ending for America was short lived, but that's the chance you take in the shady world of world domination.

     A few recent events have led to my wanting to write this piece now. Since a lot of geopolitics has to depend on educated guesses, sometimes you can feel relatively certain events are leading in a clear path and something upsets the apple cart. Lately, a lot of things are upsetting the cart, so it may be timely to have you thinking about this.

     War. Again. Iran.

     If I were amongst those in a position of great military power it's not a huge stretch to imagine the favorable conditions for the conflict are coming into place, albeit slightly quicker than thought, for regime change (the spurious term used to cover up the goal of controlling oil nations) in Iran. Years ago I wondered why we lingered, militarily, in Iraq and Afghanistan, then, suddenly, troop drawdowns & withdrawal were all the rage. I know I should have made this link years ago but I have a lot of things to think about.

     We have now created a generation of battle hardened desert fighters.

     This post became even more relevant today, September 8th, 2012, due to the actions of my country, Canada. comments welcome.
 

I Do Not Trust My Country Anymore

     It's been a while since I've written. I really wanted a chance to see what Stephen Harper would do with his coveted majority. Today I've seen enough. The apparent deliberate voter suppression tactics must be fully, deeply investigated, and the perpetrators and those involved in the planning and giving the orders must be brought to justice. That is a minimum.

     If Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his party are innocent, Mr. Harper would realize his government has not lost the confidence of parliament, but has lost the confidence of the citizens of this country. If he and his party deserve to govern, he would, without hesitation, agree to visit the Governor-General and ask him to dissolve the 41st parliament, and allow Canadians to participate in a free and fair election monitored by the United Nations. If he has nothing to hide or fear, he should win again. Let there be an investigation of election 41, while we have an honest election 42. Why, it should be a romp for him, facing 2 parties that are running on interim leaders, right?

     Below is the text of a letter I just sent to Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party of Canada and Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands, BC. I also copied the Honourable Bob Rae, Interim leader of the Liberal Party of Canada and Member of Parliament for Toronto Centre, ON, and Nycole Turmel, Interim leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada and Member of Parliament for Hull-Aylmer, QC.

Elizabeth,

Thank you for taking time to respond to my deep concern. Is there a possibility of a citizen making a formal complaint to the U.N.?

The reason I ask about such an extreme measure is, for the first time in my life, I have lost faith in the institutions of my country. I can't trust an investigation by the RCMP if I look at their conduct and lack of accountability. The idea Bruce Carson, a 5 time fraud convict, was vetted by the RCMP for the top job in the PMO, and that no one to my knowledge can tell me who cleared him and why they still have: a.) their rank and/or b.) their job is the tip of the iceberg. I've heard an interview with one of the girls working at a call centre who claims to have complained to her supervisor, the RCMP and Elections Canada and we only hear now that she was ignored? I've seen it acknowledged there was a lady who complained to Elections Canada in Guelph during the campaign, and they dropped this immensely important complaint because the lady didn't want to pursue it? I am unaware whether RCMP were aware of this incident but surprised if they weren't.

I need to know someone is trustworthy enough to defend and protect democracy in Canada. I am unconvinced this can be achieved from within. This is not a game to me. This is not a sport about whose team won. Who do we turn to when we cannot trust our highest institutions? This cannot be dismissed as dirty tricks. I don't care who they are affiliated with, I want to see justice done and I no longer have confidence it will be done internally.

I, and many of my friends have this to ask: To whom do we turn for justice?

I eagerly await your suggestions, and thanks in advance for your speedy reply,

Sincerely

Mark S. McCaw

Concerned Canadian.
CC Hon. Bob Rae, Nycole Turmel

     I'll just close by saying, if you agree with these sentiments, feel free to share this blog with the world. Right now I'm having a sick to my stomach break.

What conservative voters cannot explain

     I guess I can chalk this one up to entertainment purposes. I have questions I've been trying to ask conservative voters since the election writ was dropped, so far, not one of them can come up with any kind of suitable or sensible answer to any of my questions.

     I hope some of you will crawl from wherever you're hiding in shame and provide your explanations of my few questions below. But hope and a buck fourty will get me a medium coffee at Tims.

     Let begin my variety of things I want conservative voters to explain. I suppose conservatives don't have the nads to read this, so perhaps my usual readers will have a few more questions to throw out when they too are under attack by trolls.

     First, I'd love for you to explain your view that your party is good for the economy. I call it clueless to go from a 16 billion dollar budgetary surplus with a sustained pattern of making actual payments on the principal of the national debt to running the largest deficits in history. You call it good management. Explain that one, or perhaps this is how you handle your personal finances so it's normal for you.

     That's not the hardest question I have for you, my dear conservative voter friends. That's merely a test to see how one can wholeheartedly support lying to oneself. If I've learned anything, it's that conservatives have no time to be bothered with facts.They have too much on their plate studying rhetoric and foolish talking points. I also have to give honourable mention to their vocabulary when it comes to name calling and swearing when one attempts to introduce facts into the conversation. Bravo.

     So...tell me how you look in the mirror every day knowing your choice of Prime Minister is widely known to be a control freak who rarely opens his mouth to do anything but lie. You idolize a man who surrounds himself with criminals (Bruce Carson, Top Aide in the PMO and a 5 time convicted fraudster). That's not enough, the slime continues with his fundraising senators, 2 of whom have fraud charges pending. No suggestion they step down, not even so much as a suspension. You must be proud of that! Talk about the moral high ground! Since you think it's fine to blather about being tough on crime without a clue what that even means, even if we could pretend Harper didn't know Carson was more than a tiny bit crooked and engaged in dangerously looney behaviour with women of questionable character, someone had to have given him very high security clearance for his job. Even when the lurid details were publicly revealed, no call for an investigation how these serious crimes could be overlooked. No heads rolled for whoever cleared him, which also wasn't revealed no matter how many times the questions were asked. Plenty of staffers were thrown under the Harper bus during the election, but they were all low level functionaries. The obviously provided traction for the supporters of people of such high moral fibre.

     Let's discuss outright theft from taxpayers. Don't tell me you don't know or have never heard of the "In & Out" scheme. I suppose you're fine with a political party stealing money from taxpayers, or, your party stealing it (you're still indignant about Adscam but that was a different party). I guess that's acceptable to tough on crime conservatives. Now if you don't understand in and out, it's basically the same thing as going to an ATM, making a deposit with an empty envelope then withdrawing cash. I guess only good conservative citizens engage in this type behaviour, I know I'd never do something like that. They may not have defrauded banks, but they claimed illegal subsidies for local advertising to the tune of 1.2 million dollars, tax dollars, from your pocket too dummy. I guess that's the conservative "cost of doing business"

     Now if you're going to support a crew of thieves, you might as well shred all of your moral fiber and cheer on the misappropriation of 50 million tax dollars for one riding, Tony Clement's Muskoka riding. Aside from presenting parliament with a request for dedicated money to improve the speed of border crossings (which is actually very important for business) and taking a 50 million dollar chunk to spend on Gazebos and portable toilets and beautification ideas like signs and fancying up the areas where the G8 leaders never went, the spending itself was decided by politicians alone, with absolutely no paper trail or consultation with senior civil servants as has been the practice since confederation. I admit I don't understand how you could possibly be ok with this, but you are. I'm not, not with any party.

     It only makes sense that you support pesky little things like altered documents and tabling in the house of commons a document which contained two blatant lies, using the words of highly respected individuals (former Auditor-General Sheila Fraser, and Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page), taken from other documents or interviews about other subjects and using them to give the official impression these two watchdogs were praising them. That's more fraud. To be kind, it is encouraging plagarism which will earn you a quick exit from any university, and cost the Dean of the U of Alberta medical school his position just recently. I guess your kids will grow up with no values either, what with your wholehearted support of such activities.

     I have plenty of other things I'd like to know, as soon as you answer to these.

     You condone criminal behaviour, you're ok the theft of taxpayer money, you are 100% fine with people who lie, who are vindictive and try to destroy the lives of innocent people (Helena Guergis for one), you don't mind if they fritter away billions of dollars your grandchildren can't afford to pay. You are open and accepting of outright fraud. Hell you must be a swell group of people.

     Glad you aren't my people.

Government? Or Continuing Criminal Enterprise?

     The title says it all. It doesn't apply just to Canada, but to all. This is going to be the shortest blog I've ever posted. Go to your search engine. Read about continuing criminal enterprises, pay attention to how they are defined, examine the actions of your own governments, then ask yourself exactly what I asked in the headline.

     You might be surprised. At the low end of the scale, enlightened.

The Vision Movement (Part 1)

     When the title of my post contains "Part "X"" in brackets, you know it's not good. I've often been known to make a short story long, yet I come by it honestly, having learned some time ago I often have to offer a detailed explanation when I say things, or do it repeatedly afterwards.

     Welcome, my friends, to "The Vision Movement". Currently 1 member strong but hopeful for growth in the future. The vision movement, for now, exists only in my head, however, fear not, there is plenty of room in there.

     This is intended to be the first in a series of what I hope will be evolving posts, and I'm counting on them being fueled and part of a fluid process, based on feedback from like-minded fellow Canadians.

     I'm unsure where it may lead, if anywhere, other than me expending the time and effort to try to elucidate my thoughts on a society that builds on the best of what we already have, changes things we have proven are outdated or not working, and provides some kind of cohesive plan going forward.

     The vision movement is not a political party (although I'd never rule out the idea it may have to become one), it's more of a meeting of the many minds who have come to realize government does not act in the interests of all of the people. Here, the opinion of the billionaire tycoon carries the same weight as the homeless guy that sleeps on the bench in the park. It's about inclusion and truth. It's about taking power and sharing it with everyone.

     This is not about being conservative or liberal or any other party. It has absolutely nothing to do with getting back at anyone, there's no in-your-face we win, simply because the vision movement is about the empowerment of people as equals.

     I do want to move forward with what I think is an important discussion. If I don't get feedback, if I don't get some interest, I'll chalk it up as another "at least I tried" moment in my life and move on. I guess it's really going to be up to readers whether there is a part 2 and beyond or not. Once I put the thoughts out there, I transfer it into your hands to decide if it sounds interesting to you, and whether you'd be interested in moving the concept forward or letting it die on the order paper.

     I don't describe this as a socialist movement, rather, this is my attempt at encouraging a societal movement. It's about honesty and reality, about dealing with the bad and the good, about learning powerful lessons from hundreds of years of democracy, a shared determination to keep the things that are good and important to us and improve them, conversely it is also about admitting our system is very broken, and it's time for a 21st century update to a more inclusive and sensible system. Our system is archaic and tradition may be nice and all that, but it doesn't mean we should go back to traditional outhouses any more than we should still be operating in a system largely unchanged for centuries.

     I subscribe to neither the all out "nanny-state" nor the notion that smaller government is always the best solution. Extremes are for extremists.

     I'm not out to "get" business or the wealthy. I'm never going to advocate the notion of "every man for himself, survival of the fittest" either. One thing I think I have learned is that we have, for over a century, alternately elected conservatives or liberals, few of whom have seriously provided much vision in my lifetime. It's been a series of wrongs, both sides clinging to their particular ideology which can be widely warped if it appears it may win them the election. No party exists today that is interested in delivering what I am looking for. Massive, radical change. Not for the sake of change, but for the sake of taking society to a place where we can build for the future, not cling to the past.

     How many times have you voted for someone you liked and respected and thought would make a difference, only to find when they do obtain power, do everything opposite to what they've preached or promised? I wonder how many times good, well meaning people of all political persuasions, have been elected with the idea they can make a difference once in power, only to rapidly have those ideas, and their spirit, crushed by a system designed to be run top-down. This is not what we deserve. It's what we have, and as long as we are content with occasionally changing the players rather than the rules, the game will continue. That is what our life has devolved to: a game. A game of politics, where one side or the other must win at all costs to advance their agenda, based solely on their ideology.

     This isn't a game. Politics should not be a spectator sport where some citizens win and others lose. It's wrong. It's long since passed its expiry date. It is long overdue, but the vision movement can make this change. Believe that you can, for we are all far more powerful than we will know, if only we explore our own power.

     Part 1 of the vision is the unwrapping and demystifying government. It's about being able to expect honesty, to expect a government that is dedicated to creating a society that others look to for inspiration. It's about public, real-time accounting to taxpayers for every penny spent. It's about coming to our senses, creating a Canada that doesn't have to choose between rich and poor, business and citizens, left or right, or any other divisions. Reasonable Canadians, whether they like to be pigeonholed into categories or not, would be able to agree that we can spend our money smarter, and recognize we are unique in our steadfast survival against overwhelming odds. The second largest country in the world by land mass, one of the world's richest countries, yet we only have the population of California, which, in any sense of the word is failing its citizens due to the same kind of politics we seem to be embracing.

     Canadians are determined, yet today, we've lost sight of why we are a country in the first place. We totally ignore an obvious historic reality: Canada as we know it was built through compromise and cooperation. Now everyone thinks they have some kind of irreparable grievance, because for the last several decades this is how elections have been won, by playing on why some particular part of the country or portion of the population has been horribly wronged and the only way to fix it is by backing your "Team" (sic) in the next election. News Flash: We are devouring our own flesh for the sake of bragging rights.

     Aside from dragging government and its cumbersome, tired mass kicking and screaming into the present (how else will we be prepared for a future?), the vision movement is about just that. Vision. Ideas that not only touch the lives of all Canadians, but build on the things that bring us together instead of always fostering a battle of the differences. Confederation was a vision to create a country. The coast to coast railway was a vision about expanding this country and tying it together. The Trans-Canada highway opened up a vast and beautiful country of opportunity to all Canadians, that also took vision. Our most treasured, and one might say, sacred visions, is our system of medicare which, while flawed, we hold dear to our hearts. The thing is, these are some of the monumental things we have done through compromise and cooperation. I've never given up on caring about Canada. It's not about me, it about my daughter, and your kids, and their kids and all the kids to come. I'm not going to suggest my vision is perfect, that's why I'm hoping for feedback. If I think there is interest, I'll explore some options for the kinds of national visions we should be thinking about. Things to shed our labels and for once, make us all proud Canadians.

     It isn't about winning or losing. It's about changing. It's about setting the table for the future. It's about something more than polling numbers and talking points and cronyism. It's one lone man who has devoted years of thought to what is wrong, why it's wrong, and trying to determine the path to effect change.

     So I need to know. Am I alone? Is there a will to build a dream?

The Challenge of being a "Centrist"

     On the political spectrum, I consider myself a centrist. I don't subscribe to the views of any particular political party, but I make no secret of the fact, given our current choices I identify most closely with the Liberal Party of Canada. The point is, I can and will change my vote because I won't be loyal to a party, that would make me a partisan, leading to the need to defend things I don't agree with because of my affiliation.

     I wondered, if I'm not a partisan, am I an idealogue? I pondered the idea for quite some time, but I came to the realization in order to be an idealogue, I 'd have to subscribe to a single ideology, and when I take stock of my views on individual areas of policy, I realize I'm slightly or very liberal on some of the issues, yet somewhere in the moderate right on others.

     Since I can't seem to pigeonhole myself into either of the accepted political categories, I have no choice but to consider myself a centrist. Perhaps even, in the words of the sitting Prime Minister, an arch-centrist. I understand his feeling the need to demonize we centrists, there are a hell of a lot of us, a vast majority of us and should we ever find a way to coalesce our similar, yet diverse, values, Mr Harper has a massive challenge on his hands.

     Right now, arch-centrists like myself are agonizing. We're feeling a little alone in the Canadian political wilderness. The mostly moderate have come to the precipice. Backing the Conservative Party, even under a different leader is not within the realm of possibility. We prefer that our Canada is not "Made in America". Ditto for the NDP, we arch-centrists may have a sense of social justice, but not at the expense of taking policy directions that would hurt us on a wider global scale, we're just a little more pragmatic than that. Unless we are willing to wait a century, our X on the ballot will not be for the Green Party candidate, their name is an anchor around them, for a generation or more of us, the Green Party is inexorably tied to a lot of very suspect people in Europe and you can't call yourself the Green Party without claiming ownership of the origins, no matter how different you may be, your name is an albatross. By now, one would think the Liberal Party faithful would be standing on the chairs cheering as team Arch-Centrist marches into the arena, but hold your applause, we are seriously questioning whether you can deliver on the absolutely most volatile group of voters, that huge mob of Arch-Centrists. Perhaps the group most likely to influence the outcome of any kind of vote but far more difficult to please, or to fool, than any other voting bloc.

     I'm getting to know a lot more people of a similar sentiment. We've disengaged ourselves from narrow party politics, generally preferring to vote (or not) for the party that is advancing the platform that comes closest to our personal feelings. In the past it has generally meant we decided the outcome of elections by using our considerably powerful ability to swing a vote. We've had some close elections in the past, where we either had a tough time discerning which party had the better platform at the time, or the issues were such we truly were divided by which side of the line we sat on, red or blue. Orange just wasn't a factor, that was the reality and I remain unconvinced it is the new reality. I congratulate them on their success, I believe they absolutely must be heard in any Canadian debate, however I refuse to pass judgement on their performance in the most recent election. I spoke of volatility earlier and the NDP were the net beneficiary of that. The Quebec electorate faced a dilemma. It took a while, but mainstream public opinion changed on the value of sending members to the parliament of Canada who would never be in a position where they could actually advance their interests since it would be impossible to form government. Worn out by shallow pandering, power grabs, and plenty of corruption for over 100 years, Quebeckers, who have always shown themselves to be engaged, intelligent voters who understand what it takes to advance their particular interests and agendas and I respect them, even if we perhaps differ on our views of what would be best for Quebec and for Canada, absolutely hate Harper and have lost their trust in the Liberal Party as well. The difference between Quebeckers and non-Quebeckers, is, historically, they will go to the polls with a steely determination to deliver Quebec as a huge prize to a single party. Not unanimously, mind you, just overwhelmingly. In an election where everyone took the Quebec vote for granted, it was a perfect opportunity for a "carpe diem" moment, and Jack Layton's NDP team seized the day. They campaigned hard on Quebec issues and spent a lot of time in the Province while others made their courtesy visits as they criss-crossed the country. Blissfully ignorant because both parties are so used to being the only choice, they dismissed evidence something was amiss in Quebec. I don't envy opposition leader Jack Layton, he is going to have to try to do what no other person has been able to. Layton will have to figure out how to keep the Quebec base while growing in the rest of Canada, a balancing act I'm not sure his party is up for. Not that any of the current parties are up for it, at this time and place in our history. The volatility that vaulted the NDP to opposition status is very fragile, to put it kindly, and could just as easily come back to bite them, hard.

     Hence the dilemma of the centrist in Canada today. Quebec is a bit of a microcosm, not for the rest of the country, but for centrists and arch centrists alike. The difference outside of Quebec is we don't have anyone speaking to us we have a reason to want to commit to. While can all agree on our desire for social justice and a better country for the strong and the weak alike, where we stand in the centre still seems to be problematic. The dilemma faced by Jack Layton in Quebec is the same one, to great extent, as that faced by those who seek to define the centre. We are an extremely hard bunch to label. For the most part we are moderate in just about every sense of the world, however we do have some diverse things we are passionate about, but we aren't all passionate about the same thing, so we tend to fall to one side or the other, or not vote at all as it has become far to difficult to decide who to back. This is as delicate a balancing act as any. I believe there are plenty of people who can appeal the the innate moderate views of the centrists, while balancing the needs of those who still feel centrist but happen to fall father from the middle to one side or the other than the rest of the pack.

     I know what it will take to capture my vote. I have an idea I know how to capture more than just my vote/ Unfortunately, I've not found a politican willing to sit and actually take in why I don't consider any of them to be an extremely palatable choice. I guess if I call myself a think-tank or a consultant and charge a hefty fee for my ideas I may be taken a little more seriously by the people who would have me install them as ruler. Maybe that's the ticket, although, I suspect something far different.

    I suspect the party that will recapture the hearts and minds of the 60%'ers, the moderates, the centrists, does not exist at this time. Unless the Liberal Party gets the kind of earth moving massive change that will be required, they aren't it. The jury remains out as I am willing, for a short time, to give the benefit of the doubt, although judging from the attitude I've had from some Liberals, I don't think they understand 1970 left.

     As ludicrous as it sounds, it may be time for a party, from scratch, built by the massive percentage of Canadians wandering in the vast wilderness of the centre. Just as I give the benefit of the doubt as to the ability of Mr Layton to retain Quebec while building across the nation, and extend the same to the idea of the rejuvenation of the Liberals, I must also extend the same courtesy to the idea the party of the centre may not yet exist.

     My patience has lasted a couple of decades. It won't last forever. I suspect I am far from alone in my nearly unbearable dissatisfaction with the status quo. I know I am not alone in believing we can build a better Canada. The kind of Canada our veterans fought and died for. Not this Canada.

     You'll forgive my anguish, I feel as though I've lost my voice and can't find the right doctor to cure me.

Sorry Harper, Conservative values are American values.

     The latest conservative slogan is cheesy, and for their believers, the sheeple as I lovingly refer to them, it works. I'm talking about the new "talking point" which will be continuously rammed down your throat by every partisan hack in sight. Canada will be flooded with the "Conservative values are Canadian values" which would be okay if there were an atom of truth to the statement. This catchy little slogan will be picked up and repeated to people so often they will come to believe they actually believe it.

     It's no different than phenomenons like urban myths, or using viral video hoaxes as a marketing tool. Anything perceived to be true, is true, until proven different, but only in the case of people who are open minded. There are many people out there who think it is some kind of shame to admit when they are wrong. People who will continue to cling to absolute proven lies because they see it as some kind of defeat to accept they've been mislead. It's because of the sheer numbers of these kind of people that society continually takes one step back for every one or two forward.

     Almost all Canadians I've come in contact with are generally glad to be Canadians rather than Americans. Traditionally, there have been similarities, but also marked differences. Americans tend to be relatively boastful and highly jingoistic. They're known world wide as being rude, boorish, and overbearing. They have more braggadocio than the rest of the world's population combined. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of wonderful Americans, but the image of those people is never projected. Like the voice of moderates in Canada today, they are marginalized, however they've had to endure it far longer. American is known as a global bully, whether it is militarily or economically. The majority of Americans I interact with are shockingly inward looking, they believe, because they have been indoctrinated to believe since birth, the America is the greatest country in the world, which naturally means everything should go the way America wants it to go and if it doesn't, you take the chance of being bombed into the 12th century.

     Americans are the first to criticize repressive countries who openly control their populations, you know, countries where the leader's name is preceded by the word "general" or places you see with gigantic murals of the leader for life and massive military parades which serve two great purposes: showing off your might to the world, and reminding your domestic population who's in charge.

     The sole reason America can be such a vocal and sometimes violent critic, is because they have found a way to do the exact same thing without the bad optics. From birth, everything in America is about indoctrination. Waving an American flag commands a lot of attention, because even little children are taught to pledge their homage to the flag of their country, which, not incidentally, get the "G" word in at the end. From the time they are babies they are repeatedly told America is the greatest country in the world. As for the military parades, not required when you have made the military a viable religion. If you think I'm fooling, just watch any number of live events, sporting events, etc. The US Military is keenly aware of the value of having their "colour guard" appear on camera. No problem at all in arranging a fly past by some impressive aviation killing machines, or a display of military vehicles and weapons at your even or festival. They don't just have a single memorial for veterans, they have memorials spread far and wide because they are immensely personal and touch many lives. They remember veterans on several national holidays. No matter what the public event, you'll see two things. The flag, and men/women in uniform. This folks, is deep integration at its best. To the point where you are vilified if you even attempt to criticize even the most heinous actions of the military.

     Unfortunately, in this country, many people are still deeply confused over the conservative party. They believe they know what conservative values are, after all, for many, their families have voted conservative for generations. This was the coup of all coups for Harper and his small circle of friends and advisors. Keeping the word conservative to identify their party, and a carefully thought out logo which is purpose built to make former progressive conservatives believe this is still their party.

     Make absolutely no mistake about it. Stephen Harper is nothing like a progressive conservative. He sees them as weak, and soft on his agenda, however, in order to set his agenda in place he needs those people, or perhaps, past tense, he needed those people to get his majority. Why do you think he convinced his minions they "needed" a majority in order to have "stability" and get rid of the "shenanigans" going on in parliament. Nice line, people figured that's plausible, there have been plenty of badly run conservative governments in the past and we've survived them, what's so different about Harper's conservatives? Truth is, plenty.

     Stephen Harper is a republican. He only began to somewhat hide that when the time was right to wrest control of a much-weakened progressive conservative party, not because he cared about the fate of that party, he needed the brand name. That's it. Prior to his initial run to become PM, Stephen Harper made no secret of what he thought of Canadian values, especially when his audience was full of American ears. This man was unabashedly apologetic for everything Canadians held (and I hope still do) dear. He called Canada a "Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the word". He attacked everything from medicare to bilingualism to being a nation more partial to peace than war. All his words, not mine. I've never believed Stephen Harper had or has a hidden agenda. Until he became an important figure in Canadian federal politics he never hid the fact he believed that not only should Canada be more like America, but Canada should reflect a far-right republican America. Canada should be a country where, if you can't or won't survive on your own, too bad, hopefully someone will help you out but it would probably be better if you were dead. We should ensure our good friends, the Americans, have access to all of our resources, on their terms, as long as his backers would benefit financially from it. Governments should not run the country, corporations should. He'd love nothing more than an injection of good old convenient Christianity into our society as well, ergo, the slashing of funding for women's groups, because women should be a lot more like women in other countries, at home, having kids, married and staying that way even if you need a beating to know your place once in a while. Of course he never would have dropped that one publicly, but their policies are geared toward encouraging women to be quiet and most certainly out of the boardrooms of the country. One only needs to examine the "income-splitting" proviso promised when they balance the budget by cutting funding and programs for anyone who openly opposes them. Who will benefit? Not the people who really need help. Not single parents, or anyone with a family income less than $42,500. How many people are immediately exempted by just those 2 conditions alone? Mostly, Stephen Harper is all about government for the few, by the few, and fuck you.

     Because of the lack of foresight of the over 20% of Canadians who offered up Harper's coveted majority, I am going to take great delight from your anguish at what you've done. With 4 years of absolute power a lot of things can change, and they will. Too bad for you sheeple, you see, I'm interested enough in people and politics I've been preparing myself for this for a decade. I'll be fine. On the other hand, your family and friends are going to be hurt in ways you never bothered to think of because you see politics as some kind of sporting event, whereas I see politics as the jerks who run my life. I don't fear the Harper agenda because I know the Harper agenda. I generally don't wish anyone ill will, but I will say to the ignoramus' out there who didn't bother to understand what you were voting for, I hope the policies implemented over the next four years really put the screws to you personally, or at least to someone you care deeply about. It's what you deserve for your intransigence. It's the price you pay for ignorance. In four years the Canada you've lived in all your life, or the Canada you came to for a better life will not be recognizable. Stephen Harper promised that, many years ago. I have no reason to suspect he will not follow through. At the end, he'll still be rich and getting richer, you'll be screwed, and frankly, people like me will smile and say, it looks good on you.

     Welcome to America Lite.

     To Stephen Harper I say, conservative values are your values. You've openly expressed you hate the things that made us uniquely Canadian, now, for a time, you will get your way. By the time you're exposed to the willingly blind, you'll be gone, the damage will be done to a great extent, but you'll never be remembered as a great Prime Minister by anyone but yourself and your friends. Congratulations. You've proven Canadians are embarrassingly naive.

     To my fellow 60%'ers: Stop thinking about today and start thinking of how we are going to restore a once great and respected country. We'll have a lot of work to do. There isn't a shred of doubt in my mind that the political party that will be tasked with bringing Canada back does not exist today. That's just my opinion.

     Canadian values are Canadian values. They're not conservative values or liberal values or NDP values. No single party represents Canada or Canadians. I know the Prime Minister doesn't care, but I do. A majority of others do too, chances are we aren't going away.

The Polarization of North America

     People don't usually want to talk about controversial subjects. That's fine, if you wish to hide from reality feel free to do so, just don't expect me to be shy when it comes to talking about things that are ugly realities in life. I really don't care if you agree with me or not, I'm interested in opening a dialogue or debate, or just getting you thinking.

     I've always had an interest in geopolitics, in societal makeup, in the interaction and reaction of populations and a tremendous amount of other geeky stuff. I'm not going to be one of those goofs who pretends to be an expert on anything other than my own opinion. I do my research, I think about things and apply them to what I've learned in life, I test my ideas and I'm willing to alter them if someone proves me wrong.

     No longer do I have the ability to muster any faith in government or the media to look out for anything other than their own narrow interests. Societies are proving neither can keep up. Social media and bloggers are fueling revolution and evolution worldwide. Communications technology has outstripped their ability to keep up in the real world where thoughts and ideas no one would have ever known of are routinely shared globally. Like minded people in Canada are finding each other the same way like minded people involved in African and Arab uprisings. As we become more connected the world gets smaller. The pace of change within our former trusted institutions has been overrun creating intense friction among competing ideas. As more people become unprepared to be ruled by a minority of elites, or to be dictated to by the controllers of wealth, governments will increasingly struggle to deal with keeping peace, not in some far off country, but in their own land.

     Apparently no one warned Governments and corporations of the dangers of globalization. They didn't imagine the possibility of opposition to their agenda being shared globally as well. Fail.

     If you, like I, still find the stomach to watch/read mainstream media and/or anything that broadcasts political things from any perspective, you may have noticed how they've been making light of Brigette LePape when she mentions the uprisings of the Arab Spring. If they really thought about it, they wouldn't scoff when someone says that. After all, how many people would think a wave of change would sweep the middle east in such a forceful and sustained manner, even at the cost of untold numbers of lives? A sea of change is upon us and for the most part, Governments are reacting the only way they know how, by trying to stop the will of the majority through violent means and superior armament. Human spirit is not so easily crushed, especially now, when we have all learned there are people across the globe who share our aspirations.

     That may be a lot of preamble on my part, but these are the most recent things that have pushed me to think a lot more deeply about the state of affairs in North America, and how our situation can both be compared to that in other countries across the globe, and how it differs. Lately I've been thinking much more about the serious ramifications of the situation we face on this continent. I guess this is where I get to talking about the kinds of things others don't want to. Hidden things are generally not good, protections on freedom of thought and expression have generally been the foil of the worst in society. When it becomes taboo to talk about things, those things will generally morph into the ugliest problems in society. History has proven this over and over and over. Racism, homophobia, sexism, sectarian violence, you name it and the ills of society we have tried to address were all at one time or another (or even today) subjects that are taboo to talk about. In this day and age we still suffer a culture of shame, blunted mostly because of open communication. I hope we can come to our senses before we reach the ultimate consequence of where I think we could be headed, and faster than I had previously considered when the fleeting thoughts initially came under my focus.

     North America is becoming increasingly polarized. While it is most pronounced in the United States, the pace of change in society no longer requires decades. If the previous election taught you absolutely nothing else, you must at least note that a sea of change can be executed before your very eyes. In 30 days the Bloc virtually disappeared from a map it dominated for 20 years, replaced by a roundly unknown group of candidates for Canada's traditional third party, the NDP. If you tell me you predicted that before the writ was dropped I will personally climb to the highest peak in Canada to declare you Canada's biggest bullshitter (or at least I am willing to die trying). I see the speed with which my country is becoming polarized as, perhaps, slower than that in America, but more mature than that of Mexico where their polarization issues are a bit out of step with those of Canada and the United States.

     In the last 20 years I've watched an increasing hardening of positions in our fairly like-minded societies on this continent. Increasingly, the wide groupings referred to as the "left" and the "right" are entrenching and becoming more and more antagonistic. Every time one or the other gets some kind of leg up it turns into the new bloodsport. No longer do we seem interested in finding common ground, only in blindly advancing the agenda we embrace. The deeper one side digs in, the deeper the other side digs in and I feel as though I am somehow watching a silent movie that explains the psychology that led to two sides digging hundreds of miles of trenches directly across from one another and bombing the shit out of everything like World War One. Both sides, not willing to give an inch of ground, fighting for their idea of what was right even if it meant destroying everything in their path. Willing to fight to the death over 3 feet of ground. Willing to fight to the death over the same three feet of ground, back and forth, over and over, for years. They both believed they were fighting for what was right. As we do today.

     We've been broken down into 2 groups, or so it would seem. No different than warring factions throughout history. As a self-described "centrist" I am recoiling in horror as I watch events unfold at an unprecedented pace. As I previously stated, it no longer takes decades for events to unfold. I've never been one of those melodramatic fools who seem to see every little issue as a reason to run off screaming like chicken little, but I have to admit I am wondering if we all ought not be even more concerned than we previously thought we should.

     I'm not talking about uniting the right, or the left. I'm crying out to unite the sensible before we have no choice but to take sides in this insane polarization of our society. It's not too late to call off the all-or-nothing attitudes that are rapidly entrenching themselves in public opinion in Canada and the United States. I blame a lot of it on lack of any kind of vision, but to say that's the cure all would be completely naive. All I know is if we do not find a way to force these two sides to find some common ground there is going to be a very predictable, yet highly unpredictable consequence. The two sides will turn on one another violently. I always believed civil wars happened in unsophisticated countries. Lately I've been forced to entertain the possibility it could happen here. Not Canada specifically, more of a pan-continental thing. When I first began to ponder this, even I thought it was crazy. I thought of every reason possible why it wouldn't happen, but they just do not align with the reality I see around me.

     I see people who try to talk sense being vilified by both sides. I've felt this myself when I have expressed my own views. As both sides entrench it becomes more difficult to remain in sensible territory. The most partisan vitriol has become the norm. No longer do people pay more than lip service to anything that looks like compromise. For both sides it has become a "my way or the highway" scenario. You're in all the way or you are the enemy. The intensely vocal minority on both sides, the truly unreasonable wackos, command almost all of the attention, which serves to perpetuate the idea you have to join the "good" side, depending on what you perceive as being good. Middle ground is becoming increasingly muffled and if we allow it to be snuffed out I shudder to think of what might happen when two groups of radicals who will disagree to the death duke it out, forcing even the moderates among us to choose sides or die, or perhaps worse, choose sides and die.

     Don't think it could happen here? Think I'm some kind of nut? Great, go back to the website of your favorite celebrity or sports hero or maybe check out a reality show. I'm sure every time societies reached a danger point people scoff at those who suggested there could be a bad outcome.

     I think we have a dangerous divide in North America, and I think it is deteriorating faster than many people realize. It's more convenient to ignore such an ugly possibility than it is to think about it, but if no one talks about it because it is uncomfortable, it will get far worse before it can ever get any better. I, for one, do not want to wait until it's too late to talk about it.

     We are so busy arguing over what divides us, we've forgotten what binds us together. We are not so different as to render us immune to violent division. It's hard work to compromise. Will we really allow history to repeat itself right in our backyard?

     I don't know. I do know I don't like what I see. Sometimes the bigger picture is so ugly I long for tunnel vision.

Where did Canada Go?

     For quite some time now, I've been searching for my country. This is getting serious, I'm about at the point I think I should report to authorities it is missing. I put the blame squarely on myself, while I was distracted Canada must have wandered off and recently I've been in a panicked search for it.

     Of course that may seem like babble, but I have a particular affinity for babbling, eventually I get to the point.

     I'm sure we all have our own ideas of what Canada is. Sure there are differences, but it's the similarities in our hearts and minds that define us as something different that people who live in other nations. If it weren't for these kinds of definitions there would be no need for countries or borders, if we all felt the need to run our affairs exactly the same as others do.

     My Canada, the one I am searching for, had much sharper definitions from its neighbour to the south, and I liked that. My Canada was a country founded on cooperation of a small population spread over a massive geographic location, unlike the "every man for himself" attitude which turns my stomach in so many ways. My Canada was different because it cared about the disadvantaged, the disabled, to those whose voices would otherwise never be heard. My Canada welcomed immigrants and refugees and didn't expect them to become us, rather learn more about their cultures to enrich ourselves, a welcoming attitude that made them more determined to be good Canadians and adapt to our way of life without having to discard their own. My Canada had a stellar reputation globally, it was a honest broker, it wasn't a war monger or blind follower of the "great powers" in their military misadventures, it was often leading the charge for social and environmental change, friend to most, defender of the opressed, and it was a badge of honour to carry the Canadian Maple Leaf proudly displayed on one's attire.

     In short, I'd say we were "lovable Americans" (sic). Hear me out, if you've travelled outside the country you will often hear what people think of Americans, and it ain't pretty. Years ago, many Americans would go so far as to sew Canadian flags on their gear to escape the shame a bad country can bring to good people. Conversely if people knew you were Canadian, while they knew little about the country itself, they were always welcoming and held a special affinity for Canadians.

     That Canada has become mysteriously absent. I'm sure I am not the only one alarmed by this trend, and not the only one dedicated to rebuilding and repairing the mess we're faced with now. I'm not going to pick this apart in any great detail at the moment as I intend, over the next while to look at some of the politics and geopolitics on an issue by issue basis. We need to talk about these things, or we risk becoming a homogenous "American" society.

     What would lead me to think that way? Just look where we are today. Canada has absolutely no national interest, other than being a source of commodities and toadying up to the US/UK agenda. Not only has an economy that should have been poised to lead developed nations started on a steady downward slope, by electing a Harper majority, Canadians have guaranteed themselves 4 years of people who don't have a clue how to handle the economy of a country. They might be great at a business, but running a country comes with considerations no business has to take into account and these guys don't get it at all. Add to that our absolutely abysmal record on the environment which has had the effect of turning a once respected nation into an international pariah, and our blind following of other countries into military adventures that are not well thought out, where we don't know what our goal is or how to end these things and the spiral went from gradual to cliff-like in a few short years.

     If you want your Canada to be exactly like the train wreck south of us, you're probably over-the-moon happy right now. If you want your Canada to do a U-turn and try to redeem ourselves in the eyes of the world then join me in sharing this blog with your friends. Join me in speaking up about a better, kinder, Canada. There is a lot of work ahead, we're either up for it, or giving up.

     I want my Canada back.

Hoodwinked? I think not!

     I haven't said a lot post election, regarding the outcome of the 41st election, which has delivered to us a Harper majority. This was purposeful, as I wanted to take a bit of time to pay attention to what others were saying. The media, the various social media, and people I take time to talk to at the various place I go.

     I'd like to say it's laughable, but it isnt.

     My feeling that people aren't very bright most of the time has been heavily reinforced. Before you think I am some kind of big-feeling pompous ass, I want you to know I also include myself in the same category, since I find many times when I realize I should have put more thought or more research into something before coming to a conclusion. This often leads to me changing my mind, which, I believe, differentiates me from the majority, in that, when I find I am wrong, I am willing to admit I was wrong and alter my thinking and actions accordingly. For many, this is a step they just won't take. When they find they're wrong, rather than admit they may have been incorrect in their thought process, they entrench. They ignore facts and evidence and cling to their mistaken beliefs in order to not have to admit they were wrong. I see it every day, because I engage a lot of people in discussion. Usually it works like this: Person 1 makes a statement of "fact" (in quotations because they've only stated what they believe to be true). At this point, I will generally call them out on their statement, presenting what I know through research and experience to be the truth of the matter. This inevitably leads to my being called all kinds of names, right up to being threatened by "internet bullies" who somehow think acting like a 6 year old has suddenly reversed the truth and made their point magically become reality. Generally, I won't stoop to this level since it makes absolutely no sense to a grown up to behave that way, so I will either continue to try to engage them with fact (only if I see a glimmer of hope they may have a common sense bone somewhere) or I'll just stop responding (when I see it's absolutely hopeless to continue to try to talk sense to them).

     Which leads me to this, my latest diatribe on the Jerk referred to as Stephen Harper. I like most people. Even some who are relatively jerky, I will try to find good qualities rather than dwell on the bad. When it comes to Stephen Harper I harbour a great distate for this individual. I'd have no problem telling him to his face what I think of him, I would probably derive great pleasure in doing so.

     What really galls me is what I've been seeing since the day Harper appointed his bloated cabinet, then walked away before a release was issued that he had appointed to the senate three of his cronies who had lost on election day. I have to admit, I was taken by surprise, not that Harper had done what he did, but by the reaction from conservative supporters. The same morons who voted for this asshole, indeed many of the same "so-called" journalists who endorsed him and encouraged others to give this clown the ultimate power he so craved, expressing some kind of "moral outrage" at these indefensible senate appointments.

     I'm not new to Harper bashing. I took notice of this punk in an expensive suit long before he was ever leader of his party, let alone Prime Minister of what once was a great country. Many years ago I took note of the things he was saying publicly, I recognized him as a flat out US-style far right republican (however, I've revised this with the advent of the Tea Party because that is where he fits) and being the kind of person that actually cares about others and thinks government can play a constructive roll in the lives of citizens, I began to pay attention to him. I followed his rise to prominence, watched as his various power plays gained traction and how he destroyed the Progressive Conservative party and turned it into republican north. He's not a stupid man, just shallow, small minded, and the ultimate playground bully. He's managed to cloak himself in the "conservative" name, which is rather clever on his part, because many of his supporters somehow cling to the mistaken belief this is the same party as the progressive conservatives they voted for all their lives, that their parents and their parents before them voted for. Nothing could be further from the truth, which reinforces my belief that most people are just plain dumb or too lazy to look at the facts.

     What else could possibly explain Canadians handing absolute power to this fascist? In the face of all of the evidence of his dictatorial tendencies, in the face of him surrounding himself with criminals as his top advisors, in the face of fraud, faked reports, mad-whore spending that would put the most left wing socialist to shame, contempt for parliament, contempt for the media, contempt for Canadians, 2 prorogations of parliament to keep himself in power, and all of the other disgusting crap this power hungry freak has rained down upon us, morons flocked to the polls to give him more power than someone like him should ever have. Now they're whing. Publicly crying foul because he is doing what he has always done.

     I wonder if they think this forgives them for what is going to happen to this country over the next few years. I certainly don't forgive them. I don't feel the least sypathy for any of these people, who are bemoaning the first moves of our new dictator, they're directly responsible for giving him the power to do whatever he wants to do, and what he wants to do is make Canada into America North. Make no mistake about it, you will hear wailing and gnashing of teeth from the same blithering bastards who did everything they could to give this man what he wanted. Dictatorship of Canada.

     Laughingly, they pontificate as though this is some kind of surprise. That, somehow, by giving this small minded creep a majority, he would change his ways. Stephen Harper is going to change, just not in any way that is positive for this country. The most unfortunate thing about it? People are so stupid they ignored every bit of evidence the worst thing that could happen to Canada in the entire history of the country would be to put ultimate power into the hands of this freak.

     I don't find any of this funny. For years I have watched in horror as this piece of garbage consolidated his power, then gained power, then proved though a multitude of actions he is an irresponsible and dangerous man, and in return was given ultimate power in this country. If he wants to recall parliament and enact his radical right agenda, there is nothing short of revolution to stop him. If he wants to gut medicare, he can. If he wants to make abortion illegal, he will. If he wants to remove the rights of marginalized people who fought long and hard to gain a bit of understanding and acceptance, he is going to. Fact is, Stephen Harper is our dictator. Just like Franco, or Stalin, or Hitler, or any of those people I will be villified for comparing him to, Stephen Harper is your supreme ruler and he does not give a damn about your wants, needs, opinions or anything else for that matter. It's too late to whine, it's too late to moan, and far too late to pretend you had no idea what the Harper agenda was.

     No one should be surprised. Stephen Harper has not had a hidden agenda. He's been clear for 2 decades where he wanted to go, and where he wanted to take this country. Because plenty of the irresponsible media types chose to ignore this, we got what they wanted, only now, they are crying about it.

     To read their crap, listen to their crap, you whould think they'd been hoodwinked. If I've known and spoke out against this man and his agenda for over a decade, how is it these so-called journalists with all of the access and resources available to them, are now screaming as if they had no idea Harper would move immediately to show his contempt for all?? I submit they are either incredibly naive and stupid, or perhaps, seeing all the other losers who pretended they were journalists being appointed to the senate, they were angling for their own plum job for life.

     Hoodwinked? I think not.

The Canadian Foreign Policy Mirror

     At one point, at a time I was happier with our stance on world affairs, I think our particular, quirky, role on the world stage was a place most Canadians could agree on overall as our stance in the world once made us appealing and somewhat the envy of many other countries.

     Let's face it, the Americans can have a huge influence on most nations in the world, and our status as that geeky kid next door who wants to be accepted so will do almost anything to be part of the "inner circle" even though the closest he gets in to hang in the fringe make our relationship special. Special as in, lock step behind whatever the US says or we'll punish you with unrelated yet devastating tariffs. At least, that's how it works today. The US wants us to put troops in Afghanistan, getting them killed and maimed, ostensibly hunting down Osama Bin Laden, who of course was in Pakistan all or most of that time. Now we're right in there like a dirty shirt bombing Lybia with no clear idea of what the mission is, will be, or may be forced to become. This is toadyism at its worst.

     It also leaves the world with a huge void. For a long time Canada was respected across the globe as the pragmatic country that did not unessecarily get involved in armed conflicts, but readied ourselves for the opportunity to teach the world that, with a little help, a peaceful existence could be attained. Canada maintained (sic) its comittment to NATO and if NATO required a job from Canada it was done.

     Aside from these aspects, if you examine the Canadian record, we have basically stayed in lock step with America and the UK, with the unfortunate exception we have expressed eagerness to blow the USA and China out of the water as the world's most irresponsible stewards of our own environment, and the biggest impediment to moving forward on anything a step up from the clown show that is our government's climate change policy.

     Canadian foreign policy, once a source of pride for many Canadians, has deterioriated to a trick mirror image of America's, the trick mirror makes us look uglier.

Why "Uniting the Left" will fail.

     Since I've seen a lot of chatter about uniting the "left" recently, I thought I might weigh in on the subject while the topic is still fresh.

     Many pundits and regular folk have been musing about what needs to be done to allow the majority of the population to have the majority say in the affairs of the nation. Many varied pieces have been written in the aftermath of the election that gave Stephen Harper's conservatives a majority in the House of Commons, with the support of only 40% of the 60% of eligibile Canadians who took the time to vote. There are variations on several themes, and some very good ideas, most of which imply the opening of the constitution which is fraught with many dangers I will surely discuss at some point, but for now, I'd like to focus on the people who believe the solution is to "unite the left".

     Our current difficulty stems from the catch 22 situation that exists in the Canadian political landscape. The system we operate under is equipped to allow for any number of political parties to participate, but the process of government is actually designed for "mano-a-mano" government versus opposition two party rule. The more parties involved, the less influential and effective they will be, especially when facing a majority government. This is our reality. The NDP went from a position of power to being the mouse that roared. Enough of that, let's get to the meat of the discussion.

     As I see it, the left is already just about as united as they get. The left, of course, would be Jack Layton's NDP. For most of the Liberals I know personally, and many I discuss ideas with, any kind of merger with the New Democrats is neither a probability nor a possibility. The NDP is a separate party for a reason, that reason being they are too uncomfortably left for people who have considered themselves as socially progressive over the last half century. While I suspect many NDP supporters may fall somewhere on the right hand side of the official party position, they have a certain populist appeal which will draw some people in, and, like supporters of any party, will ignore the areas the party might tend to go further than they like in order to support a narrower agenda they do want to see moving forward. This is the same principle that allows conservative supporters to ignore the horrificly bad things the Harper Government has done and proudly support them, and the one that allows Liberals to somehow not notice their party stopped standing for anything in particular some time ago.

     I'm not going to self-aggrandize and say I know the answer to what ails Canada right now. I do know that the heart and soul of the Liberals and the heart and soul of the NDP are camps that sit father apart than one would think on the surface.

     Looking at things in a smaller context, perhaps defeating Stephen Harper and his band of merry-men is the be all and end all and that if that other 60% of voters all joined in a big group hug we'd chase those bullies from the playground once and for all and Canada would live happily ever after. To which I give the "Bev Oda ^NOT Award".

     This is not what I'm asking myself after this election. I never dismiss anything on its face, so of course I pondered the option of some kind of coming together of the left, however, it isn't an option I would dwell upon for any great length of time. If the rift is too wide for me, I know it will be far too wide for a mass audience it really needs to appeal to. What I'm expending much of my thought process on is a far more complex and compelling question. A question that really goes to the root of what you or I personally see as what it means to be Canadian. It truly can be a defining moment for the future of the country.

     I'm asking this: Do I want a Canada that more closely resembles America, and the politics that go with that? With a harshly defined right versus left that is exactly what we'll get. 20% hard to the right, 20% hard to the left and the remaining 60% who are either forced to hold their noses and vote for whichever is the lesser of the two evils at the time, or just not bother to vote at all. I find it appaling, but some people think it's just dandy.

     Is there room for a political centre in Canada? I believe there is. I actually believe there is a very bright future for "centrists" in this country. It may sound odd, when one looks at the unfortunate drubbing of the Liberal party in the election just past, but I will tell you why, where others see abject failure, I see glorious opportunity.

     The reason for hope begins with time. Most of us who are tuned in realize what a Harper majority has the potential to do. Nothiing can be done about that, except to do our level best to provide vocal opposition to the bad legislation they are going to pass during this term in office. Time also will help those in the centre by showing Canadians what the NDP is really about. Never before have they had to undergo the kind of scrutiny the "official" opposition will have to. Before, they were written off by a lot of very content people as a bunch of unelectable 3rd party wackos and when they said something dumb or had policies that didn't really stand up to scrutiny, it didn't really matter because they were the "other" guys. The also rans. Now they will matter. Moderate Canadians will get a much closer look at who they are and what they stand for, and in my estimation will find it not to their suiting.

     Time also benefits the centre in that many of the old progressive conservatives, and indeed, many in the reform party will come to the stark realization the Stephen Harper is to Canada what the Tea Party is to the US. He is right. Right-of-right. At this moment Stephen Harper has done exactly what he and his closest backers had planned. Destruction of the progressive conservatives using the reform party as a vehicle, then the takeover of reform and a "merger" with the much weakened progressive conservatives, then consolidation of power within the party itself, and finally, drop most of the pretense and move to US-style junkyard dog politics to annihilate your most serious opposition, to the point where you've jacked the system enough to form a majority government and enact the policies you intended to enact and vocalized two decades previously. Moderate conservatives are in for a shock since many of them still mistake Harper's conservatives for the ones of their past.

     These are some of the things that bode well for those of us who still believe that Canada can be a country known for its compassion, known for its fiscal good sense, and known for exhibiting good character in all of our global dealings. Now what the centre really needs is to identify the people who can articulate the truth. The truth that when we ask ourselves what it means to be Canadian, it means sitting somewhere on the line of sanity between the factions. To be Canadian is a lot about moderation, and there's nothing wrong with that.

     Will the voices of Canada, please speak up.

A National Dream?

     I've been wondering. Pondering. Questioning. Reading. I just don't see it.

     A main theme of mine continues to be vision. Leaders with vision, even a narrow, partial vision, either don't exist or are totally unable to articulate a vision that could appeal to Canadians from coast to coast.

     I long for someone with an idea or ideas on a grand scale. Ideas that improve the lives of Canadians from every corner of the country. Early on, it was coast to coast rail, then the Trans Canada Highway, medicare, public pensions, repatriation of the constitution, the charter of rights and freedoms and since...well...nothing. I mean, free trade was not an inspiration and did nothing for our national identity. I haven't even heard anyything from anyone I'd think of as an up and comer in any party express any kind of new ideas.

     I'm not sure what other Canadians are looking for. I think many would agree it wouldn't hurt for someone to come out with some kind of idea that unifies us, that mends some of the horrific devisevness heaped upon us in the last couple of decades.

     I have my own ideas of important things we might be able to do on a national scale, and I'd be tremendously interested to hear from others what they think might be a tonic for the region versus region, province versus province, provinces versus feds, feds versus provinces, urban versus rural crap that's been used for partisan political gain for far too long in Canada.

     If it were me, I'd advance an agenda of making Canada the greenest country on the planet. A comprehensive strategy that utilizes the resources of each and every Canadian, from the householder to the heads of the largest corporations.

     This is not one of those, cap and trade, carbon tax advocacy papers, rather it is the idea of an entire country making the committment to become the world's environmental leader in every way. For business, it's incentives to get greener and about paying your way for the harm you do. It's about programs to encourage the development of greener technologies, about new support businesses that will become reality to service new technologies which can be exportedall over the world. It's about more money for research for our Universities for programs that develop and enhance methods and new technologies to benefit Canadian industries, it's about finding new markets for recyclable materials and better methods of recycling. It's about public education, what can be done at home and at work and money for programs that encourage citizen science groups who have become increasingly successful in providing a wealth of reliable data that couldn't ever be compiled without the dedication of people who care about various aspects of the world around them. For the provinces, incentives to close old, inefficient power generating plants and replace them with greener energy sources.

     Canadians are concerned about the environment and rightly so. More than anything I can think of in this day and age, I believe our concern for the environment could be a unifying factor and a source of pride for a Canada which has been wandering in the wilderness, unable to see the forest for the trees.

     I'd love to hear your thoughts on national dreams. As always, I'm searching for the bigger picture.

If Bigpicguy Was Your Prime Minister

     Funny how sometimes an innocent conversation gets you thinking, and sometimes the thought doesn't go away, it builds over time. Which leads me to this particular blog post. I'm going to ignore what anyone else has as a platform, and talk about what I would do with my fantasy majority government.

     Of course, getting elected by being honest with people would never work, so this will always remain a fantasy, but for fun I'll share.

     Of course, first things first, I'd have to choose a cabinet. My process would be different. Normal conventions go in the toilet. Cabinet Ministers in my Government of Canada would not be chosen by power or party influence or location, they would be chosen by their understanding of the issues of their portfolio and their willingness to work for all Canadians, not their province/territory or region or ethnicity or anything else other than carrying out their duty to make this the best damned country in the world. From coast to coast to coast as they love to say. A minister serves at the pleasure of the Prime Minister, and under my administration fairness and competence are a must or you get assigned a different seat, on in the back, because everyone can be replaced.

     Next order of business, a budget. Since I would not be the finance minister, I wouldn't presume to think I could detail this for you, only assure you there would be no sudden shock for the average Canadian, no big anti-business hit, and that my Government's budgets will aim to advance my agenda for change, including far more open information on actual spending, and finding sensible ways to live within our means and to include payments on our debt in every budget. There must be measures put in place where only extrordinary measures could trigger deficit spending. More accountability for tax dollars is an absolute must.

     Now we have to get down to a legislative agenda. MP's can expect to be working a lot more. As one who firmly believes if you're going to lead, you do it by example. So long recesses would be an exception rather than a rule, there's a country to improve. Number one on my agenda is clarity on how every penny of your money is spent. I don't think any Canadian would object to setting up an agency that provides them the ability to go online and see every payment released from every Government account, to be able to see scanned images of every invoice, to know how their tax dollars are being spent so they are able to make an informed judgement on how their tax dollars are being spent. As a starting point, I think it's a good one. It forces people to be more careful when they know someone can immediately see they just bought 150 golf balls or 60 bottles of pricey Champagne. I'm not saying there aren't times those may be good investments, but if people can see it you'd best be able to justify it. It also opens opportunities for smart businesses. If I can go online and see an opportunity to supply the Government with a product or service at a lower price and still make money, the law would ensure their case gets a hearing. This is the 21st Century, so let's move into it.

     My agenda is reform of a system that has served us so poorly for so long. What once worked well (maybe) no longer is sensible in this day and age. Government has to change so Canadians have the kind of faith in their institutions required to open their minds to change.

     All my life I've listened to politicians say they have to have all the pay and perks and platinum pensions and on and on and on and to that I say "Up Yours". I don't know many starving politicians, especially former PM's, Premiers, Cabinet Ministers, Opposition Leaders and critics, these people have many new doors opened to them through their political careers. Most of them make far more money after they leave office than they could ever have made prior to it.

     Your job in parliament is about to become just that, a job. Since you are paid a salary, if you work extra hours, too bad. Yes, you'll have a fair amount of sick days but, like any other Canadian, if you miss too much time it will have to be taken from your pay. You'll also have a fairly generous vacation allotment, it's a difficult and stressful job, but if you aren't using that vacation time and the house is not sitting you are required to be in your constituency office 8 hours a day or attending a public function where you can account for your time, or take more unpaid time and explain it to the voters. It's about work ethic. It's about real public service. About setting the example. Just like every other Canadian who gets up and goes to work.

     Now we're going to set an example when it comes to pay and perks and money fountains of all kinds that can be eliminated or have the funds redirected to things that actually help Canadian people and business to flourish. Since I like personal accountability, MP's, Ministers and the PM will have their level of compensation tied to the average wage in Canada. The average + a set percentage, so you have an incentive to find ways to improve the standard of living and you pay if you're irresponsible. If the economy goes bad and everyone hurts, you do too.

     When we get to the pension thing, over baby. MP's will recieve an annual contribution to the RRSP of their choice and when they go it goes along with them. I wish them well, they're better off than many.

     I also wouldn't be taking a knife to perks and personal budgets, rather I have a chain saw and know how to use it. Get used to working like most other people. Drive your own car to work. If you use a government vehicle it will be comfortable but economical, no chauffeur but I promise a GPS so you can find your way. No one subsidizes a working Canadian's daily lunch, and you'll be paying full price for your own too. You won't fly if you can use a train, you won't use a train if you can drive, just like Joe Blow who voted you in. Just think of me as the guy who made the country club a little more like the sweat shop for politicians. You'll be surprised how much you can accomplish by showing up to work and not tripping over too many servants. If there is an occasion a limo is required, very few will be available to anyone, so it better be an important requirement.

     Since parliament is a workplace, Question Period will revert to Question Period. Where questions are asked and answers to the questions are given, or deferred for more information with a specified period of time to provide said answer. No more disorderly conduct, hollering, thumping of desks, etc as that will get you removed from the house for a time out as it were. Running the country is a business and it's about time we got down to it.

     MP's will be tasked with consulting extensively with Canadians on what their spending priorities are. Finding acceptable ways to stop spending frivilously and either save the money, redirect it, or a little of both. Let's not go off in a direction without determining priorities first, then finding ways to improve our health services, to prioritize continuing education so our youth have opportunity to grow, not to be buried in debt. We need to foster an atmosphere of hard work and results that improve the lives of all of our people. To concentrate on the things that unite us as Canadians, so we can work to find a fair concensus on things that divide us.

     That's how I would start. From the top. Of course I'd need to make the blog a zillion miles long to expound on all of my policy ideas but, this is a pretty good start.

     As always, I value your comments and suggestions for topics you might like to hear more of my views on. Thanks for visiting, come back often!!

What many don't understand

     I've taken a few days after the election to really pay attention to what Canadians are saying across a wide variety of media. Newspapers, radio, television, blogs, and social media can be a good source of the pulse of public opinion if you retain a vigilance when you follow public commentary. Not all public commentary is true public commentary, quite often political parties and interest groups will encourage like minded followers to dominate a topic to make it look like it has more support than it does. They're all guilty of it, so no one gets to feel superior here.

     I deal in reality. Ugly, horrific reality. Face it, we all hate having to look at reality but I thrive on it as it's the only way to move forward. As much as I would like things to be a different way, they aren't, and the sooner I see it for what it is, the sooner I can move forward to do my part to effect change.

     The world has changed. In our society, while we have the resources to be educated beyond what previous generations were, we use it for garbage, like tracking what celebrities do, or how our favorite "reality" show is doing, or some such drivel. I'm not dissing anyone's hobbies, but I encourage people to at least educate yourself about politics, our system, our history, and don't do what you've just done again. Even if you take a couple of hours a weekend to read a variety of news, to ask some questions, to use your search engine, library, reference library, any resources available to you to become involved in what is probably the next most important thing in your life next to your family.

     Yes. Politics is that important. These are the people who make the rules you have to live by, and with. They decide your level of taxation. They decide how your money will be spent and how much of it and where. Over the 41st parliament it is concievable the majority government of Stephen Harper will spend in the vicinity of a quarter-trillion dollars, plenty of it borrowed from your children, and their children.

     I will be very frank. I welcome comments. I welcome questions. I welcome discussion. This is my assessment. You can believe it or not, like it or not. This is my "reality show" for the very confused people I see making comments.

     A majority government in Canada means you live under a dictatorship for the next 4 years minimum. Opposition means nothing. Like dogs barking in the distance, they can neither change any proposed legislation nor stop it. Canada has handed Stephen Harper carte blanche to proceed with his (and that of his inner circle) agenda. I've seen many naive comments about how he'll have to take other people's concerns into account now that he has such awesome responsiblility. Rainbows and puppies covered in a thick layer of fantasy. The Harper governement fell because of their contempt of a minority parliament and people think rewarding him with a majority will correct bad behaviour? This argument is about as good as one that says if the kids won't eat the healthy meal you made at home, you can teach them a lesson by taking them to McDonalds or Boston Pizza or wherever.

     I've followed Stephen Harper since the early 90's. I recognized him as someone driven to remake the institutions of Canada in the image of the republic of the United States of America. I don't like the man, I don't like what he stands for, I believe most Canadians do not want a Canada that's America with oil. If you'd really like a glimpse of what the mindset of Stephen Harper et al is, and the agenda he has that some would argue is hidden, but I would argue has been very clear all along, read (and even bookmark to reread) the text of his Montreal speech, as President of the right-wing National Citizens Coalition lobby group. It's telling these are the right wing Americans he is addressing. It's full of disdain and vitriol for Canada, it's politics, it's parties and it's institutions. This is what Stephen Harper hates. Probably all of the things you've been proud of most of your life. All of the things that make us different than Americans. From this point forward, only ugly dirty politics will win elections in Canada. Everything will be played out to capture the lowest common denominator. Fear. Attack ads. Bogus media reports. Obfuscation of fact. Spin. In order to change it, we either have to engage in it or die, whether it goes against the grain of everything we may stand for or feel inside, the longer we try to be principled in a system skewed totally in the other direction we shall wander in the wilderness until it is virtually impossible to tell the difference between America and Canada. If this is what you want, feel free to remain blissfully ignorant of reality.

     Here is what Stephen Harper thinks of Canada many thanks to the Tyee.ca for the reprint of the text. Gravol may be required.

     For those of you unaware of what you've let yourself into. Stephen Harper, hated as he may be, seriously is your supreme ruler. What he says goes. Experienced Liberals have been left to 3rd party status leaving Jack Layton as opposition leader. He had more power prior to the election. He has nothing but a pulpit now, from which he can preach anything he wants knowing it doesn't make a lick of difference. He also is going to have serious internal problems to deal with. Much of his caucus is from Quebec, inexperience, idealisitic, and expected to carry the Quebec vs Canada message to Ottawa within a national party. This is a very unenviable position to be in and will consume much energy. Whether Jack Layton ran the same campaign across the country is debatable, but moot, as Quebeckers certainly are not, and I predict, will not be marching to the beat of the same drummer.

     It's not the time for those of us who make up the centre of the spectrum to sit crying in our beer. There is work to do on many fronts. We need to make use of a century of experience, and listen to how Canadians define themselves domestically and internationally. Whether the Liberals take advantage of this opportunity or someone else does, I am of the opinion most Canadians are of the kinder, gentler persuasion and prefer not to get radical on either direction. The fact the next 4 years everything will go the way of the right wing is reality. Our job is to expose the coming, leaner, meaner Canada and educate everyone you can that things need to change. Not in a small way. This will not be easy. My best advice is to remove emotion from the equation. Emotion will cloud your judgement and force you to take a narrower view, foiling your attemps to appeal to a broader base. I'm not saying you can't have emotions, just that they can't apply to anything but the selling of the solutions.

     I'm not happy. I'm disappointed in the lack of understanding of what just happend. I'm saddened by people who think it's a reason to give up when the exact opposite is true.

     I will continue to speak out for a just Canada, where public service means serving the public rather than your political masters, and for change in democracy so it reflects the realities of the 21st century. Tradition is cute and all that but it's not working. If it's broke, fix it.

     Let's git R dun.