I Call Bravo Sierra

Common sense isn't very common.

Archive for the ‘Canadian’ Category

Political Posturing and the Lies of Media Organisations

Posted by Keen Observer on August 24, 2018

I sure seem to take long breaks between posts, hey?  Married life, work, and now a new baby…it all takes time.  I don’t see how people can take care of all these things properly and still have time for frequent (or even irregular) blogging.

I wish I could post this in the the places that really need to read it, but I know some people will freak out.  So we’re at my relatively-anonymous blog again.  And I should give you a bit of a language warning….

The conversation over “gun control” in Canada is full of lies and bullshit, and I’m getting sick of it.  Emotions are being fanned over the bodies of people not yet cold in the ground.  Every fucking time.  It’s worse here in Canada than in the US, because the incidents are so much fewer and further between.

Any gun owner in Canada needs a firearms license that can take several months to process, even after authorities complete background checks. Those who want to use restricted weapons, such as many semi-automatic rifles or handguns, must get licenses to own the firearms, as well as another to even take them out of their homes to places like gun clubs. [Italics mine]

This is all key information (quoted from the Wall Street Journal, of all places, following the most-recent Canadian shootings).  The cowardly Canadian press outlets rarely (or never) include this tidbit.  They prefer to have the ignorant masses believing that guns are as easy to acquire as a latte at Tim Hortons.  Course-work from certified trainers.  Examinations.  Certification renewals.  Background checks.  A lifetime of surrendering your privacy to officious bureaucrats that can enter your home at any time for any (or no) reason, without a warrant, simply to “check if your firearms are properly stored, and stored separately from properly-stored ammunition”.  Nope, you cannot actually display your functional weapons on a wall at all, let alone in a ready-to-fire state.  Under Canada’s laws, a firearm is practically useless for home self-defence, because it’s locked away, separate from its ammunition, which is also locked away.  Canada’s firearms regulations can be found by browsing around here.

People keep calling for handgun and assault weapon bans. which is one of those bullshit things.  “Assault weapons”–which is a nebulous categorisation, but I’ll go along with the general understanding of “full-automatic or select-fire rifle with a magazine containing 20 or more rounds and used primarily for military purposes”–ARE FUCKING ILLEGAL FOR PRIVATE CITIZENS IN CANADA TO OWN.  They are prohibited weapons, not restricted.  We, the People, are forbidden from owning them.  Only the military may have them, and to a far-lesser extent, police forces.  A ban on them is pointless political theatre that will have no result except to continue to demonise honest, law-abiding, firearms owners.

Do you know how you can tell a movie or TV show with guns was filmed in Canada?  The “assault weapons” only fire single shots.  They’re prop guns, but they still can’t make them shoot full-auto on screen (except in post-production).  There are NO legal “assault weapons” in Canada that are not in the hands of the military or the police.  Proviso: certain “antique” weapons would have been grandfathered in at some point in the past, but they would have had to be rendered unable to shoot.

Did you know that it’s illegal to own any operational weapon with a capacity of greater than ten rounds?  ILLEGAL.  Doesn’t matter if it’s a rifle or a pistol, it’s illegal.  Shotguns are limited to FIVE rounds, and a “standard” 8-round tube would have to be physically crimped to be considered legal in Canada.  Having a restricted licence doesn’t make larger capacities any more legal.  So, it’s not legal to own a pistol that can hold 17 rounds, like a Beretta or a Glock with a full-capacity magazine, and the “banana clip” magazines that are used in “assault weapons” are therefore also illegal to possess.  Extended and drum magazines are way out.

The average Canadian doesn’t even know that there are two kinds of firearms licences for regular schmoes: the PAL (Possession and Acquisition Licence) and the RPAL (Restricted PAL).  You can’t even LEGALLY buy ammunition (or gunpowder/supplies to make your own, I believe) for a firearm without one.  You must fulfil the requirements for a PAL before you can get an RPAL, which is what you need to get Restricted weapons, like handguns and certain types of long guns (mostly semi-automatics).  And handguns have been restricted since the 1930s.  All restricted-class weapons HAVE TO BE registered, or you are contravening the law.  Plus, there’s that separate permit to transport your legally-acquired weapons to and from a shooting range.  And a permit to carry your weapon?  Effectively impossible to get as a private citizen:  either you work for an armoured-car company defending other people’s money, or you have to be under real, verifiable threat of death by persons unknown.  Stuff like that.

One of the worst mass shootings in history took place in Norway, which has gun laws about as restrictive as ours.  It didn’t stop that fucker (whom I will not name) from murdering kids by the boatload after he set off a fucking BOMB to distract the police and give him more time for murdering.  And he passed his background checks.

By way of contrast, the US state of Delaware, which has effectively no gun laws, has a murder rate of about 0.005%–for the report year, that was 56 murders for a population of about 952,000, but it wasn’t mentioned how many of those murders were by firearm or how many of those by police.  The fucker in the previous paragraph killed 62 by himself.  With a semi-automatic, non-assault weapon.  Mass shootings are not about the weapon, but the shooter, but people always seem to gloss over this part.  Plus, mass shooters, being the cowards that they are, always go to soft targets like schools, malls, transport stations…things like that.  Even easier are places (in the US at least) that are designated as “gun-free” zones.  Easy pickings.  Like shooting fish in a barrel.  “Nobody can stop me.”

The Danforth Shooter (whose name I will also not repeat) has been reported to have been using a pistol with a full-capacity magazine.  One report quoted a police source as saying, “He had seven magazines with him and each magazine carries between 12 and 15 bullets….”  The weapon itself was not legally acquired:  one report (a likely lie) stated it was stolen from a house in Saskatoon, and another (more likely) says it was acquired from gang sources after being smuggled in from the US–both statements cannot be true simultaneously.  Regardless the case, a handgun of this type (sporting the full-cap mag) is ILLEGAL in Canada, and it was illegally in the shooter’s possession.  So, how, exactly, does increased gun control help?  And that doesn’t even get into his connection to organised crime through his now-comatose brother.

Even in countries where private gun ownership is completely illegal, people still find ways to kill other people, and some people kill multiples.  In fact, while I was still working on this essay, two people in a suburb of Paris were murdered with a knife and another injured in what looks like a religion-based domestic dispute.  The killer was subsequently shot and killed by police, after which ISIL claimed responsibility for the murders.  But this cowardly twat doesn’t even register as a bladed mass murderer:  in Japan in 2016, one man stabbed 19 people to death and injured 26, but in China in 2014, four people murdered 29 and wounded 130 at a train station in Kunming.  And in both countries, gun control laws are extremely strict.  Ironically, the single-man murder spree was more effective on a tactical level.

The problem in Canada IS NOT and HAS NEVER BEEN guns.  Guns are inert.  Ammunition is inert.  Ammunition in a magazine is inert.  A loaded weapon is inert.  None of these is intrinsically dangerous.  What’s dangerous–and this is regardless of the weapons platform–is people and their intent.  And yet, Canada’s various governments and press agencies continue their decades-long attack on honest, law-abiding gun owners, instead of dealing with the problems that the governments have largely created.

Toronto’s mayor, an opportunistic dirtbag who shall also remain nameless, decided to go after such owners with lies, which the press allowed to pass both unchallenged and unremarked.  “Why does anyone who lives in a city need a gun?” he asks, rhetorically.  Such a question can only be asked by someone totally unfamiliar with them or their uses.  What does living in a city have to do with that?  He demands legal gun owners justify their ownership of legal, legally-acquired property, but makes no attempt to defend a position that would see millions of people made criminals with the stroke of a pen, to say nothing of the unjustified seizure of personal property that would necessarily follow.    But the problem, he said, is that 50% of all gun crimes are committed with stolen (i.e., once legally owned) guns.  The problem, he said, is that the Harper government shit-canned the pointless, and boondoggley-expensive long-gun registry.  Like, billions of dollars wasted for no purpose.  The problem, he said, is easily fixed by BANNING GUNS!  Especially pistols and “assault weapons” (see above).

The first “problem” is that both he and the press are passing along a lie, in the form of an incomplete truth.  Of pistols used in crimes solely in western Canada, only 28% could be traced.  Of those 29%, half could be traced to a previous, legal owner from whom they were stolen.  14% of western Canada, not 50% in the whole country.  Only a 72% difference, and a heap of lies in the middle.  How winding down a registry that exists solely for rifles and shotguns could lead to an increase in crimes committed by supposed-to-be-registered pistols is a connection so tenuous, only someone tripping on acid could see it.  Plus, handgun murder rates decreased between 1999 and 2015, despite a reported 14x increase in handgun imports over the same period.  A correlation between legal gun ownership and crime/murder rates does not exist.  And the press continually lie about “assault weapons” or “assault-style weapons” as well, given that true “assault weapons” are already banned in Canada, and “assault-style” is an even-more-meaningless designation–you want to ban something just because it LOOKS scary?  Are you a fucking child?  And how do you ban all the illegal ones that NO ONE KNOWS ABOUT, because, well, they’re ILLEGAL.  And guess what?  Criminals break the law regularly!  Shocker!  Film at eleven!

Any politician or journalist taking or repeating an anti-gun stance is going to be lying to you at some point.  Any of them.  Or all of them, it makes no difference functionally.  They lie about what’s going on; they lie about why they’re doing it; they lie about almost everything related to it.  If they tell you it’s about protecting the kids, they’re lying:  if they wanted to do that, they’d first outlaw cars, which kill far more kids (and adults) than guns do, and they already both require a licence and registration…and insurance!  But tell people that, and you’ll be uniformly derided, because that doesn’t fit the narrative.

And they have to push this narrative, because facing the actual truth is extremely uncomfortable to them.  A few different truths.  The first is that nearly all gun crime is perpetrated by, well, criminals, and mostly in gangs.  The problem, especially in Toronto, is that these troublesome gangs are racially organised.  So, as left-leaning types, the anti-gun types aren’t allowed to focus on race in any way (except to call their opponents “racists”), so they’ll never get to the root causes of their gang-violence problem:  disadvantaged youth of colour.  And there are myriad reasons why they are that and why the are not able to remove themselves from that state and improve their lives without going the gang route.  Those of a conspiracist bent might imply that they’re being kept down by the very people purporting to help them, but other blogs have covered that much more completely than I ever will.

The second is that there are sick, violent people in the world, and there’s not much that can be done about that.  Some of them are genuinely mentally ill, and some of them are Muslim.  For these people, crime is only a means to an end, even if there is some overlap with the criminal underworld.  Bringing to mind the Ethiopian or Sudanese gangs of Edmonton and other cities who also travel to fight with terrorist groups in their home countries.  These sorts of people can do all sorts of killing, but they don’t need guns to do it, either, as multiple vehicle attacks attest.  Guns just make it possible to kill more people in a shorter span of time–than a knife.  Bombs and vehicles work better than knives, too, and it’s only a matter of time before chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons get deployed.  And if you point out that anything negative might obtain to Muslim violence, you almost immediately get called out as a racist…despite the simple fact that “Muslim” is not a race:  it is an adjective describing any member of a particular archaic, barbaric, political belief system masquerading as a religion that is itself intolerant, sexist, misogynistic, misanthropic, self-hating, other-hating, violent, and extremely dangerous.  Their belief system is entirely inimical to integration with western civilisations, full stop.  But that’s a different rant.

The third is that guns are smuggled into Canada all the time.  Our borders with the US aren’t particularly proof against smuggling of any type, despite what law enforcement, the government(s), or the mass media might have you believe.  There are many places were illegal things (or legal things being imported “illegally”) can cross the border with almost no intervention by the authorities.  Before the EU opened things up within its member states, the US-Canada border was easily the world’s least-enforced, proudly “undefended” for many a decade.  Living next to the world’s gun-owner-est culture in the world makes that a recipe for wanton importation of things illegal (or quasi-legal) here.  Canada doesn’t have the resources necessary to “seal” the border, and the US isn’t likely to do it for us…yet…so, this is just another example of all talk and no action.  The incessant need to be seen doing something would be funny, if it weren’t so sad and dangerous.  It reminds me of needy kids seeking adult approval for some thing or another.  And what Canada needs in its leaders is most-definitely not children seeking approval.

The fourth is that the people “reporting” on gun-related issues are either ignorant, stupid, or disingenuous.  A case in point arose while I was writing this essay, just as I thought I had completed my three truths.  And then I realised I needed four.  The writer of this article, Claire Theobald, is apparently on the crime beat in the Edmonton area, that wretched hive of scum and villainy.  She incorrectly (in the article and the photo I’ve included in case of sanitisation after the fact) described the recovered weapon as a 30-30, lever-action, sawed-off shotgun, instead of correctly as a 30-30, lever-action, short-barrelled rifle (i.e., a carbine, though in this case, it might be sawed-off and not a legit carbine).  30-30 is not and never has been a shotgun calibre:  those are measured in gauges (e.g., ten, twelve, twenty). [Insert image here when WordPress stops giving me grief about uploading it.] Anyone with any exposure to long firearms will never mistake a rifle for a shotgun, especially one with as iconic a shape as this one–and such lever-action rifles are neither illegal nor restricted in Canada, provided the magazines are limited to ten rounds.  I will admit that the rifle might actually have been sawn down, but sawing down a rifle like this would create a bunch of problems for the shooter, not least being reducing the magazine space (that’s the tube that runs under the barrel, for those unfamiliar).  But two major points out of three are flat-out wrong.  I don’t have enough knowledge to say if it’s just ignorance, or if malice is involved.

One of the stupidest things about all this for me, is that I remember as a kid people driving around in trucks with gun racks containing rifles.  Somehow, these folk managed never to indulge in mass shootings of innocent people.  Or even guilty ones, more’s the pity.  I wonder if it had anything to do with being raised to be responsible people, instead of being raised to be delicate flowers who can’t handle anything, most especially responsibility.  If you treat people like kids, that’s what they’ll act like, especially if treating them like kids does exactly the opposite of instilling any discipline.

This has gotten a lot longer than I intended it to be.  It just seems to keep snowballing as new things pop into view or into mind, and I’m not really sure how to end it.  So I’ll just finish it by saying that nobody in a position to publicise or do anything meaningful about gun crime or putative gun control is capable of speaking the truth about it.  Nobody.  All you will get are untruths and bloviation.

Posted in Canadian, Firearms, news & journalism, politics, stupidity | Comments Off on Political Posturing and the Lies of Media Organisations

Sex Workers’ Rights Day (Friday the 13th)

Posted by Keen Observer on September 16, 2013

Sex work is work, as they say, and sex worker rights are human rights. Per the link below, I’m one who comes at this from the libertarian side, the equal-treatment-under-the-law side, the women-have-the-right-to-choose-how-their-bodies-are-used side, the not-seeing-sex-work-as-immoral side, and the not-treating-working-girls-like-pieces-of-shit side. For the record, I’ve never patronised a sex worker (heh…did you see what I did there?), but trying to make/keep this consensual activity criminal is beyond stupid.

(Her blog is not for the faint of heart or the easily offended, and some is NSFW.)

Read her stuff. Maggie McNeill–a retired escort–articulates things I could never find the words for and describes things far outside of my experience. But society treating sex workers as pariahs is why Robert Pickton got away with murdering women–people who were wives, sisters, daughters–for as long as he did, and why other murderers, abusers, and rapists continue to do. And this is in Canada, a country where prostitution is itself not illegal. I mean, listen to the news: recently, two women were killed in Vancouver almost next door to each other. “High-risk lifestyle” is media/police code for “she’s just a whore”, where missing or murdered women are concerned. More often than not, it even means “drug-addled whore.” That they were connected to sex work should never have made it into the news reports, because at this point in time, it’s fucking irrelevant–and perhaps never relevant. Treat murdered/missing women as murdered/missing women, in the press and elsewhere, and maybe violence against women will decrease. That they were escorts may be a relevant line of investigation, but why publicise it or change how you approach the case?

If you haven’t thought about things like this before, read her well-written blog (she is intelligent, articulate, and thoughtful, though I don’t always agree with her), and you will. However, you might end up feeling a bit gob-smacked from time to time at the things you’ll learn, especially about how whores in America are treated, and how they’re trying to export their misguided morality and control-freak tendencies worldwide, where it’s just not wanted. And you wouldn’t believe some of the stuff that goes on around the world.

I stole someone's picture.

“Nice pussy you have. Shame if something happened to it.”

You may be shocked at how most feminist groups, who should be staunch allies of fully-sexually-actualised, independent businesswomen, routinely fight against efforts to humanise (read, decriminalise) sex work/workers: a woman is allowed to choose, as long as it’s not choosing to take money for sex. Slut it up and fuck whomever you want, just don’t take cash money for it.

So, though this post is now going up a few days late, I don’t think it hurts to remind people that sex workers are people too. Porn stars have sex with multiple partners for money, and they don’t face nearly the same stigmatisation as someone doing a straight-up financial transaction for sex. They also don’t get arrested for their activities; some are lauded and some run for political office. And as Maggie has pointed out a time or two, cops aren’t smart enough to differentiate between hookers and non-hooker females. In some places just having more than a few condoms in your purse is enough to get you nicked, and that’s utterly ridiculous. Other stories are more harrowing, and all are because of demonisation of sex workers and the illegality of sex work in many jurisdictions. Strangely, however, most people can’t tell sex workers apart from “regular” women: they look just like everyone else. And they are just like everyone else: trying to make a living with their native skills.

Posted in American, Canadian, general, life, news & journalism, opinion, politics, religion, stupidity, Uncategorized, World | 1 Comment »

Guns are tools

Posted by Keen Observer on January 13, 2013

Sandy Hook was a horrible, horrible thing. No child or its parents should have to suffer through what those people did. At least one teacher died a hero, not knowing if her efforts to protect her charges would be successful. People the world over could stand to emulate her behaviour.

Utoya was a horrible, horrible thing. No child or parent should have to suffer through what those people did. Premeditated murder of dozens of people not known to the shooter, while security forces were mobilised over a devastating bomb used as a mere distraction, is nothing more than psychopathy.

Both of these horrific crimes were perpetrated on innocent children for the most part. Both were perpetrated in so-called “gun free” zones, either by designation or de facto. The body count was much higher in Utoya, at least in part because the shooter wanted to kill as many people as possible In Sandy Hook, I’m not sure that was his goal. What was semi-ironic in this to me is that Utoya is in Norway, a country that has gun-control restrictions at least as severe as in Canada, and perhaps more so. Yet the shooter still managed to end up quite well-armed.

One thing that immediately leaps to my attention in both cases is how within hours, and wholly expectedly, the cries began to be raised before the bodies were even cold (or counted): Ban guns; Restrict Guns; Register Guns. In Norway, not much can be done, given the state if its laws. In the US, the semi-regular cries to make responsible firearms owners into criminals have taken on a fever pitch. Echoes of it appear in Canada, especially with the federal government recently striking down the legal requirement to register long guns that have been legally purchased.

The primary difference between gun-control arguments waged in the US and gun-control arguments waged pretty much anywhere else is this simple little sentence attached to their constitution via the amendment process:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That’s it. The sum total of Amendment II to the US constitution, and it’s been argued over since it was written down. To me it looks pretty clear: “…shall not be infringed.” People mostly seem to argue over the inclusion of the Militia into this clause, but to me, based on the structure, it’s only there as a preamble and justification for allowing unrestricted access of the people to arms. Any kind of arms, since there is literally no restriction to this element. Though a howitzer would probably be pretty awkward to carry around with you. In fact, my reading posits that the only constitutionally-valid option available to the Americans is registration and licensing. That’s it. And Amendment X already has allowed that in place on a state-by-state basis, if so desired. And just as a reference, the state of Vermont has the fewest gun laws of any state in the Union (including Texas), and it also has the third-lowest total crime rate. The only law they seem to have is a “must-issue” law, in that if someone asks to be issued a permit for ownership or carrying, one must be issued to them.

Now, it is possible that Americans would genuinely want to restrict this stuff constitutionally. That’s fine. There is a process in place since the country’s founding to amend the constitution. Knock yourself out. But until then, it seems to me that the hue and cry being raised is all about increasing political capital and/or statist control, and not about safety or the children. Because you see, there is little to correlate increased gun ownership with increased violence, and almost nothing to correlate it to mass shootings on any sort of realistic basis (I wish I could remember where, but I saw one statistic that showed Canada had a higher rate of school shootings than the US on a per-capita basis). I’ve seen a couple of recent suggestions, in fact, that gun violence correlates pretty well to drug trafficking more than anything else, and can be inversely correlated to the removal of lead from paint and gasoline. A different study correlates an inverse relationship between increasing gun ownership and decreasing murder rates in the US, using the FBI’s own statistics.

But among all the various studies, what it comes down to–in my not-so-humble opinion–is people. People will kill. People will kill (if they’re of a mind to) using whatever tools are available to them. Guns are handy, but so are chemical explosives or cars or propane tanks or edged weapons. Japan or China has had about eighteen separate mass killings with edged weapons in the last five or ten years (don’t remember that source today, either). The worst was about eight people killed with a meat cleaver. The truth of the matter is, you can’t prevent psychotics or sociopaths from killing…at least, not until they expose themselves, and then dang it if you don’t wish you were carrying that day.

There were about a dozen mass killings in the US last year. Twelve people showed how fucked-up nuts they were. Out of a population of some 350 million. To my recollection, only Sandy Hook got this kind of coverage or reaction. And there were about 9000 non-justified gun homicides in 2011 (based on FBI stats and rounded off). So, because of these people, there is wailing and gnashing of teeth to abrogate the constitutional rights of the other 349,990,988 people (roughly), or else “you just don’t care about the children, you monster!”

In Canada, some firearms laws have been on the books since about 1935, because we have no such constitutional protections. A recent study by an ER doctor, Cailin Langmann, showed an actual inverse correlation between the enacting of the three main stages of Canadian fireamrs laws and crime rates. The more restrictions put in place, the worse crime gets. Anecdotal evidence from other places shows similar results, in that crime almost disappeared in a Georgia town after a law was passed to require gun ownership by the head of household. The states in the US with the most restrictions–Illinois and California–are also the most violent states. But you won’t generally hear this sort of thing in the “popular” news media, because it doesn’t fit the narrative: “Gun Ownership is Evil!” In fact the news article I read about this in the National Post ridiculed the results as being suspect, because Dr Langmann is a known supporter of gun ownership…without noticing the irony that they said nothing about the contrary position being held by an organisation dedicated to ending personal gun ownership.

I wish that I owned a few weapons some days, but I’m not going to, not in this climate. Even though the long-gun registry has been destroyed (fuck you, Quebec), just applying for and getting a Possession and Acquisition Certificate (PAC) surrenders rights to the state that ought not to be surrenderable. Even if I didn’t buy a weapon after acquiring the PAC, the state now has the right to enter my home for any or no reason at all and search the fuck out of it…just in case I store a bullet next to a gun, or some bullshit. The laws are incredibly restrictive and do nothing for anyone. And I don’t want to deal with that. And then I’d always have to worry about using such a weapon to defend myself in my home against an intruder. There have been too many cases of people doing that and getting arrested for it, which is absurdly wrong. If I don’t have the right to defend myself by whatever means necessary, then I have no rights at all. And as some others have pointed out, that right was enshrined in the Diefenbaker Bill of Rights (passed in the early 1960s), and it has never been contradicted in law. However, it seems that the courts need a specific law to hold their hands and explain things to them, so the sooner a Castle Doctrine is enshrined in law, the happier I’ll be. But the registry itself should be a warning to Americans: it just won’t work. Registered firearms kill people all the time. But most handgun murders in Canada aren’t with registered weapons, because, you know, criminals don’t register their fucking guns! And though it’s easy to be accused of Godwinism in any argument, the comparison with Nazi Germany is valid in this case, because they instituted gun-ownership restrictions on the Jewish population. See how that worked out?

Beyond the hysteria of the gun-control crowd, it boils down to this: firearms are tools, nothing more. A weapon is inert and useless, until it is wielded, and it must be wielded by conscious act. It doesn’t matter if it’s a gun or a knife or a bomb or a fucking baseball bat or a garden trowel. It just lies there until someone picks it up and uses it. Guns are especially inert, because not only does the weapon have to be acquired, it has to be loaded with ammunition that also has to be acquired, aimed, and a trigger pulled. And you have to hit what you’re aiming at, which may be dozens of feet away. To me, the only sane response to crazy people on a rampage is not to be helpless before them, not to be out-gunned by them, and not to let the state make us all into victims by preventing that and preventing preservational self-defence. Because a gun in your hand can be an amazing equaliser, and for an assailant not to know who is armed and who is not makes them less likely to attack randomly. Psychopaths will still be psychopaths, but a rampage is a lot easier to stop when someone besides the shooter is armed. And that’s another key point to remember: “When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.” Police aren’t a preventative measure. They are there to clean up afterwards, and in some cases cause the problems (but that’s a different rant).

So let’s do away with the hand-wringing and pearl clutching and the “won’t someone think about the children”-ing. I used to hate the phrase when I was younger, but you really can’t argue with it: guns don’t kill people; people kill people. But you just can’t seem to argue that proposition with the gun-control crowd. Because, “you’re an evil child-killer, you monster!” You can’t reason with the unreasonable, and you can’t argue someone out of a position they weren’t argued into in the first place. But hysteria serves no one, and I really wish it would stop.

Posted in American, Canadian, news & journalism, opinion, politics, stupidity | Comments Off on Guns are tools

A Religio-Political Odyssey, Part 3

Posted by Keen Observer on January 31, 2012

So, presuming no one is bored at my rambling yet, I shall continue…

I spent some time adrift after leaving school sans degree.  This was in 1991, when I should have convocated as a teacher, as did many of my friends.  Instead, I was somewhat aimless.  Employment prospects poor, I didn’t quite know what to do.  I didn’t much care about other things, either.  I had my first brush with what might be called depression, though it was never diagnosed as such.  I scared my family by doing a very good impression of a rock for about eight hours uninterrupted one day.

I almost left university, I should say.  With nothing better to do, I went back in the fall to take classes towards a degree in English Literature.  That kept me occupied somewhat, and I was exposed to ideas further left than my usual ones, especially in the person of a poet I met in one of my classes, one with certain…issues, let’s say.  I absorbed some of these ideas and reflected them back to the world.  I learned a higher level of analytical reading and presentation.  I honed my writing skills.  I thought about doing graduate work, but it really didn’t appeal to me, and I had certain…limitations imposed because of my math/physics grades.  I stayed out of politics, mostly, but I voted every election.  One can argue that it is a citizen’s highest civic duty, but it was never something I let slide past me, even if all I did was spoil a ballot.

During this time also, I did spend some time with my poet friend and her circle.  Except for rare circumstances, I never really felt part of the group, though.  I didn’t really understand why, except that I knew at a recognisable level that they were not my people.  Different ideas.  Diff’rent strokes.  Different aims and beliefs.  At most levels, except for occasional literary discussions, I could not relate to them as a group.  The thought of “conservatism” still left me cold, believing as I did what the media and my acquaintances told me about it and the PC Party of Canada (or Saskatchewan). and I largely considered myself a centrist or centre-left kind of guy.  I had not yet realised that I was being fed news pablum, but I did have a sense that there were gaps of some sort (at least on a subconscious level).

I ultimately finished that degree in 1994, but again had no idea what to do with it.  No job, no prospects.  Unsure.  My cousin got married that year, and the wedding was in Sydney, NS.  I went, invited as relative and MC.  Did not distinguish myself, but it was somewhat life-changing.  I had taken geology as an elective, and I got to see out east some things discussed in class, and I began to understand the story the earth tells, if you know how to read it.  This intrigued me to the point that I wanted to learn more, and so I re-enrolled upon my return:  something finally excited me.

Something else excited me:  my sister’s best friend, freshly graduated from high school.  For some reason at that ceremony, something changed relative indifference to strong attraction, to the point that while far away from Saskatoon, I kept thinking about her at fairly regular intervals.  There’s much more detail, but for my purposes now, I had something else to occupy my mind.  We started dating that fall, despite some initial reluctance on my part, and she was central to my life for 16 years, and still currently has a peripheral–but significant–effect on it.

I had goals again; I was excited; I had things to do.  With new things to keep me engaged in my life, I again started following politics more closely.  I again kept being unsure of myself.  I questioned my agnosticism.  I kept thinking things the government did were a bit stupid; in my house, however, criticising the provincial NDP government was not generally wise.  Based on things I understood at the time, the federal government, Liberal-run, seemed to be going OK, so I had no complaints.  Quebec separatism frequently came up as a topic.  For that, I saw little reason in appeasement, even with my French-Canadian heritage, so in that regard I was on the opposite side of my supposed party.  I would be unhappy with the breaking of Confederation, but I just could not see how they could be so stupid about it.  How little did I know at the time, but the press seemed not interested in portraying the true nature of the complaints, as I have now come to understand them.

I finished my geology degree program, which is where I developed a grounding in the historical temperature record.  This (among other reasons that would take up other posts completely) informed my resistance to climate change as having any human-caused component, something that set me apart from most people for a long time.  I worked as a well-site geologist for about 4 years after that, which also let me to be exposed to a larger world of ideas, including those of surprisingly-educated rig workers.

During this time, I found a left-leaning blog, one of those at right on the main page of this blog:  grrlmeetsworld.  In it (I can’t remember how I found it) the writer recounted her own political journey from US Southern Christian right to a leftist doing grad work at my university.  It interested me, and it was interesting to read how she stopped adhering to the politics she had grown up around.  A lot of the change seemed to be propelled by the Christian part of the politicking, to which I could somewhat relate, but in the other direction.  I even commented there a few times, even after moving to Calgary.  But that’s getting ahead.  I learned a lot from her, some of which she might not appreciate, but some things continued to leave me confused.

The rigs were also the milieu in which I was when the attacks of 9/11 happened.  Clear as day are some of my memories around that time, though others from that time have deteriorated.  I was just coming on shift shortly after the first plane hit.  Oddly, it just seemed like a run-of-the-mill disaster to be watched with ghoulish interest.  And I was watching as the second plane hit.  My first reaction was, “Oh. My. God.” There was no mistaking that for an accident.  My second reaction was, “Those stupid, stupid fuckers.”  I had no doubt in my mind who was responsible, at least in broad form, and I knew they had just changed the world in an instant.  I also knew that hell was coming for them.

(to be continued…)

Posted in Alberta, American, Canadian, general, news & journalism, personal, politics, religion, science, World | Comments Off on A Religio-Political Odyssey, Part 3

A Religio-Political Odyssey, Part 2

Posted by Keen Observer on January 31, 2012

[Note:  rather a lot of this was written in early March 2011, but it sat for some time before I got back to it.  A new friend’s feedback encouraged me.]

I’m not entirely sure, but I think I might always have been a conservative, without really realising it.  I’m still trying to figure that out.  But I almost never voted Conservative.  I think, except maybe for once, I never voted NDP.  I was usually voting Liberal, both federally and provincially.  Largely, that was due to my family, my school, and my Church, but I could never bring myself to swing further left than that.

When I moved to Calgary, I joined a riding that was so deep blue, no vote of mine would make a difference.  So I voted Libertarian federally and Wild Rose Alliance provincially (in their first election).  I plan to vote WRA again.  With Prentice gone (what a jack-off), I voted CPC in the last election without feeling too sullied, but I doubt it made a difference.  There was no Libertarian candidate this time around, so no  worries there.

That’s where I stand now, but how did I get here?

I remember developing interest in news and politics somewhat in elementary school.  As something we did on a weekly basis, Fridays I think, we did posters or quizzes on “current events”.  That kind of opened up the world to me a little bit, which heretofore I hadn’t much cared about.  I don’t think I took sides then, or anything.  It was largely a regurgitation exercise, and I believed something that appeared in print or on TV.  They weren’t trying to teach us much in the way of critical thinking or analysis, just summary and repetition.

I vaguely remember from that time the Iranian hostage crisis, for example, and feeling proud that Canadians had a hand in getting some of the Americans out.    I remember reading crappy Canadian history books in class that ended with the Diefenbaker prime-ministership.  And I remember having a very strong interest in military history, partly due to a love of airplanes (the best planes were fighter planes).  Unfortunately, most of the military history available to me was American and European, rather than anything Canadian.  I forget how old I was when I learned who Laura Secord really is or that we burned the White House (assuming it was us and not just British forces stationed here).

My interest in news, history, and current events carried on through my high-school life (and, indeed, continues today).  My perception of it changed over the years, though.  In high school I spent a couple of years in Air Cadets.  I generally enjoyed the experience, and I probably would have gone forward with a career in the military, but all I was interested in at the time was flying, and when I realised in grade ten that I needed glasses, that killed that hope for me.  I didn’t re-join cadets the following year, either.  I still kind of regret that, even though my excuse at the time was that it was taking too much time away from my academics.  Purely a rationalisation, I think now, because I didn’t need to work at all hard in school.  I maintained, though, my interest in and support of our military.  I attended air shows and went to other military displays.  It was in elementary school where I developed a sense of nationalism, and I was always somewhat offended that promoting Canadian nationalism was seen as being “too American”.  It was in the vein of “all problems and wars are the result of being too nationalistic”, or some other simplistic bullshit.  To my shame I largely kept quiet on that subject, but I was also quietly proud.

My interest in firearms arose largely from Scouts, believe it or not.  At camp one year, it was the first time I fired a rifle (or firearm of any type).  It was a simple .22LR of some variety with open sights; I don’t remember if it had the usual 5-round magazine, but I expect it did.  I was able, on the camp range, to hit small targets at 50 yards or so (eg the plastic boxes the ammo came in) and see them fly up with fragments.  I found that exciting, but it was also a little scary to me, because I understood that these tools can be dangerous also.  I don’t recall if I ever had any position on gun control before then or not.  I doubt it.  Even after that, I kind of waffled somewhat, because I held the belief for some time that restricting access to firearms could be a good thing.  Eventually, however, I realised that “gun control” should only ever mean “tight groupings” and “hitting your target”.  Sure, require licenses and maybe background checks, but the licenses shouldn’t be overly restrictive or difficult to obtain.  Otherwise, there really shouldn’t be any restrictions, except perhaps for certain types of military-grade hardware.  And there should be more education about and promotion of firearms in the general population.  But going beyond this is another post.

[Tangent] Castle Doctrine:  enact one.  Enough said.  It’s just getting stupider out there. [Edit: the CPC has made some changes to current laws, but they’re not enough.]

Property rights:  enact them.  Enough said. [/Tangent]

In high school I was still surrounded by largely leftist politics.  Fortunately, it was mostly charity-based, but there was a lot that wasn’t.  At one point I was peer- and parent-pressured into getting a youth membership in the federal Liberal party to help push through an openly pro-life candidate’s nomination/election as party leader .  He didn’t win, but it wasn’t a surprise.  I got to join the others on a moral high horse that our consciences were salved by our actions, except I always felt a vague sense of unease about it.  At this remove, I’m not quite sure why, but I think I had some sort of sense that it wasn’t right.  At any rate, I always had a sense that I was out of step with those around me, but I really didn’t know why.

University provided a more-broad opportunity to interact with the world.  Living in a university city meant that I and most of the college-bound people from my high school ended up staying close to home and relatively intact as a group.  So their influence shadowed me, and my circle of friends didn’t expand much, as there was no need.  But again, there was exposure to new, and enhanced opportunities for independent research.  Universities tend to lean left, and ours was no exception, but if you looked, you could see alternate viewpoints.  They conflicted with “my” world-view, though, so I tended to ignore them.  I suspect, however, that some of what I was exposed to stuck with me, whether I willed it or not.

I attempted initially to become a teacher, but I chose a science-based curriculum (I had been somewhat inspired to become a physics teacher).  This is a general dichotomy, as teachers and their unions tend to frown on rational thought, but science requires it.  During my third year of study, I was on a practicum replacement in a rural high school at the same time that a province-wide strike vote was being held by the union.  This opened my eyes in a way nothing else had, as we student teachers were inside the teachers’ lounge and treated as colleagues.  I saw the profession’s warts and was disheartened.  Between this and the struggle get my science/math grades up (I, stupidly, chose the real curriculum, rather than the one intended for teachers, and lacking proper study skills and too stubborn to get help, could not deal with the more advanced courses), I did not enter the 4th and final year of the program, instead burning the remainder of my scholarship on classes I enjoyed (literature of various types).  I took the following year off to figure out what to do with myself, as the plans I had no longer worked for me.  This is, of course, all by-the-by, insofar as the thesis of this post goes, but it does help frame my experiences.

Around this time, I acquired a female friend from a rural area that resulted in several things: a more intimate exposure to ideas that were not the same as those with which I was raised; and forced acknowledgement that my friends had some flaws that from some perspectives might be viewed as problematic.  I make no claim to perfection myself, but these were the types of flaws that break friendships, either sooner or later.  Challenging ideas and removing blinkers were additional contributions to modifying what I believed politically; it also turned out that my problems with the Church became more crystalline-clear, and at the end of my 4th year of university,  I left both it and the Church.  Perhaps ironically, my female friend returned to the Church…an even exchange.  So, my voyage continued, ideas meshing, fighting, losing, and triumphing.

(more to come…)

Posted in Canadian, general, news & journalism, personal, politics, religion, science | Comments Off on A Religio-Political Odyssey, Part 2

A Religio-Political Odyssey, Part 1

Posted by Keen Observer on March 5, 2011

I wasn’t always politically conservative.  Somewhat ironically, it was losing my religion that was a major part of the change.

I was born and raised in Saskatoon, where I lived up until about five years ago, when I moved to Calgary for work.  The household I grew up in was Catholic and fairly leftist.  My dad–retired now–was a staunch trade unionist.  My mother is in a union, but she doesn’t like it much.  She was moderately pro-union, I guess, or neutral for my formative years.  I went to Catholic schools through to university, and I was involved in my church, pretty much right up until I left it.

Except for pro-life stuff, I was in situations where the causes we supported were leftist causes, predominantly poverty- and service-organisation-related.  Gay marriage wasn’t an issue during the time-frame, so it never came up.  Gay issues were just revolving around equality under the law, and in the Church, it was all about loving the sinner and hating the sin: one was allowed to “be” gay, as long as one didn’t have gay sex.  [Hypocrisy number one.]  However, women priests and married priests were off-limits suggestions, despite repeated reports of how the priestly rolls were continuing to decline every year.  For the Church hierarchy, some people were still more equal than others. [Hypocrisy number two.]

Tangent:  I should probably explain that my natural alignment tends to be “lawful neutral”, although I’m sometimes “chaotic good”.

I would also see week after week how religion was largely lip service, even for the weekly attenders.  In many ways it was like “what happens outside here stays outside here, unless you bring it to the confessional”.  It was presumed that if you went through the motions, you were seen as a good, pious congregationist.  And then you see these people in other settings, and they act nothing the same.  And no celestial punishment befalls them, and they never get called out on their behaviour. [Hypocrisy number three.] The primary source material on which the religion is based is contradictory and unclear in many places; it’s so bad that scholars over tens of centuries have churned out volume after volume after volume of “explaining” what exactly the primary material meant.  It’s a pretty classic example (IMO) of what happens when a potentially good idea becomes bogged down in government and regulation.  As the source material would have it, the central teachings of the Christ figure are:  do unto others as you would have them do unto you; love the god with all your heart, soul, and strength.  “And, you know, I wouldn’t mind if you’d remember me at supper time.”  And from this, we have the monolithic Church, plus all the other churches, most of which have rigid hierarchies and labyrinthine rules and regulations about what is and is not “true” teaching. [all in all, hypocrisy number four.]

The presence of so much evil in the world and “God’s” reaction to it.  Ultimately, this is where religion broke on the rocks for me, because I have a hard time reconciling a so-called “loving God” with the events that occur in the world.  I was agnostic for a long time after leaving the Church, and recently, I think I’ve become full-on atheist.  Even now, I’m still not sure some days.  Some people say agnosticism is just laziness, as is atheism, but I think a lot of people mistake atheism or agnosticism for a belief in nothing.  They aren’t.  Atheists may not believe in a god, but I’m sure most of them have a pretty strong moral code.  Most would be law-abiding, productive citizens in their native lands.  Agnostics struggle constantly to understand their place in the cosmos.  Just because they haven’t decided whether or not there is a god does not preclude them from having other strong beliefs. Arguing against atheists and agnostics on these grounds is a losing proposition.  It becomes belief system versus belief system, which is no different than religious superiority complexes that have been plaguing civilization for thousands of years and causing millions of deaths.

For myself, I largely believe (and I’m not interested in unsolicited proselytizing, so just don’t) that a supreme being (as western Christians/Jews understand such, which is the tradition in which I was raised) must exist in one of four states, because of the state of the world:  it doesn’t care what goes on here (or it would be more obvious in its interference); it cares, but is entirely uninvolved (either can’t or won’t); it is actively interfering here in negative ways (i.e., evil); or it doesn’t exist.  In all four of these cases, organised religion is worse than useless, because it propagates a useless, false mythology and turns people into stupid sheep that expect an invisible super-hero to save them.  There’s a reason for the sheep/Shepherd metaphors.

  1. It doesn’t care:  if it doesn’t care, then nothing we do matters to it.  Praying, doing good works, etc have absolutely no soul-saving qualities, though good works are good for society, generally.
  2. Uninvolved caring:  again, if it cared, it would get involved in response to prayers from “good” people.  It clearly does not, at least not on any useful scale.  If it chooses not to be involved, that implies to me that he could help, but doesn’t; in which case why is this being deserving of any human respect?  If it can’t get involved (i.e. somehow actually prevented), that means that this is not a supreme being, and is again not what the religions have taught us; it also implies that there is something more powerful than “God”, and perhaps we should find out what that is.
  3. Direct involvement:  This would show that the “God” is itself evil or weak, because that means that it’s involved, but evil continues to increase, either in spite of or because of its involvement.  That means prayers etc are useless, from whichever perspective you use, and again implies forces stronger than the so-called “God”.  I mean, seriously, don’t you think a supreme being would be a little peeved at being misused as an excuse for slaughter, or that some group was slaughtering its “chosen people”?  I would be, or I wouldn’t be much of a protector.
  4. Does not exist:  this is the most likely case, and we’re stuck with physical, rather than metaphysical, laws.

So, the weight of hypocrisy and confusion chased me out of the Church.  I just couldn’t deal with it and be a believer anymore.  It’s been twenty years since I made that decision, and I don’t think I regretted it.  For the first ten years I used to refer to myself as a “recovering Catholic”, and I think there are several points of congruence with going through a twelve-step program.  I don’t generally think of myself that way any more.  I just used to be Catholic.  And over those twenty years, I largely remained agnostic, except perhaps in the last couple of years, wherein I’ve been effecting the change to atheism.  In that time I struggled on and off with figuring out whether there is a god or not, and some days it’s hard to believe that the beauty of nature and the cosmos is random.  But one of the reasons that has been helping convince me against that is that humans exist.  There is so much evil in the world and in men, that I don’t think the Christian conception of a god can exist.  If we are created in its own image, as the texts say, then all the evil in the world can be laid at the god’s feet.  Original Sin is a Catholic-only teaching, is it not?  Well, guess what…if the snake existed, it was a creation of god, as was the tree of knowledge.  All things in the heavens and the earth, remember.  If god exists and created us, and if we are evil, then god created evil.  Why should I worship such a being?  And if the “end times” are also true, then that means the world was created only to be destroyed, which would require the destruction of billions of innocent inhabitants, plus all the “lesser” species.  How is that not evil, especially since it was known in advance?  And just to make it interesting and capricious, say that only a certain number will be “saved”, but our loving “god” will condemn all others to eternal hellfire?  What loving “god” would issue that sort of condemnation to its “children”, even if the world weren’t ending?

So, in my view, “god” either doesn’t exist, or it exists and is either passively or actively evil, or it exists and is weak enough to be defeated by other forces.

Tangent:  one thing I find amusing is that the primary source basically states that there is more than just the Judeo-christian god.  It doesn’t say that there are no other gods, but that no other gods shall be worshiped before it.  How does that get reconciled?  And that leaves out all the murder, incest, rape, and mutilation that goes on, including that which takes place at the being’s behest.

Even if one allows the veracity of the source material, the modern expressions of religion certainly do not have that as the basis of their operations any more.  They all have their own views and interpretations and lists of transgressions and means of expiation thereof.  And then there are the religions and philosophies that are inimical to those of the West, but that’s a different blog.

Suffice it to say, I’m a long way away from where I was as a teenager, when I believed…or tried to maintain it, at least.

In “Part 2”, I will attempt to describe my political transformation over the years.

Posted in Canadian, personal, politics, religion, science | Comments Off on A Religio-Political Odyssey, Part 1

Politics, schmolitics

Posted by Keen Observer on December 3, 2008

I guess I can’t really call myself a blogger if I don’t write something about the on-going brouhaha in Ottawa over a probable change in government.  There seems to be a lot of talk about whether or not the idiots we elected in October are doing the right thing, or even just doing their jobs.  There’s talk about overthrowing the so-called will of the people, about abusing the democratic process, about partisan politicking (like there’s any other kind), and so on and so forth.

Given the title of my blog, I have to step up to the plate and call BS on…well…far too many people.  I’m not going to bother with links, though:  there are far too many posts and articles to list, and I’m assuming y’all are smart enough to find at least one or two that will address the targets of my scorn with a minimum of fuss and bother.  If I can, I may scatter one or two for illustrative purposes.

First, my position, so we don’t have errors in assuming I’m from one part of the political spectrum or another and have people shouting imprecations at me for being there.  I consider myself largely a centrist.  I have many libertarian tendencies, but I think the doctrine goes a little too far on some things.  I lean left on some issues and right on others.  But enough about me.

Second, I agree with most people that there’s a lot of childish bickering going on down east.  I expected more from our PM.  I have to admit, though, that this is the most exciting thing to happen politically in Canada in many a long year.

Third, it’s interesting that people keep mentioning this ‘promise’ of the Liberals and NDP not to form a coalition during the election, yet they have little to say when confronted with repeated promise-breaking by all political parties after winning election.  Every politician spins some sort of promise or another to get (re-)elected, which is subsequently unfulfilled.  To believe otherwise is naïve in the extreme.  A major case in point (or two) that show Canadians should never be surprised by this, nor hold it up as a simple means to excoriate an opponent (ooh! they’re naughty liars!):

  1. a promise to eliminate the GST (Liberals–not done)
  2. a promise not to tax income trust distributions (CPC–broken).

Keep in mind, too, that this is not a military coup to seize power.  The laws of the land are still being followed.   For now.  But also keep in mind that Harper is trying to prevent a lawful vote from happening in the House using means similar to the Opposition.  There is far too much of pot/kettle going on here.

Fourth, I watched all four leaders speak tonight and listened to the commentary on more than one channel.  The person who came across the best?  Gilles Duceppe.  Oh, how I wish he weren’t a separatist leader!  I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again:  he’s probably the best man for the job.  As proof, I’ll offer that he and his party would not be in government in this coalition.  Either he’s not seeking power, or he’s staying true to his principles.  You decide.  My breakdown on the other three:

  1. Harper:  he was an angry man, the very picture of a bully trying to get his way by wheedling, when brute intimidation failed.  I haven’t felt talked down to like that in a very, very long time.  He seemed to be taking some plays from the Book of Kim Campbell, in that he felt he needed to explain to us in excruciating detail why this was bad, very bad, for Canada, because we, the people, are too dang stupid to figure out on our own that this coalition was composed of boogey-men out to usurp democracy.  The tone of voice he used made my skin crawl, like I was being lectured for having transgressed and couldn’t understand the enormity of my sin.  As to the content of his message, well, there wasn’t much beyond the core message of “Be afraid.  Be very afraid.”  A wasted opportunity.
  2. Layton:  he spoke well, better than the others (in English), but I have trouble shaking the feeling of smarm that he exudes.  I just don’t like the man’s public persona.  He tried to tell people that he tried to offer substantive help to the government but was rejected.  True or not, it’s now up to Harper to refute.  His best comment?  “[Harper] is more concerned about his job than about [Canadian] jobs.”  Or however it was phrased.
  3. Dion:  Well, there are better videos on YouTube, I have to say that.  He did not come across well, as far as making CTV wait for his video.  CBC seemed to have gotten it okay, though.  Confusion there, certainly.  I don’t think he would make a very good PM, but he won’t be in place long, likely.  He made some very good points, trying to explain how this coalition would be good for Canada, but he missed one important one.  He forgot to explain how this wasn’t, as some have put it, a putsch to seize power illegally, or as Harper put it, “overturning the results of a general election.”

Fifth, Mandate.  There’s been a lot of talk about the Harper ‘mandate’ to govern Canada.  I’m continually confused by this.  Sure, what mandate he has was strengthened in seat count in the last election, but I have a hard time with a minority government being considered to have any mandate to govern.  His party got more seats than any of the others.  Whoopee.  Note that his party got 38% of the votes in this country, with a really low voter turnout.  The other parties got 62% of the votes.  Is Harper really sure he knows the will of the people?  But that’s not really relevant, because Canadians elected who they elected.  And now he has to deal with the confidence of the House, which he apparently no longer has.  There’s your mandate.

Sixth, the suborning of the electoral process by the Opposition.  Here’s one of the biggest BS calls on this whole mess, since all the parties seem to be acting within the rules of Parliament and the Constitution.  The voter’s involvement in the electoral process is generally confined to election day and the weeks preceding it.  Time after time, majority governments have been elected and re-elected, with the occasional minority government to break things up.  We send people to Ottawa to act for us.  Almost never do they ask us what to do once there, and in nearly all cases they would scorn unsolicited advice.  I didn’t vote for my MP; in fact, I think he’s rather a useless tool, and I’d be glad to see him out of government.  But once my ballot hits that slot, I understand that I have no more say in what an MP does during his term.  I don’t set policy; I don’t issue directives; I don’t tell him how to vote:  all of this comes from party HQ and/or the party leader.  Anyone who thinks otherwise hasn’t been paying attention over the years.  And in this light, unless there’s another general election called, all that Canadians can do is sit back and watch the shit show.

Other comments as they occur to me:

  1. Harper acted like a bully, and the Opposition stood up to him.  He didn’t like having to back down, so he’s trying to re-assert whatever authority he believes he has.  He’s coming across as a scared man, and his lack of a statesmanlike demeanor is obvious.  He definitely seems like a man afraid of losing his job…or like a power-hungry idealogue.
  2. Dion is not prime-ministerial material.  I candidly admit that.  He tends to come across a little too professorial, like he should still be in academia.  I thought he did pretty well in the leaders’ debate, surprising everyone with a concrete economic plan.  But Harper spun that like a pro, calling Dion’s plan ‘panicking’, simply because he revealed it at a debate, not at a press conference.  This was rich, considering that Harper’s own platforms weren’t released until well after the debates (IIRC).
  3. Dion vs Harper is a fool’s choice.  Neither is right for Canada, not now.  Unfortunately, they’re the choices we have.  If I were religious, I’d say “God help us,” but I’m not.
  4. I like minority governments.  Otherwise, we elect dictatorships, and no one needs that.  A working minority government gets stuff done, but it has to be by dealing with the Opposition, giving them something to get what you want.  Quite honestly, I kind of like the CPC minority government, but Harper has been able to get away with a little too much–acting like he is a majority government–simply because the Opposition has been too disorganised, and he’s been–up until now, anyway–able to keep the Bloc in line.  I do have to say in all fairness that I’d prefer that the parties work together, as long as Harper understands that he no longer instills fear in his opponents.  He drew the line in the sand, and they crossed it.  Now he needs to respond to his reality check and get with the other parties to work together to solve Canada’s problems.

My final thought:  someone whose opinions are rather important to me suggested something that makes a lot of sense.  Both sides should come up with their budgets and present them to the people in a binding referendum in simple language that a 10th-grader can understand.  No wiggle room, no changing them after they’re posted to the Internet for people to digest.  What the people vote on is what they get.  And that is how you take it to the people.

Posted in Canadian, economics, politics | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »