Howie Mandel (a joint Canadian / US citizen) and Jeff Foxworthy (a true blue American but a hero to all of us rednecks rich and poor around the world) must read the news like many of us, and both must be wondering, are we Canadian rednecks to have gotten into this game of brinksmanship? And how did we ever get to this -- a standoff between not the bourgeoise and the proletariat (which Marx and Engels predicted) but between two groups of rednecks? Both sides, quite frankly, are demonstrating a "glorious lack of sophistication," as Foxworthy calls it.
Or was this the Opposition's plan all along, just biding their time before striking like the Massasauga snake? You have to wonder.
That's the state of Canadian politics this Friday. And here's the latest:
It's being reported this afternoon that the Liberals will try for a takedown of the Conservatives after all. There also appears to be agreement that Dion would be a caretaker PM until the Liberals can hold a convention. Imagine that.
Meanwhile, in an act of chastisement, the government has apparently backed down slightly and will have the party financing issue dealt with in a separate motion. That's as it should be -- changes to election rules, as well as who runs the elections agency are traditionally done with all party support; and this was a case of changing the rules after the fact without opposition consent, an unwritten but well established constitutional convention.
That does not change the fact that the opposition parties have to get better at grassroots organizing and funding that would more than overcome whatever subsidies the parties do get. However, the heavy-handed way Harper wanted to deal with the Green Party which does not have seats in Parliament at all was totally unacceptable in my view. I do not believe this was about the Liberals, NDP or the Bloc -- it was about silencing what the Cons still believe is a fringe movement but which clearly has more and more public support. After all, they got 6.8% of the popular vote. Does that sound like a "fringe" party?
It is truly possible Harper hates Elizabeth May that much?
Still it doesn't mean the government should be saved. Its broadsided attack against federal civil servants as well as virtually no help for businesses, especially small business which creates the most jobs, should be an insult to most Canadians. Even those who would normally support the Conservative cause are saying the time to help is now and there is little to none.
Also, the fact that the party of "fiscal restraint" has been anything but. It has raised program spending by 25% while slashing revenues when all the winds were blowing to a huge worldwide meltdown. Does that sound like a prudent manager of the economy?
That's why the government has to be brought down. Responsible government should mean literally that, not just that it responds to the legislative branch.
****
While I welcome any possibility of getting the Cons out of government, there are two things that need to happen for me to support the idea of a coalition government fully.
First, we need definitively to move to a better election system. Whether that's single transferable vote or some form of PR the votes of Canadians need to start counting. Second, eliminating poverty among children and seniors must be our top priority. Whatever we do to get the economy back on track there will be no point unless the most vulnerable in our society can enjoy the new prosperity when it ultimately returns. A country with a trillion dollar GDP (one of only about a dozen in the world) should not have this kind of disgrace.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Substituting for Monty Hall: Broadbent and Chrétien?
Two of Parliament Hill's greatest warriors, Jean Chrétien and Edward Broadbent, are trying to put together a coalition deal between their two respective parties, the Liberals and the NDP.
How this version of Let's Make a Deal plays out is anyone's guess. But Broadbent had a lot of spunk in him when he came back to the Hill (only to retire again early because of his wife's illness), and Chrétien warned his colleagues they hadn't seen the last of him. Who would have thought as a facilitator?
There's a lot to bridge between the two groups, let alone the Bloc whose support would absolutely be needed. But the creeks between them are nothing compared to the gulf that separates all three from CRAP. Of course, Flaherty can always come up with something that all Canadians would find more reasonable.
Tick, tick, tick ...
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
How this version of Let's Make a Deal plays out is anyone's guess. But Broadbent had a lot of spunk in him when he came back to the Hill (only to retire again early because of his wife's illness), and Chrétien warned his colleagues they hadn't seen the last of him. Who would have thought as a facilitator?
There's a lot to bridge between the two groups, let alone the Bloc whose support would absolutely be needed. But the creeks between them are nothing compared to the gulf that separates all three from CRAP. Of course, Flaherty can always come up with something that all Canadians would find more reasonable.
Tick, tick, tick ...
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
This time, it's Ignatieff
I still feel the choices that Liberals are being presented this time around for leader leave a lot to be desired. The actions by two of the three so far are far less than gentlemanly. However, given the choices there are, the one name that stands out for me is Michael Ignatieff. Briefly, here are my reasons.
At this time, Canada needs someone who can take on Stephen Harper -- or any other Conservative leader for that matter -- toe to toe. There's no question that Bob Rae or Dominic LeBlanc are up to the task but Ignatieff is the most in the class required. More important, Iggy has ideas both for domestic as well as foreign policy to help Canada reclaim its place as a world leader as well an honest broker both of which are lacking under the Cons.
Bob Rae is a fine gentleman, but too many people in Ontario haven't forgiven him for, or forgetten about, what he did as NDP Premer (not just the economy and Rae Days, but also reneging on public auto insurance). He would get clobbered if he got the leadership now. As for LeBlanc, I just don't know enough about him even though he is a four term MP.
We don't need a messianic figure (like Obama in the States), but we do need someone who combines pragmatism with dignity and fire. Ignatieff is not perfect and his voice is only slightly better than David Dodge (the former Bank of Canada governor who, in the words of the CBC Shanghai correspondent Anthony Germain could "make paint peel"), but he -- the man who should have won the last time out -- is my choice.
UPDATE (10:17 am EST, 1517 GMT): My bad; Germain is based in Shanghai, not Beijing.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
At this time, Canada needs someone who can take on Stephen Harper -- or any other Conservative leader for that matter -- toe to toe. There's no question that Bob Rae or Dominic LeBlanc are up to the task but Ignatieff is the most in the class required. More important, Iggy has ideas both for domestic as well as foreign policy to help Canada reclaim its place as a world leader as well an honest broker both of which are lacking under the Cons.
Bob Rae is a fine gentleman, but too many people in Ontario haven't forgiven him for, or forgetten about, what he did as NDP Premer (not just the economy and Rae Days, but also reneging on public auto insurance). He would get clobbered if he got the leadership now. As for LeBlanc, I just don't know enough about him even though he is a four term MP.
We don't need a messianic figure (like Obama in the States), but we do need someone who combines pragmatism with dignity and fire. Ignatieff is not perfect and his voice is only slightly better than David Dodge (the former Bank of Canada governor who, in the words of the CBC Shanghai correspondent Anthony Germain could "make paint peel"), but he -- the man who should have won the last time out -- is my choice.
UPDATE (10:17 am EST, 1517 GMT): My bad; Germain is based in Shanghai, not Beijing.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Craig Oliver: Today's worst person in the world!
I had laugh last night when Craig Oliver, one of the crony denizens of the Conservative Television Network, tried to frame the issue about the economic statement down to a single statement, which basically was that if the Opposition parties overthrow the government on an issue as petty as party financing, then the wrath of Canadians will know no bounds.
Uh, Craig, maybe should you should nominate yourself as Keith Olbermann's daily "Worst Person in the World." Because it's more than about the $30 million, although changing the rules after the fact is one part of it. The fact is, there is absolutely no stimulus of any kind. Oh sure, there's a few hundred million to the Export Development Corporation (which guarantees accounts receivable for foreign sales) and the Business Development Bank of Canada (often the lender of last resort for start-up companies). But that's peanuts.
Seniors are getting a one year break on minimum withdrawals from their RRIFs but most withdraw monthly and since many have already withdrawn the minimum or more under the old rules (before the markets tanked and so did their portfolios) there's no way they can take advantage.
An increase in the Guaranteed Income Supplement, or the working income supplement? No. An increase in child benefits? No. A cut in income taxes? No!
We need to get money into the system and more money into people's pocketbooks, now. Instead the government is just content to sit on its hands and maybe at some point have some kind of stimulus. All other countries in the G-7 are trying something to benefit their citizens at this time. But, not Canada. One has to think that the Conservatives cut the GST and increased spending drastically on purpose to get us into this fine mess.
Sorry, Craig, but if the Opposition parties do what they have to do and kicks out Harper from Number 24 on Monday it won't just because of the checks they get every three months. If you had bothered to pay attention to what Dion, Duceppe and Layton had said you'd know better than to just pick one issue and run with it.
UPDATE (7:25 pm EST, 1225 GMT): Oh, and another thing, Craig: You forgot to mention the fact that labour rights are suspended at the federal level for the next few years. No right to strike and a cap on wage increases. That's a slap in the face if there ever was one.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Uh, Craig, maybe should you should nominate yourself as Keith Olbermann's daily "Worst Person in the World." Because it's more than about the $30 million, although changing the rules after the fact is one part of it. The fact is, there is absolutely no stimulus of any kind. Oh sure, there's a few hundred million to the Export Development Corporation (which guarantees accounts receivable for foreign sales) and the Business Development Bank of Canada (often the lender of last resort for start-up companies). But that's peanuts.
Seniors are getting a one year break on minimum withdrawals from their RRIFs but most withdraw monthly and since many have already withdrawn the minimum or more under the old rules (before the markets tanked and so did their portfolios) there's no way they can take advantage.
An increase in the Guaranteed Income Supplement, or the working income supplement? No. An increase in child benefits? No. A cut in income taxes? No!
We need to get money into the system and more money into people's pocketbooks, now. Instead the government is just content to sit on its hands and maybe at some point have some kind of stimulus. All other countries in the G-7 are trying something to benefit their citizens at this time. But, not Canada. One has to think that the Conservatives cut the GST and increased spending drastically on purpose to get us into this fine mess.
Sorry, Craig, but if the Opposition parties do what they have to do and kicks out Harper from Number 24 on Monday it won't just because of the checks they get every three months. If you had bothered to pay attention to what Dion, Duceppe and Layton had said you'd know better than to just pick one issue and run with it.
UPDATE (7:25 pm EST, 1225 GMT): Oh, and another thing, Craig: You forgot to mention the fact that labour rights are suspended at the federal level for the next few years. No right to strike and a cap on wage increases. That's a slap in the face if there ever was one.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Would Harper resign or would he pull a Major?
The Liberals and NDP are saying tonight that they will vote against the Ways and Means motion based on today's economic statement from Slim Jim ™ Flaherty.
I'll believe it when I see it quite frankly, but if the Bloc gangs up with the other opposition parties to defeat the government it would be a major humiliation for PM Stephen Harper. The question would be what would he do then? Would he call it a "false start" and demand immediately a self-contained no-confidence vote; or would he recognize it for what it was (an actual act of non-confidence) and resign? Moreover, would the GG, Michaëlle Jean, want to call a snap election or would she actually ask Stéphane Dion (who has already resigned as Liberal leader) to form a caretaker government?
I point this out because back in 1993, John Major in the UK was facing one problem after another barely a year after his upset victory over Neil Kinnock in the generals. There was Black Wednesday, a series of corruption scandals and to top it off, he had Parliament vote on the Maastricht Treaty which merged the "European Communities" into the present EU.
To appease the Euroskeptics in the ruling Conservatives, he negotiated an opt-out from the sections of the treaty dealing with social and labour rights. Some Conservatives who were opposed to the EU all together ganged up with Labour and the Lib Dems (who supported the social chapter) to (ironically) attach the social chapter (which lost on a tie vote), then voted to defeat a "take note" motion by just eight votes. Major then reintroduced the bill and vowed he would call a snap election on the issue. He won by forty votes. (Here's a link to discussion of the Maastricht Rebels who continued to plague Major for the rest of his term -- some of those rebels went on to form the UK Independence Party which advocates for Britain's complete withdrawal from the EU.)
Now I realize an international treaty to bind several countries even further together, is not at all like a ways and means motion to end public financing of political parties. But given our reliance on the "Westminster" system, would Harper cite the Major precedent and introduce his own non-confidence motion in a game of chicken and dare the opposition to cluck? After all, the old Reform Blue Book said that that a no confidence vote would only come if there was first a defeat of a budget or appropriations bill.
If he does pull the "triple dog dare," he may be in for a shock. The Liberals just might find losing $7 million per year all the motivation they need to pull the trigger.
UPDATE (7:53 pm EST, 0053 Friday GMT): Quite a few of my fellow ProgBlogs seem quite giddy about the possibilities, too. Scott Tribe raises a good point about 1985 and the Liberal / NDP alliance in Ontario -- although it should be remembered that David Peterson had actually won the popular vote but not the seat count (which Frank Miller had). Cam and Steve also have some good thoughts on this as well.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
I'll believe it when I see it quite frankly, but if the Bloc gangs up with the other opposition parties to defeat the government it would be a major humiliation for PM Stephen Harper. The question would be what would he do then? Would he call it a "false start" and demand immediately a self-contained no-confidence vote; or would he recognize it for what it was (an actual act of non-confidence) and resign? Moreover, would the GG, Michaëlle Jean, want to call a snap election or would she actually ask Stéphane Dion (who has already resigned as Liberal leader) to form a caretaker government?
I point this out because back in 1993, John Major in the UK was facing one problem after another barely a year after his upset victory over Neil Kinnock in the generals. There was Black Wednesday, a series of corruption scandals and to top it off, he had Parliament vote on the Maastricht Treaty which merged the "European Communities" into the present EU.
To appease the Euroskeptics in the ruling Conservatives, he negotiated an opt-out from the sections of the treaty dealing with social and labour rights. Some Conservatives who were opposed to the EU all together ganged up with Labour and the Lib Dems (who supported the social chapter) to (ironically) attach the social chapter (which lost on a tie vote), then voted to defeat a "take note" motion by just eight votes. Major then reintroduced the bill and vowed he would call a snap election on the issue. He won by forty votes. (Here's a link to discussion of the Maastricht Rebels who continued to plague Major for the rest of his term -- some of those rebels went on to form the UK Independence Party which advocates for Britain's complete withdrawal from the EU.)
Now I realize an international treaty to bind several countries even further together, is not at all like a ways and means motion to end public financing of political parties. But given our reliance on the "Westminster" system, would Harper cite the Major precedent and introduce his own non-confidence motion in a game of chicken and dare the opposition to cluck? After all, the old Reform Blue Book said that that a no confidence vote would only come if there was first a defeat of a budget or appropriations bill.
If he does pull the "triple dog dare," he may be in for a shock. The Liberals just might find losing $7 million per year all the motivation they need to pull the trigger.
UPDATE (7:53 pm EST, 0053 Friday GMT): Quite a few of my fellow ProgBlogs seem quite giddy about the possibilities, too. Scott Tribe raises a good point about 1985 and the Liberal / NDP alliance in Ontario -- although it should be remembered that David Peterson had actually won the popular vote but not the seat count (which Frank Miller had). Cam and Steve also have some good thoughts on this as well.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
We shall not be moved
Yesterday's terrorist attacks in Mumbai (Bombay) cannot go unanswered. Going after tourists is especially unforgiveable -- let alone attacking the heart of the business and entertainment industries in India. Regardless of whether this is linked to Al Qaeda or not, people simply will not be bullied like this.
I refuse to live in fear, and regardless of the colour of our skin, everyone should also refuse to live in fear. When the fear is taken away, then and only then the terrorists will no longer have a basis on which to operate or to execute their evil schemes.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
I refuse to live in fear, and regardless of the colour of our skin, everyone should also refuse to live in fear. When the fear is taken away, then and only then the terrorists will no longer have a basis on which to operate or to execute their evil schemes.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Give us one reason to leave here, and we'll bring your government down!
The idea behind public financing is to take away the corruption that comes with corporate and union donations and ensures that parties play on a more or less even playing field, based on the previous election's popular vote. Now, it looks like the Conservatives, the only party that is healthy financially, wants to take even that away. For the ruling party, a loss of $10 million per year may be peanuts; but for the other parties who rely solely on private donations as well as the quarterly payments it would be a disaster.
We know what it would do to the Liberals -- but think about what it would do to the Green Party, just a month after that group had its best showing in the popular vote ever. The NDP and the Bloc would also take a hit to their voices -- and in the current environment the more progressive voices the better.
Just like Karl Rove tried to do for the Republicans in the States, Jim Flaherty wants one party rule in Canada -- his own party.
The feds should find $30 million to cut from elsewhere, like corporate welfare. Otherwise the opposition has the numbers. Bring down the government, now.
http://www.progressivebloggers.ca/vote/http://blastfurnacecanada.blogspot.com/2008/11/give-us-one-reason-to-leave-here-and.html
Join the Facebook group supporting public financing.
We know what it would do to the Liberals -- but think about what it would do to the Green Party, just a month after that group had its best showing in the popular vote ever. The NDP and the Bloc would also take a hit to their voices -- and in the current environment the more progressive voices the better.
Just like Karl Rove tried to do for the Republicans in the States, Jim Flaherty wants one party rule in Canada -- his own party.
The feds should find $30 million to cut from elsewhere, like corporate welfare. Otherwise the opposition has the numbers. Bring down the government, now.
http://www.progressivebloggers.ca/vote/http://blastfurnacecanada.blogspot.com/2008/11/give-us-one-reason-to-leave-here-and.html
Join the Facebook group supporting public financing.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
What is it about minority governments in Canada?
There's something about Canadian politics that I just don't understand. Maybe you have some ideas on this one so I'm going to open this up for comments -- moderated as usual.
On the occasions where we've had minority governments -- including now with three in a row -- the governing party always acts as if it has a majority and so rules. They know that, inevitably, they're likely going to get one or more of the opposition parties on side but that's pretty much a moot point; unless something really stupid happens the prime minister still pretty much has a blank check.
Yet in nearly every other Parliamentary democracy, whether derived from the British system or through another source, a minority government is always in peril -- always. Moreover the PM is not so stubborn to rule as if he or she was the king or queen of the heap. Deals are always worked out, and when legislation is introduced it is almost always with the tacit support of one or more parties.
Cooperation is the rule. Whether there is mixed member representation (as in New Zealand or in Germany), an instant run-off ballot (like Australia) or a run-off vote (like in France) -- even where it is FPTP as in India -- we don't have this attitudinal problem inside the PMO.
I've noticed a pattern that whether it's a Liberal -- Pearson, Trudeau or Martin -- or a Conservative -- Diefenbaker, Clark or Harper -- almost no effort is made to appease the opposition, or at least let it be known they're at least being listened to. It's damn the torpedoes all the way; and if side deals are made with a balance of power party every so often that are against the best interests of Canadians, tough.
I've heard all sorts of explanations -- because we have strong provinces we need an even stronger PM. Governing isn't about compromise, it's about making decisions. Why waste your time acknowledging the other parties when you're finally getting your chance.
So, what is it? What is it about Canada that makes minority PMs so stubborn? And would that change even if we did have some form of PR?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
On the occasions where we've had minority governments -- including now with three in a row -- the governing party always acts as if it has a majority and so rules. They know that, inevitably, they're likely going to get one or more of the opposition parties on side but that's pretty much a moot point; unless something really stupid happens the prime minister still pretty much has a blank check.
Yet in nearly every other Parliamentary democracy, whether derived from the British system or through another source, a minority government is always in peril -- always. Moreover the PM is not so stubborn to rule as if he or she was the king or queen of the heap. Deals are always worked out, and when legislation is introduced it is almost always with the tacit support of one or more parties.
Cooperation is the rule. Whether there is mixed member representation (as in New Zealand or in Germany), an instant run-off ballot (like Australia) or a run-off vote (like in France) -- even where it is FPTP as in India -- we don't have this attitudinal problem inside the PMO.
I've noticed a pattern that whether it's a Liberal -- Pearson, Trudeau or Martin -- or a Conservative -- Diefenbaker, Clark or Harper -- almost no effort is made to appease the opposition, or at least let it be known they're at least being listened to. It's damn the torpedoes all the way; and if side deals are made with a balance of power party every so often that are against the best interests of Canadians, tough.
I've heard all sorts of explanations -- because we have strong provinces we need an even stronger PM. Governing isn't about compromise, it's about making decisions. Why waste your time acknowledging the other parties when you're finally getting your chance.
So, what is it? What is it about Canada that makes minority PMs so stubborn? And would that change even if we did have some form of PR?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
What's another $800 billion among friends?
No, America's not going into debt for another 800 big ones, but The Fed is scooping up about that amount from its reserves to buy up bad mortgages from Fannie and Freddie, in another sign things are going from bad to worse.
I really don't know about you guys, but isn't there a point where there should be enough of government intervention and the banks left to their own vices? They more than doubled deposit insurance just before the election. And it's not like everyone who signed these subprime loans were totally out of the know as to what they were signing. Most know exactly what they were getting into. Not just consumers but banks buying up mortgages as securities then trading them on the open market.
When some smaller banks are seized by deposit insurance and others lent zillions because they're considered "too big to fail," the principles behind equality of sacrifice go right out the window.
No doubt, some were genuinely defrauded and for them there should be some time-limited help. But for Wall Street -- maybe it's time we just let it go bankrupt and let real people take it over for a change. I mean, Joe or Jane Blow can't do much worse than the MBA losers that got us all into this mess. (Not that all MBAs are guilty of course, but maybe we should ban people with any business degree from The Street for a very long time.)
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
I really don't know about you guys, but isn't there a point where there should be enough of government intervention and the banks left to their own vices? They more than doubled deposit insurance just before the election. And it's not like everyone who signed these subprime loans were totally out of the know as to what they were signing. Most know exactly what they were getting into. Not just consumers but banks buying up mortgages as securities then trading them on the open market.
When some smaller banks are seized by deposit insurance and others lent zillions because they're considered "too big to fail," the principles behind equality of sacrifice go right out the window.
No doubt, some were genuinely defrauded and for them there should be some time-limited help. But for Wall Street -- maybe it's time we just let it go bankrupt and let real people take it over for a change. I mean, Joe or Jane Blow can't do much worse than the MBA losers that got us all into this mess. (Not that all MBAs are guilty of course, but maybe we should ban people with any business degree from The Street for a very long time.)
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Monday, November 24, 2008
At least, it's a plan -- if you're in the UK
Gordon Brown's Labour Party is going down in flames and everyone knows it. In a desperate last ditch attempt to save the party from almost certain defeat in next spring's election, his government announced a number of steps to ride out the rocky recession -- in part motivated by the fact that collections from "stamp duty" (what we on this side of the pond call the land transfer tax) is down a whopping 40% this year no thanks to a tanking real estate market.
Among the major planks in the mini-budget are a cut in the VAT, the country's GST, by 2½% to 15% (the lowest rate allowed under EU rules); an increase in income tax for those earning over £150,000 to 45% (although that wouldn't take effect until April 2011), and an increase in social security taxes (which funds unemployment insurance and state pensions) by ½% as well as a rise in vehicle registration fees and excise taxes at the pump.
To partly compensate for this, pensions and child allowances will also go up.
A lot of it is half-baked, and overall will wipe out the country's razor thin operating surplus (money needed to day to day operations), about £4 billion this year -- and Chancellor Alexander Darling said Britain should not expect a surplus again until 2015 at the earliest.. There's also nothing about bringing back the low income tax rate of 10%. So, in short, New Labour is officially dead. But at least I give credit to Brown and Darling for trying something to jump-start the economy.
What are we getting from Harper and Flaherty in Canada? An ill-timed GST cut well before the recession hit (a temporary cut during one might have been more proper) and nickle and dime tax credits here and there that amount to a hill of beans. As far as corporate taxes go, the 19% rate is actually quite competitive compared to the US (at 35%) or many EU states (ranging from 10-20%). And in general, a happy go lucky attitude. And oh yeah, they also want to sell the government's crown jewel, the CN Tower, along with other valuable assets.
Remember when Flaherty, as Ontario's Finance Minister, sold the 407 highway for a quarter of what it was really worth? At the rate we're going, we might very well see the Citadel and the Plains of Abraham put up for auction -- after all the sovereigntists have never been happy that they are federal facilities.
What we need is an income tax cut for the lower and middle classes, and now -- not nickle and dime stuff.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Among the major planks in the mini-budget are a cut in the VAT, the country's GST, by 2½% to 15% (the lowest rate allowed under EU rules); an increase in income tax for those earning over £150,000 to 45% (although that wouldn't take effect until April 2011), and an increase in social security taxes (which funds unemployment insurance and state pensions) by ½% as well as a rise in vehicle registration fees and excise taxes at the pump.
To partly compensate for this, pensions and child allowances will also go up.
A lot of it is half-baked, and overall will wipe out the country's razor thin operating surplus (money needed to day to day operations), about £4 billion this year -- and Chancellor Alexander Darling said Britain should not expect a surplus again until 2015 at the earliest.. There's also nothing about bringing back the low income tax rate of 10%. So, in short, New Labour is officially dead. But at least I give credit to Brown and Darling for trying something to jump-start the economy.
What are we getting from Harper and Flaherty in Canada? An ill-timed GST cut well before the recession hit (a temporary cut during one might have been more proper) and nickle and dime tax credits here and there that amount to a hill of beans. As far as corporate taxes go, the 19% rate is actually quite competitive compared to the US (at 35%) or many EU states (ranging from 10-20%). And in general, a happy go lucky attitude. And oh yeah, they also want to sell the government's crown jewel, the CN Tower, along with other valuable assets.
Remember when Flaherty, as Ontario's Finance Minister, sold the 407 highway for a quarter of what it was really worth? At the rate we're going, we might very well see the Citadel and the Plains of Abraham put up for auction -- after all the sovereigntists have never been happy that they are federal facilities.
What we need is an income tax cut for the lower and middle classes, and now -- not nickle and dime stuff.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
PMS: No action on Khadr (yet), free trade with Colombia
Of all the stupid things PMS has done over the last few years, yesterday saw an apex. First at the APEC summit, he said -- again -- he's going to take no action on Omar Khadr. This time he gave a reason, saying he's charged with an actual crime unlike most of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay who have been held for up to seven years with no charge. Short answer to that: Some accused ring-leaders not from the Middle East and South Asia were charged with crimes but were repatriated to face trial in their home countries when the respective governments so requested -- among those countries included Australia.
Canadian law allows for trials where crimes were committed overseas under certain circumstances. War crimes certainly falls under that category. So what's the deal?
Second, Mr. Harper said now is the wrong time to impose trade duties, invoking the Great Depression. Canadians need no history lessons on this one, we are quite familiar with the fallout from the Smoot-Hawley Act, including making the depression in Canada that much worse. But then he used the opportunity to announce there definitely will be a free trade deal with, of all countries, Colombia.
I didn't really have that much issue with free trade with the United States -- given our generally linked economies as well as generally similar outlooks on human rights. I was rather apprehensive about extending the zone to Mexico given the rather poor human rights record there. While human rights have considerably improved it is still not to the point where I'd even contemplate a visit there. Furthermore the so-called "side agreements" on labour and the environment have proven almost unenforceable. Since they were not incorporated as protocols to the main treaty they in fact have no legal effect.
Colombia is a whole different story. Their human rights record is appalling. The government still doesn't effectively control about a third of the country which is instead under the dictatorship of the drug lords. And while we certainly should encourage improvements in civil liberties in exchange for lower tariffs (what is commonly called "linkage") it should be done as a reward for actual actions taken, not as an inducement to get promises that will never be kept. Progress in Colombia has been much slower in this regard and for that reason we shouldn't even be thinking about the possibility, yet. (And of course, the clincher: Unenforceable "side agreements" on labour and the environment!)
It's a different story when we talk about free trade with the European Union, talks of which are now on the fast-track. As I noted earlier there are huge obstacles to overcome with an agreement of that nature -- including agricultural subsidies. But when there are common values of individual liberty and collective responsibility as well as long standing military ties, it's much easier to build an environment of trust where looser restrictions to trade can flourish.
I mean, really. On the seven point scale of Freedom House ranking political rights and civil liberties (one being totally free and seven being totally not free), Colombia ranks a 3 on both (partly free -- i.e. it's either on the road to freedom or on the road to regressing back to dictatorship depending on what happens inside the country). Mexico is a 2 and 3. Meanwhile, every country in the EU, every single one, ranks at worst a double 2 -- most are double "ones", but the handful of 1 and 2, 2 and 1 and double 2 are still high enough to be considered "free countries" in the sense that democratic principles and human rights are so entrenched that they are basically non-negotiable.
Who would you rather trade with? A free country, or not a free country? Unless you're Hugo Chavez or Vladimir Putin, I hope you said the former.
Yeah, I know, we do deal with Mainland China, which is a 7 and 6. But we keep tariffs with them and will until such time as their people become truly free. We should insist no less with any other country simply because the people in those states are mostly white.
That means it's time for the Liberal Party to do its duty, and bring down Stephen Harper. If this isn't an issue on which to do it -- human rights as a condition of freer trade -- I don't know what could be.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Canadian law allows for trials where crimes were committed overseas under certain circumstances. War crimes certainly falls under that category. So what's the deal?
Second, Mr. Harper said now is the wrong time to impose trade duties, invoking the Great Depression. Canadians need no history lessons on this one, we are quite familiar with the fallout from the Smoot-Hawley Act, including making the depression in Canada that much worse. But then he used the opportunity to announce there definitely will be a free trade deal with, of all countries, Colombia.
I didn't really have that much issue with free trade with the United States -- given our generally linked economies as well as generally similar outlooks on human rights. I was rather apprehensive about extending the zone to Mexico given the rather poor human rights record there. While human rights have considerably improved it is still not to the point where I'd even contemplate a visit there. Furthermore the so-called "side agreements" on labour and the environment have proven almost unenforceable. Since they were not incorporated as protocols to the main treaty they in fact have no legal effect.
Colombia is a whole different story. Their human rights record is appalling. The government still doesn't effectively control about a third of the country which is instead under the dictatorship of the drug lords. And while we certainly should encourage improvements in civil liberties in exchange for lower tariffs (what is commonly called "linkage") it should be done as a reward for actual actions taken, not as an inducement to get promises that will never be kept. Progress in Colombia has been much slower in this regard and for that reason we shouldn't even be thinking about the possibility, yet. (And of course, the clincher: Unenforceable "side agreements" on labour and the environment!)
It's a different story when we talk about free trade with the European Union, talks of which are now on the fast-track. As I noted earlier there are huge obstacles to overcome with an agreement of that nature -- including agricultural subsidies. But when there are common values of individual liberty and collective responsibility as well as long standing military ties, it's much easier to build an environment of trust where looser restrictions to trade can flourish.
I mean, really. On the seven point scale of Freedom House ranking political rights and civil liberties (one being totally free and seven being totally not free), Colombia ranks a 3 on both (partly free -- i.e. it's either on the road to freedom or on the road to regressing back to dictatorship depending on what happens inside the country). Mexico is a 2 and 3. Meanwhile, every country in the EU, every single one, ranks at worst a double 2 -- most are double "ones", but the handful of 1 and 2, 2 and 1 and double 2 are still high enough to be considered "free countries" in the sense that democratic principles and human rights are so entrenched that they are basically non-negotiable.
Who would you rather trade with? A free country, or not a free country? Unless you're Hugo Chavez or Vladimir Putin, I hope you said the former.
Yeah, I know, we do deal with Mainland China, which is a 7 and 6. But we keep tariffs with them and will until such time as their people become truly free. We should insist no less with any other country simply because the people in those states are mostly white.
That means it's time for the Liberal Party to do its duty, and bring down Stephen Harper. If this isn't an issue on which to do it -- human rights as a condition of freer trade -- I don't know what could be.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Jews in Israel sentenced for neo-Nazi attacks
Now this is beyond redemption; and no, the title is not a misprint.
A court in Israel has sentenced eight teenagers to sentences from one to seven years in jail for neo-Nazist attacks against religious Jews, homosexuals, and drug addicts -- as well as an attack on a synagogue. The crazy thing about it: The gang consisted of Jews, immigrants from the former Soviet Union.
Or are they really Jewish? Only if one stretches the definition to the extreme. Under the Law of Return -- part of Israel's constitution -- anyone who can prove a link to at least one Jewish grandparent can claim automatic citizenship in Israel the moment they get off the plane in Tel Aviv. The "Jewishness" of these thugs is very debatable and even if genuine a complete disgrace to Judaism in general. It's certainly not in keeping with Judaism as I understand it.
This is really scary in a way. The airport in Tel Aviv is well known to have the best security of any on the planet with a port of control at the airport's exterior, no curbside check-in and racial profiling at baggage handling -- in addition to the x-ray machines we usually expect. Yet the immigration department can't be bothered to vet people who are coming in to the country, whether as visitors or immigrants?
A security fence isn't going to stop people who actually make it into Israel proper and then do stuff. And it's not just radical "Islamists" attacking Jews, but the other way around as well. Does anyone remember the name Baruch Goldstein? Hate cuts in many directions, and only God will be able to sort out the mess that is the Middle East.
Much as we should pray for peace in that region of the world as well as for peaceful co-existence among all who live in the Holy Land, I just don't see it happening even during a second Obama Administration, and we haven't even gotten to the first yet.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
A court in Israel has sentenced eight teenagers to sentences from one to seven years in jail for neo-Nazist attacks against religious Jews, homosexuals, and drug addicts -- as well as an attack on a synagogue. The crazy thing about it: The gang consisted of Jews, immigrants from the former Soviet Union.
Or are they really Jewish? Only if one stretches the definition to the extreme. Under the Law of Return -- part of Israel's constitution -- anyone who can prove a link to at least one Jewish grandparent can claim automatic citizenship in Israel the moment they get off the plane in Tel Aviv. The "Jewishness" of these thugs is very debatable and even if genuine a complete disgrace to Judaism in general. It's certainly not in keeping with Judaism as I understand it.
This is really scary in a way. The airport in Tel Aviv is well known to have the best security of any on the planet with a port of control at the airport's exterior, no curbside check-in and racial profiling at baggage handling -- in addition to the x-ray machines we usually expect. Yet the immigration department can't be bothered to vet people who are coming in to the country, whether as visitors or immigrants?
A security fence isn't going to stop people who actually make it into Israel proper and then do stuff. And it's not just radical "Islamists" attacking Jews, but the other way around as well. Does anyone remember the name Baruch Goldstein? Hate cuts in many directions, and only God will be able to sort out the mess that is the Middle East.
Much as we should pray for peace in that region of the world as well as for peaceful co-existence among all who live in the Holy Land, I just don't see it happening even during a second Obama Administration, and we haven't even gotten to the first yet.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Cafés: Another canary in the economic coalmine
Ah, France. The verdant fields covered with vineyards, wheat, and cattle. The castles and churches. And in the cities, culture as vibrant as the countryside. Especially those cafés and bistros.
About 78% fewer cafés now than in 1960, according to an article in today's print edition of the NYT. From a peak of 200,000 there are only about 44,000 left. And the current slump has put the remaining shops on tenterhooks. It's gotten so bad that some shops have dropped the price for coffee down to just €1 (about $1.25 US) -- and still no one's buying. And we're not talking about corporate giants like Starbucks ™ or McDonalds ™ but mom and pop shops, the independent places that give both town and country their unique characters, not to mention the numerous neighbourhoods in Paris. It's not just France. Across the EU, and here in North America, some long time favourites have disappeared in favour of cookie cutter establishments and even they're in trouble.
Not that I have a vendetta against Starbucks, but when was the last time you saw a struggling artist perform there?
How truly sad that when times are tough, many of the places where the greatest ideas are fostered are the first to go. Theatres, art movie houses, nightclubs. It makes one wonder if while the right may have lost the battle of economic ideas they have won the war on culture.
The greatest acts of our time got their start in nightclubs and busking on the streets. Then some idiots thought we'd rather listen to boy and girl bands and gave DJs the shakedown to make sure they got airplay and the music industry was turned totally upside down. Imagine how much better, more wholesome, more innovative, the music industry would be if we never heard of Britney Spears, the Backstreet Boys, the Spice Girls, Michael Bublé (yes, him -- it's my right not to like his music any more than I don't like Don Cherry's Saturday night rantings) and instead we heard more of the independents.
And of course, let's not forget, the first installment of the most successful books of our time, Harry Potter, was mostly written in a coffee shop in Edinburgh.
No, I'm not arguing for mass subsidies for the small guy. What I am saying is that people should every so often try one of the little guys rather than just going to Timmy's or Dunkin or Starbucks by habit. If they're not able to survive, then there isn't much chance for other small retail outlets either.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
About 78% fewer cafés now than in 1960, according to an article in today's print edition of the NYT. From a peak of 200,000 there are only about 44,000 left. And the current slump has put the remaining shops on tenterhooks. It's gotten so bad that some shops have dropped the price for coffee down to just €1 (about $1.25 US) -- and still no one's buying. And we're not talking about corporate giants like Starbucks ™ or McDonalds ™ but mom and pop shops, the independent places that give both town and country their unique characters, not to mention the numerous neighbourhoods in Paris. It's not just France. Across the EU, and here in North America, some long time favourites have disappeared in favour of cookie cutter establishments and even they're in trouble.
Not that I have a vendetta against Starbucks, but when was the last time you saw a struggling artist perform there?
How truly sad that when times are tough, many of the places where the greatest ideas are fostered are the first to go. Theatres, art movie houses, nightclubs. It makes one wonder if while the right may have lost the battle of economic ideas they have won the war on culture.
The greatest acts of our time got their start in nightclubs and busking on the streets. Then some idiots thought we'd rather listen to boy and girl bands and gave DJs the shakedown to make sure they got airplay and the music industry was turned totally upside down. Imagine how much better, more wholesome, more innovative, the music industry would be if we never heard of Britney Spears, the Backstreet Boys, the Spice Girls, Michael Bublé (yes, him -- it's my right not to like his music any more than I don't like Don Cherry's Saturday night rantings) and instead we heard more of the independents.
And of course, let's not forget, the first installment of the most successful books of our time, Harry Potter, was mostly written in a coffee shop in Edinburgh.
No, I'm not arguing for mass subsidies for the small guy. What I am saying is that people should every so often try one of the little guys rather than just going to Timmy's or Dunkin or Starbucks by habit. If they're not able to survive, then there isn't much chance for other small retail outlets either.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Saturday night music vault: After the Loving
A shock number one hit for Engelbert Humperdinck in 1976, just when everyone though his career was long over.
Well, after this one, his chart career pretty much was over -- but he still packs them in. I like this song -- one of the few of his I do.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Well, after this one, his chart career pretty much was over -- but he still packs them in. I like this song -- one of the few of his I do.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Somalia Pirates; That Town in Florida (Again)
Saturday morning ... two stories on my mind. First the hijacking crisis off the coast of Somalia. Earlier this week, the world's largest shipping company, Denmark's Maersk, announced they could no longer guarantee the safety of their most vulnerable ships in the Gulf of Aden -- an area about ⅓ the size of the United States -- and will reroute those vessels with decks closest to the waterline (mostly tankers) away from the Persian Gulf and Suez Canal and instead send them around South Africa's Cape of Good Hope, adding thousands of kilometres to the voyage and through one of the world's most notorious shipping lanes weather wise.
That Somalia has been allowed to run without any government at all for nearly two decades is scandalous. No one should have been surprised when the "Black Hawk Down" incident happened in 1993 given such lawlessness. You would have thought the world would have put its foot down and pulled out all aid, even humanitarian aid, until the people of Somalia or at least their leaders got their act together.
Instead, banditry has been allowed to ensue and the blood is on our hands for not demanding our governments put a stop to it. And these are not the pirates of old so romanticized by literature and the silver screen. These are terrorists seeking to exploit an already sensitive world economy; knowing the West is heavily reliant on the Middle and Far East's raw materials and finished wares.
Whatever differences may exist between the democratic world and that which isn't government need to agree that enough is enough. The Law of the Sea must be ratified ASAP, and navies given the power to deal with such thugs in an appropriate manner, by force if absolutely necessary. If it means temporarily re-flagging ships and a military escort to ensure safe passage so be it. As well the world must insist that Somalia get its act together once and for all and have some kind of functioning government. A state cannot have no laws; or an enforcement mechanism to ensure the laws stay in place.
Obama has said he wants to pull troops out of Iraq and that's good. He may want to temporarily redeploy some of those forces to the Persian and Aden Gulfs for a few months until this situation is stabilized if not eliminated all together. This is one area where global leadership is lacking right now and all eyes are on him.
*****
And now, for another visit to that friendly neighbourhood called Ave Maria Town, Florida. (HT: AveMaria Watch)
Yes, more signs that Tom Monaghan's Promised Land (read: monument to his own glory) is in major trouble. For whatever reason, the town was deliberately built some distance away from Naples (27 km or 17 miles east, one supposes to ensure the town would be "uncontaminated" from the Gulf Coast's alleged "sinfulness"); and it was reported yesterday that because of current economic troubles a southwest Florida bank has delayed indefinitely plans to open up a branch in the town -- a complete reversal from some reports last summer which suggested that the bank actually wanted to move its headquarters to the town. A building has been completed but remains unoccupied. Interestingly because of this, the town continues to not even have any one bank at all even though most towns its size would have at least a couple by now.
You would think that another bank eager for business would want to take advantage of the lease opportunity or to grab new potential customers. Nope. According to the town's developers, there are no plans to have any bank come to the town other than the one in question. Well, actually, last year those developers announced that an Ohio-based bank wold also becoming to town to ensure competition, but according to that Ohio bank they never had any such plans to begin with.
So, two questions: First, why would they have announced there was an agreement when there was none? Was it a ploy to pretend the instant city was a viable place to live and to get new home buyers to come to set up home? Second, now that the other bank -- the one in Florida -- is getting cold feet too, why on earth would there be hostility to having someone else take up business? Was there a side deal to ensure a monopoly situation? Does Mr. Monaghan have an interest in the bank even if it just a hundred paltry shares?
We don't know because as usual there is a continuing cone of silence. As always these are not accusations. These are questions that remain unanswered.
All this from a man who promised that by 2077 that the university around which the town is being built would have produced between 35,000 and 45,000 "strong" marriages (depending on which news source Monaghan was speaking to on the rare occasions he deigned to come down from his throne to mingle with the commoners), and between 2500 and 4000 priests.
Hard to see this happening when its current enrollment is about 600 (3/4 of them undergraduates) and like other faith groups the rate of divorce among Catholics holds steady at around 50%; not to mention that its accreditation remains constantly on the edge. Its goal of having a 5000 enrollment in twenty years may be doable (if one stretches the imagination), but he's going to need even more salesmanship than Oral Roberts did for his school in Tulsa to pull it off.
And lest we forget, that ginormous chapel (less than half the originally planned size but still too huge for the purpose) built to resemble an upright salmon and not in a style more appropriate to the environment (say, Spanish mission, like the cathedral up the highway in Venice). Not to mention it's right in the middle of the migratory path of the Florida panther.
As far as I know, the school still hasn't been designated an officially "Catholic" one by the Church; merely it is for now a school that operates on what it least claims are Catholic values. (There is a big difference in the two concepts.)
There are other, more reputable and well established private Catholic universities out there -- Gonzaga, Georgetown, Notre Dame; heck even here in Canada we have St. Paul's (connected to the U of Ottawa) and St. Jerome's (affiliated with Waterloo). I don't deny that Monaghan has done a lot of good charitable work, but wouldn't he have been better off using the balance of his fortune to help the needy both around the world and at home, rather than trying to build monuments?
****
It sort of reminds me of a joke that made the rounds a couple of years back. Around the time John Paul II died, so did a businessman. They showed up at the pearly gates. St. Peter dispatched one of his lieutenants to escort the deceased Pontiff was to his new quarters -- a fair sized condominium in a high rise tower, where all the other Popes resided in the afterlife. It was livable. A nice sized apartment but nothing more. About the only perk was each Pope had a dedicated T1 connection to the Internet.
Meanwhile, St. Peter personally took the businessman to his new home, a huge Southfork-style ranch manor with indoor pools, facilities connected to every bedroom (twenty of them), all the creature comforts in every single oversized den and to top it all off, the plates and cutlery were made of solid 24 karat gold. As for the internet connection -- it had bandwidth and speeds that would not be possible even on earth for another thousand years.
The businessman, who was somewhat philantrophic in his life but never thought he was a holy person, asked St. Peter what gave.
"Oh, we've had a lot of Popes in our time; but you're the first businessman to come here since the American Revolution!"
Kidding aside, I hope you get the point.
"Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven ... for where your treasure is your heart will be also." (Matthew 6:20, 21)
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
That Somalia has been allowed to run without any government at all for nearly two decades is scandalous. No one should have been surprised when the "Black Hawk Down" incident happened in 1993 given such lawlessness. You would have thought the world would have put its foot down and pulled out all aid, even humanitarian aid, until the people of Somalia or at least their leaders got their act together.
Instead, banditry has been allowed to ensue and the blood is on our hands for not demanding our governments put a stop to it. And these are not the pirates of old so romanticized by literature and the silver screen. These are terrorists seeking to exploit an already sensitive world economy; knowing the West is heavily reliant on the Middle and Far East's raw materials and finished wares.
Whatever differences may exist between the democratic world and that which isn't government need to agree that enough is enough. The Law of the Sea must be ratified ASAP, and navies given the power to deal with such thugs in an appropriate manner, by force if absolutely necessary. If it means temporarily re-flagging ships and a military escort to ensure safe passage so be it. As well the world must insist that Somalia get its act together once and for all and have some kind of functioning government. A state cannot have no laws; or an enforcement mechanism to ensure the laws stay in place.
Obama has said he wants to pull troops out of Iraq and that's good. He may want to temporarily redeploy some of those forces to the Persian and Aden Gulfs for a few months until this situation is stabilized if not eliminated all together. This is one area where global leadership is lacking right now and all eyes are on him.
*****
And now, for another visit to that friendly neighbourhood called Ave Maria Town, Florida. (HT: AveMaria Watch)
Yes, more signs that Tom Monaghan's Promised Land (read: monument to his own glory) is in major trouble. For whatever reason, the town was deliberately built some distance away from Naples (27 km or 17 miles east, one supposes to ensure the town would be "uncontaminated" from the Gulf Coast's alleged "sinfulness"); and it was reported yesterday that because of current economic troubles a southwest Florida bank has delayed indefinitely plans to open up a branch in the town -- a complete reversal from some reports last summer which suggested that the bank actually wanted to move its headquarters to the town. A building has been completed but remains unoccupied. Interestingly because of this, the town continues to not even have any one bank at all even though most towns its size would have at least a couple by now.
You would think that another bank eager for business would want to take advantage of the lease opportunity or to grab new potential customers. Nope. According to the town's developers, there are no plans to have any bank come to the town other than the one in question. Well, actually, last year those developers announced that an Ohio-based bank wold also becoming to town to ensure competition, but according to that Ohio bank they never had any such plans to begin with.
So, two questions: First, why would they have announced there was an agreement when there was none? Was it a ploy to pretend the instant city was a viable place to live and to get new home buyers to come to set up home? Second, now that the other bank -- the one in Florida -- is getting cold feet too, why on earth would there be hostility to having someone else take up business? Was there a side deal to ensure a monopoly situation? Does Mr. Monaghan have an interest in the bank even if it just a hundred paltry shares?
We don't know because as usual there is a continuing cone of silence. As always these are not accusations. These are questions that remain unanswered.
All this from a man who promised that by 2077 that the university around which the town is being built would have produced between 35,000 and 45,000 "strong" marriages (depending on which news source Monaghan was speaking to on the rare occasions he deigned to come down from his throne to mingle with the commoners), and between 2500 and 4000 priests.
Hard to see this happening when its current enrollment is about 600 (3/4 of them undergraduates) and like other faith groups the rate of divorce among Catholics holds steady at around 50%; not to mention that its accreditation remains constantly on the edge. Its goal of having a 5000 enrollment in twenty years may be doable (if one stretches the imagination), but he's going to need even more salesmanship than Oral Roberts did for his school in Tulsa to pull it off.
And lest we forget, that ginormous chapel (less than half the originally planned size but still too huge for the purpose) built to resemble an upright salmon and not in a style more appropriate to the environment (say, Spanish mission, like the cathedral up the highway in Venice). Not to mention it's right in the middle of the migratory path of the Florida panther.
As far as I know, the school still hasn't been designated an officially "Catholic" one by the Church; merely it is for now a school that operates on what it least claims are Catholic values. (There is a big difference in the two concepts.)
There are other, more reputable and well established private Catholic universities out there -- Gonzaga, Georgetown, Notre Dame; heck even here in Canada we have St. Paul's (connected to the U of Ottawa) and St. Jerome's (affiliated with Waterloo). I don't deny that Monaghan has done a lot of good charitable work, but wouldn't he have been better off using the balance of his fortune to help the needy both around the world and at home, rather than trying to build monuments?
****
It sort of reminds me of a joke that made the rounds a couple of years back. Around the time John Paul II died, so did a businessman. They showed up at the pearly gates. St. Peter dispatched one of his lieutenants to escort the deceased Pontiff was to his new quarters -- a fair sized condominium in a high rise tower, where all the other Popes resided in the afterlife. It was livable. A nice sized apartment but nothing more. About the only perk was each Pope had a dedicated T1 connection to the Internet.
Meanwhile, St. Peter personally took the businessman to his new home, a huge Southfork-style ranch manor with indoor pools, facilities connected to every bedroom (twenty of them), all the creature comforts in every single oversized den and to top it all off, the plates and cutlery were made of solid 24 karat gold. As for the internet connection -- it had bandwidth and speeds that would not be possible even on earth for another thousand years.
The businessman, who was somewhat philantrophic in his life but never thought he was a holy person, asked St. Peter what gave.
"Oh, we've had a lot of Popes in our time; but you're the first businessman to come here since the American Revolution!"
Kidding aside, I hope you get the point.
"Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven ... for where your treasure is your heart will be also." (Matthew 6:20, 21)
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)