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.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
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.
Friday, November 21, 2008
More and more go on dole in States
Yesterday's numbers from the United States certainly don't look good. According to the US government's numbers 542,000 applied for unemployment benefits last week. That's well above what was expected by The Street, and way above the 325,000 or so that one would expect in a "normal" week. Of course these are anything but normal times. The number of people collecting UI on an ongoing basis in America is now over 4 million. It's gotten so bad that Congress has extended benefits by 7 to 20 weeks depending on how bad it is by state to state -- the maximum is usually 26 -- and Dubya who had threatened to veto the bill now signed it early this morning (he probably didn't have much choice given the continuing meltdown).
There is absolutely no question now that the mission in Iraq was misguided from the start and that if the thirty billion or so per month being spent there (plus all the kickbacks various private contractors get on an ongoing basis) was instead spent in the United States, America might not be in the mess they are in right now. Imagine if instead of continuing to explode the deficit, it was announced that prudent measures were being put in to cut waste and the overruns would be cut by half -- overnight? Foreign investment in the States would skyrocket. End of recession, right there.
By the way, on a network news story last night from the States (can't remember which one), I also noticed that they put up signs in Social Security offices saying "Fight UI fraud." Oh, like they tell Americans NOW to fight it? I know desperate times make people do even stupider things but going on the dole is the last thing people would rather do.
I still don't see a depression headed towards America. A steep recession, certainly. Many of the safety valves that weren't around in 1929 are holding back the torrents, albeit barely and central banks are doing what they need to be doing.
But I also think people are going to need patience -- the new administration in the States isn't going to turn things around overnight. Obama's also going to need it too; he (or I should say his handlers) made a lot of his fellow citizens believe he can walk on water even though his campaign slogan was, Yes We Can. At least he emphasized the collective, unlike Secretary of State-in-waiting Hillary Clinton who had "[My] Solutions for America" as her banner.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
There is absolutely no question now that the mission in Iraq was misguided from the start and that if the thirty billion or so per month being spent there (plus all the kickbacks various private contractors get on an ongoing basis) was instead spent in the United States, America might not be in the mess they are in right now. Imagine if instead of continuing to explode the deficit, it was announced that prudent measures were being put in to cut waste and the overruns would be cut by half -- overnight? Foreign investment in the States would skyrocket. End of recession, right there.
By the way, on a network news story last night from the States (can't remember which one), I also noticed that they put up signs in Social Security offices saying "Fight UI fraud." Oh, like they tell Americans NOW to fight it? I know desperate times make people do even stupider things but going on the dole is the last thing people would rather do.
I still don't see a depression headed towards America. A steep recession, certainly. Many of the safety valves that weren't around in 1929 are holding back the torrents, albeit barely and central banks are doing what they need to be doing.
But I also think people are going to need patience -- the new administration in the States isn't going to turn things around overnight. Obama's also going to need it too; he (or I should say his handlers) made a lot of his fellow citizens believe he can walk on water even though his campaign slogan was, Yes We Can. At least he emphasized the collective, unlike Secretary of State-in-waiting Hillary Clinton who had "[My] Solutions for America" as her banner.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
What if ... Obama was president NOW?
It's a pretty good question that Josh Marshall's asked today ... what if the Americans had a transition of power overnight and Obama had become President on November 5, the day after the election?
What if did it like they do in the UK? If a Prime Minister loses the election, he or she doesn't hang out for a lame duck session trying to ram through some last minute regulations or appointments. He or she goes to Buckingham Palace, tells the Sovereign that he or she has lost the confidence of the Queen's subjects to govern and resigns as Her Majesty's chief servant right then and there.
While Barack Obama was elected sixteen days ago it will be another sixty-one before he takes the oath of office. Imagine if America had it so that a team was ready to go, the day after the election rather than this interminable vetting and confirmation period?
No more surprise pardons. No more unexpected land management decisions. No executive orders that wind their way through the courts for years and wind up in the outgoing power's favour.
But of course, that's the way the Americans do it. They drag the transition out just like they do the elections; which gives Bush some last extra time to continue to put to waste his MBA and come up with yet another "Bushism" -- those twists of phrase that the press loves to ridicule. And in the current circumstance, two more months to do further damage to the economy when what America desperately needs is leadership.
I just don't get it. Even here in Canada, the transition usually takes about ten days.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
What if did it like they do in the UK? If a Prime Minister loses the election, he or she doesn't hang out for a lame duck session trying to ram through some last minute regulations or appointments. He or she goes to Buckingham Palace, tells the Sovereign that he or she has lost the confidence of the Queen's subjects to govern and resigns as Her Majesty's chief servant right then and there.
While Barack Obama was elected sixteen days ago it will be another sixty-one before he takes the oath of office. Imagine if America had it so that a team was ready to go, the day after the election rather than this interminable vetting and confirmation period?
No more surprise pardons. No more unexpected land management decisions. No executive orders that wind their way through the courts for years and wind up in the outgoing power's favour.
But of course, that's the way the Americans do it. They drag the transition out just like they do the elections; which gives Bush some last extra time to continue to put to waste his MBA and come up with yet another "Bushism" -- those twists of phrase that the press loves to ridicule. And in the current circumstance, two more months to do further damage to the economy when what America desperately needs is leadership.
I just don't get it. Even here in Canada, the transition usually takes about ten days.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Stevens throws in towel, McCain wins Missouri 15 days late
Ted Stevens finally conceded the Alaska Senate race today, after he got word that Sarah Palin had congratulated the winner, Mark Begich. It will be interesting to see how Begich works with Palin as well as his fellow Senator from the State, the GOP's Lisa Murkowski -- Senators not only represent the people in their state but also their state government, a throwback to the days before 1913 (and the 17th Amendment) when Senators were picked by the state legislatures. But I shed no tears at seeing Stevens go -- convictions or not. Anyone who would say the Internet is a "series of tubes" clearly is out of step with reality.
Meanwhile, the AP reports that the count in Missouri has finally been completed and McCain won the state's 11 electoral votes by just 3632 raw ballots cast. Final total for the Electoral College: Obama 365, McCain 173. Missouri's nearly 50 year bellwether streak is finally over. Still, the fact Obama made it so close in the crossroads of America bodes well for the donkey in future election cycles there.
Hey, I was off -13 for Obama. Not a bad guess, I would say.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Meanwhile, the AP reports that the count in Missouri has finally been completed and McCain won the state's 11 electoral votes by just 3632 raw ballots cast. Final total for the Electoral College: Obama 365, McCain 173. Missouri's nearly 50 year bellwether streak is finally over. Still, the fact Obama made it so close in the crossroads of America bodes well for the donkey in future election cycles there.
Hey, I was off -13 for Obama. Not a bad guess, I would say.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Dating service now open to gays and lesbians
The online dating service eHarmony ™ has settled out of court with a man from New Jersey and, as part of the agreement, will now add two more dating options -- women seeking women, and men seeking men. It has been up till now been only open to heterosexuals.
The service, founded by Dr. Neil Clark Warren and which was once connected to Focus on the Family (no, seriously), had apparently been considering the options but kept putting it in the "planning stages." The new site which is going to be up by March 2009 will be called "Compatible Partners."
Absolutely the correct thing to do. I have no issues with two people of the same sex living together or trying to find companionship -- they face the same difficulties finding someone as people who are "straight," like me. Denying one's matchmaking services to a specific subset of the culture, or any other business so denying their fare for that matter, for a fee -- even when someone is willing to pay -- is a stupid way to run a business as far as I'm concerned. It's as stupid as the days when entire neighbourhoods were off-limits to those of the Jewish faith.
For what it's worth, I wouldn't care if someday we have a Prime Minister who is gay or lesbian and has his or her partner living with him or her at 24 Sussex -- as long as they can do the job of running the Langevin Block, I don't give a damn what they do under the sheets. If I recall correctly, Sweden has already had this precedent, and gay marriages become legal there next year (civil unions have been available in Abbaland for quite some time).
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
The service, founded by Dr. Neil Clark Warren and which was once connected to Focus on the Family (no, seriously), had apparently been considering the options but kept putting it in the "planning stages." The new site which is going to be up by March 2009 will be called "Compatible Partners."
Absolutely the correct thing to do. I have no issues with two people of the same sex living together or trying to find companionship -- they face the same difficulties finding someone as people who are "straight," like me. Denying one's matchmaking services to a specific subset of the culture, or any other business so denying their fare for that matter, for a fee -- even when someone is willing to pay -- is a stupid way to run a business as far as I'm concerned. It's as stupid as the days when entire neighbourhoods were off-limits to those of the Jewish faith.
For what it's worth, I wouldn't care if someday we have a Prime Minister who is gay or lesbian and has his or her partner living with him or her at 24 Sussex -- as long as they can do the job of running the Langevin Block, I don't give a damn what they do under the sheets. If I recall correctly, Sweden has already had this precedent, and gay marriages become legal there next year (civil unions have been available in Abbaland for quite some time).
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Microsoft offering free anti-virus
So many of us use the PC platform for our computing that it's become almost ubiquitous. On the one hand, having a near universal standard makes life that much easier for software developers (who are then freed to make their programs even better than if having to start from scratch); on the other hand we become so reliant to the MS standard that we've exposed ourselves to numerous Trojan horses and other computer bugs -- a fact Apple's Mac ™ keeps poking fun at (even though there are quite a few Apple-specific viruses out there). The danger is so great that both platforms, but especially the former, keep urging us to have a registered and up to date anti-virus and firewall program.
Now, Microsoft is getting set to offer its own security and anti-virus package next summer, for free -- a tool which will work on XP, Vista and the forthcoming Windows 7. Just as Netscape went the way of the dodo, a lot of people wonder if this is The End for McAfee and Norton, among others.
I doubt it -- the MS program appears to be a no-frills program for those who want only the basics. Looks like they're going after the notebook crowd, mainly, as well as those still on dial-up. Many of us want and need something more robust.
Still, seeing how MS mowed down the competition in the past, such as IBM's OS2 and the NeXT Station, I wouldn't be too eager to be optimistic if I were one of those who make commercial packages. I would just promote it as a better product and why a pay package is better than the free one -- just as pay TV and extended basic cable often is better than free TV. Heck, even some free software anti-virus in competition might end up being better too. I didn't much like MS's spyware tool which I had to uninstall because it slowed down my desktop big time but some downloadable freebies work for spy and adware I have work just fine -- they're in the background and unobtrusive and often killing the spyware without even me knowing about it.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Now, Microsoft is getting set to offer its own security and anti-virus package next summer, for free -- a tool which will work on XP, Vista and the forthcoming Windows 7. Just as Netscape went the way of the dodo, a lot of people wonder if this is The End for McAfee and Norton, among others.
I doubt it -- the MS program appears to be a no-frills program for those who want only the basics. Looks like they're going after the notebook crowd, mainly, as well as those still on dial-up. Many of us want and need something more robust.
Still, seeing how MS mowed down the competition in the past, such as IBM's OS2 and the NeXT Station, I wouldn't be too eager to be optimistic if I were one of those who make commercial packages. I would just promote it as a better product and why a pay package is better than the free one -- just as pay TV and extended basic cable often is better than free TV. Heck, even some free software anti-virus in competition might end up being better too. I didn't much like MS's spyware tool which I had to uninstall because it slowed down my desktop big time but some downloadable freebies work for spy and adware I have work just fine -- they're in the background and unobtrusive and often killing the spyware without even me knowing about it.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Breaking: Ted Stevens, loses Senate seat? Wunnerful, wunnerful!
From the AP, Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich now has an insurmountable lead of 3,724 --since there are only 2500 ballots left to be counted. One (Alaska) down, two (Georgia, Minnesota) to go!
Also, Stevens said he will not seek a pardon from Dubya. I don't think Shrub would want to give him one anyway.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Also, Stevens said he will not seek a pardon from Dubya. I don't think Shrub would want to give him one anyway.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)