Romney: Assuring defeat with Paul Ryan?

Do Vice Presidential choices matter?   For 97% of those who vote, no.  But veep picks can often set the tone for the success or failure of a campaign or administration.

There have been a few lackluster choices on the Democratic side.   But why is it that GOP Presidential nominees more often than not pick running mates that are losers?   I do say more often than not, but consider that the perceived "losers" often turn out be "winners" and vice versa.

Let's go through some of the more recent past choices:

1948:  Thomas Dewey chose Earl Warren.    This election was the very narrow "Dewey Defeats Truman" fiasco for the Republicans.    Warren, the Governor of California and the leader of the Republican's liberal wing, was eventually appointed by Dwight Eisenhower to be Chief Justice of the United State and would lead the Supreme Court to its many pro-civil rights decisions that changed race relations, and police procedures, forever.   (Of course, Warren also ensured much of the truth behind the JFK murder would remain classified for decades.)

1952 and 1956:  Eisenhower chose Richard Nixon.   After a near career ending media storm over the propriety of an expense allowance and how it was used, Nixon went on national TV to deliver the now (in)famous "Checkers Speech" that persuaded most people he was a straight talking guy and Ike got the win on reverse coattails.   Dick was a mostly competent Veep but suffered a setback when facing a solid South delegation in the Senate that refused to pass major civil rights reforms (that would have to wait for LBJ, a Democrat, in 1964).

1960:   Nixon chose the career diplomat Henry Cabot Lodge Jr.   Dick figured that a popular guy from Massachusetts would force JFK to spend more time in his home state.   Guess how that turned out.

1964:   Barry Goldwater chose William E. Miller, a veteran of World War II and one of the American prosecutors in the Nuremberg Trials.    A true honour, but through no fault of his own, he and Goldwater didn't stand a chance after the truly infamous "Daisy" ad appeared (just once).

1968 and 1972:   Nixon, getting a Mulligan, picks Spiro Agnew.     He was Dick's hatchet man -- or at the least the one not involved in the Watergate scandals -- and became the self-proclaimed voice of the so-called "Silent Majority."    Later forced to resign in 1973 over taking bribes while Governor of Maryland, although officially he pleaded nolo contendere to tax evasion.   (For what it was worth, his fellow lawyers in his home state disbarred him, and his official portrait as a former Governor of the state was removed and wasn't rehanged until twenty-three years later).

1976:   Until 1967, a vacancy in the Vice-Presidency remained vacant.   The 25th Amendment, passed in 1967, changed that -- permitting a President to nominate a replacement subject to approval by both the House and Senate (not just the latter as for other Executive appointments).   Nixon made a fine choice in Gerald R. Ford, the House Republican leader, who of course became President a few months later, when Nixon resigned after realizing impeachment by the House was a certainty and he would be stripped of office in the Senate (and the removal process was a true bi-partisan effort, not like the farces of Andrew Johnston in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998).

Ford's decision to pardon Nixon was hugely controversial at the time; but given how hot the Middle East was becoming politically and facing stepladder inflation, putting an end to the fiasco so the country could focus on more important things was the right thing to do.   Ford, in turn, chose Nelson Rockefeller as his own replacement -- which would have been fine overall, except for the infamous zero-tolerance drug laws passed while the latter served as Governor of New York State (and which were only rolled back in 2009).

When Ford got the nod to win a full term in office, after beating off a very close challenge from only one person, Ronald Reagan (the primary vote was nearly tied, and the choice went to the convention floor), Ford wanted to keep Rockefeller.   But largely bullied by Team Reagan who threatened to sit at home if Nelson stayed on the ticket, Ford caved in and picked -- believe it or not -- Bob Dole.    While Dole is nowhere near as doctrinaire as some might think (and is a decent man),  Ford lost by a very narrow margin to Jimmy Carter, and for the rest of his life Ford would regret caving in to the Christian Right.

1980 and 1984:    To appease the moderate wing of the GOP, and after Ford made clear he didn't want a "Co-Presidency", The Gipper chose the elder George Bush.   (The bad economy and the hostage crisis didn't help Carter and Walter Mondale either ... and the flying high economy slammed the door on Mondale when he ran as Prez in '84 too.)   Not much other comment here, Bush was definitely an outstanding choice even if he did flip-flop on the abortion issue (although his wife, the elder Barbara, never has).  

1988 and 1992:   Running as his own man, Bush 41 dispatched his opponents with ease despite an admitted lack of "The Vision Thing"; and it became even easier when Gary Hart got caught cheating -- right in the act -- and the last man left standing for the Dems was the competent but anemic, and even more uncharismatic than Bush, Michael Dukakis.    Of all the much more worthy possibilities, Bush choice Danforth Quayle.   He set the standard for W's "Bushisms".  Those of us young enough to remember Quayle couldn't get enough of foot-in-mouth moments.   Forget "You're no Jack Kennedy" -- my personal favourite is when he mangled the United Negro College Fund's "A mind is a terrible thing to waste ™"  into:  "What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is."    To be far to Dan, he is a classy guy overall and was also competent as Veep, but his foibles were just one of several drags on the elder Bush (the far larger one, of course, was the economy at that time.)    His biggest post executive legacy is his founding the Museum of Vice Presidents.   I'm not kidding.

1996:   Bob Dole was not fooling anyone when he resigned from the Senate in an "all or nothing" gamble, and renamed his campaign jet "Citizen Ship" from "Leader Ship", then unsuccessfully made fun of (and misinterpreted) Hilary Clinton's "It Takes A Village" when he said "It takes a family to raise a family".   (As now Secretary of State Clinton pointed out in reply to Dole:" [I]t takes a family. It takes teachers. It takes clergy. It takes business people. It takes community leaders. It takes those who protect our health and safety. It takes all of us. Yes, it takes a village.")

Be that as it may, a lot of people did take notice when Dole chose Jack Kemp, a true "progressive conservative" if there ever has been one in the States.   A former Buffalo Bills player, Kemp was very strong on the right to privacy.    As Bush 41's Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Kemp was forced to clean up a huge mess of an agency left to rot by Reagan and Kemp's immediate predecessor and eventually had to call in federal prosecutors to investigate clear evidence of influence peddling.   Incredibly, Kemp turned around HUD into a real success story in just four years.  Kemp was stymied in his efforts, however, to help poor people living in better maintained housing projects to convert units into condominiums and purchase them (the Democratic Congress only allocated a tenth of the $4 billion he asked for).    However, in the wake of the 1992 LA riots, Kemp had the guts to stand up to his boss.    While Bush 41 called the rioters a "mob", Kemp declared  that the Rodney King case was just the spark that lit up long-held resentments including the remit he dealt with, the lack of low-income housing.

So why didn't the Kemp choice work?   The economy was not just flying high but burning.    Bill Clinton and Al Gore won in a landslide.    If it had been a choice on merits rather than the voter's gut instinct, I think Dole-Kemp would have had about even odds.   It would have been a real election for once.

2000 and 2004:    It says a lot about a search committee when it's a committee of one, and that one picks himself to be the veep choice.   That's how Dick Cheney ended up as George W Bush's tag team partner.   If Al Gore (along with his choice of Joe Lieberman) had won Gore's home state of Tennessee, the Florida debacle would have been irrelevant.    And there are still questions about how much Bush actually won by in Ohio in 2004 (not to mention how John Kerry and John Edwards got "Swift Boated").

In the last forty years, the Vice-Presidential office has become more and more powerful, but under Cheney's watch virtually all of the Executive Departments became footstools.   That has been rolled back under Obama and Joe Biden and the Secretaries and other Cabinet rank offices do have a fair amount of independence again, but the conscience of the Oval Office is now the Veep, not the Secretary of State.   The damage has been done.

2008:   John McCain, a hero if there ever was one, could have picked any Republican other than the one he chose -- Sarah Palin.   Need I say any more?

And so here we are in 2012.    Paul Ryan has not been as well known in circles outside of Washington, but he actually does have some smart ideas.   He proposes cutting income taxes across the board, with a top rate of 25% (down from about 35%) for those who line item deductions -- or if one doesn't itemize, two flat bands of 10% up to $100,000 and 25% on anything about that); and mostly making up the difference with a GST of 8.5%.   (Smart that is -- really, the States needs a VAT of some sort to put it on a level field with many other exporting countries; but it will never be accepted by lower classes even with refundable credits.)

But Ryan also wants to substantially reduce access to Medicaid (health care for welfare recipients and the "working poor" -- the threshold would be set to a point where maybe half would be cut off), and replace it with a system of vouchers that will not -- repeat, not -- index with inflation or with rising system costs.    It would also replace fee-for-service (or piecework, if you prefer to call it that) with straight salaries or lump sum payments to Medicaid accepting health care practitioners.    This may be fine with those in the radical right who believe that good health should be a privilege and bad health a punishment from God, but it does nothing to help those who need help.   Cut the payments, fewer doctors will accept the vouchers -- and the vicious cycle of poverty will worsen even more.

The Obama reforms, as faulty as they are, are a start in the proper direction.   And kicking the hornet's nest will not help anyone.

Does the choice made last weekend provide the right amount of shadow (yang) to Mitt Romney's light (ying)?   Perhaps.   But as moderate as he may be on many policy issues, Romney cannot escape his actions as a hedge fund manager and corporate raider and all the victims that caused.   There are many raiders who are much more ethical, and many corporate scions who ensure the laid off or terminated get some kind of decency in a leaving package.   Romney's not that kind of guy.

And it wouldn't have mattered who he chose, it's always about the economy. Unless the dollar devalues by 50% between now and November, or the price of oil skyrockets to $200+, Obama and Biden are safe -- but they won't win a landslide either.

UPDATE (11:06 AM EDT, 1506 GMT, August 14, 2012):   Some minor corrections.   Also, I saw on CNBC this morning Rick Santelli saying that the Ryan pick gives Americans a real choice -- government is the solution or government is the problem.    Sorry, Ricky, but it's not that simple.   People, given the choice, want help when they need it and to be left alone when they don't.   That's how most free world countries operate and why their people are healthier overall.    Cancelling Obamacare with Romneycare (a difference of degrees) would be one thing.    Getting rid of Medicaid for working people making barely more than minimum is really revolting.

Iran: Getting away with genocide, thanks to banks (maybe)

If the allegations about the British based bank Standard Chartered Bank PLC are true then a financial institution that has been at the forefront of a "corporate responsibility" campaign is guilty of an instance of money laundering that makes the Bank of Credit and Commerce International look like Romper Room ™.    When I first heard about this late last night, I thought it was "only" $250 million.   Actually, as we know now, there may be been $250 billion laundered.

If on the other hand the nearly 160 year old bank is telling the truth, that it did not knowingly aid and abet Iran, then it really has been played for a fool and for a bank with just under $600 billion in deposits it really calls into question how trustworthy banks can be.

(SCB's statement is here, New York State's allegations are here.)

Think it couldn't happen in Canada?     I'm not so sure anymore.    I'll explain after a bit of a diversion but I hope it explains my thinking as to why.

***

By the time regulators around the world slammed the door shut on BCCI in 1991 (the bank had been open for only 20 years, "only" $10 to $17 billion had been moved around illegally with very little foresight; and while 75% has been recovered by governments for the portions not covered by deposit insurance, the trustees are still after twenty years trying to find the rest).    Depositors in most countries where BCCI operated were made whole (more or less) to the tune of just about $20 billion, its deposits; but this did create an embarrassing situation for states like Canada, which was forced to break its own rules that deposit insurance only covered citizens or full time residents of Canada -- not the diplomatic corps in Ottawa, much of which had BCCI as their preferred bank.    Really -- we had to bail out corrupt states like Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe, and in the middle of a recession.


While it is true that BCCI helped launder USDA food aid money (about $100 million) intended for the poor in Iraq towards Saddam Hussein himself to fund the infamous Project Babylon "Supergun" invented by Canadian traitor Gerald Bull; and Iraq did have chemical weapons which it merciless plowed on Kurds in 1988, there's really no indication that Mr Hussein was at that time seeking nuclear weapons on a mass scale -- after Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear facilities in 1983, Hussein must have decided to keep it simple, hence Babylon.

The stakes are way higher here.    And not just because of the amounts involved here.

Iran, despite its denials, definitely has nuclear weapons ambitions.    We all know that.   And of course it would; with Israel to the left and Pakistan, India and Mainland China to the east (I highly doubt North Korea would want to take out Iran).    Pursuing a nuclear weapon isn't cheap.   You need massive amounts of power, certainly much more than most hydro (water) or coal plants are capable of producing.

And building a successful and viable nuclear generating station by itself is huge.   The Manhattan Project (a joint project of the US, Canada and the UK -- the "Atlantic Triangle") which led to the Trinity, Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs (as well as a fourth, undetonated one) cost about what it took to fund 9 days of conventional warfare, about $1.9 billion; about $24.4 billion today.   That's with three very developed and allegedly "advanced" nation-states.

Among the positive side effects of such a weapon of terror were nuclear power generation and medical isotopes that have successfully treated and even cured millions.    It has even helped combat art fraud (any painting or photograph after about 1948 has radioactive materials in it, in trace amounts but they're there).   But many of us are old enough to remember Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, and of course Fukushima.   The fact is, you never build a machine gun only with the intent to hunt wild game for the purposes of conservation and food consumption.   Ask the real Anton Kalashnikov.

Iran can't simply go to a bank (one that operates within the rules) and say, "Can you extend us a line of credit, for say, $50 billion?    We'll pledge our oil assets as collateral."   The loan officer, knowing Iran's history and its rhetoric, can't just very well say, "Okay, sign here."    They would insist on some kind of assurance about what the money is for, and that it is indeed going for that purpose.   Especially for a third world country, and past instances of corruption throughout the developing world, due dilligence is vital.


SCB admits it had received 150 million text messages and other online contacts.   (The regulators are focused on about 60,000).    If there was a suspicion something weird was going on, a reasonable person might think they would have raised the alarm even before they were first contacted by prosecutors in 2007.

What has happened here, according to regulators, is an illegal "U-turn" in that Iran has multiple times wired X amount of one default currency (say, Euros, but of course using a dummy company as a front) to a European bank (especially one in the Eurozone) with a US branch office; in turn that US branch wires the equivalent in dollars to a US bank and one of its European branches into an account of the same front company.   

Not only has Iran managed to sucker two banks it would seem, but central banks have been suckered too.   The Euros are now "Euro-euros" (that is, a Euro outside the Eurozone and not controlled by the ECB in Frankfurt) and in turn an equal amount of bucks have become Eurodollars (a dollar outside of the US, and it doesn't have to be Europe either) and therefore outside the control of the Federal Reserve.

If there is a seizure of the bank in question here, the depositors may very well get most or all of their $600 billion back; it'll be covered by insurance (government and private).    But those insurance premiums paid by all of us for home, auto, life etc will skyrocket making it very unaffordable; and of course, a bank failure could start a chain reaction.

I think people have had enough of "too big to fail".

***

So to my point.   And this is only what I think, based on what we know:

SCB has a very small presence in Canada -- while it mostly exited retail banking here, it still is here via its majority ownership of the Canadian arm of American Express ™ Bank.    So there is some exposure there although also some protection with deposit insurance.

 But who's to say that given Canada's very tough position on Iran and our poisonous history with them (we didn't even have relations with them during the 1980s, a policy carried through by four Prime Ministers) that that country hasn't figured out a way to take advantage of what's left of our fairly reasonable stance on foreign policy issues and used front companies running money through any of the chartered banks or trust companies?     If we have been played for fools, then there's going to be a lot of egg on the face of PMS.

Some banks have proactively been trying to clamp down, although overreaching in some cases by closing personal accounts altogether without probable cause (think TD ™).    And while police activity needs to keep a low profile until charges are filed, stopping Iran from getting Da Bomb and / or funding terrorist groups should be our Number One foreign policy initiative.    We need to make that clear.    And if Iran has laundered money through Canada, then we should again suspend diplomatic relations with that country.

As for the banks, nothing less than full disclosure is called for.   If banks have found irregularities, we need to know, openly and now.   Otherwise, there should be a substantial forfeiture of cash and equivalents in hand, a major hike in that bank's deposit insurance premiums, and a very public shaming.

Otherwise the credibility of our banks are in question.    And with it, our confidence in their "stability" compared to other countries, especially the US.    We need to take the lead in saying we're splitting apart the retail (bank, trust and insurance) operations of financial institutions from the investment banking divisions.   That is to say, investor's escrow deposit accounts should of course be protected for their book value; but any risk management by the investors and the traders they rely on should be on a caveat emptor as well as caveat venditor.    We should not be held liable under any circumstances for derivatives that go haywire or transactions made with ill intent.

Furthermore if a Cabinet minister had a probable belief something was rotten but did not speak up, then that minister should be fired -- and that includes the Prime Minister.    If they knew, we need to know too.    If there is a time for "accountability" it's now.

Whether it's just $10,000 or $1 billion or more, we need to know the truth, now -- and the banks telling the government of Iran to get the hell out of Dawson Creek.

Why won't McGuinty stop health care (and card) fraud?

Last week, I was shocked to hear on the news, as were a lot of people in Ontario, that there are still 3.5 million of the old red strip, no expiry date Ontario Health Cards.    And that the government is doing nothing about it.   The green photo cards should have phased out the reds -- in 2000.

What's even more worrisome -- front line health care workers and back billing offices aren't either.   It's bad enough there are still 300,000+  more helath cards than residents which opens up the opportunity to commit fraud.    But the law stipulates that if you change your address or marital status, you must get a new photo health card.   Period.   I know several people who have made multiple moves, continue to use the card and get no hassle, which shocks me.

ER type care, I can understand -- there should never be refusal to care, regardless of proof of coverage from any Canadian juridisdiction, or private insurance from elsewhere.

But lab tests?   X-rays?  Regular check ups at a methodone clinic -- especially those who have moved several times since they got their last card?    What's wrong with this picture?    I've seen too many doctors just swipe the red card without even checking for other ID or their real name.    The risk of impersonation is way too big here.

So there are really two tracks to this.    A hospital or doctor or lab can take the card but they must tell the patient they must get a health card.   Once a proven residence is offered to match it up, or any other address for that matter (even a mail drop at a social services centre) the card is flagged and a written notice is sent to the patient to report to the DMV (which handles the applications along with driver's stickers and licenses) to have it updated or the card will expire -- or, even better, have the digital picture taken at the doctor's office right there and then and the old card cancelled.    (The letters can be sent in the language of the patient's choice, there were 30 or more last time I checked).

Since driver's cards are updated every 5 years along side the photo health cards, that should be the sunset period.    Since many of us average about one or more visits to some kind of health care, that's plenty of time to whittle down the excess cards.    A seven year inactivity period to let the cards lapse is way too long, with respect to Pointy Head.   Now that the Boomers are starting to collect Old Age Security, health care costs will skyrocket.   We need to fight fraud -- even the temptation to commit it -- every way we can.

Romney should audition for Keystone Kops with his mouth

Remember four years ago and Barack Obama's goodwill tour of Europe -- well before the Democratic convention -- and how it brought out people in the tens of thousands; including 200,000 at Victory Column in Berlin.   No surprise there as he was spreading the word of reconciliation with the NATO alliance after eight years of 43.

Fast forward to 2012.   Mitt Romney, having locked up the Republican nod to challenge Obama, is now on a world tour of his own.   But the crowds just aren't there.   A corporate raider just doesn't have the chic of acommunity organizer.

And better for Obama's chances, the former Governor of Massachusetts keeps putting his foot in it.   First, he criticized the organizers of the London Games now on.   Fair enough -- having to bring in the troops when a security company can't get its act together is definitely a cause for concern.

But then he visits Israel.   And here's where it gets interesting.   First, as Obama has, Romney said that Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel.   That will get out the vote, but as no country in the world I'm aware of even recognizes the country's claim to West Jerusalem (instead adopting the official position of corpus separatum) it's not one that can be really put into practice, yet (sixty years plus on).

But second -- and here's where it gets fun -- Romney attempted a comparison between the relative wealth of Israel and the West Bank; noting the per capita GDP in Israel is twice the size of that in the Palestinian areas.  Romney's next line:   "Culture makes all the difference."

Wow.   This ranks right up there with Ralph Nader calling Obama an "Uncle Tom."

And this before one of Romney's aides told reporters to "kiss my ass" -- just after Romney arrived in Warsaw.

Yes, terrorist elements -- both organized and lone wolves -- have hindered Palestine a great deal.   But so have the restrictions on movements of all non-settlement residents of the Bank as well as Gaza.   When you have to go through several checkpoints to get to work, while those living in the illegal exclaves as well as tourists can get around as fast as one could in Israel proper, then of course economic development will be hindered.

 But to call it a "matter of culture"?    This sounds like those who fought against civil rights for blacks in the 1950s and 60s.   "Wait."   "Sit down, boy."  "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"    And other sorts of crap.

Christians have a special duty to stand up for God's Chosen People.    We also have a responsiblity to stand up for the rights of law-abiding Palestinians, too -- including those who are Christians -- both in the occupied lands and in Israel proper.   The toll on Christians has been especially stark.   In just two generations the percentage of Christians in the area has dropped from about 20% to just 2.1% -- nearly 90 percent.

So here are some questions worth asking Mitt Romney:

1. What does Romney find so offensive about the Palestinians' "culture" and what he perceives as their "inability" to raise their standard of living?
2. How does he feel about the refugee situation -- not just Muslims, but Christians and other groups caught on the wrong side of the fence?
3. Does he favour continuing foreign aid to a first world country with a less than stellar human rights record -- or does he think Israel is entitled to a free pass just as his own country often believes it's entitled to?   Trade should be linked to respect for rights, not to religion or a lack thereof.
4. Does he favour a contigous West Bank with land swaps, or one pot-marked by "settlements" as part of a final status settlement?   (This isn't Baarle-Nassau and Baarle-Hertog on the Netherlands-Belgium border, after all -- a geographic curiosity in Europe but one that's been left alone.  Heck, even India and Bangladesh have finally agreed to mostly resolve the preposterous situation in Cooch-Behar where there were a total of 202 enclaves sprinkled within each other's territories; that will be reduced to just 40.)   Put it this way -- would the West tolerate Palestine having it illegally occupy parts of Israel, say Sderot, Nazareth or Meggido (Armaggedon)?    This is an inherent double standard.
5. Lastly, as democracy continues to spread across the Middle East, will he favour extending free trade arrangements

I wonder if Auschwitz - Birkenau is on Romney's schedule, and what could possibly happen there.   If JP2 hadn't ordered a Catholic convent to get the hell out of the area on the perimeter, would Romney (a Mormon) have preferred the convent over the camp.   Just asking.

"Coddling thugs"? Hardly

I just love it when people like PMS and Robert Ford say that getting tough on the causes of crime is tantamount to "coddling thugs."

I'll be brief on this one.   Nothwithstanding the uptake in gun violence recently, and my feeling that mandatory minimums for an unlawful discharge of a firearm should be declared constitutional, we still need to get to the root causes of what causes crime as well as fighting it.

If the Dynamic Duo ™ wants to fight crime, here's two suggestions.

First:  Provide funding to fix the "broken windows."   Make vacant lots and buildings where the thugs hang out inaccessible.    There is a risk of gentrification (and with it driving up property values even higher in one of the most expensive cities in the free world), but if people feel their neighbourhood is safer due to "strength in numbers" then the more likely it is that residents will proactively report on potential trouble people before crimes are committed -- and in addition, the likelihood those residents are tempted or coerced into the "Don't Snitch" mentality reactively is substantially reduced.

Second:   Crimestoppers should offer higher rewards than just $2000.   Depending on the gravity of the crime, the reward should be in the range of $5000 to $10,000; even higher in the most serious cases.    Ford and PMS are buddies with most of Bay Street so they can easily persuade them to sponsor such rewards -- it's tax deductible for donors, after all.    When money talks, someone will snitch -- and that will mean one less bad person off the streets.

There should be common ground on the left and the right on how to deal with this serious issue.   For whatever reason, the current powers that be want to be entrenched in their positions without even looking for the consensus.    And that's exactly want the gangs and lone loose cannons want.

Guest post: [Belated] Reflections on Canada Day

Once again I am pleased to offer my space for a guest post and once again by Jared Milne.   This time Jared addresses the very real issue of Central and Eastern alienation now that "The West Wants In" has become reality.

*****

This past Canada Day, I was reflecting on some of the most interesting trends I’ve noticed over the last couple of years in Canadian politics. John Ibbitson has written about the collapse of what he calls the “Laurentian Consensus”, and the subsequent shift of political power to Western Canada, over and above the old consensus, based on power in Ontario and Quebec, that governed Canada. As power shifted west, so too did the electorate’s values, with Quebec on the outside, or so Ibbitson claimed. (i)  At the same time, the Harper government also set about establishing a new narrative of Canada, one that came in response to the original narrative supposedly established by the Liberals that centred around developments that could be attributed to their party. (ii)

While Ibbitson made several interesting points in his essay, I have to admit that I’m not entirely convinced by his claims that the old values are out of date, or that the old assumptions are entirely gone. Studying Canadian history and the many different viewpoints that I’ve come across, I’ve come to realize that there is in fact much more common ground and common values across Canada than most people seem to realize. Many of us share similar feelings of alienation, even as we often don’t fully understand where the other parts of Canada are coming from.

Take, for instance, the case of John Diefenbaker, the Conservative firebrand from Saskatchewan who was Prime Minister from 1957 to 1963. Diefenbaker has been admired by a variety of different groups, for often varying reasons. Diefenbaker spoke to many Western Canadians who felt alienated from the corridors of power in Ottawa, even as he enacted policies that benefited that region. (iii)  His legacy has also been invoked by modern Conservatives who describe him as a “populist Conservative” fighting against an entrenched Liberal administration, (v) and his invoking of a “Canada of the North”, (iv) both of which the Harper government doubtlessly seeks to invoke with its criticisms of supposed Liberal elitism and its Arctic sovereignty initiatives. However, Diefenbaker is also a respected figure in the Red Tory narrative of Canada for his opposition to closer continental integration with the United States, which is said to compare favourably with Stephen Harper’s desire to follow the Americans’ lead on various foreign policy issues. (vi) He was also a remarkably activist prime minister, doing everything from finding new markets for Western Canadian grain to creating the National Council on Welfare.

It’s curious that Diefenbaker could be so respected by two supposedly so different political traditions. One of the popular ideas today is that Red Toryism is dead and the ascending Blue Toryism is supposedly incompatible with it, but you wouldn’t know it looking at Diefenbaker, who clearly didn’t see anything contradictory in his actions and policies appealing to both traditions of conservatism. The supposed demise of Red Toryism is also suspect when we consider some of its key principles as outlined by Ron Dart, such as the positive role of government action, support for and respect of the land and the common good and the positive role religion can play in the state, also continue to play a role in Canadian conservatism. (vii)

Preston Manning, one of the leading lights of modern Canadian conservatism, illustrates some of these tendencies. He has spoke extensively about the need for “green conservatism” and the necessity of conservatives to look at environmental issues, (viii) and has also gone on record as supporting putting a price on carbon and emissions. (ix)  Manning is also a religious man who’s written about the positive role Christianity has played in influencing his views and his growth, but he has also very specifically noted that this must be noncoercive. To Manning, true Christianity is distinguished from spurious Christianity in that the former does not seek to impose itself or its solutions on people who do not want to receive them. (x)

As for the common good and the positive role of state action, Conservative governments have proven themselves to be just as willing as Liberal or NDP governments to carry out nation- or province-building projects when they are in the driver’s seat.  (xi) Even now, the Harper government has made an extensive effort to promote its “Economic Action Plan” to Canadians, even as various Conservative MPs have promoted on their websites the positive actions the federal government has taken for their constituents. Whether you believe it comes from political necessity or genuine belief, under the current government the state can and does continue to play a positive role in the economy and ensuring the common good. Indeed, the political writer Richard Clippingdale, himself an adherent of the Red Tory policies Robert Stanfield espoused, speculates that Stanfield would have found not only worrying tendencies but encouraging trends in the new Conservative party, and that a number of Harper’s policies can be seen to fit into a pattern originally inspired by Stanfield.  (xii)

So, while Canadian values may have changed to some extent, it’s not clear that they’ve changed to the extent that John Ibbitson claims they have. No less a Conservative than Tom Flanagan, the federal Conservative Party’s former campaign director, stated that the Liberal consensus lives on, and is simply under new management.  (xiii) Certainly, political clout has shifted in Western Canada’s favour, although even then there’s more common ground between the Western and Eastern parts of Canada than is often realized. Even my own home province of Alberta, the province most known for standing up and protesting federal initiatives and criticizing what Ibbitson refers to as the Laurentian Consensus, is an example of this.

In reading Geo Takach’s book Will The Real Alberta Please Stand Up?, I was struck by how much many tendencies and traits in Alberta have reflected those of other parts of Canada. Takach notes that, by and large, Alberta has a strong sense of being treated as an exploited hinterland by Central Canadian interests. (xiv) This reflects Canada’s treatment as a whole by Great Britain, which often treated Canada as simply to be exploited either for resources or for political favour with the United States. (xv) Although Alberta is the most conservative province in Canada, it also has a tendency to move back towards the political centre much like the rest of the country, (xvi) as witnessed by then-Premier Ralph Klein increasing government spending once again after the provincial books had been balanced, Preston Manning’s support of green issues typically raised by the left, or former Premier Ernest Manning’s support of “an acceptable level of social services that everyone could afford.” (xvii)

And then there was the positive role government can play in the economy, as witnessed by government support for the oil and gas industry (xviii), or the more general support many Albertans have expressed for incentives to have more of the province’s oil and gas refined and upgraded in Alberta, or at least in Canada, rather than seeing the raw product shipped to a foreign country. Even the Wildrose Alliance party, the most right-wing major party running in the 2012 Alberta election, talked about such policies as developing a natural gas strategy to create and expand domestic markets for natural gas, reforming the way electricity is bought and sold in Alberta, specifically to reduce price spikes for consumers and businesses, (xix) and identifying incentives for the private sector to upgrade and refine more of Alberta’s bitumen within the province. (xx)

Government support of the oil and gas industry, as well as the support for incentives to refine more petrochemical products within Alberta’s borders despite what market forces might otherwise desire, remind me of the incentives and other actions taken by Central Canadian governments to encourage particular economic goals. While Alberta may differ from the rest of Canada in some substantial ways, in practice many of the ideas and actions taken by my province are not necessarily as different from those of other parts of Canada as Ibbitson seems to imply. As previously noted, the Harper government is also making an effort to communicate its own support for particular projects in various parts of the country.

Alberta voices have long been some of the most strident in speaking for the concerns of what’s come to be referred to as “Western alienation”, the sense that the Western provinces were shut out of a federal status quo led by decision-makers from Ontario and Quebec who made policy to benefit their regions, often at Western Canada’s expense. In particular, Quebec was seen as benefiting from federal attention and largesse, due in part to the efforts of Pierre Trudeau and later Prime Ministers to fight Quebec separation. Since the Quebec issue doesn’t seem to be solved, many people have concluded that the province is apparently just spoiled and that nothing will satisfy it.

The truth is that, as with Alberta, there’s much more to the story. Quebec writer Christian Dufour has noted that many Quebecers also feel alienated by a federal status quo that doesn’t recognize the unique situation that Quebec faces in North America, and insists on a political arrangement that favours the primacy of Anglophone culture, even as this same status quo prevents the Atlantic and Western parts of the country from fully participating in Confederation. (xxi) Quebec francophones like Henri Bourassa spoke about describing Canada as being established by “two founding peoples”, with Quebec needing particular recognition as the only province in Canada with a francophone majority.  (xxii) Pierre Trudeau obviously opposed this, but according to some critics in opposing the idea of duality Trudeau ended up supporting Anglo-American political ideas that didn’t fully recognize the distinct situation Quebec faced in Canada. (xxiii) Even Stéphane Dion, as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs in Jean Chretien’s Cabinet in the 1990s, spoke of the need to recognize his province as a distinct society in the Constitution. (xxiv) It’s an open question whether such francophone Quebecers would see themselves as part of Ibbitson’s Laurentian Consensus. More likely, they would probably feel as alienated from it as many Albertans.

That said, such debates mask the commonalities francophone Quebecers share with other Canadians. Federalist writer and politician Claude Ryan has written in glowing terms about the positive effects of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, (xxv) while Alberta commentators have noted that, while the Charter was ostensibly the outcome of a struggle between Québec politicians, actually reflects a number of Western Canadian values on human rights.  (xxvi) Even a young Stéphane Dion, in his days as a university professor, wrote about how the values of francophone Quebecers were becoming increasingly in line with those of other Canadians, even as francophone Quebecers made an effort to assert their distinctiveness.  (xxvii)

More generally, the debates Québec has had over the last 45-50 years regarding the status of the French language in that province, as well as how new immigrants should adapt to it, remind me of the criticisms many English-speaking Canadians have had of multiculturalism and how it supposedly reinforces differences between new and old Canadians, when the new arrivals would be better served by assimilating into the established society. Both the language debates in Quebec and the broader cultural debates across Canada come from a concern held by members of the established societies that concern that their cultures are being undermined by new arrivals that aren’t interested in conforming to the society they’ve joined and are more concerned with importing their own values. In that respect, francophone Quebecers aren’t necessarily that different from other Canadians.

 

Nor are they the only ones who are trying to assert their distinctiveness from other Canadians. For decades, Aboriginal peoples in Canada have been trying to make the point that they form a distinct part of society, and that many of the problems they currently face were in fact caused by the efforts of white society to erase their distinctiveness and force them to assimilate into it. Correspondingly, many Aboriginal activists have also called for their distinctiveness to be recognized in Canada and talked about their status as a founding people.  (xxviii) This is not unlike the idea of “two founding peoples” enounced by some francophone Quebecers, and in fact John Ralston Saul incorporated both ideas into a notion of Canada having been founded by the “three founding peoples” of Anglophones, Francophones and Aboriginals.   (xxix)

Another tendency I’ve noticed that Western Canadians, Aboriginal peoples, and Quebecers all share is that they’ve all been asked what they “want”. Westerners have been asked this question, (xxx) Aboriginal peoples have been asked it, (xxxi) and Quebec has been asked it.  (xxxii) This clearly implies that there’s a lot of mutual misunderstanding in Canada, misunderstanding that obscures a lot of the common ground we as Canadians have.

Aside from the problem of assuming that the old values are completely eclipsed, another flaw in Ibbitson’s analysis is his attributing specific values and accomplishments exclusively to one region, party or ideology. Support for the military is not an exclusively conservative virtue, considering that the Liberals under Sir Wilfrid Laurier created the Canadian Navy in 1910, while the Canadian military as a whole reached the height of its power and prestige under the Liberal William Lyon Mackenzie King during World War II. Fiscal prudence is not an exclusively conservative virtue either, when one recalls that it was the Chretien Liberals who got rid of the deficit in the 1990s. Nor is populism, when one recalls Pierre Trudeau’s efforts to undercut provincial opposition to his constitutional initiatives in the early 1980s by appealing directly to the public and trying to forge a broad popular consensus in support of his actions (xxxiii) or the significant role he played in derailing the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords by arousing popular opposition to them.

On the other hand, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has important Conservative and NDP influences as well, given the inclusion of such things as the notwithstanding clause and the increased recognition of resource taxation rights for the provinces, at the insistence of the Conservative and NDP provincial premiers who eventually agreed to Pierre Trudeau’s constitutional patriation. Nor are Canadian Liberals the only ones to embark on nation- or province-building projects when they are in office, as Canadian Conservatives have been quite happy to do the same thing when they themselves are in power. Similarly, it was John Diefenbaker who created the National Council on Welfare, and created the original Canadian Bill of Rights, accomplishments that most people today would associate with the Liberals or the NDP. In short, many of the ideas and evolutions experienced by Canadian society have cut across regional and party lines, and do not exclusively belong to any party or part of the country.

Where Ibbitson is correct is in noting how demographic and political power have shifted westward, and how other parts of the country were often treated by Central Canadian leaders as semi-colonial possessions. Quite often, these leaders made policy that benefited their own home provinces, but caused headaches for other parts of Canada. This, as much as anything, was the root cause of Western alienation and the sense that the Western provinces weren’t being treated fairly by the federal government. However, there are signs that now the shoe is on the other foot-Preston Manning, for one, has expressed his concern over Eastern alienation, which has replaced the Western alienation that inspired him to create the Reform party in the first place. (xxxiv)

Unfair treatment by the federal government created alienation in Western Canada, and the perception that Ottawa did not care about the West’s interests, masking many of the common values that Westerners shared with their fellow Canadians. Now, however, the West is “in”, and many of the issues Western Canadians have been raising for years are finally being dealt with. As a Westerner and an Albertan myself, I’m very glad these issues have finally received attention that has been, in many cases, long overdue.

However, I also share Manning’s concerns about whether we’ve simply exchanged one set of problems with another. Does the collapse of the Laurentian Consensus make Aboriginal people or francophone Quebecers feel any less alienated? Will it mean that issues of importance to Atlantic Canada, the region whose people now feel they are the worst-treated by the federal government, (xxxv) will receive more attention in Ottawa? Is Arctic sovereignty the only issue that of interest to the Northern territories that will be addressed? In our rush to promote some of our values and historic accomplishments that were previously overlooked, are we now letting others fall by the wayside? And who is to say that the West will not find itself back on the outside looking in, if power shifts once again in Ottawa?

The Laurentian Consensus can be criticized for not paying sufficient attention to these issues and focusing only on the matters that personally interested its proponents. However, the major challenge that we now face, in 21^st century Canada, is how we bridge the gap between all these different perspectives and peoples who are often alienated and don’t understand one another, despite the common ground that continues to exist between them.

Too often it’s easy to stereotype all Albertans as radical laissez-faire conservatives who don’t care about any other part of the country, all French Quebecers as entitled bigots who don’t care about anyone who’s not a “pure laine” of French ancestry, or all Aboriginals as lazy, entitled and refusing to contribute to Canada. What this overlooks, however, is why people have often come to the conclusions they have, and just why they feel alienated in the first place and why they want the changes they do.

Indeed, I would like to see all of these perspectives heard, and all of these accomplishments celebrated in Ottawa. The “Laurentian Consensus” can be quite rightly criticized for often treating the outer parts of the country as colonial hinterlands and treating with contempt any efforts by these outer parts of the country to assert themselves. It’s great that the West is finally in, and that many of the West’s biggest frustrations are being addressed, but even if economic and political power is shifting West we cannot afford to leave other parts of the country hanging, even if they do not support the government of the day. This was one of the reasons for the Laurentian Consensus’s supposed downfall, after all.

Ibbitson describes the new “Conservative Coalition” that he claims has replaced the Laurentian Consensus as incorporating everyone from Saskatchewan wheat farmers to Filipina nannies. Perhaps the final flaw in Ibbitson’s analysis is his describing such a coalition as something new in Canada. What’s worth remembering is that the Laurentian Consensus itself still attracted support from outside Ontario and Quebec. Even the likes of Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chretien, at different points, won seats on the Prairies that helped bolster their majorities. Despite all the problems many of the Consensus’s policies might have caused for these other parts of Canada, its proponents had and continue to have support in these other regions.

More broadly, Canada itself is a broad coalition of many different groups, who have often had to make compromises with one another in order to be able to live together. In turn, they found common ground on a lot of issues, common ground that enabled them to form a country despite the very real differences they had in other areas. These differences continue to exist in Canada today, but so too do the common values and common ideas that distinguish who we are as a country. While political and economic power has shifted in Canada, the country continues to hold many of the same fundamental ideas and face many of the same fundamental challenges it always has as it enters its 145^th year.

This article was originally published on IPolitics.ca.

i John Ibbitson, “The Collapse of the Laurentian Consensus: On the Westward Shift of Canadian Power-And Values.” Talk originally given on December 5, 2011 on TV Ontario’s “Big Ideas”, later reproduced on the Literary Review of Canada website, January 1, 2012. http://reviewcanada.ca/essays/2012/01/01/the-collapse-of-the-laurentian-consensus/

ii Jared Milne, “The Conservative Narrative of Canada: Differences and Divergences.” Vive Le Canada, February 9, 2011. http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article/235930937-the-conservative-narrative-of-canada-differences-and-divergences See also Paul Wells and John Geddes, “What You Don’t Know About Stephen Harper.” Maclean’s Magazine, January 31, Section 2. http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/01/31/what-you-dont-know-about-stephen-harper/2/, and John Ibbitson and Erin Anderssen, “How Stephen Harper is Remaking the Canadian Myth”. The Globe and Mail, May 1, 2012. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/how-stephen-harper-is-remaking-the-canadian myth/article2419732/?utm_medium=Feeds%3A%20RSS%2FAtom&utm_source=Home&utm_content=2419732

iii Roger Gibbins and Loleen Berdahl, Western Visions, Western Futures: Perspectives on the West in Canada. Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press, 2003. Page 44.

iv Hugh Segal, “John Diefenbaker: The Populist Conservative.” The National Post, February 16, 2011. http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/02/16/hugh-segal-john-diefenbaker-the-populist-conservative/

v Quoted in Charles Taylor, Radical Tories. Toronto: House of Anansi Press, 2006. Original edition 1982, House of Anansi Press. Page 203.

vi Ron Dart, “Diefenbaker and Harper: Classical Canadian Tory Meets Republican Conservative.” Clarion Journal of Spirituality and Justice, December 2006. http://www.clarion-journal.com/clarion_journal_of_spirit/2006/12/diefenbaker_and.html

vii Ron Dart, The Red Tory Tradition: Ancient Roots, New Routes. Dewdney, British Columbia: Synaxis Press, 1999. Pages 33-37.

viii Quoted in Karen Kun and Toby A.A. Heaps, “Interview With Preston Manning”. Corporate Knights website, Issue 21, 2007. http://www.corporateknights.com/article/green-conservative-interview-preston-manning

ix Shawn McCarthy, “Oil Sands, Green Groups Unlikely Allies In Push For Carbon Tax.” The Globe and Mail, March 7, 2012. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/oil-sands-green-groups-unlikely-allies-in-push-for-carbon-tax/article552864/

x Preston Manning, The New Canada. Toronto: Macmillan Canada, 1992. Pages 94-109, especially pages 99-100.

xi Milne, “The Conservative Narrative of Canada: Differences and Divergences.”

xii Richard Clippingdale, Robert Stanfield’s Canada: Perspectives of the Best Prime Minister We Never Had. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2008. Pages 73-74 and 110-111.

xiii Tom Flanagan, “Re: ‘Has the Centre Vanished?’ by Stephen Clarkson.” Literary Review of Canada, November 2011. Page 30.

xiv Geo Takach, Will The Real Alberta Please Stand Up? Edmonton: University of Alberta Press, 2010. Pages 129-144.

xv John Ralston Saul, Reflections of a Siamese Twin: Canada at the End of the Twentieth Century. Toronto: Penguin Books, 1997. Pages 369-374.

xvi Takach, pages 65-76.

xvii Ibid, pages 73-74, 91.

xviii Ibid., pages 75, 110-112 and 334.

xix Wildrose Party Energy policy statement, http://www.wildrose.ca/policy-text/energy/

xx Wildrose Party media statement, February 1, 2012. http://www.wildrose.ca/feature/more-pipelines-more-upgrading-smith/

xxi Christian Dufour, Lettre aux souverainistes québécois et aux fédéralistes canadiens qui sont restés fidèles au Québec. Montreal : Les Éditions internationales Alain Stanké, 2000. Pages 90-99.

xxii Peter H. Russell, Constitutional Odyssey: Can Canadians Become a Sovereign People? Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004. Pages 50-51. See also Jeremy Webber, Reimagining Canada: Language, Culture, Community and the Canadian Constitution. Kingston & Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1994. Page 276.

xxiii Claude Couture, Paddling With The Current: Pierre Elliot Trudeau, Etienne Parent, Liberalism and Nationalism in Canada. Translated by Vivien Bosley. Edmonton: The University of Alberta Press, 1996.

xxiv Stéphane Dion, Straight Talk: Speeches and Writings on Canadian Unity. Kingston, Ontario: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1999. Pages 135-149.

xxv Claude Ryan, Regards sur le fédéralisme canadien. Les Éditions du Boréal, 1995. Pages 137-138 and 174-181.

xxvi Gibbins and Berdahl, page 61.

xxvii Stéphane Dion, “Le nationalisme dans la convergence culturelle : Le Québec contemporain et le paradoxe de Tocqueville” in L’Engagement intellectuel : mélanges en honneur de Léon Dion, ed. by Raymond Hudon and Réjean Pelletier. Sainte-Foy, Québec : Les Presses de l’Université Laval, 1991, pp. 291-311.

xxviii See for instance Harold Cardinal, The Unjust Society. Vancouver: Douglas & MacIntyre, 1999. Originally published by Hurtig Publishers, 1969. See also Ovide Mercredi and Mary Ellen Turpel, In The Rapids: Navigating the Future of First Nations. Toronto: Penguin Books Canada, 1993. See also Alan Cairns, Citizens Plus: Aboriginal Peoples and the Canadian State. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2000.

xxix Saul, pages 81-100.

xxx Gibbins and Berdahl, page 28.

xxxi Cardinal, pages 54-55.

xxxii André Bernard, What Does Québec Want? Lorimer, 1978.

xxxiii Russell, page 111.

xxxiv Jane Taber, “As Political Centre Shifts, Manning Now Fears ‘Eastern Alienation.’” The Globe and Mail, January 24, 2012. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/as-political-centre-shifts-manning-now-fears-eastern-alienation/article620984/

xxxv Loleen Berdahl, Whither Western Alienation? Shifting Patterns of Western Canadian Discontent with the Federal Government. The Canada West Foundation, October 2010. http://cwf.ca/pdf-docs/publications/Whither-Western-Alienation.pdf See also Barbara Yaffe, “It’s No Surprise That Alienation Is Heading East.” The Vancouver Sun, October 22, 2010. http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=09f080ed-b811-4088-bc3b-1c6c19240f95

Harper: Going after Guergis to punish Jaffer?

Of all the arguments I've heard from the Conservative Party regarding the Helena Guergis lawsuit where she is claiming PMS and Co defamed her and dismissed her as a Cabinet minister without cause, this one has to take the cake; that the party can't be sued because it is an "unincorporated association."

The reason why law firms have reconstituted themselves as "limited liability partnerships" and why places of worship have decided to adopt articles of incorporation is so they can have the same status as places of business ending in "Limited" or "Incorporation" or "Corporation" -- the status of a person and thus to limit their liability for private wrongs; specifically, only the assets of the establishment can be seized, not the personal things owned by the proprietors.

If the Conservative Party is unincorporated then it follows some or all of its membership are personally liable.   In this case, it can hardly be argued all of the party's members should be forced to pay up -- that's silly.   But the senior inner cabal that got rid of Guergis on what appears to be specious grounds and / or that she was "guilty by association" because of her marriage to Rafim Jaffer.

I don't know what to make of the allegations against him either before all of this started, or the new allegations made by Team Con that Jaffer engaged in technology transfers to companies in an enemy state, Mainland China.

But my sense is the following.

First, no one should be held responsible for a spouse's or common law partner's actions unless he or she was also part of the same conspiracy.

Second, section 4(3) of the Canada Evidence Act establishes by statue the centuries old spousal privilege -- that communications between a husband or wife cannot be used as evidence in a criminal or civil trial under any circumstance unless one of the parties has waived that right as party of a plea bargain so as to testify against the other or one spouse has been victimized by the other and by logic must testify, whether the wrong was jointly or severally criminal or civil.  (I presume that although the wording is lacking in the present law, the privilege also extends to a two husbands or two wives contract).

If Guergis was aware that her husband, Jaffer, was engaging in clearly criminal conduct, she might be morally obligated to report what can be considered by some to be an act of treason, especially as a minister of the Crown herself.    But legally, she wouldn't have to even if he made such a confession to her in confidence -- and at this stage I don't even think Jaffer has been charged or indicted for anything of the sort.   And for what it's worth, even if she was told such by Jaffer, that doesn't make her part of the act unless she directly abetted it in some way such as offering secure channels to facilitate the transfer.

Many of us have been fired for some reason, even if was a minor or unintentional breach of company rules.   But any normal supervisor would explain the reasons for doing so, in writing.

PMS does not act like a normal person.   Hiding under so-called Crown immunity, he merely invoked the "removal at pleasure" concept to get rid of someone it appears increasingly he simply hated.  .   And a woman, for that matter.    A woman who is a Christian (I believe) married to a Muslim.   This has discrimination written all over it.   I'm not saying that's definitely what it is, that's for a court to decide.   But it's awfully suspicious.   And not just because that firing someone without cause is a frightening concept

Just because you're the country's primus inter pares (first among equals) does not give you a hall pass to do whatever you want.    A Prime Minister does have tools at his or her disposal that many Presidents don't, including invoking posse comitatus (i.e. giving law enforcement powers to the military).    But he or she is subject to the same employment standards expectations that bosses in the private sector are.   That includes that if you fire a minister you can't do so on the grounds of race, ethnicity, religion or sex.    Count the ways.

If the government has proof Jaffer did something that undermined our economy to an irreparable extent, charge him with the crime, not Guergis.    If  Guergis is only guilty of bad judgment by allowing a parliamentary computer to be used for commercial purposes, then she should have been told that up front when dismissed or demoted -- it's not something that merits expulsion from the party.

But if evidence demonstrates this is just a witch hunt to punish a non-Muslim for marrying a Muslim -- especially a PM who claims he's trying to build bridges with Muslims -- then in my opinion PMS is no longer fit to govern and the GG, David L. Johnston (who PMS appointed by the way), should fire him "in the name of the Sovereign."

And as far as the "unincorporated association" argument goes -- come on.   It's easy to identify who would be responsible within that party, and against whom a forfeiture assessment should be applied.   You can probably count them with the digits of both hands.   That is, of course, if.

When WalMart meets GO Transit

A little while back I wrote about how there are dozens of bridges in the Hamilton megacity (read:   consolidated city-county), most of them in a horrible state of disrepair; and how with many of them no one seems to know who actually owns them.    Well, there is one that we definitely do know about now, and the cost is going to be much bigger than anyone could have dreamed just weeks ago.   (Source:   View Magazine) The bridge in question is a structure that is many decades old and carries the CN right of way between two very modern big box outlets -- Walmart and Home Depot.

The problem is that when GO Transit announced the extension of train service down to Saint Catherines, the idea was that one of the new stations for the Hamilton area would be at Queen Elizabeth and Fifty Road.    Certainly makes more sense; there's plenty of room to put in commuter parking as well as a local public transit hub, as well as to put in a much needed grade separation for Fifty -- one of the few rural railway crossings in the city where it's illegal for a train to sound the whistle.    And for what it's worth, that's what the city actually would prefer too.

Instead it now looks like Metrolinx, the regional public transit coordinating body, wants the station to be at Centennial.    Not only does this mean widening the bridge that has to be replaced (and which is owned by the city, as I've noted before) and widened from two lines to four, it also means trying to figure out where to put all the commuter parking.    Unless the landlords where the new Walmart is wants to give up the ancillary shops planned to be built and make it just one huge parking lot over what used to be a somewhat notorious but still profitable metal scrap yard, and unless Home Depot wants to give over some of its "parkage" the only other option will be to build a flyover pedestrian overpass (and one presumes one that is enclosed like some other setups on the GO network) from Confederation Park, over the QEW, and on the station.

This by itself would also be sheer madness.   Especially during the summer, when tons of families and tourists use the wave pool at the Park.    The campground may now be mothballed but there is no room for all those cars there either at any time of year.

Forget that Hamilton already has four Walmarts (and hypermarkets -- i.e. combo supermarkets and department stores-- at that) with one more currently under construction and one more yet to come.  All big boxes, but none anchoring a traditional shopping centre and all with parking issues of their own.

Forget that Hamilton had to scramble to find the money to make the Centennial bus route -- formerly a summer only, weekend only, express -- to all days all operating hours run connecting a regional mall to the lakefront parks.   With the old anchor store made redundant by the new mega store up the street, the bus definitely had to be made one year round which it should have been all along, except this is costing us taxpayers at least $150,000 per year with nothing from Walmart to even partially subsidize the route.

And forget that because the lanes on Centennial under the bridge are so narrow, and so many pedestrians are walking from their apartments to the new "wonderland" that one lane had to be blocked off northbound to make a makeshift "sidewalk" until the new bridge is built -- somehow there never was any foresight to put sidewalks in seventy or eighty years ago.   Gridlock galore.

Oh and did I mention, that particular bridge is flood central, just like the Kenilworth Avenue disaster which floods out next to Canadian Tire during any rainstorm?   Imagine the chaos on the side streets when Walmart opens on the other side of the "new" Centre Mall in the hut where Crappy Tire used to be -- and the skies also open up?    Especially when a train goes by and the gates go down on the level crossing at Ottawa Street, next to the Arcelor Mittal (formerly Dofasco) compound, and during a shift change?    Or down the way, with detours to Fruitland and Fifty (the latter just a two lane road)?   The residents along Fruitland and the peach and grape farmers along Fifty will be pissed.

Oh, the sixth Walmart, you ask?   The one which site hasn't even been serviced yet, the first step before construction?   It's actually the one at Fifty Road, the one that should have been built first -- with the actually sensible transit hub.    And making the rural road a four lane (and preferably divided) street as well.  Actually putting the horse in front of the cart.    Like a normal city and a normal corporation and a normal public transit authority would.    But nothing is ever normal in Hamilton thanks to the fuckheads at City Hall -- both on council and on staff.   Or with the auto fellators in Toronto that Pointy Head appoints to oversee these kinds of things.

My my my, isn't progress sweet?   I'm somewhat scatterbrained, I'll confess that up front.   But even Gracie Allen would have had way more common sense (and she really was way smarter than her fans ever knew) than the idiotic brain trust that came up with this Cerberus scenario.

Put the train station where it should be, at Fifty, at the expense of Metrolinx.   The railway company should rebuild the bridges and / or put in new grade separations, at their expense (it's primarily a freight line; with VIA, GO and Amtrak leasing it from them anyway).   And the underpasses and pedestrian accesses should be flood proofed, and roads and sidewalks built to handle the increased capacity required -- at the city's expense.

Now, that wasn't so hard.

US Supremes -- courage in upholding health care

Who would have thunk it?   The Chief Justice of the United States, John G. Roberts -- and not Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy -- proved to be the swing vote in upholding most of Barack Obama's health care initiative.   (Text of decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, and dissents here, PDF.  -- the defendant is Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, or  HHS.) *   This is a huge win for Barack Obama to say the least.    The law was nowhere near his election promise to expand the health insurance federal bureaucrats, civilian and military, to all people; but it does put his opponent Mitt Romney in a corner unless he can explain what he would do to make the program more universal, not less.

Remember that what got most of the GOP so up in arms over the so-called "Obamacare" program (actually, the Affordable Care Act, or ACA) was the concept of mandatory insurance -- that those over a certain income level had to get their own insurance or pay a penalty.    Obama has long insisted the rationale for this is the same for the compulsory auto insurance laws in 46 states and Washington DC:  By spreading the risk across the whole population it reduces premiums for all, including for the "uninsured motorist" provision found in nearly all auto policies in the States -- as well as (incidentally) in all 13 jurisdictions in Canada -- i.e. if a motorist causing an accident is not carrying insurance, the victim will get compensated by the insured's underwriter; and then and his or her hammock, such that it is, will then sue the at-fault motorist for recovery of the payout).

So it is with health insurance.   A universal plan is less expensive across the board than those who can afford to pay -- they end up subsidizing the bare minimum care for uninsured people at far greater cost.

Here's how Roberts' decision, as I read it, breaks down. 26 States and a major lobby group for independent business challenged the law on several grounds.

1.  A long standing principle in the States is if you think a tax ruling is unfair, you must pay the disputed tax first as a "deposit", then sue the government for recovery.   The plaintiffs claimed this concept violated their right to sue.    The Court said that although the ACA characterizes the "pay or play" levy as a penalty and not a tax, the plaintiffs had standing to sue.
2. The plaintiffs claimed the ACA violated the Commerce clause of the Constitution.    The Court didn't quite go as far, but it did point out the Commerce clause was only meant to regulate B2B or B2C transactions -- not to regulate the behaviour of individuals (the old "invisible hand" argument).
3. As for the "necessary and proper" clause, the Court stated Congress couldn't pass the ACA on that ground.
4. In regards to the so-called "penalty" the Court said they were ruling on the basis the penalty is a tax.   (Well, duh!)
5. The penalty is not so high that it would deter people who would rather not have insurance from buying it regardless.    And in any case, Congress has taxing authority, as well as the right to charge different people different levels of tax, permitted under the Sixteenth Amendment since 1913 -- and not just a head tax; therefore, the "penalty" is entirely permissable under the Constitution.    On the principles here and above, the Court ruled 5 to 4 in favour of upholding most of the ACA.

As far as requiring States to expand the range who is eligible for Medicaid (the health insurance program for indigents) under penalty of a reduction or even total elimination of transfer payments from the federal government, the Court said that was unconstitutional.    In this case, the ACA reset the limit for eligibility for Medicaid to a third above the poverty line -- without even consulting the States, many of which are very cash strapped as it is, let alone having to find the money to pay for tens of thousands of new "clients".
(This provision was struck down, 7-2).

In a twist of logic, the Court rebuffed the plaintiff's argument that a violation of "States' Rights" (uh, yeah -- the right to impose segregation) would cause the whole law to collapse.   Instead it has suggested that Ms Sebelius try to rework the Medicaid guidelines to ensure that States don't lose their funding just because they don't want to expand their program for whatever reason -- financial or otherwise.

As for the dissenters -- Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito -- well, judge the dissents for yourself.

 My sense however is that both sides were wrong on one point -- the Commerce Clause should have been used to sustain the ACA, not the income tax clause.   The logic for that is the same as when the Supremes upheld the civil rights reforms of 1964, segregation impeded people's ability to conduct business within and outside their home states.   In the same way, ensuring people can get the best possible insurance rates, even if they want to shop outside their home states for a better premium, ensures people can get coverage period and not get ripped off simply because they live in a jurisdiction where the number of companies offering coverage in that state is less than the digits on one's hand (bizarre when the States has 1500 health insurance firms, not including the Blue Cross / Blue Shield ™ cooperative).

But at least the Court also upheld the insurance exchange, which should help drive down premiums nationwide.     Nowhere near what Canada has, but it's a start.



*  This case was combined with two other cases -- a cross appeal between Florida and HHS suing each other.

Romney and the "M" word

CNN's religion section notes today that W. Mitt Romney (W for Willard) still has a major hurdle to overcome on the road to the White House.    His religion, Mormonism.

Now personally I can't understand why it should be such a big deal -- who should honestly care what one's belief system (or lack thereof) is just as long as they can do the job?   (I said as much last December.)   But it's the United States, and the Gallup group finds that at this particular moment in time Romney may be in trouble, because 18% of Americans think being a Mormon should be something that disqualifies an otherwise competent person for any public office.    Much more frightening -- that's the same percentage as in 1967 when Mitt's father, George, was running for the GOP nomination as Prez (the nod eventually went to "Dick" Nixon).

The battle won't be for Democrats or Republicans who would have made up their minds by now anyway.   It's the sea of independents who, knowing as much as they do about the LDS church (whether that info is right or wrong), may decide to go with -- pardon the expression -- the devil they know; in other words, Barack Obama may not be their kind of believer; but they'll more likely believe Obama's credentials as a Christian, than Romney's good faith which many believe is not even a Christian one no matter how Romney protests that it is such.

If only one of the Osmonds were running for President -- Donny, Marie, any of them ... then there wouldn't be this debate.   Sad but true.

As I said and say again, keep religion out of it.    The States may have marginally improved over the last four years but it is nowhere near out of its funk yet.    Stick to the real issues.

Dalton gets his way ... at what price?

Call me nuts, but if there's one thing I don't like about minority governments (also called a "hung legislature" in some other democracies) is that they often rule as if they have a majority.   Case in point -- Queen's Park finally passed the 2012 Ontario budget but only after a weeks long game of chicken.    With so many underemployed, welfare payments that are an insult (but in some cases are actually better than the jobs out there), and so many other problems from a lack of will to have a real power generation policy to sustaining fish and wildlife resources for the long term, it's no wonder why people are fed up.

Overall Dalton McGuinty has been a competent ruler -- at least he was during his first two terms.   He however like so many both left and right are prime examples of why a third term is exploitative -- that is, exploiting our good nature.    Two terms should be enough -- majority or minority.

As for the budget ... it's nothing to write home about, even if the top tax bracket is now 48½% instead of 46½%.

Get with the program ... um, what should we call Catholic bishops these days?

So the Ontario Legislature passed a bill that allows "Gay-Straight Alliances" in all schools that receive public funding.   That's both the non-sectarian schools and the Catholic (Roman or Eastern) schools.   The wording of "Bill 13" (not sure yet what numbering it will have in the 2012 statutes) indicates that while private schools just might be able to choose to skirt the "GSA" title for such anti-discrimination groups, the headmasters and headmistresses of those schools will have an obligation to investigate and discipline discrimination and sexual harrassment against LGBT students and faculty just as there is such a requirement in publicly funded schools.

Oddly, and not surprisingly, the Catholic bishops have raised a stink about this.    They suggest that having such groups would actually encourage "illicit" behaviour amongst people who ought to remain "celibate."   It might even make straight people gay.

Seriously?    I have mentioned this before, but §2358 of the Catholic Catechism is very clear on this point.   While the relevant portion of the charter does indeed call on gays and lesbians (as well as any unmarried person as discussed in the 23 sections article on chastity) to be celibate, it also says something else about discrimination that is very crucial about how we should treat those who are in the so-called "not that there's anything wrong with it" camp..    Here's the actual text, from the Holy See's website * word for word:

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

Wow.   Guess they skipped that one in seminary.   And I guess they also skipped the section (§ 2356) about rape -- all kinds of rape (including the -- yes -- abuse of minors):

Rape is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury to justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right. It causes grave damage that can mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act. Graver still is the rape of children committed by parents (incest) or those responsible for the education of the children entrusted to them.

Double wow.

The fact remains, there have always been LGBT students in Catholic schools as well as LGBT teachers.    There were when I went to high school -- I knew many who were openly so.  There always will be.   They mostly likely figured out they were gay or lesbian when they were very young but didn't yet know the words for it.   Like, between 5 and 10 years old.

If the bishops want to run the schools their way, then they have to call for the end of public funding of their schools.    As part of the publicly funded system, Catholic Boards must accept that they're subject to the province's Human Rights Code and other supporting legislation.   Bottom line, one can say that the behaviour is wrong, but it cannot compel that belief on students who probably wouldn't be persuaded in any case.

If the "seamless web of life" doctrine (which I personally do believe in) means anything, it includes among other things these two things:    One, if the disclosure is in confidence that I will protect that until he or she is ready to "come out" and I will support him or her going forward in every way possible; and two, standing up and expressing openly that discrimination is wrong, that I and other like minded people will not stand for our friends and colleagues being so bullied..   Period.

In other words if someone discloses to me -- either privately or openly -- that he or she is part of the LGBT community, that I should treat him or her no better or worse than anyone else.   What is wrong with that, for heaven's sake?

If I may borrow a catchphrase from right winger Bill O'Reilly, the bishops are, respectfully, pinheads.

Get with the program guys.   Most of the laity actually gets it.    Both parents and the younger people in their charge do also.   It's time you did as well.

******

* For the record, the Holy See (the Pope and his inner cabal) and Vatican City (also headed by the pope but in fact run by a Cardinal who is the de facto Governor of the compound) are not one and the same but in fact distinct personalities in international law.   Ambassadors are accredited to the See, not Vatican City (a custom going back many centuries); conversely, the "Apostolic Nuncios" (the church's ambassadors) represent the Holy See, not Vatican City.   The See runs the church, while Vatican City runs the administrative and civil aspects of the territory (and allows the See to represent its interests).   It may be splitting hairs, but it's also worth pointing out that for the most part the Vatican's domestic legislation is nearly identical to that of Italy's.   That presumably includes, at least on paper, a ban on sexual harrassment or abuse for whatever reason.   At least, one would hope so.