Betting on the F35 and Harper

A couple of friends and I have a running bet.  The bet has three parts.  I have won the first part.

The bet is:
1) when the Cons will back away from the F35;
2) when Harper will leave politics; and
3) when the Cons will announce that, after "extensive and unbiased" analysis of needs and capabilities, Canada, not the Cons, will buy the F35?

For the record my timing is as follows:
1) before end of year 2012 (I won);
2) in October 2013; and
3) three minutes to midnight on the Friday of a long weekend in September 2013.

So far my winnings amount to an "Atta boy".  If I win the second part, I am upgraded to "You da' man!"

If I get all three, I win the ultimate prize - Benevolent Dictator of Canada for four years; during which I can make all the decisions and implement all the policies I ever cared about, without regard for either Canadians or the Constitution... just like Harper does!

You note that there is no bet on when Elmer McKay's little boy gets the bump from Cabinet... that would have been too easy.

Stay tuned.

What's up with Justin?

On the heels of his latest apology Justin Trudeau is about to step in it again.  On December 22 he is addressing the Reviving the Islamic Spirit get-together in Toronto.  Sounds quite inclusive on the face of it, but when you look at the sponsors and co-speakers at the event, another word comes to mind - NUTS.

RIS is sponsored by Islamic Relief Canada, the Canadian branch of Islamic Relief, a UK-based charity.  Amongst all the good works carried out by Islamic Relief is a serious belief that they are also a front for Islamic fundamentalism and funders of Hamas, a group on Canada's terrorist list.  In November 2012 the Swiss bank UBS closed Islamic Relief accounts and blocked donations (called zakat) to IR due to "counter terrorism" concerns.

On a hidden page (and I mean you have to know that it is there to see it - www.islamicreliefcanada.org/?p=1596) on the IRC website there is a list of who benefits from Zakat.  Line item 3 refers to the people who collect and distribute it - the administrative overhead; and line item 7 refers to "Those struggling in the path of Allah."  That is what is used to describe Jihadists.

I encourage everyone to check out www.pointedebasculecanada.com, educate themselves on the IRC, then contact Trudeau's campaign to warn him off the visit.

While you are at it, ask co-speaker John Ralston Sauls, what part of Sharia Law he wants for Canadians.  Many senior members of Islamic Relief Canada tried to get it on the books in Ontario a few years back.

The Law of Unintended Consequences

Years ago I made up a term called The Law of Unintended Consequences.  In essence it means that there are consequences to every decision you make.

Let's say that you decide to use the scenic route to drive work, the consequence is that it will take longer to get where you are going.  The unintended consequence is that you will be late for work or you have to get up earlier in the day (thus losing sleep).  Your intention was not to be late for work or to lose sleep... those were unintended consequences.

A week or so ago, Toronto Mayor Rob Ford was found guilty in a conflict of interest case.  The judge slapped him with the loss of his job.  True, the case did not involve huge sums of money or influence pedaling, i.e. Montreal area mayors, but he was guilty none-the-less.

Well his friends on the right side of the political spectrum went ballistic.  There was gnashing of teeth and foaming mouths and cries of left-wing political motivation on behalf of the judge.  "The punishment does not fit the crime," they screamed from their corporate board rooms.  The right wing press joined in the frey and kept the issue alive even past the time that Ford decided to be contrite in accepting his punishment (all the while saying he was innocent).

While I agree that the punishment was severe considering that Ford did not make money or break any criminal law, I have to agree that the judge was right.  After all there was no allowance in the law for discretion on behalf of the judge.  The penalty was prescribed in the law. This is an example of Mandatory Minimum Sentencing (MMS). 

Does that term ring a bell?  It should, because the same rabble that decry the penalty handed out to Ford, support the Fed-Con government's push for mandatory minimum sentences for a whole array of petty, and not-so-petty, crimes.  Non-supporters of MMS say that it abrogates judicial discretion.  Tough noogies, say the Feds.

If the right sees MMS as democratic then they have no basis to attack the penalty that was handed out to Ford... because that was MMS also.

Unintended Consequences.  You cannot have it both ways, my friends.

Provincial "squabbles"? Don't listen to me!

I would love to work for a Think Tank. 

According to a definition from McGill University: "Think tanks are organizations, institutes or groups involved in research and advocacy in a range of fields including social policy, political strategy, economy, science and technology, industry, business and national defense. Many think tanks are non-profit organizations; their funding may come from governments, businesses or private advocacy groups, or from consulting and research work they engage in. (http://www.mcgill.ca/files/caps/CanadianThinkTanks.pdf)

There are so many of them in Canada that you would think that I could find one that would hire me or at least listen to my rantings.  I thought that I found one in the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, but no.  Unless you are a lawyer, an economist or an accredited journalist they, like the rest, could care less what you think.  You would think that with people of those exalted qualifications every utterance they make would be a gem of logic.  But no.

In a recent report from the MLI entitled Sustaining the Crude Economy, authors Laura Dawson and Stefania Bartucci tackle the issue a National Energy Policy for Canada under the guise of "Global Energy Competitiveness".

What first struck me was the way MLI introduced the paper; "Provincial squabbles threaten future energy exports, study says".  The term squabble is used when a pushing argument breaks out on a playground.  The "squabble" they are talking about is the one between Alberta and B.C. over the Northern Gateway Pipeline.  Squabble?  Are you kidding me?

When papers like this (you can read it at http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/provincial-squabbles-threaten-future-energy-exports-study-says/) tackle a complex issue such as inter-provincial disputes, it would be worthwhile if they took a stab at being more inclusive with the issue, rather than picking and choosing their study points.

The issue of the pipeline is not one of only getting Alberta raw materials to the coast to be sent to Asia to be processed.  It is a far more reaching issue of who pays when the process fails... when the pipeline springs a leak or when a tanker runs aground.  Think these things can't happen?  B.C. sits on an active fault line.  One good jolt and the rigid pipe could break.  Who's going to pay to clean that up?  And before you say that nature will take care of it over time, remember that this is not oil in the pipe... it is bitumen (upgraded or not) and bitumen does not break down in nature like oil.  Same goes for the shipping.  Unlike the pretty cartoons that the oilsands folks use to describe the shipping route, the channel from Kitimat is narrow and winding.

So let's take a minute to break down this "squabble".  The oil industry wants to ship a volatile and dangerous substance across pristine land to a port on the west coast, load it on boats the size of small countries and ship it to other countries to be refined and used (and in some cases ship it back to Canada in some finished goods, like plastics).  The Alberta government and their friends at the federal level are all for it... after all they stand to make a lot of money in royalties and excise taxes.  The government of B.C. are potentially going to be left holding the bag if any fault occurs anywhere along the process.  Is B.C.'s concern shared by the federal government?  Pigs will fly first.

So is this a squabble?  Are two kids arguing in a playground?  And what about the people?  Remember them?  They are the ones who elect the politicians (who subsidize Think Tanks) and pay their salaries.  You think, just maybe, they should ask our opinion instead of just reading yet another burp from a Think Tank?

(Bet you that just cost me a job prospect!)
 

What legacy are we leaving behind?

The birth of a new grandchild has left me thinking about the world that she will know when she grows up.

When I was born the world was between World War 2 and the Korean conflict.  When I turned 12, two seemingly intransigent foes almost came to nuclear blows.  By 20 years I was protesting Vietnam.  And on it went.  I am now 60+ and I write about our soldiers killed in Afghanistan.  Is that want I want for little Tegan?

Back in the 70's a movie was released called "Suppose they gave a war and nobody came?"  The title came from a "hippy-culture" anti-war slogan from the 60's.  The movie was a comedic drama which explored the reactions of WW2 veterans to the contemporary U.S. Army.  It might be fun to do a update to the movie exploring the reactions of former Canadian Peacekeepers, during the days that we had such a beast, to the contemporary Canadian military.

But back to the topic at hand... Tegan's world as she grows up.

Is it fair for her to live under the veil of terrorism?  Should her food have to be genetically modified in order to be plentiful?  Should her playground need to be a 5 x 5 foot green and brown space in the middle of a rapidly "densifying" city?  Should she have to witness genocide on the TV (or a super-smart phone in her case) news?  Should she have to decide her vote on which candidate will not go to war?

Nobody's grandchild should have to live that way.

Suppose we gave a peace and everybody came?

Something to think about in the CNOOC takeover

I have been closely following the proposed takeover of NEXEN by CNOOC.  In all the rhetoric and verse that has been penned in past six months there appears to be a couple of items that have been overlooked.

If the Chinese spend $15.5 billion for an oil exploration company, with holdings in the Alberta oil sands, doesn't it follow that they may want to use some of the oil in China?  Yes?  So how will they get it from Ft McMurray to Shanghai.  The Northern Gateway Pipeline?

You may notice that the Harper government has been pretty quiet on the pipeline as of late.  Is it because they are talking with the Chinese about it?

Secondly, you can't help but applaud the speech given by John Baird at the UN this week.  Since we have no trade or relations with Syria and we do not seem to care about the UN, talk is what we do best.

But... where is the resistance at the UN over Syria coming from?  Primarily the Russians, we are told, but also from the Chinese.  So what are we going to do about that?  Nothing.  We will continue to trade with Russia and China wants NEXEN. 

Trade trumps human rights yet again.

The Percent for Art program & Jan Harder

The following letter to the Editor of the Ottawa Citizen was send shortly after Councillor Jan Harder decided that the Percent for Art program in the city was not serving her ambitions at this time so it should be cut or eliminated.  It is interesting to note that Councillor Harder's own "householders" have advertised on numerous occasions that a call for submissions for Public Art was open for projects in her ward.

September 17, 2012

Letter to the Ottawa Citizen,

One fact about the City of Ottawa is that if you wait a bit you will have the opportunity to fight old battles again.  So it is with the Percent for Art program.  As a two term member of the Arts, Heritage and Culture Advisory Committee of the city (one of the few to be retained by the city), in 2003 I fought to ensure that the Percent for Art program was adhered to by city managers.  Although it was instituted before amalgamation, the program had been largely ignored by city managers.  Indeed, I remember when I asked for a copy of the directive for the program; the best the city could offer was a photocopy of a fax.  It had never even been retyped into the city policy files.

Now, in 2012, the fight begins again.  Councillor Jan Harder wants to cut the program in half or even eliminate it, all because her own project-of-the-week needs more money.

The purpose of the Percent for Art program is to spruce up facilities around the city, make the city more visually appealing and to the support the arts.  I may not agree with some of the art selected under the program but I will be the first to defend the need for it.

Let me offer Councillor Harder a bit of advice.  Instead of chopping at a program like Percent for Art, why not learn to work with it.  Why not find a way to incorporate art as an integral part of the project… let’s say a sculpture of a person on a bench, that also serves as a bench.  That would save the cost of a bench in the project.  If you need some help with that idea, check out what they did at the new City Archives building where architectural art complements what was already a stunning building.

Of course the Citizen decided not to print the letter.  I wonder why?

Having it both ways?

I am reading a book describing a conspiracy surrounding the disaster in New York on 9/11.  The critics of the book call the author, and a huge number of persons that believe it, Conspiracy Theorists.  They call the people who critically analyze such events as Pearl Harbour and the JFK, RFK and MLK assassinations - Conspiracy Theorists.  This moniker is designed to tar the analysts as nuts or at least delusional, blowing them off rather than addressing the issues they raise.

Let me say right here that I am not a Conspiracy Theorist, as defined by the right-leaning pundits.  I believe in empirical research and the right to pursue the truth.  However, if I am proved wrong by facts, not innuendo, then so be it.  But you cannot prove me wrong by just lumping me into a pile labeled "Conspiracy Theorists".

But let's look at the other side of the coin.  In November, Fred Litwin and his so called Free Thinkers are showing a movie that labels the Occupy movement in the US and, I assume by association, those in Canada as conspiracies by militant groups who want to destroy democracy, or at least destroy capitalism.  I am not naive enough to think that there are no radical elements in the "Occupy" camps, but the fact that conservatives tout this as a conspiracy seems to me to be a stretch.

But regardless of who is right and who is wrong, the makers of this film, a conservative non-profit organization whose goal, strangely, is citizen-action, and those who blindly believe it must be, by their own definition, Conspiracy Theorists.

The Arrow versus the F35? Tell me it isn't so.

Lewis Mackenzie is not my favourite retired Canadian officer, that would be General Richard Rohmer; mostly, because Lew is a self-promoter, while Rohmer is a behind-the-scenes-get-er-done kind of guy.

But every so often Lew gets it right, even if his idea is pie-in-the-sky.  Take for instance the article in the Arguments section of today's Ottawa Citizen.

Lew is making a case for the Avro Arrow design to be updated into Mark 3 and Mark 4 models and built of today's materials here in Canada.  Instead of buying the F35; spend the money in Canada, reboot the Canadian aerospace industry and get a better aircraft for the effort.

For guys like me, and there are many of us, this is music to our ears.  All in the CF105 was the class act of fighter/interceptor air craft when it was designed and built in the 1950s.  The decision to scrap it was a political one made for political reasons.  These things happen.  Read my article on the Burnelli lift-body design that never flew for political reasons (http://www.mysteriesofcanada.com/Canada/Canada_Car/ccf_part_3_CBY3.htm).

For the same reasons that the Burnelli designs were never built, the CF105 will never be built in any Mark format.

Nice idea, Lew, but it just won't fly (sorry for the pun).

War of 1812 on Mysteries of Canada

I have begun a multipart series on the War of 1812.  I di not want to take the traditional tract of describing all the battles, so I picked out the parts of the conflict, and what lead up to it, that I find interesting.

I am also trying as much as possible to talk abot people rather than events.  I find that makes it more interesting.




www.mysteriesofcanada.com/whatsnew.htm

Learn and Enjoy.