Planes, Trains, and a Money Pit

It's an example of bad business Canada-style. The third largest aerospace firm in the world is right here in our nation, and has reached that prestigious level on the backs (and wallets) of taxpayers. It is a business model that I had to examine and re-examine just because I could not believe what I was seeing. Consider:

The federal government gives / loans money to Bombardier to make airplanes, trains, ski-doos, and other modes of transportation. Then, the federal government acts as the marketing department for Bombardier by searching out and negotiating deals internationally. Ottawa then loans the cash to these international companies with the purpose of purchasing Bombardier equipment. What happens next?

From the after-effects of 9/11 to plain bad business decisions, many of these new 'customers' go bankrupt. The loans to these businesses never get repaid. The loans to Bombardier never get repaid. Thus, we are left with a situation where taxpayers are on the hook for the loans to Bombardier as well as the defaulted loans to the international airline companies. To top it off, the planes that were seized from these bankrupt companies are sitting back in Canada. Unused and collecting dust, a small fleet of aircraft sit as a shining example of what happens when government gets involved in business. Is it not possible for Bombardier to sell its own product?

The fact that Bombardier is a Quebec firm cannot be overstated. I don't remember hearing anything about such a sweet deal being set up for Western-based companies such as SPAR Aerospace (which is presently going through a major downsizing), nor would I want to. Government must learn to stay out of the business of being in business. Until then, as the woman in the newest Bombardier commercial states with fake actor pride, "...that's my train." She's absolutely right. We own those trains and planes. Too bad it has cost Canadians so much.

Got the Munchies?

Now here's something that is sure to cause a few raised eyebrows on the faces of my neo-con friends: I believe that the time has come to decriminalize possession of marijuana. (I'll pause for a moment - my liberal readers are in shock because I agree with them on this issue; my conservative readers are in disbelief that a self-confessed 'small-c conservative' could make such a statement)...

The original anti-drug laws created with the green leaf in mind were created in the early 20th century. These laws were born not out of any scientific reasoning, but because the cotton farmers in the southern United States felt that the emergence of hemp or cannabis fields would run their farms out of business. Coincidentally, a great number of these farmers were 'good Christian folk' who used certain passages in the Bible to make their case against the weed. Over time, pot came to be considered evil in our society. While the post-prohibition consumption of alcohol has become accepted (even with the problems it has created such as broken families, murder by car, battered spouses and children, etc.), the stereotypical pot smoker is a long-haired, sandal-wearing hippie. I will admit, the 1960's were known for a lot of wild things, and marijuana is definitely one of them. But while other drug problems have arisen, it is pot that still gets our attention.

The decades after the 1960's had their own drug moments. From cocaine, heroin, and pills of every color, to the current scourge of crystal meth, our world is riddled with destructive narcotics at every turn. I do not consider marijuana to be a 'gateway drug' to these harder highs any more than I would consider cigarette smoking to be a 'gateway drug' to pot. The amount of dollars spent specifically on the arrests, seizures, court sessions, police salaries, and other bills in the name of getting a few ounces of plant off the streets is ridiculous. All this cash without much scientific information as to the real effects of use. While I assume that smoking anything is going to cause internal damage, I fail to see how the choice to use it should be taken from us given the freedom we have to consume a pack of Player's or a bottle of Chivas. Think of the billions that could have been better spent fighting the war against meth and smack?

The Nixon administration headed an investigation to find out exactly what marijuana usage does to both a person and a society. It looked at the current (early '70's) situation, as well as dug to find out how allowing small amounts to be possessed would effect the nation. When the results of the study were given to the president, the documents did not contain the results he expected or desired. It seems that allowing a person to possess say, up to 1/2 ounce for personal use would not lead to an upswing of drug addicts in the U.S. As well, the medical effects showed some early lung and respiratory damage (but on par with the average cigarette smoker), and possible passive cellular changes to the brain (mostly short-term memory with heavy usage), but overall the effects to the human body were do worse than a regular smoker or drinker. In addition, the report stated that a governmentally-controlled system of production and sales would generate an influx of tax dollars while not having a negative effect on society as a whole. Nixon, of course, tried his best to bury the report.

All that is needed is a way to have roadside testing for THC in the bloodstream. Once the tools are in place to regulate the drug, the sooner the black markets will be out of business. Despite the warnings of certain groups, this will not lead to a generation of addicts, and will actually help out the budget bottom line. And hey - crime fighting dollars might actually be able to go towards fighting crime!

The Newest Nut-job

Within the international community, there are some heads of state who are looked upon as gimmicky fools. This small group of presidents and supreme commanders have a new leader, and he is Venezuelan nut-job Hugo Chavez.

Taking every opportunity to stand in front of supportive mobs, Chavez has made a long list of idiotic statements directed at the United States. His latest blab called out U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice with the warning to back off "...girl." He followed up by repeating his favorite threat to end oil shipments to America. It should be pointed out that Chavez and his close buddy, Cuban messiah Fidel Castro, have recently been pointed out as part of an elaborate international money laundering network. Proving that it is fashionable these days to spout-off against all things American, Chavez is constantly in front of a camera with chest puffed and brow furled.

Given the current trend of South American countries to move to the left on the political spectrum, along with the higher than usual global anti-American sentiment, fools like Chavez can no longer be taken lightly. It situations such as these, one would expect the United Nations to do their job and keep a close eye on Venezuela. Given the history of failure that is synonymous with the U.N., the task of keeping Chavez in line will probably fall (once again) to the Americans.

Outplayed, Outworked, Out-classed

Pop quiz: name three leaders of Canada's Mens Hockey team. I'll give you one - Joe Sakic. Having trouble thinking of a couple more? After watching our boys assume the role of the second-best team on the ice for the second straight Olympic game, many flaws have become apparent.

Coming off of a stunning 2-0 loss to the Swiss(!), Team Canada faced an undefeated Finnish team with calls of a 'wake-up call'. The Canadians were supposed to put it all together and show everyone (including themselves) why they are the defending gold medalists. Instead, it was the Finns who taught the Canucks a lesson, outshooting and outplaying the Redshirts. By the end of the first period you could hear the collective slumping of Canadian fans coast to coast. Another 2-0 loss, and we now find ourselves thankful that Germany and Italy are in our group so that we may continue this fiasco into the medal round. So what are the real problem areas?

Despite the obvious lack of scoring, the first issue to address is defense. Without Scott Niedermeyer in the lineup, the Canadian team lacks a quick and mobile blueliner who could break through the 'trap' that many European teams like to use. The defense core seems too slow as a unit. The quicker Finns were almost always the first ones to the puck, while Canadians like Adam Foote and Wade Redden seemed always to be one step behind the play. Fans around the country are coming to ask the question that Oiler fans have been asking for months now: did Chris Pronger get all those career accolades because of this talent, or because his defense partner for many years was future Hall of Famer Al MacInnis?

Joe Sakic played with a cracked bone in his face. Many players hit the ice in pain. To question the heart of this team right now might just be a bit premature, but one has to wonder if one player from the group will stand up and take control. Sakic's forte is to show by example, and there is no question that he did just that against Finland. There needs to be, however, someone who the others could follow; someone who will be the next Lemieux or Gretzky or Messier in the dressing room to instill the confidence that this team is in dire need of. The candidates for this position are plenty. Iginla, Thornton, Foote, Bertuzzi, etc. Somebody better stand up soon, or it's going to be a long flight home. Oh, and to you Rick Nash: you can't become the 'next one' if you spend all of your time in the penalty box. Just a thought before tomorrow's game against the Czechs.

The Peaceful Religion?

The continuing riots sparked by the publication of cartoons portraying the Prophet Mohammed continues to be an example of irony at its best. First, we witness burning embassies and murdered civilians by mobs of Muslims who are outraged at the suggestion that Islam is a 'violent' religion. Now, we have an actual Islamic leader proving how peaceful the Islamic religion is by publicly placing a bounty on the head of the cartoonist responsible for the drawings.

Speaking to over a thousand followers at the Mohabat Khan mosque in the city of Peshawar, Pakistan, Muslim cleric Mohammed Yousaf Qureshi condemned not only the cartoons, but the authors of the satirical images by promising the equivalent of $30,000 Cdn., and a brand new car to anyone who kills the cartoonist. Furthermore, the cleric stated that the local business association would add an additional $1 million U.S. to the bounty. This from a respected religious leader.

There have been countless political cartoons drawn portraying religious leaders and icons of every type including many about Jesus, yet I can't recall a Catholic priest or a Baptist pastor calling for the head of the man responsible. I don't believe that every Muslim in the world supports the use of violence in the futile attempt to get a message across. I do wonder why there hasn't been more inner-condemnation by the so-called 'peaceful' members of the Islamic community against these stupid and counterproductive actions. The average Muslim might find it hard to believe, but it makes it hard to think of Islam as a non-violent religion when we see unending examples to the contrary.

Trouble in (socialist) Paradise?

Whatever connections some of those 'social-conservatives' have with the Man upstairs, I figure they must be golden. With Emersongate taking up the attention of the media, the new Conservative government was hoping and praying for something to come along and grab the headlines. It looks like they have gotten their wish with the latest turn of events coming out of the New Democratic camp. My readers are well aware that there is very little that the NDP does that I agree with. However, the latest move by the socialists is a long time coming.

Canadian Auto Workers union president Buzz 'the man of many hats' Hargrove had his membership suspended due to the fact that he spoke out it favour of the Liberal Party during the election campaign. Back around December 4, Hargrove publicly urged his union members to vote for the Liberals in ridings where the New Democrats "didn't have a chance...". He went on to add that the minority Liberal government "deserves to go back to Ottawa with even bigger numbers."

To be sure, the move confused Liberals, the NDP, and union members alike. NDP leader Jack Layton was forced to play down the statements, saying: "Mr. Hargrove is well known for having his opinions and expressing them and he's entitled to them." The subsequent media blitz also caused some backpedaling from top Liberal Paul Martin.

The slap on the wrist shows that the New Democrats are, if nothing else, true to their Party constitution. More than that, it exposes the inherant problem of power being in the hands of the unelected. As head of the CAW, Hargrove's words carry weight with his fellow unionists. That's where his words should stay. Being the head of a union should not equate to political power in national government affairs. What right does Buzz Hargrove have to tell anyone how to vote? Telling people to vote Liberal where the NDP can't win shows an amazing ability to forecast the future. Perhaps Buzz could get a gig working as a weatherman after the union thing runs its course.

Everyone is entitled to speak their mind. I have absolutely no problem with the average person on the street expressing his or her opinion. But when the biggest head of the biggest union in the nation starts assuming that they should use that position to attempt to influence voters, the line has been crossed. The NDP members have a right to hold Hargrove accountable for his actions, just as the Canadian people have a right to say 'shut the hell up, Buzz!'.

A Critical Eye

It's tough to be an conservative Albertan these days. We went from the subdued celebration of a minority victory in the federal election to the feeling of bitter deja vu, when Prime Minister Stephen Harper 'pulled a Liberal' and swiped former Liberal David Emerson from the opposition benches by dangling a cabinet post. It could be argued that Harper, known to put logic ahead of public appearance, did what he had to in order for some of the nations bigger cities (namely Vancouver and Montreal with the drafting of Michael Fortier into a sweet Senate post) to have representation in the government.

This thinking might make sense in the long run, but the resulting backlash of these actions has come fast and furious from all sides. The usual ineffective Liberal response of 'you see? They are just as bad as we are!' has been blurted by many Grit public relations talking heads. What Harper might not have expected was the public questioning from media, voters, and fellow Conservative Party members alike. Albertans who were willing to give federalism one last chance under a Conservative government have seen two early examples of the same ol', same ol'. We finally have the opportunity to address some of the issues that Albertans have come to know from generation to generation, and the fear is that we will miss the chance due to a federal government that feels it necessary to cater to those who were just defeated. The seeds of doubt have been planted, and Harper's job has just gotten a lot more difficult.

How the Conservative government does as far as dealing with the long-standing concerns of Albertans will have a direct impact on the provincial P.C. Party. It could have an impact on the upcoming leadership race, and sway support away from frontrunner and federalist Jim Dinning and towards a more 'independent' candidate. It could very well hit the Alberta Tories right where they live - their lifelong supporters. It isn't inconceivable that federal 'old politics' and a renewed pandering to Quebec could result in a good portion of the Alberta P.C. base moving a little more to the right. The possible increase in support of the Alberta Alliance Party would change the face of our local political landscape. Not that the A.A. would suddenly become the government, but Alberta could find itself with a minority government of its own.

Muhammad Cartoon Gallery

Posted in support of freedom of speech.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sarticle.php?id=12146

Harper Does His Best Martin

The 'I told you so's were flying on day the new Conservative cabinet was announced. Alberta separatists, many of whom were willing to give the new government a chance to impress, are livid over the first few actions of our new Prime Minister. As you probably know by now, Stephen Harper pulled one out of the Liberal playbook by snatching former Liberal cabinet minister David Emerson away from his Party and giving him the portfolio of Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver - Whistler Olympics. Didn't we all agree that it was wrong when Belinda Stronach did this? As well, Harper wanted to reward long-time supporter and former president of the old Progressive Conservative Party, Michael Fortier. He did so by making Fortier Minister of Public Works and Government Services. The catch? Fortier didn't run in any election. Instead, Harper appointed Fortier to the Senate.

Is the glass half emply or half full? Some critics say that the East has retained too much power under Harper. If you look at the cabinet numbers, you will see that Western Canada has 10, Ontario has 8, Quebec - 5, and the Atlantic has 3. From those figures, you can see an example of a government that has representation from across Canada. Three MPs in particular are from Alberta, which is much better than our usual 1.

Politically, Harper has formed his team brilliantly. Having Quebec and Ontario play an important part is smart for his success. The downside is the impression of 'selling-out' that some in the West have already formed. While I still hold out hope that Harper will be able to address some of the longstanding issues Albertans have had, it shakes my confidence when I see our new Prime Minister making moves that could be out of the Red Book.

Required Reading

First of all, let me admit that I am not what you would call a 'reader'. I don't have a library card, and I have actually read about 1/3 of my home library collection (some even all the way through). When I do dig into a book, it is almost always a non-fiction political essay written by Winston Churchill or an insiders view of the Cold War. Suffice it to say that book reviews are not my forte. Sometimes you do read a book that you have to recommend to a friend, so consider this a friendly suggestion.

How to Talk to a Liberal (If you must) by American conservative pundit Ann Coulter is an eye-opening view of liberalism. What makes this latest offering by Coulter enjoyable is the mix of fact and opinion delivered with a dry yet obvious wit that makes even the more mundane chapters an interesting read. Spanning a range of topics that include two presidential elections, 9/11, the Iraq War, the Democratic party and all it's failings, and even incredible insight on such matters as the Clinton administration and the Elian Gonzales fiasco, Coulter exposes facts long buried by the leftwing media in the United States.

From a Canadian point of view, there are some references that will evade you unless you happen to have taken a keen interest in American politics over the past 30 years. Fortunately, these instances are far and few between. What I took away was a better understanding of not only how the red tape machine works in Washington, but how similar the political scene is in Ottawa. Liberals everywhere share some basic similarities, and these become apparent early in the book. Canadians will notice many common threads between the hypocrisy of the American Democratic Party and our very own Liberals.

While I don't share the same opinion on every issue that Coulter tackles in her latest release, she does give her point of view with a convincing argument. We can only be so lucky as to have someone as honest, direct, and unwavering as Ann Coulter appear on the scene in the Great White North.

On the Eighth Day