Category: Politics

This category holds articles pertaining to politics. They are: Civilizations, Public Sector, Justin Trudeau, Trump, Left is for Liberal, Muslim Countries, Just Lie, The Welfare State, Brexit, Unspoken Issues, Senate Reform, Who Votes What, Global Warming, the North-South Divide, Conservatives, What Happened (in the 2016 US Election), Propaganda, Health Care, Social Control, Pronouns, Fake News, #YouToo, Socrates and Greg, The Politics of Faith, What’s Up with Green, Democracy, Stage III, Tribalism, The Charity System, Hate, Carbon Tax, SCOTUS, Chris Cuomo, Greta, The Wall, The Pawn Who Looked Up, The 2020 US Election, Middle People, Lessons, and Fraud?

It’s best to read them from bottom to top.

Pronouns

I recently had lunch in Toronto and overheard a conversation that went like this:

  • “Welcome to Jangles.”
  • “Hi, my name is Bill and this is my friend Fred. Fred’s pronoun is zer. So if you pop by later to ask if we want coffee and Fred’s not available, don’t say ‘and what about him?’ Please say ‘and what about zer?”
  • Waitress said “Got it.”

It was the coolest thing I ever heard but you know this kind of thing will eventually land in court. Because somewhere along the way, some teacher is going to call one of them Zaire and a shitstorm will get started. I can see the courtroom now.

  • “Okay, what happened?”
  • “Well, I submit my pronoun every day and I carry one of those little tent cards. But sometimes he calls me Zaire.”
  • “And you. What do you have to say for yourself?”
  • “Heck, your honour. There’s a billion of them. How am I supposed to remember them all? But I’ll try to say Fred.”
  • “Okay, nobody wins. Now get back to work.”

U of T’s Jordan Peterson says forcing language is how the communists got started. He doesn’t appear to like any of this political correctness, but I think it’s great. Like when’s the last time you heard the term “fudge packer” or called anyone a fag? We don’t say things like that anymore and I think it’s good.

There’s a trans guy at my deli. I call him TJ and he seems to be fine with it. And now that we’re talking about names, how about all the things we call fat people? I don’t like the word “tubby.”

Dr. Jordan says these new laws violate our entitlement to free speech. Specifically, you can now be charged with a hate crime in Ontario by failing to comply. So as a public employee, he can lose his job by not using these government specified pronouns. He says that when we stopped calling Chinese people oriental and shifted to calling them Asian, it came organically, not through law. And this is the way it should be.

But that’s not my concern. I don’t like how he’s being treated. Peterson has been accosted and attacked ever since he spoke up. He’s being associated with Nazism, white supremacy, being a gender-hater, and every other evil term out there. I think there’s something wrong with that.

Freedom

This debate has shifted from pronouns to one about freedom.

Peterson does a lot more than just argue about words. Other than being a prof, he’s a clinical psychologist who’s deeply learned in a number of areas and has written a few books. He was scheduled to speak in Edmonton in February. After booking space at the local, publicly funded theatre, Jordan was notified the reservation had been cancelled because management didn’t agree with his views.

So does the facility have the right to deny anyone service because of his or her beliefs?

In the US, a bakery tried to deny a gay couple the ability to buy a wedding cake. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the couple. They said the freedom to purchase comes before the freedom to sell. So even though a pub can bounce you for being drunk and disorderly, they can’t refuse you service because of sexual preference. Just like you can’t be refused for race, colour, ethnicity, religion, or what type of spaghetti sauce you like.

Now in defense of my transgender in-laws, I’m sure there’s a good argument in favour of adding more terms than just him and her. I’m also sure of a few more things: political correctness works best when it occurs naturally—it shouldn’t be legislated. Jordan isn’t Jim Keegstra denying the holocaust—his speech was to be predominately about his new book, 12 Rules for Life. And if denying service is against the law in the US, it should be against the law here.

Conclusion

Decide for yourself. Here’s an interview with Jordan and another exiled prof on Joe Rogan. (To add insult to injury, the guy is from Alberta.) I sure hope he sues. In the meantime, TJ and I are going for a drink.

Social Control

Politics has always had two sides to it—social and economic. But today there are three because the social piece has been split. We have the old Whig-liberal agenda pulling away from archaic rules of the church and a new entry called postmodernism, which may be something crazy.

The Bible

Britain and America used to be very Christian countries and the church held great power. And though the separation of church and state occurred a very long time ago, much of Christianity remained within legislative life.

In political terms: conservatives argued to preserve the status quo, while liberals fought to break away. Over time, liberals were successful. They brought us things like:

  • Sunday shopping
  • Elimination of school prayer
  • Elimination of censorship in music, movies, and TV
  • The elimination of capital punishment
  • Porn sites and dirty magazines
  • How late bars are allowed to stay open
  • Ease of divorce (a big deal in Ireland)

So when they say the governments of China and Iran are conservative, they’re not talking about economics. They’re talking about this kind of stuff—social rules. And though we’re abound with social freedoms here in CanAmerica, in many countries they are not.

Postmodernism A

Western Civilization was built during the 16-19th centuries based on the ideals of capitalism, democracy, and the values of Christianity. This philosophy was called modernism and it ruled the day up until around the 1950s. Then a new thinking emerged.

Postmodernism arrived after the establishment of the welfare state and during the glorification of communism. Remember Russia, the Soviet Union, and the Eastern Bloc didn’t totally collapse until 1991. Only then were the dysfunctions and social atrocities observed. Before then, many in the West believed communism was just great and romanticized with the thought.

Liberals and progressive conservatives of the day continued their push away from social restrictions, namely those involving religion—just like the commies said. Add to the list:

  • Government sponsored gambling
  • Government funded abortion
  • Gay marriage
  • Doctor-assisted suicide
  • Legalization of pot (if you tie it to the prohibition of booze and then its reversal)

Now you see where we’re headed. Religion, specifically Christianity’s, influence over everyday European and North American legislative life is almost done. (And so is the ethic of hard work.)

Christian postmodernists

Much of the communist blame put on religion stemmed from its view that it only caused wars. That due to its arrogance in serving differing gods, religion only led to conflict. And who needs more of that? But some Christians took note and wanted to join in. They liked the balancing out of capitalism through welfare states and dawned a progressive movement of their own. They questioned why Christianity had to be so strict, opposing rules like not being able to dance or drink. And more recently, they embraced followers of other faiths by abandoning the rule that only Christians go to heaven.

New sheriff

Without question, early postmodernism was seen as good. The idea of getting away from Old Testament punishments like hanging and minimum sentencing and hard spanking your kids was greeted with relief. And now even Christians were dancing. But the theory got perverted when a new sheriff came to town. This sheriff brought with it a new interpretation of the ideal. One you could call post-postmodernism. Its mission is threefold:

  • The further elimination of religion by crushing the Bible, promoting atheism instead
  • Forced political correctness, uneducated social justice, and limiting freedom of speech
  • A “take no prisoners” attitude towards adversaries 

This new crew has no patience for faith and is in a hurry to make change. And no one is allowed to disagree. Opponents are quickly shouted down and labelled as Nazi, fascist, misogynist, or racist, while the left-wing fan base naively plays along. Not only are these warriors relentless they hold positions of power, which shows one hundred people really can change the world. How? While dummies like us are out working this groupthink has overtaken government, the education system, and the judiciary, providing the influence they need to implement their agenda—the new liberalism.

Freedom

So here’s the complicated part. Originally, liberals fought for social freedom—away from the Bible, and now conservatives are fighting for freedom—away from political correctness / social justice / limitations on free speech. So now everyone’s a freedom fighter, albeit for different causes.

What’s funny is that political correctness will soon be re-implementing censorship into music, TV, and the rest of the arts. The same censorship that liberals fought to oust (which puts new meaning on Eminem’s song, White America—where he lashes out at Dick Cheney for criticizing lyrics). And what’s worse is that both sides are now playing dirty—there are no more good guys. For years, liberals were psychologically comforted by believing they were nice. But today there is no blind nice. This new group is just as dirty and intolerable as the far right.

Summary

There has always been two sides to politics and now there are three. When it comes to taxes and money, economists keep changing their minds so no one really knows who’s right. Social factors play a much larger role in life.

Postmodernism was initially good, for why not try to make society better. And truth be told, religion did need a good swift kick in the pants. But it’s a far cry from criticizing religion to eliminating it, and I don’t think we’re ready for a world without God. I don’t think it’s psychologically healthy, and even if it is, I feel it’s all coming too fast. (Nobody is taking into consideration the risks.)

The problem then intensifies as voters get sucked into identifying with brand-based politics. Shouting “I’m a liberal or I’m a con” is exactly what extremists want because they know they’ll eventually get their chance. That’s when they implement their far-winged dream. And even if you’re a lefty, you should never agree with the tact. The freedom to disagree is a tenant to our social system. Nothing works without it.

This new drive for social control has more to come and to be honest, it scares me. I believe it will be successful because Canadians aren’t the type to jump up and fight. We’d rather keep things simple and get back to sleep—living under the guise of being nice. But remember, when you tire of this new social order, it all started with your soul.

Note: Here’s an explanation by U of T professor Stephen Hicks.

Health Care

Probably the largest debate in society today is over healthcare, especially in the States. We Canadians like to brag about our system but whether you’re in Oshawa or Omaha, nobody understands their plan. And when you sit down and really look at it, we’re not that different. 

There are two parts to any system: who pays and who provides. In this article, we’ll only discuss the money. There are six components to our Canadian system:

Potentially expensive events are provided by the province while the rest is covered by private plans. And though we’re generalizing to simplify, governments actually cover parts of the items on the right. Anyway, in the US they mess with the left-side column.

US

The US has five systems that pay for doctor visits and hospital care (DVHC):

  • Medicare (those over 65) – government paid
  • Medicaid (low-income persons) – government paid
  • VA (members of the military) – government paid (and government supplied)
  • Corporate Plans (employees with benefits) – private paid
  • Individual Plans (employees without benefits) – private paid

When it comes to doctor visits and hospital care, many are treated like Canadians but most are covered by the same system we use for seeing a dentist. Now this situation would be fine if everyone was covered but that’s not the case. 28 million Americans are walking around without DVHC coverage. So is it a big deal?

Obamacare

Obamacare tried to address this situation in three ways. 

  • It forced companies with over 50 employees to provide healthcare that subscribed to a minimum standard (including DVHC). 
  • Disallowed insurers from charging more for people with pre-existing conditions in the individual market. 
  • Made it illegal to not carry insurance by forcing individuals to purchase a plan through government subsidized exchanges, or face a penalty when filing their tax return. (Called the individual mandate.)

Before Obamacare, 50 million people were not covered. Mostly those without a company plan, whose individual premiums were too high to buy (say, pre-existing conditions), or they simply didn’t want one. This number came down by 22 million when additional companies were forced into providing plans (10 million), many of those with pre-existing conditions could now buy in, and government subsidies attracted others (total 12 million individuals).

Pre-existing conditions

Now Canadians already know about pre-existing conditions. It’s what we do with car insurance. If you hold a number of tickets, premiums go up. Same when it comes to life — fat people who smoke pay more. But when it comes to hospitalizations this was poor policy. Sell me all the personal responsibility you want, I can’t help myself from having a heart attack. That’s why everyone’s favourite president disallowed any further attacks on this piece of the plan.

Canadians also understand the idea of receiving a fine if you don’t insure. We do the same thing when it comes to cars. The fine for driving without insurance in Alberta is over $2,800. (Mostly because applicable drivers often have drunk driving offences so premiums would be around $9K.)

Individual mandate

The individual mandate was removed because Republicans didn’t like the idea of forcing people into buying insurance. Especially when Obamacare included so much. Maybe if the minimum only covered DVHC, it would have worked. Up in Canada we don’t force anyone to purchase a private benefit plan, though they’re available.

Summary

Ask any Canadian and the US system seems weird. Why wouldn’t you pass the money for doctor visits and hospital care through the fed? (What some are calling Medicare for All.) US private insurers would stay in business just like Great West Life. And this certainly makes sense. On the other hand, Americans don’t get hurt like you think.

Because of Medicaid, everyone gets hospital service. They just send you the bill. If you have a company plan, you’re good. Same goes if you’re poor, with the military, or over 65. The only people at risk are those with money not currently covered. If this is your position, purchase a plan.

Risktakers are only those who’d rather save the monthly premium (e.g., young people). If you have only $10,000 in assets, why not skip the monthly fee? Worse case, you lose the $10,000 when the hospital sues. Then you can go bankrupt over the rest.

Note: In Alberta, if you’re not covered by a company benefit plan, you can get one from the province for a monthly premium. It covers prescription drugs along with other items. Once you hit age 65, you’re automatically covered by this same plan without the cost.

Propaganda

The article on Opinions says people’s views come from four main sources. Let’s look at them to see how easily we can be manipulated. There must be some defense. Sources are:

  • Intuition (your gut feel)
  • Personal experience (what you’ve seen)
  • What you’ve been taught
  • What you’ve figured out for yourself

We’ll use the examples of Sigmund Freud and Chartered Schools to illustrate.

Freud

Freud lived between 1859 and 1939. He invented the theory of the subconscious mind. He also said man was inherently bad. His theory of the mind was something he figured out; the belief that man is naturally bad came from personal experience.

The subconscious mind is still being taught today (because it was brilliant), while what he derived from personal experience is no longer considered valid. But if you look at the time in which he lived, it makes sense. The late 1800s was before the implementation of mass education and early 1900s Europe was home to the First World War. So he saw people at their worst. Before modern efforts to arrive at a well-meaning consciousness.

Chartered schools

Jim and Brian were high school mates. Neither had ever experienced a charter school but both subscribed to hard-leaning websites that held staunch political views, albeit opposite. Jim’s websites taunted charter schools, exposing the devil inside. Brian’s credited the process with ingenuity and said people were lining up to get in. Then one day they had a fight about it and are no longer friends.

What happened is these buddies became foot soldiers for some propaganda’s cause. Convinced of their purpose, they began spewing nonsense exactly as masters intended. When things finally came to a head, one was googling “charter schools good” and the other “charter schools bad.”

Buying a book

Propaganda applies mostly to political situations but the same instruments are used by business. Everyone knows what advertisers are doing when presenting their wares but when it comes to politics, bias isn’t always as obvious.

I once bought a book about world issues. When paying, I asked if it was a good one. The clerk flipped it over to read the endorsements and said, “It depends. Are you a liberal?” I said, “Why does that matter?” He said, “Because all the endorsements are from liberal sources. So if you’re a liberal, you’ll like it. That’s the way poli-books work.”

Propaganda centres

According to Steve Jobs, Eastern culture relies heavily on intuition and personal experience, while the West places greater emphasis on what we’ve been taught. This explains why modern day propaganda works so well in America—it’s disguised as knowledge. Couple this with the “good student” phenomena to memorize and regurgitate and you have a nation for the taking.

Numerous propaganda centres spew nonsense on a daily basis, fueling foot soldiers to convince all their friends. Canadian stations are good but you still have to watch where you get news, especially when it comes from the States. People down there are trying to brainwash you. That’s the bottom line. We mask it with statements like “this is what I think” but the truth is: we don’t think anything. We only regurgitate what others have told us, adding absolutely nothing of what we instinctively feel, have experienced, or figured out for ourselves.

Summary

Wake up! This is our new reality. American news is selling an agenda in addition to telling you what happened today. So it’s work to get news without opinion. And this condition is not going to change anytime soon because it works.

In the public eye, politics has become a team sport, which is ridiculous because that’s not the way it’s supposed to be. And to make matters worse, every time a bias is exposed, adversaries use it to deny their opponent’s entire position—which is crazy. Real opinion involves considering all sides, recognizing bona fide points, and applying humility to whatever you discover because you’ll never have all the information. That’s the way intellectuals do it and they keep all their friends.

What Happened

No doubt you’re still hearing about the US election and why Donald Trump won. Though much of what’s being said is emotional, there are pragmatic factors Canadians can use to navigate through the confusion. Like why were the polls wrong?

Polling

The Electoral College awards so many presidential votes to each state. Certain states almost always vote a certain way (e.g., Texas goes republican while California likes democrats). There can be exceptions but 37 states typically work this way—and in this election, all voted as expected. (Giving Hillary a slight lead). This leaves 13 states where the action actually happens—called battleground states.

Because of this situation, national polls are never the best indicator. Forecasting Electoral College votes based on state polls is much better. And you could see this on some websites but even they left out two important factors.

  • What typically happens to the category “other”
  • Who typically shows up to vote

Libertarians and Greens were polling high throughout the summer (10-12%) but in the end they got only four points (3% – Libertarian, 1% – Green). Support falling away from “other” candidates is typical in presidential elections. Based on ideology, we know libertarians fall right and greens fall left. Using the consistent 3:1 split between them, 9% Libertarian actually means 6% republican and 3% libertarian, and 3% Green means 2% democrat and only 1% green. So this election was close all along and they should have predicted better numbers for Trump.

Same thing when it comes to who shows up to vote. The angry and wanting change always line up in greater numbers than those happy with how it is. We saw this with Barack Obama in 2008. This time, the angry and wanting change folk were siding with Trump. This too could have been added to the polls.

Proper polling ignores national data and focuses on Electoral College votes, state by state. Then gets adjusted for “other candidate fallback” and “emotional show-up.” Obviously this wasn’t being done, so it was like the kids who calculated mortgage risk before the crash of ’08—they didn’t really understand the numbers. This was always a much closer race than what was being reported.

Make America Great Again

I think the biggest challenge non-Americans had was comprehending Trump’s slogan. Who was he talking to and why keep referring to the past? The answer lies in his strategy. Every election has two components: economic and social. Economically, Trump targeted 5-6 battleground states. Socially, he appealed to all country conservatives.

Only 13 states mattered and some got hammered by globalization. So economically, they wished to return to the past. When Trump said “Make America Great Again,” he wasn’t speaking to those in California. He was talking to people in particular areas. Then socially, there was a much deeper message. One that appealed to social conservatives who didn’t want change—social change. This is something Canadians have difficulty understanding. One guy told me, “Heck, we just got used to watching gay broadcasters.” 

Social change among conservatives is not a short term affair. They need time to digest. And the recent changes brought about over the past 8 years, especially gay marriage, has left many screaming for stop.

The civil rights act passed in 1964, and they’re still talking about it. Liberals say full female rights still haven’t been attained and gay marriage is currently ripping American churches apart. Now you want to put LTGB urinals into every stall. Are you kidding? It takes generations for things like these to incorporate into rural life—and yes, there is a difference between city slickers and country folk. But American liberals never seem to extend their values of respect and tolerance to their own people. So Donald said it would stop.

Hillary

Trump’s raw strategy gave him a one in three chance of winning. When Hillary blended with Bernie, those odds jumped to over 40%. Described as a centre-right politician, Hillary’s platform had nothing in it like free education or a $15/hour national minimum wage. Issues like these were only added to consolidate with Bernie supporters and it proved to be her demise.

NDP-style liberalism doesn’t work in a conservative country unless you’re the voice of change. So while Donald was in her backyard picking democrats, she couldn’t get past his fence.

And Hillary also played it safe—famously deciding to go high where he went low. Again, this classy approach works with everyday liberals but when Donald is constantly pounding on you, you have to forcibly object. Margaret Thatcher didn’t become Britain’s PM by playing the woman card. She bared her knuckles and rolled around in mud for principles.  

Summary

A lot of people were fooled by this election because no one put forward a solid argument why Trump could win. Michael Moore was close but he didn’t take into account the social part, which was huge. Here’s what happened:

  • There were 13 battleground states.
  • Economically, Trump targeted 5-6 of them (e.g., Ohio, Michigan).
  • Socially, he appealed to country conservatives by promoting no more social change.
  • Hillary got messed up by Bernie and was forced into choosing between far-left or centre-right. She chose far-left, which alienated loads of potential supporters.
  • Hillary played it safe and this probably played a factor. She also got killed by the price hikes in Obamacare.
  • The numbers were consistently misreported because they didn’t take into account “other party fallback” or “emotional voter turnout.”

Donald Trump always had a realistic chance. But what about the horrible things he said? and Megan Kelly? and all the people he offended? Most of them live in cities, located in democrat states. Their votes didn’t really count. It was rural women who made this choice and they took Don’s package over his faults. He was continually shown with his beautiful family and they bought it—he couldn’t be all that bad. 

There’s no question Donald Trump is an ass. And that Americans will face the consequences of having just elected Henry the VIIIth. But this wasn’t a perfect storm. It was a clash of ideals that had to happen. Bernie’s movement needed to be exposed—because that’s what’s coming. And liberals needed to learn that conservatives aren’t opposed to social change—they just need it done slowly.

But I still can’t believe it.

Note: The same day Arizona voted for Trump they passed Proposition 206 to increase minimum wage from $8 to $12/hour, over a four year period. This is much different than $15/hour, tomorrow.

Conservatives

The article, Left is for Liberal, looks at the ideology and history of liberals. This time we’re tackling the Tories. We’ll start with general concepts, address social issues, and then turn to economics.

Understanding conservatism is complicated because there are various types. Knowing liberalism is easy: socially, you let everyone do as they wish and then economically play Robin Hood. But there’s a lot more to tilting right (especially in the States).

Carrot vs. stick

Billy lost a friend through an accident. He’s taken time off to grieve. After three days, dad suggests he get back to school. Billy’s mom says just a few more days. Who’s right? It depends. Sometimes kids need to be coddled and sometimes they need a kick in the pants.

In the olden days, the coddling style was attributed to females (liberal), while the miserable boot-in-the-arse system was characteristic of men (conservative). But any parent can relate. Sometimes you have to be understanding and sometimes you need to be firm. In political speak we say “sometimes the carrot, sometimes the stick” or “sometimes the hand, sometimes the fist.” Liberals and cons play each other’s yin and yang in this regard, and both approaches should be respected.

Adjectives

These ideologies stay true to their adjectives. Conservatives like to implement change slowly and after considerable consideration, preferably in baby steps. Liberals are more apt to go with sweeping changes that are grandiose. The formal definition of the word liberal is “open to new behavior and willing to discard traditional values,” while conservative means “holding to traditional attitudes and cautious about change or innovation.”

The political terms, left and right, come from the old French Assembly. Those favouring change sat on the left side of the chamber, while those preferring things stay the same sat on the right.

The Bible

A big part of conservative social resistance rests with the Bible. Remember, 100 years ago everyone was religious. It’s the liberals who broke away. Conservatives didn’t run around soliciting people into believing this stuff—they already believed. And though Christianity has served us well through things like the Protestant work ethic, the Bible says some pretty weird stuff—especially when it comes to women and gay rights. So liberals championed us away through various causes, while cons found it best to resist (claiming higher moral ground).

Personal responsibility

Social cons also say we’re better served when people take responsibility for themselves (as with capitalism). Conservatives believe you wake up in the morning and get to work. This sometimes gets misinterpreted as “me versus we,” but that’s not the case. To them, society doesn’t function if too many play the victim. Conservatives say be a giver, not a taker, and take pride in your hard work. Only make children when you can afford them and then live within your means. Self-respect is an admirable quality. Yes, the strong must carry the weak but the weak must also put forth their best efforts. (Much of this comes from the old farming mentality where people help each other out, but no one takes advantage.)

Less government

This concept then extends into believing in smaller government, especially when it comes to social assistance. Conservatives say if your nephew doesn’t have money, it’s a family problem and he shouldn’t be looking to government for help. And they say a lot of what gov does now should be performed by private charity or solved within the home. Sure, if someone doesn’t have a rich uncle it’s okay for society to assist, but in an environment of lower taxation the idea is for families to address such issues. (And with taxes so darn high, it’s confusing whose job this is.)

Free market

Remember back in school how some people were strong at English while others were good at math. Well, conservatives consider themselves good at math. Mostly because many are business-minded brawlers who lean towards the free market system. Fiscal conservatives desire smaller government because they don’t want gov involved unless it’s absolutely necessary (e.g., starting a railway). They believe in privatizing and subcontracting services where possible, and totally despise red tape—preferring efficiency instead.

Jefferson

America was founded on freedom, specifically from tyranny of government. Thomas Jefferson’s writings are symbolic of this and many Americans still carry his flag. Not just NRA members who pack military grade in case the feds decide to attack, there are plenty who vehemently oppose government authority over any part of their lives. But to be honest, some of this disdain is obsolete. Take for example health care. Back in Tommy’s time, if you suffered from heart problems you just died. But today we have methods to cure such disorders, so why not band together and group insure?

Roosevelt

Teddy Roosevelt was president from 1901 to 1909. He was a conservative Republican. Back then, they didn’t have term limits so he re-ran in 1912, advocating the principles of a welfare state. For such a radical position he was labelled a progressive. Naturally, the Jeffersonians went nuts and strongly opposed these ideals, successfully defeating his candidacy, but the term and political ideology remain. (Teddy’s cousin, Franklin Roosevelt, a democrat who also served as president, introduced the welfare state in the 1930s. It was called the New Deal.)

Progressives are now called moderates or centre-right conservatives. They believe in the welfare state but also subscribe to common free market principles like privatization and outsourcing where possible, limited government spending, and most other right-wing stances (except maybe the old Bible stuff).

Summary

So we have a wide variety within conservatism. Many buy into the whole package, while others favour just a few thoughts (say, religious beliefs). Regardless, they come together to form the antithesis to runaway liberals who, through their naïve economic agenda, are trying to ruin the world (wink).

F. Scott Fitzgerald said, “intelligence is the ability to hold opposing views at the same time.” And if people could do this more often, politics would be fun. As it is, we have an angry game being played between perceived good guys and bad—which is ridiculous. The principles of conservatism are solid and they’re essential for any society to succeed. Liquor stores should be privatized and garbage collection should be outsourced. Government can’t be the solution to everyone’s problems and culture should call on personal responsibility. It’s not that cons are opposed to the strong carrying the weak—they just disagree with the liberal way of doing it. Their version is: don’t give a man a fish, tell him to go fishing.

In the end, anti-biblical change will come because it represents freedom. And everyone will learn to embrace the welfare state. But don’t expect all of this to happen anytime soon—conservatives like to move slow, real slow.

Note: Libertarians are social liberals and Jeffersonian conservatives, which makes them one step away from anarchists.

North-South Divide

The North-South divide is a common expression used in Europe but not so much here. It refers to people of the first and third world, and the difference between them. Not so much pertaining to wealth and percentage of world resources, but cultural differences regarding hard work and organization.

Initially everyone was of the South. People lived an agrarian lifestyle where pleasure was coveted, work was done to survive, and education wasn’t important. Back then, people accepted life for what it was and endured suffering or enjoyed times of beauty as they came. Then two major events occurred. Thanks to our friends the Germans and the Brits, some of us began to appreciate education and started to work hard.

Protestant work ethic

The Protestant split from the Catholic Church occurred during the 15th and 16th centuries. It became known as the Reformation and was led by Britain and Germany. These churches continued to remain Christian but added their own denominational twists. More importantly, for the sake of this discussion, it gave governments control over social norms.

Because of the church’s heavy influence over culture, governments could now mold people as they wished and some countries capitalized on the opportunity. They got churches to tell people that God wanted them to work hard, which became known as the Protestant work ethic. Perhaps it was initially for military purposes but once the Industrial Revolution began it boded well for business—a place where ambition and hard work are highly regarded. Then, in further response to this revolution, modern Europe instituted mass public education.

America

America has always had its own spin. Their form of Protestantism began in the 1730s. It generally stuck with the European model except Evangelicalism pulled away from the formal, ceremonial, hierarchical stuff and made Christianity intensely personal to the average person. It also gave the Protestant work ethic a boost.

The American ideology became: hard work is the way to heaven and the American dream. You’re in control of your own life. Heaven and wealth are not just for the elites. Everything is up to you. (Now you see where the conservative principle of self-reliance comes from.)

The South

This Northern idea of “all work, no play” was built into society by way of religion. Southerners didn’t have anything like this. They lived solely for dancing, good food, and making love—working only when they had to. Basically, achieving nothing.

It’s the educated and hardworking versus their opposites. The North is built upon the Protestant work ethic plus mass education, while the South is based on living for the moment.

When the British were acquiring land for their empire in the 1800s, they believed they were doing inhabitants a favour. All they encountered was a pleasure seeking populace being served by an idiot king. The Brits brought with them medicine, education, production methodology, and a legal system. Plus administration to keep it all together.  

Conclusion

Nothing ever lines up exactly as described because you can’t categorize individual people, let alone whole countries. But knowing these differences is essential for dealing with developing nations. They just see things differently. And though we certainly have southern-style people living here, it’s probably best to continue with the policy of making everyone the same. Then again, there’s nothing wrong with having a good time.

Global Warming

If I ever catch a genie in a bottle, I’ll ask for two things: bring back debating into high schools and stop unqualified people from saying things like, “And of course, we all know.”

Nothing highlights these wishes better than the debate over climate change. There are literally no public videos where qualified experts discuss the matter all together. We just have clips from those representing one side or the other, or unqualified salespeople pushing an agenda. So if no debate exists, let’s make one.

IPCC

We’ll open with the opinions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, then present a contrarian and an endorser.

Dr. Patrick Moore

For the anti team, from sunny British Columbia, we have Patrick Moore. Dr. Moore is an ecologist and founding member of Greenpeace. To hear his story, click below.

Dr. James Hansen

And for the pro side, we have James Hansen. Dr. Hansen is an earth scientist from Columbia University and former NASA scientist. To hear his story, click below.

Now if five qualified technicians analyzed your computer or six mechanics looked under your hood, do you think they’d be this far apart? And wouldn’t they temper their proposals with comments like, “It’s our best bet” or “We’re pretty sure”—like medical doctors do?

Knowledge vs. trust

The truth is: you and I don’t know anything about this issue. We’re not scientists, we’re not scientists in this particular area, and even if we were—it doesn’t mean we’d be any good at it. So we have no idea how much of this is guesswork. All we can do is trust.

We trust all the time and sometimes we get scammed. Americans trusted George W. about “weapons of mass destruction,” Canadians trusted Bre-X that there was gold in that mine, and Germans trusted Hitler. So could carbon tax be another one? If it were, here’s how they’d do it.

Brainwashing

Social brainwashing is the act of manipulating the public mind. It has three components:

  • Flood people with information
  • Appeal to their emotions
  • Make it a crisis

The article, Opinions, says your thoughts are partially controlled by what you’ve been taught. If I keep teaching that Quebec is a net contributor to the tax system or that the holocaust didn’t really happen, you’ll start thinking my way. The article, Why School, says most people are equipped to learn and reason, but light when it comes to critical thinking. So educated people form a perfect target—give them five pieces of information and they’ll think they know something.

The article, Power, Pleasure, Purpose, says people are motivated by one of three drivers. Hitler used power to rally his troops (appropriate since 1920s-30s German families weren’t known for warmth and the country had just been decimated). Today’s motivators connect with purpose. Left-wing documentaries and speeches emotionally assault us into believing only Lucifer himself could see things differently. And so do American conservatives when they make fun of the Christian right.

Lastly, major issues are always presented as a crisis to force people into acting before they give other considerations their due. This method of eliminating all opposition was used during the financial crisis of 2008. US politicians had only a weekend to authorize an $800 billion bailout.

Conclusion

If five out of six mechanics told me to change my muffler, I’d probably do it. But if it meant greatly altering my lifestyle, I’d try really hard to understand what that sixth mechanic was trying to say.

The determining questions are:

  • Is the planet warming?
  • Is this warming dangerous?
  • Is CO2 the cause of warming?
  • How much of CO2 buildup is related to human activity vs. nature?
  • How sure are we of these answers?

In the work world, we don’t pay attention to unqualified comments. If we need a new copier, we don’t ask the postman. But for some reason, when it comes to climate, we’ll listen to almost anyone and take them seriously.

Personally, I’m leery of movie actors explaining to me scientific facts. I feel scientists are perfectly capable of doing this themselves. They teach at universities, don’t they?

And why is this even a public issue? When we introduced laws to control pollution, ban DDT, eliminate asbestos, and a host of other items—they just did it. I don’t remember the caravan of do-gooders running around soliciting public approval. So if we need to save the planet, go ahead and save it. Then again, what do I know—I’m not a rock star.

Who Votes What

Ever wonder how political pollsters view us—the public. And why politicians sometimes say the things they do. It’s because certain segments of the population are naturally aligned with certain political parties. Here’s how things line up for the conservatives:

  • serious businesspeople
  • hard-working, blue-collars
  • seniors

Serious businesspeople are a no-brainer because of their constant concern for the economy. Hard-working, blue-collars want to keep most of their hard-earned cash. And seniors adhere to the conservative adjective of not wishing for any revolutionary change. Stereotypical liberals include:

  • government workers
  • the economically weak
  • naive do-gooders

Government workers are understandable because conservatives are always trying to outsource their jobs. The economically weak have the most to gain from increased government programs. And naïve do-gooders are those who just want to feel nice.

Tree-huggers are another team for the left—since they absolutely abhor business—and super-Christians are all for the right, but we’re leaving them out since they hardly waiver. (And, of course, not all teachers vote left and every serious businessperson for the right, but a majority of them do—so we’re generalizing.)

Now you see why conservatives openly talk about government cuts. People affected don’t support them anyway. Likewise, liberals are comfortable bashing the rich because that’s not where they’re getting their vote. It’s also not surprising that the Alberta NDP instantly raised taxes only on the wealthy and didn’t cut one civil servant job (or a penny from anyone’s pay) when faced with tremendous deficits. They’re appeasing their base. But who’s most important are the swing voters. Ones that either party can lose if they don’t play their cards right. These groups are hard-working, blue-collars and naïve do-gooders.

Hard-working, blue-collars

Hard-working, blue-collars (or industry workers) like leaders they can relate to. Not intellectual supremacists who talk down to them, or artsy-fartsy weenies like Stephane Dion. They like real people who speak their language. That’s why they love guys like Ralph Klein, Doug Ford, and Donald J. in the States. He or she doesn’t have to be a genius.

Naive do-gooders

Naïve do-gooders are emotional believers who can easily be fooled. As a group they don’t need protection since they’re typically strong and productive. As a matter of fact, they’re net contributors to the system—not looking for a handout. What they want is the social status of being nice. As long as you make them feel this way, you’re good.

Years ago, society shifted to a system where parents became more nurturing and these kids grew up to be great. Not only did they become good people but goodness became a core to their being. And this new social status has affected everyone. Modern left and right-wing political machines have tapped into this need and preyed upon it. They’ve created the stigma that nice people only vote one way, by flooding the world with documentaries that make you feel bad. And sure, some of this is justified but give me a break—any serious issue deserves to be looked at from both sides. Think people, think.

Summary

Today’s parties chose leaders who can bring home the vote. They don’t need to be stars who can actually run the country or issue wisdom from high above. What leaders need is the ability to relate to everyday people and then make us all feel good. And sure, not every reader likes to be labelled and placed into a slot, but don’t kid yourself—pollsters look at this stuff.

Senate Reform

For years, people have been saying Canada’s senate is broken because it’s appointed and has veto powers. Most democratic thinkers don’t believe such power should rest with an appointed body. There are three popular alternatives:

  • Elected and powerful
  • Appointed and advisory
  • Abolished

The senate could become worthy of its authority by being made elected, it could be stripped of its power and changed to an advisory body, or abolished all together.

The elected option asks whether we need to appease a separate circle every time we wish to pass legislation. The advisory option isn’t as lame as you think — because that’s what Britain does. And abolition would remove a number of members (assuming they’re redundant) thereby saving a whack of cash. In all cases, constitutional change is required, which is a very big deal.

Constitution

Our Canadian system requires that any change to the constitutional be adopted by the House of Commons, the Senate, and 7 out of 10 provinces — representing over 50% of the population.

Our constitution, patriated in 1982, has had 11 minor amendments but both attempts at major change have failed. The Meech Lake Accord (1987) attempted to get Quebec’s endorsement (they didn’t sign in ’82, but are still bound). It failed when Manitoba and Newfoundland couldn’t ratify the changes by the deadline. The Charlottetown Accord (1992) tried a similar thing but was defeated by a nationwide referendum. Both accords occurred under leader, Brian Mulroney.

Supreme Court

Our constitution is a legal document that legislators can’t get around. That’s why we have a supreme court to ensure every piece of legislation is legit. So no matter how important the House may think it is, politicians can’t pass anything that violates the constitution. As a result, the Supreme Court is a power check on our elected officials.

England

Cheery old England was initially ruled by a monarch who relied upon nobles for help. In 1215, the nobles forced King John into signing the Magna Carta, which made him share power — specifically in the area of raising taxes (he couldn’t raise them without them). 50 years later, England added an elected element called the House of Commons. So they had a three-tier system:

Monarch <==> Appointed House of Lords <==> Elected House of Commons

Power gradually shifted to the elected body, highlighted by the Glorious Revolution in 1688. That’s when the monarch’s role changed to that of a constitutional monarch — meaning, he or she still had executive powers but those powers were assigned by the elected house.

More importantly, for the sake of this discussion, the House of Lords continues to be appointed. Previously consisting of only the rich, today’s group includes distinguished members from across many fields. Not just former prime ministers and military chiefs, but also senior industry leaders and artists who’ve formed the country’s social fabric — basically, citizens valued for their opinion. And though virtually powerless, this body is heavily influential when it comes to public opinion. For example, during the debate over the 2003 invasion of Iraq, views from the Lords were greatly respected.

USA

Established in 1776, America also decided on a three-tier system. But in their version, the king is elected (president), house representatives are elected every two years (not four), and the senate is elected to six year terms (one third, every two). Plus the senate is geographically representative by holding two members per state. Add a constitution and supreme court, and you see Yanks are loaded with checks and balances.

Yes, the president has executive powers but he or she cannot pass money bills or go to war without the consent of congress (the house and senate).

Canada

Canada liked the American twist of regional representation but kept the British style of making the senate appointed. And herein lies the issue. Maybe that was good for 1867 but is it still relevant today? (Especially knowing that Britain has declawed their own.)

In our 2015 federal election, the NDP were in favour of abolishing the senate while Stephen Harper wanted it elected. (Harper actually tried to appoint only senators who were first elected within their respective provinces but the premiers didn’t go for it). Our new liberal government likes the idea of an appointed body and have opened it up to where anyone can apply (kind of like getting on a game show), but the Canadian senate still owns voting powers. In the end, the debate will continue until the country reaches some consensus because we don’t want to open up the constitution until we’re really sure something will pass.

Notes: The US Senate was initially appointed by state legislatures. The 17th amendment, passed in 1913, changed it to elected positions.

Before 1982, we just had the British North America Act (with no local amending formula) and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Both were incorporated into our constitution. To see the whole package, click here.

Meech Lake included changing the amending formula from 7 out of 10 provinces to all 10. This new formula was used for passing the accord. That’s why Manitoba or Newfoundland could bring it down.