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.

Hate

Emotions today are definitely running wild, especially when directed toward the President of the United States. With Donald, you can’t help but feel something. But are political sentiments out of control and spreading anger where it doesn’t belong? Many are now using the term hate.

In my church we weren’t allowed to hate. Father John called it an expression of evil—warning of its power. Granted strong feelings are certainly part of nature, but Plato’s dictum was that life’s a battle between feelings and reason. And emotions rarely act alone. When you learn to love, it usually spreads. Making the world a better place. Unfortunately, things work the same way with our darker side. People are now turning their anger for one to core supporters and anyone with something positive to say (like, friends and neighbours). Let’s start with his base.

The base

Not everyone makes $80K/year, then hooks up with a partner whose parents front them the deposit on a house. There are loads of paycheque-to-paycheque people who rent. These are the folk often described as Trump’s base.

In 2016, many (including people of colour and yes, legal immigrants) were looking for work. They saw Trump as a better bet to provide jobs. We then witnessed the proof behind the pudding. President T delivered more jobs, at higher wages, with greater take home pay, and didn’t touch entitlements (pensions, Medicare). But instead of being treated like any other group that voted for itself, they’ve been labeled as “racist pig farmers bolstering swastikas.” And sore losers employed banjo sounds as their inference.

Racists? In a country that voted twice for Obama? How many are there? And who are the real constructive racists, those living and working with minorities or clued out suburbanite do-gooders wishing to feel good? Don’t kid yourself, do-gooders also voted for themselves.

The rich

“Ya, but the Republicans gave a tax cut to the wealthy.” Are you sure? In the US, the top federal tax bracket was reduced from 39.6% to 37%. In Canada it’s 33%. Should we bash Canadians?

Provinces and states then add to the federal rate. Our provinces add more and provide healthcare. American states add less and don’t. It’s just a different system that they’ve been arguing about for years. If states add back the 2.6% (as per Arizona 2020), you’ll have nothing to say. Leave it to them.

Cages

“Screw you. Trump puts babies in cages.” “Everyone is bad who supports such a person.” Really? How much research did you put into this topic? How long do they stay there before the whole family is released into America, bypassing millions waiting in line? Is this the first administration to use separation as a deterrent? And what’s the current system anyhow? Is it the same as Canada’s or much more generous?

More important, WHAT DO THESE CAGES LOOK LIKE? Are they kennels used to house dogs or big gymnasiums like with flood victims? Bottom line is: if you view someone as favourable, you look into outrageous claims. When you have a penchant for dislike, you don’t need many details.

Summary

We’re all emotional. That’s the way it is. And everyone has times when they wish to lash out. But remember what Plato said: life is a balance between reason and emotion, and reason must win. Propaganda artists go straight for the heart because that’s easy. This time they’ve gone too far. Hate is a dangerous emotion that can bring down nations. Adults must rise up and act according to values. Don’t respect just the people you voted for, do it with everyone. And always let reason be your guide.

Since we’re talking politics, let’s end with a story about Justin. One day, in junior high, future PM had lunch with his dad at the House of Commons cafeteria. A member of the opposition walked by and Justin made a snide remark. Pierre said, “In politics, you never disparage the person. Only the position.” Father then took son by the hand and introduced him to the Conservative member. Now you can’t blame Justin for his action—he was just a kid. I did the same thing when I was 12.

The Charity System

People think a large part of their taxes go to helping the disadvantaged and the poor, they don’t. The majority of tax dollars come right back at you through government services like education and health care. It’s the charity system that provides most of what our less fortunate receive, plus a whole lot more. Shelters, food banks, and employment for those with disabilities all come from this block. So along with business and government, charity provides all the goods and services we see today.

Types

Canadian charities can be broken into five categories:

Education (universities and colleges)
Religious (every church, synagogue, and mosque)
Health (Cancer Foundations, Lung Associations, Heart and Stroke, Canadian Liver Foundation, Alzheimer Societies, etc.)
Benefits to the community (Boys and Girls Clubs, Crime Stoppers, Humane Society, John Howard Society, Rotary Club, Kiwanis, Special Olympics, Valley Zoo, etc.)
Welfare (Big Brothers and Big Sisters, homes for troubled youth, senior centres, food banks, Chrysalis, Edmonton Oilers Foundation, Telus Foundation, United Way of Alberta, etc.)

So they do a lot of stuff, primarily going where governments can’t go. And don’t forget our NGOs (non-gov organizations) like World Vision that work internationally.

Free market

Know it or not, charities operate within the free-market system. Why? Because governments don’t want to be fully involved. Here are some reasons:

Anyone can start a charity
- Society doesn’t have to wait around for government to assess a need. And gov doesn’t have to approve or disapprove of any particular cause.
Charities raise most of their own funds
- Government foundations help but the majority comes from individuals and business. So if a charity can’t convince people of its purpose, it folds.
Charities naturally close when their job is done
- The government doesn’t want to be in the business of closing down perceived benevolent causes. It’s a political hot potato that would be in the papers every day.
Charity boards oversee quality and value
- Again, quality and value are not the government’s responsibility. Each charity has its own board accountable for program performance and cost efficiencies.
Lots of free labour
- Charities operate using tons of volunteers (including board members), which obviously are free. Governments could never get away with such a thing.

To avoid humongous costs and social liabilities, government gives way to its friend. Charity fills in cracks by going where governments can’t go and communities can’t operate without them. Simply put, along with business and the public sector, the charity system is a pillar of society.

Summary

Okay, okay, so where do they get the funding? Well, rather than pay all taxes rich people can direct some to various causes. Governments still need to pay bills, so it all can’t go here. But way up high, at the very, very top, senior officials have this whole thing worked out. And it’s good. The downside is that some people cheat. They’ll donate to their foundation, only to expense a trip to Hawaii to “assumedly” check out a rainforest. A little deceptive. That’s why charities get audited. (Momma didn’t raise no fools.)

Long story short, we have a good system. Business does this, government does that, and charities fill in the rest. There’s always the question of money being put to good use but that’s where the competitive side of the free market comes in. In the end, it all works. And in my opinion, just great.

Tribalism

Lots of talk these days about tribalism, even in places like Canada. Apparently we’ve changed over the past few years and can no longer communicate. Experts say we’re now different people and it’s all in the brain. What a crock. Here’s what’s happening: US cable news stations are stimulating a fight that makes them a whack of dough and there’s a demographic shift going on that’s bringing lots of new people into politics. Net result: inflamed rookies sitting at the table.

History

Over the years, US news agencies have played with their format. Initially, you got 30 minutes per day from a broadcaster who provided no clue as to how he or she voted. They were professionals. Then in the 80s, the industry adopted the 24/7 option, which worked great for royal weddings and natural disasters. Hello CNN.

Whenever there was a fire or a flood, CNN was there. And they’d stay for days. Half-hour news couldn’t compete and 24/7 cable did well. But this new style had its problems. As soon as the disasters ended, CNN would return to a handful of listeners. Back then viewer mentality was to watch 24-hour news for big events and then jump back to regular TV.

Fox entered the 24/7 scene during the mid-90s. They opted to specialize in political news. Right-wing to be exact. And they flourished. So much so that Microsoft and NBC combined to create an opposition station. So you had Fox News on the right, MSNBC on the left, and CNN in the middle. That was until recently. Today the people at CNN have moved into the one-sided business. They’ve joined MSNBC as the “Fox News of the left” and viewership and ratings now look like this:

Fox = MSNBC + CNN

Many wish they would have told us before making the switch but given the current situation, you can’t blame them. Too much money and the success of reality TV says you have to give the public what it wants. So the numbers at Fox now equal those of the other two combined and the market for bias-based news is expanding. As a result, the polarization everyone is talking about is being caused by the people doing the talking. (Funny, hey?)

Rookies

Now add in a bunch of rookies to the situation. Veteran political-watchers know all about format changes and are aware of WWF-style broadcasting. They checked out long ago. But whether it’s faster internet connections, educated boomers hitting the right age, access to information, the persona of Trump, or people getting smarter, a bunch of new folks are watching the news.

Certainly a positive if you take it as a social step forward (more people care) but nobody told newbies about the rules. As a result, this entertaining trash talk is yielding emotionally charged neighbours just itching to fight. So what’s needed is a basic understanding of how this whole thing works.

Amplify the monster

In the one-sided world, you don’t just casually pick on the other guy. You really let ‘em have it. For example, president Obama wasn’t the son of a Kenyan father, he was a Muslim terrorist who’d sell out the country at the drop of a hat. And billionaire Donald isn’t a businessman with a few economic ideas, he’s a racist slut. That’s how we do it.

Pollsters long ago discovered that toe in observers react strongly to emotion, so they amplify the monster. Cable news is all about brightening the demon so you see only the worst side. And then they jack it up by pounding and pounding, over and over. None of this is reasonable. No serious follower gives any of this credit but it sure is entertaining. And beyond the regular duty of promoting advertisers, WWF is currently upsetting the nation. Rookies don’t yet know how to view bias from both sides, leading to exaggerated beliefs and nasty fights.

And not everyday battles where you walk away thinking me only stupid. Now you’re questioning my ethics. Why? Because the continued pounding permeates your skin and you actually start to believe this stuff. So guess what happens? You tell someone. But if they’re watching the opposite station, you’re starting a fight. The type that cuts deep.

Real News

This demonizing of leaders is readership gold and the American media has never made so much money. Just think, when have you consumed so much news? And lots of nice people are being roped in. But as always, it’s a step towards progress. If you’re interested in US politics, here’s a recommendation:

PBS – a little left, but you can deal with it. Try Brooks & Shields on Friday nights. David is a nice republican who writes for the New York Times and Mark is a classic (but realistic) democrat.
Firing Line – also on PBS, is an old conservative show re-imagined by Margaret Hoover. Margaret’s husband is a lefty and the show is well done.
Face the Nation – CBS’s Sunday morning entry. I find it better than NBC’s Meet the Press and ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. The lady is very professional and remains emotionally uninvolved.
C-SPAN – the granddaddy of them all. This station has proper interviews with real politicians and is what every news organization watches to get their information.
And if you really like to read, try Real Clear Politics. It simply lists articles from all over the web, alternating between positive and negative views. Like a neutral player.

Plus don’t forget our Canadian outlets. Can-news is the best news and most providers are top notch. They’re also worthy of your support (i.e., take out a subscription). From the National Post (mostly right), to the Globe and Mail (little right), to CTV’s 24-hour news channel, you always get reliable information. And heck, even the CBC is good (though a little left).

Summary

Canadians are now talking in secrets, like Americans do. And this inability to discuss politics is a violation of intimacy. Not a good thing among friends. The US system is different and that’s why it’s interesting. Down there they argue before passing legislation and representatives often exercise independent vote. Our system goes like this: government decides what it will pass and members vote as they’re told. Efficient yet boring.

Another big word these days is populism. Every election is said to be the result of it. Another term that’s ridiculous. Real populism is when the market changes and providers adapt. Like when we started drinking water, Coke offered Dasani instead. Same goes for the news. When people say enough of this one-sided, reality TV journalism, organizations will react. And when that day comes, the programs and stations listed above will flourish. Buy stock.

Stage III

One of the ways politics gets confusing is how we use the term liberal. Officially it means two things: freedom (both economic and social) and an ideology to describe political parties. Most everyone agrees with the first (freedom), the second is now coming to an end. To better understand, let’s look at history.

Stage I

Government was initially run by a single person, typically some dictator or a king. People went about their day in accordance with sovereign views until things changed in the late 1600s. That’s when Britain overthrew its monarch and made elected parliament supreme. France soon followed and later came the US.

In the early days, parliament took only two forms—one designed by the British and another by the French. In Britain, there were two parties, Conservatives and the Whigs. They took electoral turns while the other played loyal opposition. No matter what the government proposed, the other’s job was to object. If government said raise taxes, they said “no way”; if government said let’s have Sunday shopping, opposition said “not a chance.” Under this system, before any bill could pass it had to be thoroughly thought out and fought over. Kind of like an argument going on inside your head.

In early France, everyone advocating for change sat on the left side of the chamber and those preferring things stay the same sat on the right. Terms we still use today. Again, with this system there were proposals and objections—just like with the Brits.

Stage II

A second stage came when the Whigs changed their name to Liberals and adopted an ideology. As a party they stood up for two things: social freedom away from the Bible and the creation of a welfare state. Remember, the separation of church and state was a large part of democracy but much of religion remained within law. And at the time, economic productivity was just reaching the point where a welfare state was even possible.

The hallmark of this movement occurred in 1904, when Winston Churchill crossed the floor to join the governing Liberals and usher in Britain’s first welfare state. Then as time went by, more cons wanted to join in. They were called progressive conservatives.

Common beliefs

Within any political system there are always three boxes. A wide one along the bottom—to represent what everyone believes—and two more on top, to show differing views.

In Canada, our common beliefs rectangle is pretty thick. There’s little of Christianity left within our system and we boast a pretty robust welfare state. So at least in our country, the Whig agenda has won. Liberals are currently finishing things off through doctor-assist (Bible), legalizing dope (Bible), and beefing up CPP (welfare state). After that, there isn’t much left. So where do we go when we mostly agree? And what’s the new difference between liberals and cons?

Stage III

Going forward leaders will be more about competency than ideology, and issues will be more individual than according to theme. Yes, parties will be different but not along Whig-Liberal lines. Conservatives favour eliminating unnecessary business regulations but shouldn’t everyone be doing this—they’re unnecessary. They’re also big on personal responsibility, but even under left-wing governments I don’t qualify for welfare. So no matter the stripe, there’s only so much dough to go around.

In Ontario, Doug Ford campaigned against McGuinty-Wynne debt but is this Liberal policy? Paul Martin ran 13 federal surpluses and belongs to the same party. Wynne privatized hydro and invested heavily in R&D. Couldn’t conservative government have done the same thing? And how about Alberta’s NDP fighting for pipelines?

When NAFTA was redrafted, it was strictly business. Any party could have done it. Same goes for banking regulations, privacy laws, and increasing the minimum wage. And like it or not, other than maintaining or increasing the welfare state, when it comes to economics, we’re looking for optimal standard of living. So no matter your slant, it must work within human nature. Raising taxes too high makes the gifted give up, and no economy can operate like that.

Summary

In Canada we’re pretty lucky. We’ve never been overly religious so resistance to social change was soft. For example, conservatives opposed gay marriage and 10 years later passed it into their party platform (making the argument gone for good). We’ve also been fortunate financially, which made building a welfare state rather easy.

Today’s challenges are postmodernism on the left and US-style wackos on the right. Liberals seem to be linking to some PM causes and for some reason crazies like the prospect of lower taxation. In both cases it’s important to vote down the middle. I don’t know enough, but postmodernists seem to lack brainpower and may be riding on the Whig-Liberal’s good name. I doubt it’s something I’ll fight for. Likewise, I don’t understand the American beef against social programs. Isn’t government supposed to operate monopolies?

Bottom line: we’re mostly good people who all want the same thing. Yes, we get divided by what goes on in the States but they’re not us. Down there it’s a different situation that varies by a lot. Up here life is mostly good. Let’s hope we don’t wreck it.

See also Left is for Liberal and Conservatives.

Democracy

Over half the world’s countries now operate under some form of democracy. But things haven’t always been this way and most places had to host an uprising to get it. So let’s take a look at the status of voting.

Initially

Initially the world was inhabited by cave people and the toughest guy became boss. After they left, we were ruled by various forms of monarchies. Britain had its kings and queens, Russia its czars and czarinas, Austria and Germany had their kaisers and kaiserins (though women weren’t allowed to rule), and of course China and Japan brought us all those dynasties (with emperors and empresses).

These systems lasted throughout most of history until people finally got fed up. Sure, some of them were good but one-family rule came with two inherent problems: How to kick the bums out? And what if the kid’s a fool?

Democracy

Democracy lets us pick leaders, which is great. It also lets us choose representatives and which ideology we’d currently like to employ. No more incompetent, ruthless bastards for 30 years followed by some idiot kid. So hurray for democracy. But there’s another blessing that comes along—it’s safer for the neighbours.

In a popular interview, President Obama admitted something that’s exceedingly well known. “The longer a dictator stays in power, the weirder they get.” Not all of them. Thailand lost its king a few years back and the country is still in mourning. And the reign of Queen Elizabeth I has gone down as a wonderful time in history. But most of us know that if you’re not continually forced to earn your position, one tends to get kooky. And this weirdness can lead to deviant behaviour, like wanting to go to war just to honour your name.

Alternatives

Anyway, once the monarchy was overthrown not every country acted the same. Some banished them forever, some kept them in a ceremonial position, and some reduced their powers gradually until they became a ceremonial position. But once the crown was gone, nations had only four choices:

Democracy
Military Dictatorship
Dictator-style Communism (e.g., Cuba)
Party-style Communism (e.g., China)

Democracy is obviously what we love in the West but remember it’s still new. Part way through the 20th century there were only twelve—with Britain, America, and France making up the big three. (Note: Canada, Australia, and New Zealand were on the list thanks to the Brits.)

Dictatorships are either military based (generally through a coup) or founded on a leader who gains support of the military. These were popular in Central and South American plus Mexico. Dictators would then either leave the economy alone or convert it to communism.

The last option is what Russia did. Host an uprising to bring about a more formal version of central rule. Within party-style communism, the next leader is chosen by the party (what China used to do). Within dictatorial, it goes to a relative (e.g., Cuba).

Note: You also hear the term fascism. It’s supposed to be a dictator supported by the corporate elite but many times it’s just a dictator who didn’t switch to communism. Technically, there have been only three: Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco in Spain. Franco’s story is least known but the best one. When the democratically elected government decided to switch to communism, Franco led the charge against it. Now that’s different—a capitalist dictator fighting elected communists.

Challenges

Anyway, the problem with democracy is it has many requirements. Like, all parties have to be decently qualified. Why? Because people don’t put much effort into their vote so virtually anyone can win. And if elected officials are of poor quality, they can really screw things up. So all parties have to be somewhat good, or at least decently qualified.

Second, adopting countries must learn from the pros. Older democracies have already figured out you need to separate church from state. This means you can’t have a religious party that wants to implement a faith-based constitution. It’s too restrictive for when you educate your people. Third, you need established parties who fight like cats and dogs. Democracy is an exercise in exhaustion. Ideas have to be totally thought out and battled over, and a significant chunk of the population must participate. (That’s why we have lousy dinner parties.)

Plus you must instill a general mindset. People have to go from “Billy’s the boss” to majority rules. Both are natural but “majority rules” is definitely the step up (just watch kids play in a schoolyard). And there’s an established protocol for getting there. First you must get your economy going, then educate the people, and last, build the political infrastructure. But unfortunately, that’s not the way it always works out—most nations have to fight for it.

Summary

If there’s one thing I know it’s that people will fight for freedom. We humans have an internal calling for better. I also know that power doesn’t transfer easily. That’s why attaining democracy repeatedly involves violence. It’s the ugly side of progress (and Canada got lucky).

The easiest places have already been converted. Take Poland—one tribe, one language, one religion. They went from A to B in an historic jiffy. The rest will be more difficult. Like Ethiopia—90 tribes, 88 languages, and 3-4 major religions. Certainly, a tougher situation.

Of the 80 remaining countries most will experience some sort of civil war on their path to the polls. Toss in modern day weaponry and you can picture the rest. And with all the uprisings, occupations, and wars, it’s reasonable to question the worth of it. Are the benefits of democracy worth the costs? Well, when the dust settles it sorts out to this: people get freedom, a higher standard of living, and the ability to live in fairness. Plus every other nation gets to have a friendly neighbour. Which is why you’re having it, like it or not.

What’s Up with Green

Back in 2006, Al Gore told the world about climate change. The planet was warming and it was all our fault. He said both nature and man put up greenhouse gases—and though nature puts up more, it brings down its fair share. What man puts up, stays up. So the idea was for man to emit less, until we get to none.

Citizens of the world united and along with industry and government, we began to make change. New methods of generation were invented and we became creative in lessening our needs. So how are we doing at controlling this mess? And where’s the report on getting us green?

People generated greenhouse gases (GHGs) come in two forms: making energy and using it. Making energy is the process of generating electricity and things like exploring for oil. Using it includes light bulbs, transportation, and heat.

Electricity

Other than veal parmesan, electricity has to be the greatest invention yet. Unfortunately, it’s also a major cause of GHGs. Here’s where your power comes from:

coal-fired plants
natural gas fired plants
nuclear
hydro (e.g., Quebec’s Churchill Falls)
wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, and other

Coal is dirtiest. Natural gas is 50-60% better, but still not green. Nuclear is green, but in decline. So only the bottom two are viable non-emitters. Hydro is great, but can be hard to get to. Wind is now real (no joke), solar is selling, and some of the others are showing results.

To make dirty better, coal-fired plants are being replaced by natural gas and carbon recapture is being developed for both. Canada is number two for hydro and we’ve been at it a while. In fact, we get 60% of our power this way. Denmark generates 42% of its electricity from wind. And solar is being used for remote locations and in much of the third world.

In total: coal is being phased out and much more power is coming from green.

Oil and gas

Other than the above, natural gas is used for heating homes and olive oil isn’t what drives your car. So though Canada can boast about power, we still have long winters and travel pretty far.

Our fuel industry has taken flack over how they capture their goods, especially in Fort Mac. But extraction methods are now better and the oil sands is a different place than when Leonardo first visited (causing such fuss), but it’s not the same as digging a hole. In terms of regular production, lots of improvements have been made and the future looks bright.

Long story short: whether for power generation or personal use, the harvesting and burning of fossil fuels is getting cleaner.

Consumption

We’ve also been working on use. Between fancy light bulbs, putting on a sweater, and taking the rickshaw, we’re actually gearing down. Over the past 10 years, energy use in the first world has remained flat, despite population growth. This means the increase in people is being offset by per capita reductions, and there are some really cool stories. For example, 39% of Norway’s cars are now electric (and this figure will be 100% in seven more years).

Closer to home, Edmonton just bought 40 electric buses and three provinces (ON, QC, and BC) have incentives to buy green cars (hybrid or electric). Insulation in new homes has been improved greatly and every furnace and appliance is much more efficient. So conservation is up.

And it’s no secret higher density areas were the quickest to act. Why? Because though a truck in Iowa spews the same GHG as a truck in LA, the one in LA causes pollution you can see. That’s why many supporters didn’t need science to believe—they were sold by the smog.

Carbon taxation is another way to entice people into doing more. It raises the price of home heating and gasoline so you’ll turn down the thermostat and get a smaller house. Then maybe use transit or buy more efficient wheels. It worked in BC because they lowered provincial tax at the same time (so it was a shift). In Australia they made it an additional cost and voters revolted. Tossing the party and policy after only two years.

Deniers

The media still hosts one-sided debates over the validity of the cause. Crusaders say it’s a crisis while doubters call it a hoax. But that’s not what’s happening on the street. Regular people are never so radical. Most of us know it’s best to leave the campsite clean and that air quality counts.

And for the most part, the fight appears to be dead. It never made its way into boardrooms and the most maligned players are leading the charge. Every country is sensitive to global warming and each company has a plan. So what we’re really talking about is speed.

Most of this is normal. Whenever we face change there is one group in favour and another to resist. Modern day battles are louder because more people get involved, but no matter what delusion your party has you under, green energy is happening and we’ll get there when we can.

Summary

Understanding energy isn’t easy, but it comes down to electricity, transportation, and heat. One plan is to get all power from clean sources and then use it for everything. And in the short term, use fossil fuels the best we can. Here’s how we’re doing:

Wind is now real. The US gets 6% of its power this way, up from zero just twenty years ago. In Germany it’s 13%, India 10%, and you already know about Denmark (42—going to 80 in a few years).
Electric vehicles are also real. Not only in Norway, but now that technology is improving it’s sure to succeed. Already a number of countries have indicated they’re going this way and if Edmonton can buy these sorts of buses, it’s gotta be real.
And solar is being put into the craziest of places. Why? Because powerlines don’t run everywhere. So if it’s a crew in the boonies or some guy in a hut, you need a TV. And believe it or not, Italy is leading the way with 7% of its power coming from sun.

Of course, lots of this gets subsidized and many projects have failed, but that’s normal for new innovation. You don’t hit a home run your first time out. So solar and wind simply needed some breaks (no different than older resources). And remember, hydro has always been good.

Bottom line: the decision has been made and we’re headed for green. Leaders aren’t taking us back to horse and carriage, they just want lower emissions. And though some saw the election of Trump as a major setback, he didn’t tell Tesla or GE (because there’s no stopping this).

One day we might invent a spaceship that goes up with a carbon broom to clean, but until then we’re watching the planet. Industry and government make up the plan, our job is to support it. And if you’re still really confused, pretend we’re fighting air pollution—with a twist.

Note: A shout out goes to people who bought the first generation hybrids—those things were ugly. And how about all the potheads in Holland? Who would have thought they’d come up with such an invention?

The Politics of Faith

A previous article on faith says there are four types of believers: fundamentalists (who take things literally — declining), progressives (those committed to faith while open to interpretation — growing), “lights” (attend church but don’t get too involved), and God-only deists (believe in God but not religion — also growing).

Throw them together and we have a diverse congregation trying to figure things out. Add in rising education levels and exposure to almost everything (thanks to the web) and you see why change was about to happen. Here’s what’s up inside the church.

Progressives

This gay marriage thing has largely affected the institution. Not so much in “light” countries like ours but in the States it’s tearing churches apart. American Christians are now being faced with choosing between Christ and the rest of the Bible. Christ’s message was “love thy neighbour.” How do you reconcile that with “gays are no good?”

Tensions are so tight that young-minded, educated, socially immersed members are redefining what they believe. Sayings like “put Christ back into Christianity” and “if the Bible conflicts with love thy neighbour, then the Bible is wrong” are appearing everywhere. So much so that a new movement to look for divinity elsewhere (and everywhere) has emerged within the community. Pretty strong stuff for a bunch of Ned Flanders people.

Simply put: they’re arguing over the Bible and what’s appropriate for church behaviour.

Two parts

Religion has always had two parts: socially control the masses and bring meaning to life through philosophy. The simple-minded have always been happy with authority; the educated now want to talk meaning. And it’s this last group that’s growing.

Buddhism and Confucianism provide philosophies without naming a god. Neither attempts to claim divinity over doctrine and say, regardless of what you believe, let’s all live together. Classic religion is different. Not only does it name a god, it claims all rules and philosophies come from Him (the boss). This may have worked in the past but you can’t keep educating people without expecting them to think. The educated and free don’t like spiritual rules, especially when imposed upon them. They strive for feel good, do good, disciples on Earth stuff.

There’s a revolution going on inside the church today. Clergy is losing control. And this whole thing might come crashing down like the fall of communism. Not personal belief or the desire to connect with a god, but the assumption Christians will vote as they’re told. A big deal in the US because, down there, Christians can be counted on to vote right.

US Politics

In terms of attitudes and types, Canadians and Americans aren’t far apart. We’re similar people but there’s a difference in how we vote. In the US, they’re equally divided between left and right, where in Canada we’re two-thirds lib and one-third con (that’s why we have four left-wing parties). Church is a big part of that.

The article Who Votes What describes how politicians view demographics. On the left we have government employees, tree-huggers, low-income earners, and naive do-gooders. On the right there are serious businesspeople, hard-working blue-collars, seniors, and social Christians. In the States, this amounts to 50-50. Once Republicans can no longer depend on large margins coming from faith, they won’t be able to keep up. So the liberal yin won’t have a sufficient yang, which doesn’t bode well in a two-party system. Enter Trump.

Whether by fluke or by design, the president has taught the party a thing about marketing. He’s always focused on the working class. Those making $20-45K / year without a fancy education (e.g., renters). This group is who the Republicans will target to replace Christians—by keeping their taxes low and ensuring they always have a job.

Summary

It goes without saying that voters are never this simple but I’m sure you get the point. There is truth in demographics. The American right constantly talks about abortion because it keeps the troops in line. (Something that would never work in Canada because we’re not that Christian.)

Does the US need to expand its system beyond two parties? No, their way is better. It aligns closer to what is real life. Throw in some compromise and you arrive at what the University of Toronto calls integrative thinking (a third way coming from two). The system is good. They just need to redefine the teams. And after all the changing is done, it’ll come down to the rich and poor against the middle class. A much more Christian combination.

Socrates and Greg

Greg is a Canadian conservative still hung up on the fact that Justin Trudeau won the past election. After all this time, he still can’t believe this guy is PM. The situation was eating at him so bad that he called upon his old friend, Socrates, for advice.

Socrates: “Hello Gregorus. You seem upset.”

Greg: “Upset! I’m pissed. This Trudeau kid is getting under my skin. I’m used to following leaders who are strong, intelligent, and visionary. This guy is a dud. And for a man of my space and time, it’s bothersome.”

Socrates: “Then are you saying that only a lawyer or businessperson of substantial success should be allowed to hold such a position? That in fact, the doctor, the dentist, and the engineer must be discounted though they are surly citizens of able intellect? And what is democracy if not the ability for anyone to run? What of the meteorologist, the dog catcher, and the acrobat? Should they too be banned from winning?”

Greg: “No, no. I guess anyone should be able to run.”

Socrates: “And is it not true that this Justin is somewhat of an educated man with at least some knowledge as to the workings of government? So in essence, it could be said that he is in fact, not the absolute worst choice?”

Greg: “Well ya, I guess he’s not all that bad.”

Socrates: “And can it not also be said that one person alone does not run a nation? That in fact, many qualified others stand firmly behind the office to help government accomplish what it must. And that in reality, it’s the quality of the committee that determines the quality of government?”

Greg: “Well ya, I guess it takes more than just one person.”

Socrates: “And is it not true that no one person has ever been fully qualified to hold such a posting. That in all cases, governments are run by a committee. So that even if a particular boss is light on economic or legal matters, it’s the committee’s job to govern the nation—while the PM acts solely as a front man? And that this notion is in fact not only plausible but perhaps better than strong man rule?”

Greg: “Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay, you’ve got me. I was being unreasonable and am now willing to give this guy a chance. But there’s one thing that’s still bothering me—this name, committee. Couldn’t we come up with a better term? Something with a little more sense of competence and foresight? Have you any ideas?

Socrates: “Oh, I don’t know. How about the politburo?”

P.S. For the real answer see Modern Decision Making.

#YouToo

This article isn’t about the #MeToo movement and trying to draw out the fakes. With over 17 million posts among 80 countries—they must be saying something. And even if 20% are found to be false, that’s still an overarching theme. No, this article isn’t about that—it’s about journalistic slander and what could happen to you.

A new movement, that has nothing to do with the above, is afoot for survivors of media abuse. The hashtag is already reserved and victims are welcome to post. The message is clear: public figures should be entitled to a reasonable defense before being hung out to dry.

Let’s use the example of Megan Tilley, student council representative in Hogsburg Virginia who accidentally forgot to feed the school pet. Megan was vilified in the school paper until one day — ahh, let’s get to Patrick Brown.

Patrick Brown

We’re not going to play lawyer or bash drunk people not conciliatory with sex. Let’s make just one point. If the allegations say there were only two people involved, it should be ethically possible for Patrick to defend himself before CTV takes the story to air.

#HeToo should be allowed to bear witness and the media should take him serious, especially when only two people were in the room. Plus you can’t tell him at 2:00, and then fry him at 4:00. This guy should have been given a few days to put together a case.

The public reacts strongly to this type of smearing because we assign credibility to the source. It’s not the Hollywood press. And for most, it means the end of a career. So whatever the motive, we need a paradigm for dealing with this—basically, a journalistic protocol for taking someone down. How about a system like this: CTV receives the allegation, does their investigation, decides Patrick should fry, contacts Patrick, lets him plead his case, fries him anyway, but allows Patrick a small column to defend himself. This way readers know some quality was involved.

Ethics

Pork producers aren’t allowed to rest on their honour. Inspectors are ever present to ensure standards get met. Same with much of the construction industry and airlines. But journalism regulates itself. And though it’s widely believed that legislation would never work in this field, there must be a cultural ring around freedom of the press. Codes of conduct should be determined and it wouldn’t be bad for the courts to weigh in. Because Canada, we need to get this right.

Democracy requires an environment where candidates feel comfortable to run. And though a lot of people see this as a postmodernist trick to get more women elected, I have news for you. They’ve expanded misbehaviour to include verbal abuse (and we know who has more ghosts in that closet). Besides, all little Megan did was forget to feed a fish.

I sure hope Patrick sues and gets the law involved because we do need a protocol for taking a guy down. Personally, I’m not worried since I’ve led an exemplary life. There’s nothing in my past that CTV could pin on me. No, I’m perfectly safe. I’m just worried about you.

Fake News

Everyone is questioning the quality of news these days. Wondering and doubting if the institution is still good. So before giving the nod to the Canadian press, let’s take a look.

Bias

Fake news is when you lie about something, like Hillary has fangs. Everyone knows this is wrong but hiding the truth is equally as bad. With fake news you at least have a logical chance. When a reputable source fails to remain neutral on a delicate issue or intentionally leaves out some of the facts, it’s actually worse.

In the olden days, television gave you twenty minutes a day and within some outlets this practice remains. This format provides all the basics and news anchors never tip off how they vote. Granted, stories they tell and the order in which they appear are selected by management but the world was never intended to be perfect.

Old time newspapers acted the same way—mostly sticking to the beef. But they also offered editorial, where opinion intersects with fact. Yes, some papers leaned this way and some lent that, but they provided views from both sides to preserve balance. And anyone caught cheating from the ethical standard was usually called out. This practice has changed.

Canada vs US

In the world of 24-hour news and hundreds of agencies, American journalism has become a zoo. In Canada things have remained mainly the same and there’s a reason for that. Our parliamentary system forces more responsibility onto the press. You see, we usually have majority governments that can pretty much do as they wish. So the quality of our news is essential to maintaining a loyal opposition. The American system has checks and balances built right in. Their media doesn’t have to be fair.

Because of this internal watchdog, US media takes on more liberty to spice things up—acting like an eternal campaign machine. This makes them always left or right leaning and comfortable with the style of interlacing opinion among fact. But in Canada we simply cannot commit this sin. For the sake of our system, we need to sustain a credible press. And these two forms must stand apart. News is news and editorial is just that—free opinion

Summary

Part of the trick is understanding where journalism fits. The primary intention isn’t to educate. Its job is to keep you up-to-date. So if you hold basic understandings, you’ll find it useful. If not, you need to buy some books. There is no substitute for a genuine education.

If you enjoy hearing about America, get it from multiple sources. It’s not like they mix up the weather or lie about sports, but their written word on politics is always loaded with bias (which says Americans should be getting their news from us).

Note: Down there you hear the term “left-wing media” but that’s not totally true. Their left has the majority of TV and newsprint, but conservatives kick butt on talk radio and YouTube. So Americans get ample brainwashing from both sides.