Entry for today with no special title

Wonder what the freezies are doing? Looking at the calendar, October month enters its final full week of seven suns.

Amazing that I am still in short sleeves. Looking at a small closet of jackets I ponder when next it will be cool enough to don this garb.

There are upsides to global warming.

Harper, Hillier and Hooey

Last week according to news and media reports, Stephen Harper, Canadian Prime Minister, un-extraordinaire, basically admitted that the only reason that Canadians engaged in Afghanistan solely for the reason because the Americans wanted it. And toilet goes flushing the reconstruction, security and we are bringing democracy premise for our armed intervention in another society.

Harper springs forth with the motto that such arguments are against supporting the troops. Nothing can be further from the truth. It is entirely consistent that the efforts that our military are putting forth are to be credited with excellent and exceptional work consistent and surpassing our expectations. Even then it is their reports that indicate the futility of the task seems a running deer.

And it is a task set forth by an Ottawa based government entirely in cow-tow position to a renegade superpower mad about the world swimming in an Olympic size pool of self delusion. Even historically the scope and tactics employed by our armed forces have been proven quite inefficient for the last two thousand years.

Only Alexander the Great succeeded in Afghanistan. General Hillier appears no Alexander. Alexander got results. Hillier constantly trips on his sword and tongue. Canadians are fooled because the media confuses his farcical self-promoting strutting at every photo op as soldierly.

He is no Patton. Patton got results. Using his troops as a vehicle to personal glorification, he appears a hero. A word, here. I grew up with men returned from a World Wars. I know heroes. Hillier remains far from heroic.

Soldiers shouldn’t be allowed into such circumstances. One takes every word of their proclamations that they are doing good in Afghanistan as gospel truth. Soldiers do not control society by their intellect, they exercise social control by the weapons they carry.

Also the casualty list is both a curse and a boon to government. At the time of writing 71 Canadian souls have been lost due to this conflict. Seventy-one people should be mourned but in reality it is such a low number for such a conflict, indeed such a statistic should be considered exceptionally low.

Even the Afghans can’t control Afghanistan. Nor are they a united people. They never have been. Afghanistan is only a region inhabited by a small number of warring, feuding tin pot war lords whose only concern is their poppy powered bank accounts,. not with social harmony and not with social advance. Without a central figure to control their anarchist martial attitudes they persistently devolved into civil war with no recorded exceptions. They are barbarians unto themselves.

Now Harper and the neo-Conservative fundamentalist Christians believe that this mission must be extended. Morally this is unforgivable. Our compact, our agreement with the NATO allies will be filled. In every sense the European allies of NATO are the ones that have skirted their responsibility to the alliance. This was supposed to be a NATO mission. Like the Canadians, NATO was dragged into this by an American need to control the Iraqis oil patch.

Even the Americans have only so many troops. The American Christian right failed in their goal in Afghanistan. Osama still rides his horse. The Americans failed in Iraq. New Orleans city paid the price.

One of the most hilarious events was the recent release of a poll claiming that about 70% of Afghans support foreign troop intervention. This must be very similar to the Russian polls of the early 1980’s which stated that 70% of Afghans announced support for Russian military intervention. This is also likely consistent with Taliban polls which will certainly indicate a 70% support for insurgency. 70% of Afghans will say anything anyone wants to hear.

Understand that such a response bears no malice. Rather such a response comes from survivors. These people survived warlords, invading armies and other do gooders. They care little for “free world” government forms. Their preferred government form is the traditional tribe and chief rather than the elitist abstract forms of imposed government. Eventually they will have a democratic form of government but in no record has a will for democratic reform been imposed from outside a state.

In 14 months our present military responsibility ends. Regardless of the situation, for Canada’s government and the Canadian army that contract has been filled. It should not be continued in its present form.

The contention to extend the present military mission is entirely ludicrous. First, one of the biggest spin of rational emanating from this conflict is the Afghan cultural demand for honesty. It is a mechanism to respect. How can any Afghan elder respect the word of a Canadian officer or agent when to this point they have always stated that they weren’t in Afghanistan to stay. Extending the mission means that foreign troops intend to stay. If Canadians leave when they say we will leave, means that our word means something.

The big military pitch has always been to approach Afghan village elders as guests. Guests who do leave, when they say they are leaving, always earn a welcome back. Guests who overstay their welcome are poison in Canadian society, and more so in Afghan society.

We can go back if invited. We are more likely to carry more cache of diplomacy with Afghans if we keep our words to the letter of the contract. It is more ethical to do what we say.

One of the most recent pitches for staying has been Hillier’s bleating about the need to train Afghan police and soldiers. Well during World War II, Canada trained thousands of people, in Canada. It would be far cheaper, far more secure and far more effective to train these police and soldiers in Canada than Afghanistan. Canada trained allied pilots and spies in the safety of our borders.

All the teaching tools are here. Southern Alberta and the Caribou Chilicotin mimics topographically Afghanistan. So all the teaching material would be here. The student troops could train without fear of sudden attack. They can be prepared better for combat here than over in the wrecked facilities in Afghanistan.

The best full training for such forces would be in Canada not Afghanistan. When they return to Afghanistan they would be fully trained and experienced to defend themselves. Now that the Conservative government has spent all this money on new airplanes the traffic to and from Afghanistan of these training troops.

We could fully train 3 to 4 Afghan police and soldiers in Canada for the same cost of maintaining a single Canadian soldier in Afghanistan. And the Canadian government could fund that training as our contribution to the NATO effort. And in employing such a strategy, we could achieve the original warm aims far more efficiently, more effectively and more quickly. Don’t train the Afghan army and police in Afghanistan. After six years of trying, that pony won’t learn that trick. If there is a need to train police, train them here.

RIP MMP

That sound… a scream.

That sound a scream of joy. The idea of Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) representation crumbles in the dust of its own stupidity. That scream erupts from air ripping vocal chords in emotional display mouthed with a hoo-ray.

A scream of despair. The proponents of MMP groan in terrible pain as the elitist concept gets ground into the dustbin of history. 103 selected citizens, mostly the Premier’s concept of citizens, (all sporting red hearts, brown noses grunting like abandoned Peccaries.) allegedly grouped together and came up with this idea.

Such a proposal then provides the punch line of either one of two jesting queries:

1. How many Liberals does it take to come up with an actual idea?

2. How many Liberals does it take to come up with a very stupid idea?

One answer for both. 103.

We could have this on Jeopardy.

Alex: Okay the only remaining category Liberal Patronage?

Contestant: Stupid ideas for $120 Alex.

Alex: (Ding) 103… one … hundred and … three

(Boop, boop boop … boop)

Need an answer.

(((((aaja;fjapp))))

Contestant: What was the number of stupid butt kissing, brain farting, cater eating Liberal panty waists who recommended MMP?

(ding, ding, ding, ding, ding ding.)

This is being written in the early morning and not having the actual figures all the radio reports indicate the magic sixty percent was achieved and that is rejection. A big fat NO.

The media is sort of muted. Many alleged television journalists sort of were sure that this measure would pass. Liberal supporters took it for granted that since this was a committee of brainy trusts that everyone would naturally fall for the line.

Opposition to it from mostly print media journalists grew during the last days and overwhelmed the lazy campaign of the pro MPP forces. It was a tsunami of opposition.

This doesn’t mean that I am opposed to election reform. There is a better alternative.

First the province does need a few more MPPs re-established and not necessarily along Federal riding boundaries. Federal ridings follow a design based on the National needs and criteria. The Provincial legislature should define those boundaries along Provincial needs and demands.

Second run off elections similar to the process used in Europe would work. In Ontario’s case a run off election would be triggered by a plurality of less than 49% and a less than a vote lead of less than 12% or less than 42%. Which means that if those criteria are not met the top two vote getters would have a run off election 14 days later.

This system would assure that a certain majority in each riding would vote for the elected member. Such a system assures that the new member has received a definite number of vote support entering the legislature. Oh never mind. It will never be accepted it makes sense.

RIP MMP

Constricting Canadian democracy

The other side of the debate

Have you ever wondered why the Ontario Political Parties are almost universally in support of the proportional representation idea? The official name is something like Mixed Member Proportional Representation (MMPR). Such a new structure doesn't represent Joe Citizen. It is a change designed to garner more power for the individual political party leaders.

They all state that there will be a full disclosure of the list of party candidates. Mind you this is to fix a system they claim is broken. The first questions that must be asked are: Is it the system? Or is it those managing the system?

In short, the present system works fine if those driving it were competent. It is the poor manager that blames the system. And the present system worked for hundreds of years. Such a change like MMPR will permanently diminish the voter's access to the politician. It transfers political power from universal sufferage to political party compacts.

Here is why.

Representation Comparison

To compare the United States of America (USA) constitutionally began as a people’s republic. One person, one vote. The representatives swear to uphold the people’s Constitution. On their ballots, the political party comes first.

In the case of Canada the constitutional formation evolved from the British experience in quite a different manner. Canada was and still is a constitutional monarchy. And Canadians forget this at political peril. In Canada, the Member of Parliament (MP; MPP; MLA) swears political fealty to the Crown and represents a district called a Riding.

Why use the word political peril? A peril exists because the entire Canadian political structure evolved in an environment so different than the USA. Canadian colonial precursors fought wars to keep that political affiliation intact. In the USA the Congress represents the people of the Nation. In Canada the people are represented through the Crown.

The USA presently evolved as a rather homogenous mono-culture even politically. The USA possesses ten times the population compared with the Canadian population statistics. Geographically the USA is smaller.

Proportional representation presents a far major shift to divisive party politics. Each party nominates a candidate to run in each election presently. In Canada, on the ballot it is the person who represents a riding not the political party. In proportional representation a list of Candidates is presented to some sort of cesspool of politicians and those party favorites, these party special lists represent. In no case are unaffiliated people nonparty members qualified for political appointment.

In the present electoral system the focus is on the individual candidate in each Riding. Now the focus will change. In this present system any person can run independently. In the new regime only political hacks would be available for governing. This new aspect of MMPR impairs political government represented by the Crown. In our system of government ideally the MP or MPP should be representing the Crown.

Along side of this one must remind oneself that in the Republic system there is no such thing as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. The implication is clear. With this new system the opposition will only be loyal to the party that selected that individual not to the Crown, the people of Canada or the people of Ontario.

Political Instability

A peril because one of the most important features of the Canadian voting wisdom has engendered long periods of what is called majority governments and short periods of minority governments. While uncomfortable for those in opposition, the so called first past the post system has brought governmental stability and as a result economic, social and cultural stability.

Unlike the USA the Canadian government depends on the voting support of most of the members of Parliament. In the US, conceived in the blood of rebellion, the government executive functions apart from its legislature. Often the party that controls the Congress is not the same as the party controlling the Executive Branch of that Government. In that case the government decision making process is compromised and stifled.

Some people advocate a more USA like political system and in a Parliamentary structure that brings disaster because the responsibilities are different. It means potentially political chaos and even a more intransigent political structure benefiting only political parties.

In most systems where Proportional Representation exists there maintains long periods of minority coalition governments. In Canada, in Ontario the Riding and its constituents are placed ahead of the political party. With the advent of the Proportional Representation the advantage, the control of government shifts away from the Crown, the people to the hands of the mandarins of political parties. These people only care about themselves and care little for Joe Citizen. The power shift from away the people, and to the political party is the prime reason why all the Ontario political parties are for this resolution. It kills the Parliamentary system slowly in a strangulation of party politics in an environment of coalition politicians which they control.

Advocates claim otherwise citing specific examples like Sweden. In every manner Sweden is so unlike Canada on so many levels. Sweden is a very small country physically. Sweden is a mono-culture. Sweden’s political systems work far different than the British evolved Canadian system. In most cases, Proportional Representation, stifles government.

Riding vs. Constituency

Diminishing citizen access highlights the argument why so applies in much of Southern Ontario. Recall that earlier the emphasis on the idea of Crown representing Canadian Joe Citizen. Each MPP represents an area.

One of the largest myths is the absurd idea that in Canada there is a one person one, vote idea. So in almost every set of Riding redistribution hearings since then, there has been an idea about all ridings being approximately equal in population. It is the over riding goal albeit a twisted one.

This is always worth repeating. While an ideal, this equal population only works if the foundation of the state is a popular republic. Unlike the USA Congressman the MPP just doesn’t represent the people in Parliament. The MPP also represents the Crown to her/his Riding. Canada is a representative monarchy. The MPP swears to the Crown as the representative of the people. The MPP is not the people’s representative. Rather they are the responsible elected agent of the Crown to the people.

Again in all this, presently political parties are entirely secondary to Canadian government. Ontario political parties only wish to deprive Joe Citizen of even that political right. Political parties wish to control the Ontario parliament, the people, the Crown be damned.

Lets define what a Riding began as. In times of yore it was decided by the Crown that population was the secondary consideration to political access to that MPP. A “Riding” was a distance that a single rider or riding MPP could cover in the space of one day. From the idea it wasn’t just the idea of one person one vote but also it was firstly the idea of one person equal access to government.

As it evolved into the 19th century, the idea of political access predominated. In a city with dense populations the access could be divided into access by statistics. But in the rural districts it was political access that had to be considered first. Every citizen not only has an equal vote but every citizen must have an equal access to government.

In the federal government redistribution circa 1974, there was a significant shift from the idea. An MP from Northern Ontario named Keith Penner fought hard against this change since it began the decline of political access to government by citizens. His arguments ring to this day. Basically it was an injustice to such a large important territory so critical to Canada lose political power simply because of a lower population compared with a dense urban area like Toronto.

When Parliaments evolved the idea of political access dominated versus a population factor for represenetation. How does this work?

Presently I live in Toronto not by choice. The riding in which I live probably has about 120,000 or so. To access my MPP I simply have to walk up to College Street and walk into his office. Also there is the option of simply going to a ceremony or community social function or funeral. The MPP should likely be there.

In Northern Ontario, today that same political access to Crown representation is not there. The MPP is an able hard working person but cannot give the same quality of representation. The size of his “Riding” is too large. The office is in Thunder Bay. Despite his best efforts the MPP cannot go to the social functions or funerals that urban MPPs can. Simply stating. A Northern Ontario Joe Citizen has far poorer access to representation than a Toronto Joe Citizen.

Even though there maybe only 80,000 people in the riding and in theory the MPP represents far fewer people the quality of representation remains mitigated by geography, distance and adverse climates. Since 1974 that quality of representation has reduced significantly and Northern Ontario residents are only second class citizens due to an inane drive to determine Ridings based on population alone.

This inequality resides in rural southern Ontario as well although not to the significant degree. An MPP in that Riding can drive to any social function within several hours travel and be back in the legislature the very next day, but the rural citizen doesn’t have the same easy access to political representation Toronto residents do.

Now with the advent of Proportional Representation this access will be even further diminished. A city like Toronto or London has more members. They will chose those members by outright vote to be the ones nominated to that class of MPP. In Northern Ontario the only representatives that will represent them will be only those members that southern Ontario party members chose.

The only difference between Northern Ontario Joe Citizen’s access to political influence and the rural person in southern Ontario is only in the degree. Proportional Representation, if adopted is simply a naked power grab by urban centric political parties.

Political responsibility

And who gains access to these proportional MPs? In a Riding/Constituency system the MPP remains uncomfortably responsible for that Riding. A proportional MPP doesn’t answer to anyone save the political party they belong to. They will not have the same right to cross the floor in a dispute with their political party mandarins. Political freedoms so long protected by historical evolution are now gone if Proportional Representation is adopted.

Again, who does the Premier or Cabinet member be responsible to if she/he is a Proportional Member? People do not have the right to complain to this person. The idea violates the very heart of Parliamentary democracy because Proportional MPPs are responsible only to the parties political, not the people, not the crown, only to a vested interest.

And this is why few Political Parties stand up to oppose this faulty idea. Proportional Representation skews and begins the wrecking of the Canadian, of the Ontario political system. And the personal rights to equal political access for all is further diminished.

Paradoxical Conundrum

Great problems espousing support for any political party in this election. It is an example of a paradoxical conundrum.

Regardles of which side I would speak in support, the feeling remains the same. No matter which, I would be speaking like an idiot.