Occupy Canada

The Occupy [Insert Location] movement is coming to Canada.  Now, why can't the tea party movement come here?  It's not fair, dammit.  I guess Canada's conservatives are just too busy with their jobs and families (except for me).

Canadian organizers of the so-called Occupy movement are ramping up efforts to rally "against spiritual wickedness in high places" during a global day of action Saturday that now has the backing of at least a couple of major unions [unsurprisingly], and has put police and businesses on alert.

Thousands in at least 15 Canadian cities — from Vancouver to St. John's — were holding meetings Friday to complete plans for the weekend marches, sit-ins and other efforts to decry what the movement says is an uneven distribution of wealth caused by government policies favouring big business.

 So its communism they're demanding.

"I'm encouraged to see citizens rightfully stand up and take action against what are gross injustices in our economic and social structures," said CAW national president Ken Lewenza in a release Friday.

I thought that's what the tea party was for.

"It's time for people to take ownership of their streets, their economy and fight back against corporations and governments championing right-wing, neo-liberal policies that support a select few, at the expense of the majority."

I thought that's what left-wing policies did.

Canadian police units, notably in Toronto and Vancouver where the G20 protests in June 2010 and hockey riots this past June, respectively, have led to violence and arrests, have for days been planning their strategies for handling the Occupy protests. 

Police officials have been as tight-lipped about how they'll handle Saturday's mass events as the Occupy Canada organizers, who keep a low profile and let their Facebook, Twitter and other social networking efforts drive their planning.

No matter what happens, I predict there will be complaints of police brutality.  There always seem to be when left-wing protests are concerned.  However, when a large, unruly crowd is threatening the safety of people and businesses, the police should be able to do whatever they have to (with reasonable limits, of course), to contain that crowd and prevent any further escalation of violence.  If the Stanley Cup riots in Vancouver are any indication, hooligans will use any excuse to create further disorder.

Tom Caldwell, chairman and CEO of Caldwell Securities Ltd., which has offices in Toronto and New York City, also isn't exactly sure about the Occupy movement's goals.

"The medium is the protest but what is the message?" he said.

I think the goal of the movement is communism, or at least socialism.  At the very least, it is an excuse for professional protesters to protest over nothing in particular.  I see this movement basically as a manifestation of an emotion-driven desire to turn North America into a left-wing "utopia".  But, with powerful American politicians that are sympathetic to the movement, such as Barack Obama, who knows how much influence this movement will have.  Perhaps Obama will take the movement as America wanting socialism, and I believe he is delusional enough to think that.  Maybe he will enact far-left policies in an attempt to appease the participants of this movement, thinking it will gain him votes.  Or maybe he will simply use this movement as an excuse to enact far-left policies.  Fortunately the Republicans control the House of Representatives.  I wonder what creative (/sarc) ad hominems Obama, the Democrats, and other liberals will use for the Republicans in this hypothetical situation.        

Ugly Canadianism

I came across this old GayPatriot post and I was so disgusted that I had to say something.  That post quotes an article from Avocate.com from 2006 (the original source is no longer availabe).    

As a Canadian, I want to apologize. For many years, I looked down on you. I sniffed at your capital punishment, right-leaning government, and massive military. I would comfort myself with the sense that I was better than you. After all, I’m a Canadian.

But all that changed on January 23 when Canada elected a conservative government with ties to far-right organizations. Boy, was I wrong!

Our sense of superiority grew in 2000 when you elected George W. Bush. With that came talk of a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, the refusal to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol, and last, but certainly not least, the invasion of Iraq. In those six years, I have never felt happier or more proud to be Canadian. And I rubbed it in every chance I got: Whenever I would bump into one of you Americans at a cocktail party, it was attitude, attitude, attitude.

I’m sorry for that—I really am. There can be no more smug attitudes. No more sneering self-righteousness. No jokes about your fascist state. Welcome to the new Canada: Our prime minister, Stephen Harper, says he is opposed to same-sex marriage and is willing to appease his base by reopening the issue—meaning a potential rolling back of gay rights in our country. And he has promised to withdraw Canada’s support for the Kyoto Protocol. Worst of all, when Bush set out to invade Iraq, Harper was the only party leader in parliament to rise and say we should be alongside the United States in that unjust and immoral war.

I have several things to say about this appalling piece.  Firstly, not all us Canadians are like this.  In fact, most that I have met aren't.  However, there is a prevailing attitude that I have noticed among Canadians that Canadians are superior to Americans.  It's not usually hostile in nature, but it's disturbing nonetheless.  Secondly, this guy is clearly a piece of work.  It is quite common for a liberal to hold conservatism or centre-right politics as inferior, just because liberals are "enlightened" (or something).  There is no logical basis for this sense of superiority.  And this guy perfectly demonstrates their mindset.  He simply dismisses "capital punisment," a "right-wing government," and a "massive military" as things to look down upon.  His attitude is unsurprising given "enlightened" liberals' tendency to view those things as barbaric.  He doesn't bother do give any reason why those things are inferior.  They just are.  And this seems to be a typical tactic used by leftists.  After all, they are the smart, enlightened intellectuals, while conservatives are dumb, old-fashioned bible- and gun-clingers.  That is the universal and absolute truth.  No amount of facts or evidence can contradict that truth.

Of course, not all leftists are adhere to that view.  There are many reasonable ones, as I have acknowledged many times before.

But this guy shows how some liberals think.  Anything conservative is to be looked down upon, from the comfort of knowing you are better simply because you can feel "warm and fuzzy" about your liberal views; and that you are compassionate and espouse love and tolerance.  How ironic that your view of conservatives is based on misrepresentation, and that your lack of tolerance for opposing viewpoints is exactly what you purport to be opposing.  I don't know how many on the left would agree with this guy, so I can only speak to him.  But I am sick of giving liberals the benefit of the doubt.  Based on my experience alone, while there are reasonable liberals that will make an effort to tolerate conservatives, most of them won't.  In this case, it is up to the liberals to show their reasonableness.

As for his accusations of the Conservative Government's "ties to far right organizations," I have never heard anything about this.  But, I am not going to look into it because, according to this guy, the USA's Republican Party would probably be considered a "far right organization," even pre-tea party.  From what I can tell, it's just basically meaningless rhetoric attempting to dismiss conservatives by labelling them as extremists, an often used tactic.  It's the same thing with his use of "fascist," which any grade 10 social studies student should be able to tell him he is using incorrectly.  His lack of understanding of the meaning of a simple political term should discredit his whole article, but it doesn't because his obvious irrationality already does that.  

Do Not Elect Bob Rae, Please

Whenever the Liberals elect their new leader, I really hope they do not elect Bob Rae.  He gets under my skin.  When he speaks, he comes off as arrogant and combative, and like he is speaking down to the Conservatives because he doesn’t agree with what they are doing (such as calling one of their new policies “stupid”).  It feels like he is lecturing them about how they should be doing their jobs.  It is very annoying, and I would prefer not to have to listen to him.  If he is elected, he will, of course, speak quite often.  And he certainly doesn’t represent the Liberals very positively.  If most “undecided” people think he is as annoying as I think he is, it would not be a good idea to elect him.  

Is Canada Becoming a Police State?

To answer the question that constitutes the title of this post, no.  Of course not.  What an absurd thought.  To those that believe it is, may I suggest moving to Myanmar?  Perhaps that will allow you to see what an actual police state is.  I am a strong believer in “infringing” on people’s rights.  Not their fundamental, inalienable human rights, but the rights that allow them to get away with crime (such as the “right” to privacy).  A reason for jeopardizing that right should be necessary, but it is simply too easy to commit crime because it is too difficult for police to do their jobs. 

It is said that it is preferable for one thousand guilty men to be free than for one innocent man to be incarcerated.  To that, I say, “Huh?”.  If one thousand guilty men were free, as well as one innocent man, then there is the potential for at least one innocent person to become something worse than incarcerated.  The point of a criminal justice system is to lock criminals away from society (to keep society safe), not to keep innocent people from being locked away from society.  At least one possible solution to this is to rid of all these technicalities that free obviously guilty people.  And if someone is probably guilty (beyond reasonable doubt), then it makes sense not to free them.  I reckon the phrase “beyond reasonable doubt” has become meaningless (or its meaning has transformed into “beyond the slightest possibility of doubt”). 

Some actual possible solutions: install conspicuous cameras everywhere (in public, of course), allow for random locker searches (lockers are the property of the school, after all), allow for random drug tests, and give police more power in general, while also limiting it.  Personally, I see no harm in any of this.  I welcome any arguments as to why it may be harmful. 

When I hear of accusations of police brutality, or other such accusations against the police, I am usually skeptical.  That someone would make such an accusation for political gain is quite easy to believe.  I do think that there should be an independent agency that performs investigations into police conduct, because sometimes these accusations are genuine, but I would conjecture that some people just have an unreasonable sense of what “rights” they are entitled to, and how the police should treat suspects (as if they were their grandmothers, or something).  And, given what the police do, I believe they deserve the benefit of the doubt.  

Should Quebec Get More Seats?

The Conservative majority is planning to redistribute the legislative seats among the provinces, so they are more proportional to the province’s populations.  This means that British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario will receive more seats.  I believe this should automatically happen when the census data is released, like in the United States. 

However, this seemingly innocuous action (redistributing the seats to be more proportional to the population) is causing some controversy.  And, like most controversy in Canada, Quebec is at the centre.  I, like many Anglophone Canadians, harbour contempt toward Quebec.  The reason for this is that Quebec’s French majority is resentful of being a minority nation-wide (or some such thing).  The idea of Quebec separating from Canada is somewhat popular in Quebec, and they use the threat of separation as leverage to gain special privileges.  In Canada’s constitution, Quebec is defined as “a distinct society,” giving it a seemingly superior position above the rest of the provinces.  Indeed, the Quebecois seem to have a large sense of entitlement, as if they deserve special privileges.  And, they are now demanding more seats in the legislature, despite having a disproportionately large number of seats already.  The NDP (Canada’s farthest left major party) is apparently supporting this.  Quebec is arguably Canada’s most left-wing province, giving the majority of its seats to the NDP in Canada’s most recent federal election (consequentially, the majority of the NDP seats are from Quebec).  Personally, I can’t believe anyone is actually taking this seriously.  Fortunately, the Conservative majority will not likely allow this to happen. 

I could care less whether or not Quebec separates.  Pandering to them, however, is completely unacceptable.  The fact that it happens in a first-world country is appalling.  

Showing a Good Example

Dick Cheney received quite the reception in Vancouver last night.  Promoting his book at a $500-per-ticket event, attendees were welcomed by a perpetually angry crowd demanding Cheney be arrested for war crimes (with no evidence, of course).  In an ironic twist, these people, supposedly protesting violence, managed to knock several people attending the event over, despite a large police presence and a chain of police officers separating the protesters from the pathway the attendees used to enter the event. 

I’m convinced that these people travel around looking for things to protest.  And these protests are ugly; they’re not the typical protests where people stand still peacefully holding signs.  These people get in your face, and loudly yell very judgemental things like “do you have no moral compass?”  By now, it should be quite evident that the title of this post is sarcastic.  These people, liberals, of course, do not show a good example.  This kind of behaviour makes all liberals seem crazy, but I’m sure these people represent only a small portion of the liberal population.  So, I ask reasonable liberals to distance themselves from these lunatics and denounce their behaviour.  Demonstrating that you resort to questionable tactics to make your point is not a good way to get people on your side, in my opinion.  In fact, I would bet that average people dismiss the opinions of radicals. 

While I’m on the topic of protesting, I will address the protests over the oil pipeline that is proposed to be built between Hardisty, Alberta and Houston, Texas.  Some of the protesters in this case, as well, resorted to questionable tactics to get their point across.  Acts of defiance, with the intent of getting arrested, just to make a point, does not, in my opinion, make any point other than “I’m mentally ill.”  What sensible person would actually volunteer to be arrested for naught but symbolism?  Not one, I reckon.  There are legitimate concerns about this pipeline, including the potential (but unlikely) risk of the contamination of the Ogallala Aquifer, which was, in fact, raised by the Republican governor of Nebraska.  To me, it seems counter-productive to protest in such a way, because these people are radicals, and their actions do not reflect well on their credibility.  As I said before, average people likely do not take their views very seriously. 

Which is also a reason why I believe the Tea Party movement has gained such momentum.  Not only does the Tea Party represent a common sense approach to solving the USA’s financial problems, but Tea Party protests are also civil (despite their depiction in the increasingly irrelevant mainstream media).  So, the Tea Party movement, unlike certain liberal protesters, are showing a good example.  

“Theatre of the Absurd”

Here are some excerpts from Benjamin Netanyahu’s excellent speech at the UN in response to Palenstine’s bid for statehood (emphasis added) (h/t Frugal Cafe):

Ladies and gentlemen, in Israel our hope for peace never wanes. Our scientists, doctors, innovators, apply their genius to improve the world of tomorrow. Our artists, our writers,enrich the heritage of humanity. Now, I know that this is not exactly the image of Israel that is often portrayed in this hall. After all, it was here in 1975 that the age-old yearning of my people to restore our national life in our ancient biblical homeland — it was then that this was braided — branded, rather — shamefully, as racism. And it was here in 1980, right here,that the historic peace agreement between Israel and Egypt wasn’t praised; it was denounced! And it’s here year after year that Israel is unjustly singled out for condemnation. It’s singled out for condemnation more often than all the nations of the world combined. Twenty-one out of the 27 General Assembly resolutions condemn Israel — the one true democracy in the Middle East.

Well, this is an unfortunate part of the U.N. institution. It’s the — the theater of the absurd. It doesn’t only cast Israel as the villain; it often casts real villains in leading roles: Gadhafi’s Libya chaired the U.N. Commission on Human Rights; Saddam’s Iraq headed the U.N. Committee on Disarmament.

You might say: That’s the past. Well, here’s what’s happening now — right now, today. Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon now presides over the U.N. Security Council. This means, in effect, that a terror organization presides over the body entrusted with guaranteeing the world’s security.

You couldn’t make this thing up.

So here in the U.N., automatic majorities can decide anything. They can decide that the sun sets in the west or rises in the west. I think the first has already been pre-ordained. But they can also decide — they have decided that the Western Wall in Jerusalem, Judaism’s holiest place, is occupied Palestinian territory.

...

Ladies and gentlemen, when I first came here 27 years ago, the world was divided between East and West. Since then the Cold War ended, great civilizations have risen from centuries of slumber, hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty, countless more are poised to follow, and the remarkable thing is that so far this monumental historic shift has largely occurred peacefully. Yet a malignancy is now growing between East and West that threatens the peace of all. It seeks not to liberate, but to enslave, not to build, but to destroy.

That malignancy is militant Islam. It cloaks itself in the mantle of a great faith, yet it murders Jews, Christians and Muslims alike with unforgiving impartiality. On September 11th it killed thousands of Americans, and it left the twin towers in smoldering ruins. Last night I laid a wreath on the 9/11 memorial. It was deeply moving. But as I was going there, one thing echoed in my mind: the outrageous words of the president of Iran on this podium yesterday. He implied that 9/11 was an American conspiracy. Some of you left this hall. All of you should have.

Since 9/11, militant Islamists slaughtered countless other innocents — in London and Madrid, in Baghdad and Mumbai, in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, in every part of Israel. I believe that the greatest danger facing our world is that this fanaticism will arm itself with nuclear weapons. And this is precisely what Iran is trying to do.

Can you imagine that man who ranted here yesterday — can you imagine him armed with nuclear weapons? The international community must stop Iran before it’s too late. If Iran is not stopped, we will all face the specter of nuclear terrorism, and the Arab Spring could soon become an Iranian winter. That would be a tragedy. Millions of Arabs have taken to the streets to replace tyranny with liberty, and no one would benefit more than Israel if those committed to freedom and peace would prevail.

This is my fervent hope. But as the prime minister of Israel, I cannot risk the future of the Jewish state on wishful thinking. Leaders must see reality as it is, not as it ought to be. We must do our best to shape the future, but we cannot wish away the dangers of the present.

And the world around Israel is definitely becoming more dangerous. Militant Islam has already taken over Lebanon and Gaza. It’s determined to tear apart the peace treaties between Israel and Egypt and between Israel and Jordan. It’s poisoned many Arab minds against Jews and Israel, against America and the West. It opposes not the policies of Israel but the existence of Israel.

...

Hezbollah and Hamas fired thousands of rockets against our cities from the very territories we vacated. See, when Israel left Lebanon and Gaza, the moderates didn’t defeat the radicals, the moderates were devoured by the radicals. And I regret to say that international troops like UNIFIL in Lebanon and UBAM (ph) in Gaza didn’t stop the radicals from attacking Israel.

We left Gaza hoping for peace.

We didn’t freeze the settlements in Gaza, we uprooted them. We did exactly what the theory says: Get out, go back to the 1967 borders, dismantle the settlements.

And I don’t think people remember how far we went to achieve this. We uprooted thousands of people from their homes. We pulled children out of — out of their schools and their kindergartens. We bulldozed synagogues. We even — we even moved loved ones from their graves. And then, having done all that, we gave the keys of Gaza to President Abbas.

Now the theory says it should all work out, and President Abbas and the Palestinian Authority now could build a peaceful state in Gaza. You can remember that the entire world applauded. They applauded our withdrawal as an act of great statesmanship. It was a bold act of peace.

But ladies and gentlemen, we didn’t get peace. We got war. We got Iran, which through its proxy Hamas promptly kicked out the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian Authority collapsed in a day — in one day.

President Abbas just said on this podium that the Palestinians are armed only with their hopes and dreams. Yeah, hopes, dreams and 10,000 missiles and Grad rockets supplied by Iran, not to mention the river of lethal weapons now flowing into Gaza from the Sinai, from Libya, and from elsewhere.

Thousands of missiles have already rained down on our cities. So you might understand that, given all this, Israelis rightly ask: What’s to prevent this from happening again in the West Bank? See, most of our major cities in the south of the country are within a few dozen kilometers from Gaza. But in the center of the country, opposite the West Bank, our cities are a few hundred meters or at most a few kilometers away from the edge of the West Bank.

So I want to ask you. Would any of you — would any of you bring danger so close to your cities, to your families? Would you act so recklessly with the lives of your citizens? Israel is prepared to have a Palestinian state in the West Bank, but we’re not prepared to have another Gaza there. And that’s why we need to have real security arrangements, which the Palestinians simply refuse to negotiate with us.

Israelis remember the bitter lessons of Gaza. Many of Israel’s critics ignore them. They irresponsibly advise Israel to go down this same perilous path again. Your read what these people say and it’s as if nothing happened — just repeating the same advice, the same formulas as though none of this happened.

And these critics continue to press Israel to make far-reaching concessions without first assuring Israel’s security. They praise those who unwittingly feed the insatiable crocodile of militant Islam as bold statesmen. They cast as enemies of peace those of us who insist that we must first erect a sturdy barrier to keep the crocodile out, or at the very least jam an iron bar between its gaping jaws.

So in the face of the labels and the libels, Israel must heed better advice. Better a bad press than a good eulogy, and better still would be a fair press whose sense of history extends beyond breakfast, and which recognizes Israel’s legitimate security concerns.

...

I bring up these problems because they’re not theoretical problems. They’re very real. And for Israelis, they’re life-and- death matters. All these potential cracks in Israel’s security have to be sealed in a peace agreement before a Palestinian state is declared, not afterwards, because if you leave it afterwards, they won’t be sealed. And these problems will explode in our face and explode the peace.

...

The Jewish state of Israel will always protect the rights of all its minorities, including the more than 1 million Arab citizens of Israel. I wish I could say the same thing about a future Palestinian state, for as Palestinian officials made clear the other day — in fact, I think they made it right here in New York — they said the Palestinian state won’t allow any Jews in it. They’ll be Jew-free — Judenrein. That’s ethnic cleansing. There are laws today in Ramallah that make the selling of land to Jews punishable by death. That’s racism. And you know which laws this evokes.

Israel has no intention whatsoever to change the democratic character of our state. We just don’t want the Palestinians to try to change the Jewish character of our state. (Applause.) We want to give up — we want them to give up the fantasy of flooding Israel with millions of Palestinians.

President Abbas just stood here, and he said that the core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the settlements. Well, that’s odd. Our conflict has been raging for — was raging for nearly half a century before there was a single Israeli settlement in the West Bank. So if what President Abbas is saying was true, then the — I guess that the settlements he’s talking about are Tel Aviv, Haifa, Jaffa, Be’er Sheva. Maybe that’s what he meant the other day when he said that Israel has been occupying Palestinian land for 63 years. He didn’t say from 1967; he said from 1948. I hope somebody will bother to ask him this question because it illustrates a simple truth: The core of the conflict is not the settlements. The settlements are a result of the conflict. (Applause.)

The settlements have to be — it’s an issue that has to be addressed and resolved in the course of negotiations. But the core of the conflict has always been and unfortunately remains the refusal of the Palestinians to recognize a Jewish state in any border.

...

There’s an old Arab saying that you cannot applaud with one hand. Well, the same is true of peace. I cannot make peace alone. I cannot make peace without you. President Abbas, I extend my hand — the hand of Israel — in peace. I hope that you will grasp that hand. We are both the sons of Abraham. My people call him Avraham. Your people call him Ibrahim. We share the same patriarch. We dwell in the same land. Our destinies are intertwined. Let us realize the vision of Isaiah — (speaks in Hebrew) — “The people who walk in darkness will see a great light.” Let that light be the light of peace.

I apologize for not posting this sooner, but it is quite a long speech and I haven’t really had the time to read it fully.  Having said that, it is a great speech.  Mr. Netanyahu makes some excellent points, both about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and about the UN, which is, indeed, a theatre of the absurd. 

I do not understand anti-Israeli activists.  It does not make sense that they would ignore facts and so zealously condemn a modern, liberal nation in favour of one in stark contrast, one that, unlike Israel, oppresses its women and homosexuals.  I guess it’s the cool thing to do.

Furthermore, I want to applaud Stephen Harper for his firm support of Israel.

In spite of my often-critical tone toward my country, I am proud of Canada right now.  I am proud that the majority of Canadians elected Stephen Harper’s Conservatives into a majority government, despite the controversy that preceded the election; and I am proud to belong to a country whose leader is a such a firm ally of Israel’s.  Canada’s “progressive values” notwithstanding, these things give me a reason to be patriotic.   

Greece: The Economic Black Hole

Thanks in part to the establishment of the Eurozone, Greece’s terrible economic situation has affected the rest of Europe immensely.  Greece doesn’t have a large economy itself, but Europe as a whole does.  Add to that the economic situation in the United States, and Canada’s relative economic stability is becoming more and more unsound.  We are teetering on the event horizon of the black hole that is Greece.

I don’t know what is wrong with Greeks.  They don’t seem to understand the situation; unless they embrace severe austerity, they will default.  I can’t imagine why anyone in Greece would be so outraged at the prospect of austerity.  I mean, they don't pay their taxes, and they still expect the government to pay for everything.    

Some Thoughts on 9/11

I write this on September 11, 2011.  While I cannot post it today, I will as soon as I can. 

Watching a documentary about 9/11, which contains actual footage from the attacks, is a surreal experience.  I don’t remember watching it on the news ten years ago.  If watching footage from the attacks is surreal, I can’t imagine what it would have been like to actually experience it.  It looks like a scene from a post-apocalyptic movie.  I have had nightmares in which I am in a state of confusion, and I don’t know what is going on, and I am afraid.  I have those nightmares I think, because that feeling is what I am truly afraid of; being in that situation.  It sounds strange, but I can sort of remember what it feels like to be in that nightmare.  That is the closest feeling I know to what it would feel like to be in hell.  And of course, that is nothing close to what they would be feeling.  I have always thought of being in such a situation as purely abstract.  This film gives me a better idea of what it’s like, and it is surreal to watch.  In those nightmares, I am usually wondering if I am in a dream.  And, of course, I am.  In the film, one firefighter wonders if what he is experiencing is real.  Going through such a profoundly surreal experience, I’m sure I would wonder the same.  In fact, even watching the events on television, I’m sure I would have wondered the same thing had I been old enough to understand the magnitude of the occurrence.

I have always understood what happened ten years ago today, but only in somewhat abstract terms.  I have seen footage of the planes crashing into the buildings, and of the buildings collapsing.  While surreal, that doesn’t even give you an idea of what really happened.  After watching this film, it is not so abstract anymore.  This film hit me, and, even though it happened ten years ago, I have a new understanding of what happened.  But, for me, it remains still beyond comprehension. 

Whatever I could say wouldn’t do the magnitude of that catastrophe or its victims justice.  Nor the heroic first responders.  While 9/11 demonstrates that pure evil exists, it has also reminded me that, within humanity, there exists good.  The pinnacle of humanity’s good is within the heroes that protect us from the abyss of humanity’s evil.  For police, firefighters, members of the military, and other such heroes, I have nothing but immense respect and admiration.  They remind me of the good that there is, and they inspire me to try to be as good a person as I can, even if my best will never be as good as theirs.  In fact, it will never even be close. 

The spirit of the founding fathers of the United States of America is a noble one.  And what America has done in the face of 9/11 shows that that spirit lives on.  I wish my country was as noble as its neighbor to the south.  What ideals encapsulate the spirit of Canada?  Compassion?  That’s probably right.  The very ideal that is anathema to my worldview.  It’s almost enough to make me want to move, but that’s not going to happen any time soon.  The spirit of America is one that I admire.  Independence, resolve, freedom, and the belief that anyone is capable of what they put their mind to.  Those are ideals that I can respect.  When America is attacked, it fights back.  It doesn’t try to understand what adversity caused its attackers to attack.  It doesn’t care, because it is facing evil, and evil doesn’t care.  I don’t care for what doesn’t care for me.  Maybe that’s a bit too mathematical for some people, but I could care less about the well-being of evil bastards, and I will revel in their demise.  It is evil to inflict harm for no reason.  It is evil to allow harm to be inflicted for no reason.  And America often seems like the only nation that understands that.  In the face of evil, America shows its resolve.  Thank you, America, and thank you, heroes, for giving me faith.  Thank you for fighting the good fight, and thank you for saving lives and for protecting us.  

NOTE: I apologize for posting this so late.  

ABORTION

Apparently, some time in the recent past, there was some debate about abortion in Canada.  I am wondering when this debate occurred.  Anyway, it seems to be a sensitive issue in Canada.  Abortion was legalized in Canada in 1988 (perhaps this was the debate I'm hearing about, which would mean it occurred before I was born), and it is funded by the government (excluding in New Brunswick).  Last year, during the G8 summit in Toronto, Stephen Harper said that Canada would not fund abortions in foreign nations.

Harper has since been insisting he doesn’t want to reopen the debate on abortion in Canada. But many have noted the contradiction between a foreign policy that rejects abortion for women in developing countries and Canadian laws that give women here access to abortions paid by government insurance.

I don't see any contradiction here.  By that logic, Canadian taxpayers would fund social services and infrastructure in developing countries, in addition to many other things.  Anyway, Harper's statement prompted this:

The Liberal Party, the main opposition to Harper’s Conservatives, has tried to make the most of the issue. Led by their struggling leader, Michael Ignatieff, it tried to pass a motion in parliament demanding that the government “refrain from advancing the failed right-wing ideologies previously imposed by the George W. Bush administration in the United States.” 

I love it when lefties use the term "right-wing" as if it were an insult.  Anyway, that motion failed because anti-abortion liberal MP's didn't vote (in Canada, MP's must vote along party lines, something I find stupid).

Anyway, my reason for bringing this up is that I wanted to write a post on abortion.  I would argue that any abortion committed after life begins is murder.  I am unsure whether there is scientific consensus on when life begins, but, I would argue that life begins at conception based on the fact that the when the sperm, which contains 23 chromosomes, and the ovum, which contains 23 chromosomes, are combined, you get the 46 chromosomes that constitute the individual.  However, I do have some problems with that reasoning, because that would mean that killing a zygote is murder, and a zygote (which is a cell), is not really a person.  And, while a zygote is a distinct organism, so is a deer (for example).  Personally, I have no moral issues with killing a deer.  So, if a zygote isn't a human, why should I have any moral issues with killing one?  To me, that is semantic, and a debate best left up to ethicists.  To avoid such ethical issues, it is better to simply say that life begins at conception, because it certainly doesn't begin by going through the birth canal (unless that is some sort of magic portal, which I don't think it is).    

Jack Layton, 1950-2011

NDP leader, and the leader of the official opposition, Jack Layton, has died after a battle with cancer.

While I strongly disagreed with his progressive ideology, politics must be put aside during a moment such as this.  It cannot be denied that he accomplished a lot during his life.  He was very popular and very likable.  He contrasted starkly with the stereotypical elitist leftist intellectual.  He connected with voters, and his charisma is a factor in the NDP's surge in support in the most recent federal election.  Common descriptions of him are that he had a positive energy and was very determined.

While we may feel contempt for politicians, their deaths remind us that they are people, and are as every bit human as anyone else.  Sometimes, it may be difficult to look past the politics and see politicians as humans, but that ability is a powerful unifying force.  This is a time of national unity as we see Mr. Layton for his noble qualities, of which he had many, and not for his politics.

Canada's George W. Bush

In a recent poll, Pierre Trudeau, of which I know little, was ranked as the best recent Prime Minister of Canada. According to Wikipedia, Trudeau was a socialist before becoming involved with the Liberal Party and is notable for "preserving national unity against Quebec separatists."  Current Prime Minister Stephen Harper was second in the poll.  He was also ranked as worst prime minister (along with fellow conservative Brian Mulroney).  From Yahoo:

In the online survey of a representative national sample of 1,002 Canadian adults, 36 per cent of respondents said Trudeau has been the best prime minister, since 1968, followed by Stephen Harper with 19 per cent of the votes, Jean Chretien with 12 per cent, and Brian Mulroney with 6 per cent.

... 

Mulroney, marred by the Schreiber inquiry, has lost more than half of his supporters since 2007 with most of the gains going to Stephen Harper.
Angus Reid also asked Canadians about who they thought the worst prime minister was.
Both Harper and Mulroney,  were honoured with that distinction, each earning 19 per cent of the vote, respectively.

And to no one's surprise, the anti-Liberal bastion of Alberta was the only province in Canada to choose Trudeau as Canada's worst prime minister. 

American Politics vs. Canadian Politics

Here is why I am more interested in American politics than I am in Canadian politics:

1. There is over a year until the next American federal election, and there is already a massive amount of interest.  The Ames straw poll and Rick Perry's presidential bid even made the news in Canada.  Having said that, federal elections in Canada have been frequent during the past decade.  This has provided more excitement, but it has also caused "election fatigue."  
2. It can be frustrating being as conservative as I am in Canada.  Canadian conservatives tend to be "progressive conservatives," which I assume are so referred to so as to appear more palatable to the general Canadian populace (particularly that back east).  As a result, I find the Conservative Party to be insufficiently far-right, even post-Canadian Alliance-Progressive Conservative Party merger (the Canadian Alliance was a party to the right of the Progressive Conservatives that was popular in the West; prior to the merger, it was the largest centre-right party in Canada, but wasn't large enough to win an election because of a lack of support in the East.  The merger remedied that by uniting the vote on the right.).  Although the US has its problems with socialist policies (as does Canada), I am sure I would feel right at home as a tea-partier in Idaho.  Some day, perhaps.  
3. Patriotism is quite rare in Canada, and for good reason.  Americans have the constitution, in which the spirit of the founding fathers lives on.  Those noble men admirably severed all ties to Britain, and, by doing so, became the world's largest power, one whose citizens enjoyed freedom envied by the rest of the world.  Although the US has been metaphorically poisoned by socialism, there is hope for a return to the noble spirit embodied by the founding fathers.  Canada, on the other hand, is nothing more than an extension of the British empire, despite posessing sovereignty.  Why should I be proud of Canada's Westminster-style democratic government?  Why should I be proud of Canada's "spirit," that which embodies compassion?  Some things are done right here, but most things are not.  There is a reason for the fleetingness of Canadian patriotism.  

See also, this post, wherein I argue for a reformation of Canada's government.  

Steam, Baby, Steam

Here is a fascinating article (h/t Instapundit) on the scientific process involved in mining oil from sand that occurs in Alberta's oil sands.  And, here is a very salient point (from that article):

Modern capitalism and the technology it engenders has lifted a significant proportion of humanity out of our natural state of abject poverty for the first time in history. 

Indeed, Alberta's oil sands stimulated the economy and caused an economic boom there.  Alberta has, by far, the highest per capita GDP of all provinces.  Its median income, as recorded by the 2006 census, was $70,986 CAD (approx. $63,900 USD in 2006, or $71,631 USD now).  According to Canadian free market think tank the Fraser Institute, Alberta trailed only Delaware and Texas in economic freedom among US States and Canadian Provinces.  

Also, the oil sands tick off environmentalists, which is always a bonus.

A subsequent article, by the same author (Ronald Bailey), describes the benefits the US would amass by importing Canadian oil:

TransCanada’s Robert Jones, who is in charge of getting the Keystone XL pipeline approved and completed, pointed out the energy security benefits to the United States of importing oil from Canada. He asked, why would the U.S. want to depend on “conflict oil” imported from countries run by unsavory regimes like those of Venezuela, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia? And whose oil is dirtier? After all, producing oil sands crude in Canada already includes the costs of reclaiming the land and a whole panoply of other environmental regulations.

 The assembled Canadian oil moguls cited studies [PDF] that project the creation of as many as 600,000 jobs and a $775 billion boost to the U.S. gross national product by 2035 as a result of importing Canadian oil. 

To environmentalists concerned about disturbing boreal forest, the percentage of Canada’s total area covered by boreal forest that is disturbed for oil development is about 0.019%.  That article also describes another method of extracting oil from sand that is used for oil 350 feet below the surface, steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) and its environmental impact:

Interestingly, anti-oil sands activists who eagerly highlight photos of the vast oils sands mining pits, don’t tend to show photos of SAGD facilities. Likely this is because such pictures would not do much to scare target audiences—the footprint of SAGD operations typically occupies only 5 percent of the land from which oil is being recovered, leaving most of the forests undisturbed. 

Back to "Dirty Oil Sands," to which I linked earlier in this post, they present a number of beautiful images on their website.  Personally, I have always been awestruck by massive industrial structures and works.  

Rhetoric, Fear and REAL Hope and Change

I can't get past Obama's rhetoric.  Many, many other people have pointed out what a hypocrite Obama is.  He promised post-partisanship, but it seems like every speech he makes contains some sort of vilification of Republicans (not to mention "millionaires and billionaires," and my personal favorite, "corporate jet owners").  Obama might have his rhetoric and the obsequious media to rely upon, but the reality of reality should hopefully be enough to evict Obama from the White House.  Obama's and the media's rhetoric cannot be enough to obfuscate the facts (low unemployment, high inflation, et cetera) when so many people are well aware of them, and since they are having such a profound effect on peoples' lives.

Any prosperity loving citizen of a Western nation should support the Tea Party Movement, given how inextricably linked the US's economy is to that of the rest of the world.  I really hope Americans nominate the right Republican to challenge Obama.  I do not believe a RINO like Mitt Romney would be able to effectively curtail government spending, and everyone in the Western world should be paying close attention.  It is too early to determine who the right candidate is, in my opinion, however.  At this point, I would probably support Herman Cain.  I think someone with leadership experience in the private sector may be the perfect person to deal with what the next president will inherit from Obama.  Yes, it would be a risk to elect an outsider, but, at this point, it would be a risk that is well worth taking.  Having said that, I would not support Herman Cain completely at this point.  It is too early.  And, if either Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio enters the running, well, they are just too damn good not to support.  But that doesn't look like it will happen.

I am a concerned Canadian.  I am also a university student with a very tight budget.  I don't need a stagnant economy to make things more difficult than they will already be.  I don't have nearly as much at stake as most Americans, but the prospect of another Obama presidency, which will almost inevitably lead to an economic crisis the likes of which Americans haven't seen possibly since the Great Depression (if my amateur reasoning can be relied upon), and hence one the likes of which Westerners haven't seen possibly since the Great Depression, frightens me.

UPDATE: After re-reading this, I realized the last sentence didn't make any sense, so I fixed it.

Canada's Paradise

The Vancouver Pride Festival is coming up soon (in case anyone was wondering why I am writing about Gay Pride now).  A much different event, the Calgary Stampede, ended almost two weeks ago.  Aside from the festive nature of both events, the contrast could not be more different.  The Calgary Stampede, the world's largest rodeo, is a celebration of Calgary's western heritage.  The Calgary Stampede started in 1886 as the Calgary and District Agricultural Society Exhibition.  The Stampede is closely tied with Calgary's identity.

Alberta is sometimes referred to "The Texas of Canada" (at least by me), and, indeed, Alberta is well known in Canada for its conservative politics.  Alberta gave the Conservatives the highest percentage of its popular vote (67%) in 2011.  The Conservative Party has won very seat in Alberta outside of Edmonton for the past four federal elections (every election since the foundation of the Conservative Party), as well as every seat in Edmonton in one of those.  Rural Alberta ridings gave anywhere between 84 and 75 percent of their votes to the Conservative Party in 2011.  Alberta's Progressive Conservative Association (definitely not progressive) has formed the provincial government since 1971.  Alberta is also Canada's wealthiest province, due to its oil sands (which I will defend to the death, metaphorically).  In addition, Calgary, Alberta's largest city, is arguably one of North America's most conservative cities (which I consider to be metropolitan areas with over one million people).

During the Stampede, western wear is visible around the city.  So tied to Calgary's identity is the Stampede and its western heritage, a cowboy hat appears on the city's flag (see below).

Originally, this post was going to be about something else entirely.  However, as I was writing it, it turned into a post about Alberta politics.  The introduction, which I decided not to change (for a sense of contemporary relevance), is indicative of such.  I could go on and on about how much I love Alberta and I can't wait to move there (I was raised and currently live in British Columbia); incidentally, I am really starting to embrace my inner redneck.  At the same time, Calgary is sadly evolving (or devolving, if you ask me) into a PC hell, seemingly just like every other place in the Western world, which I guess is inevitable for a rapidly growing major city.  Fortunately, this process seems to be quite slow.  The Calgary Stampede (an event that showcases toughness and masculinity, and one that p*sses off animal rights groups) and the pride in which Calgary's residents show during said event, leave me optimistic.

British Columbia Politics is Getting More Interesting

The British Columbia Conservative Party is a minor party with zero seats.  If voters in BC want to vote for a party that might actually win the election, they must choose between the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party (NDP).  The Liberal Party is not affiliated with the national Liberal Party, and they are considered farther-right.  They are the major centre-right party in BC, although they are probably around the centre.  The NDP is a social democratic party (i.e. centre-left).  Many people in BC are fed up with the Liberal Party, but the NDP is also unappealing to many people.  I hope that the Conservative Party manages to gain traction in the coming years, although I may not be able to vote for them (as I may not live in BC).  In Canada's federal elections of 2011 and 2006, BC gave the 4th highest percentage of its votes to the Conservative Party (after Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, in that order; the territory of Nunavut also gave a higher percentage of its votes to the Conservatives).  The coast of BC, where most of the population lives, is generally more liberal, while the interior is more conservative.  There are also some conservative areas on or near the coast, such as the Fraser Valley (for example, Abbotsford and Chilliwack), some suburbs of Vancouver (for example, Richmond, Delta, Langley, White Rock, North Vancouver and Maple Ridge), and some areas of Vancouver Island (for example, Parksville); and there are some liberal areas in the interior (such as the hippie haven of Nelson).  

It is evident that British Columbians would like an alternative party to vote for, and the BC Conservatives appear to have an opportunity to grow.  In fact, a recent poll shows that the Conservatives' support is at 18 percent, compared to the 2 percent of the popular vote they received in the most recent provincial election (2009).  In may, the party elected John Cummins as its leader, and his ideas are allowing him to gain support.
 
A proposed rapid transit line in the Vancouver suburbs of Burnaby, Coquitlam, and Port Moody, called the Evergreen Line, is at the heart of an issue for which John Cummins has received recent media attention.  An increase in the gas tax has been proposed as the method by which to pay for this tranist line.  However, Cummins is saying that the line can be payed for by municipalities, which could make butget cuts to pay for the line.

That Mustel poll was taken in May. It showed the Liberals on top with 37 per cent support, the NDP right behind with 35 per cent, and the B.C. Conservatives in third with 18 per cent. 

That's an 11-point jump for the Conservatives since December. Who knows how high Tory support could grow, as gas-tax grumpiness grows? 

"It's not just the Lower Mainland," said Cummins. " People are fed up with high taxes everywhere. They know they're being pinched. No one has been standing up for them." 

He said the party's membership is growing. Donations are increasing. The plan to run candidates in every riding is on pace. 

And the Liberals are sweating, because they know Cummins could split the right-wing vote, and allow the New Democrats to sneak back into power.

Who knows how high Conservative Party support will grow?  I am optimistic that their policies will be popular with British Columbians, and their popularity will grow as more people believe that they might be able to win some seats.  Both current major BC parties support the gas tax.  

The Anger of the Green Party is Proportional to my Happiness

The government of Canada is cutting funding to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency by 43.1%, shortly after a 6.9% cut.  Elizabeth May, the leader of the Green Party, is outraged:

Harper’s Throne Speech in June committed to improving the environmental assessment process, and instead he is driving a stake into its heart, it makes absolutely no sense to be giving $1.4 billion a year in subsidies to the oil and gas industry while allotting a measly $17 million to CEAA. In what way is that protecting our environment? 

I disagree with subsidies to oil companies, but this is good news to me.  Anything that infuriates Elizabeth May makes me happy (in general). 

The priorities of the Harper government are obviously not in line with those of Canadians.

Really?

A poll released this week found 45 per cent of surveyed Canadians said the federal government should make health care — a topic the government and federal politicians are often shy to talk about — a priority in next week's budget.  That's compared to 35 per cent who chose the economy, and 15 per cent who picked the environment.

Emphasis added.
In a throne speech, Harper stated:

“Our Government is committed to developing Canada's extraordinary resource wealth in a way that protects the environment. It will support major new clean energy projects of national or regional significance, such as the planned Lower Churchill hydroelectricity project in Atlantic Canada. It will engage the provinces, territories and industry on ways to improve the regulatory and environmental assessment process for resource projects, while ensuring meaningful consultation with affected communities, including Aboriginal communities.”

Perhaps eliminating excess spending on this environmental agency is what Harper meant when he said the government will “improve the regulatory and environmental assessment process for resource projects.”

I direct you to Bjørn Lomborg, whose views are similar to mine:

Bjorn Lomborg argues that many of the elaborate and expensive actions now being considered to stop global warming will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, are often based on emotional rather than strictly scientific assumptions, and may very well have little impact on the world's temperature for hundreds of years. Rather than starting with the most radical procedures, Lomborg argues that we should first focus our resources on more immediate concerns, such as fighting malaria and HIV/AIDS and assuring and maintaining a safe, fresh water supply-which can be addressed at a fraction of the cost and save millions of lives within our lifetime. He asks why the debate over climate change has stifled rational dialogue and killed meaningful dissent.

 I don't agree with him about spending money on fighting malaria and HIV/AIDS and water, but with everything else I agree.

The radical environmental movement is largely based upon emotion and fear rather than rational analysis.  Protecting the environment should be a priority, but it should be done within reasonability.  The Earth belongs to humans, and it is ours to exploit for our own personal gain.  But we have to keep in mind that protecting the environment is also in our best interest.  We just can’t let emotion dictate how we approach environmental protection.

Industrial activity does not equal environmental destruction.  Industrial sites can be reclaimed. In addition, the environmental friendliness of industrial practices has drastically improved in recent decades.  The role environmental regulations has played in that should not be ignored, but, in my opinion, the reach of environmental regulations is overkill.  It just doesn’t make sense to impede business with regulations, especially regulations that have questionable efficacy.  In some cases, environmentally friendly business practices are good for business.  For example, environmentally friendly products are ubiquitous and the efficient use of energy saves money.  

This brings me back to the original topic of this post, the federal government’s cut on the funding for the CEAA.  In addition to the obvious advantage (decrease in government is (generally) always good), I applaud this move for the reasons above.  That Elizabeth May and the Green Party are angry is always a bonus.  

Beer Party

Although the Conservative Party won the most recent federal election with a majority, and they no longer have to appease the opposition, their most recent budget did not reflect that.  They retained much of what was originally designed to appease the left-of-centre opposition, despite the fact that they didn’t need to.  The very existence of the government in its current form causes me to feel some sort of confusion.  Any government should logically be as small as possible.  It should be built up from the populace as a means by which to perform necessary functions, and nothing more.  Below is my argument for the radical reformation of the Canadian government. 

Social Programs

Canada emerged as a European-style welfare state after the depression.  Although many social programs were reduced in recent decades, many still exist.  What I would consider one of the more egregious policies regarding social programs is the prohibition of access to private healthcare for what is deemed “medically necessary.”  I see progress being made in this respect, but problems persist.  Canada’s healthcare system is notorious for the long waiting times that exist for access to healthcare services; and, in my amateur opinion, I would attribute that problem to the inefficient way in which the system is run (see Private Sector vs. Public Sector, below).  With respect to healthcare, my solution would be to completely privatize the healthcare system and allow health insurance companies and healthcare providers to compete for patrons.  Having said that, my expertise in healthcare is very limited, so I cannot postulate on what that system’s actual efficacy would be; only on what it should be, in theory, according to my own reasoning.  It is based on the below hypothesis (see Private Sector vs. Public Sector, below).  In theory, the following things would happen:  people who do not take care of themselves (i.e. smoking, eating unhealthy foods, et cetera) would need to pay more if that lack of care resulted in more need for healthcare (which would also act as a disincentive for unhealthy lifestyles), as opposed to being a drain on the public system which provides no such disincentive; people who do care for themselves would be rewarded with lower healthcare costs;  healthcare would be prompt, and, if not, or if the healthcare provided by a company was unsatisfactory for some other reason, healthcare providers could be switched;  the system would need to be run efficiently in the interests of profit, which would also benefit the consumer with lower costs; and innovation would be made possible. 

Overall, the various levels of the Canadian government provide various social programs.  All of them should be eliminated, or at least reformed, so as to generate the ideal of equity.  In addition, the encroaching, inefficient behemoth, popularly known as “bureaucracy,” should be reduced to its basic necessity and upgraded with efficient, modern technology.  In addition, equalization payments to the less-wealthy provinces (i.e. socialism) must end.  

A Division of Power

Governmental powers in Canada are divided between the federal government and provincial governments.  Unlike the United States, where the power of the federal government is limited by the constitution, in Canada, the power of the provinces is limited by the constitution.  Everything else is under the power of the federal government. 

This needs to be changed.  The provincial governments are much more capable of dealing with the specific problems that exist in each particular province, as well as the difference of opinion that the populace of each province has.  Therefore, the provincial governments are more qualified to handle domestic problems than is the federal government.  The federal government’s sole purpose should be to handle foreign policy and other interests that are specific to the country as a whole and cannot be effectively handled by the provinces.   

Private Sector vs. Public Sector

The efficacy of the public sector versus the efficacy of the private sector can be broken down to simple logic.  The various private entities must compete with each other.  This means that they are competing for business, which means that they must improve their product or offer some sort of incentive.  And, because they must compete with each other, and because their goal is to maximize profit, they must run efficiently.  Since the funds of the government are largely derived from taxes, the money of taxpayers is being wasted in the inefficiencies that are inevitable given a lack of competition.  Furthermore, every taxpayer is likely paying for some service he or she does not use.  It would be much fairer to pay only for the services you use.  The expenses of paying for the services directly may seem unappealing, but this would allow people to have more control over their expenses.  In addition, a lack of governmental social services would theoretically punish those that do not contribute something to society.  Those who lack initiative would therefore be forcefully required to either get some initiative or learn a lesson in reality.  As I see it, our current system punishes those who have initiative and rewards those who do not.  Based on my analysis, I would conclude that the size of government is inversely proportional to the equality of its “subjects.” 

In addition, the size of government increases the opportunity for corruption.  As a safeguard against corruption, the government should be as small as possible. 

More on Canadian Republicanism

Basically, the monarchy is the foundation of Canada’s Westminster-style parliamentary democracy in which it shares power with the democratically elected government over the various institutions of Canada’s government and acts as an apolitical unifying entity.  However, government is, by definition, political and does not need an “apolitical unifying entity.”  According to the Monarchist League of Canada, and according to the latest census data, the Canadian government pays approximately $52,798,770 (a year) to support the monarchy.  That number is growing rapidly.  According to them, the “great majority of these costs stem from: a) maintaining the historic buildings (Government Houses) occupied by vice-regal representatives; and b) from honouring Canadians who have performed outstanding acts or given a lifetime of service to the country.”  According to them, “Whether a republic or monarchy, Canadians would maintain these heritage buildings and recognize achievements through an honours system.  A president would likely be more expensive—look at the proportional costs of the White House and Elysée Palace! There may be arguments for a republic, but cost-saving is not one of them.”  Comparing Canada to the United States or France is quite weak, especially since, immediately before they brought those two countries up, they stated that maintenance of historic buildings is already paid for (including the residences of both the head of state (governor general) and the head of government (prime minister)).  Therefore, I do not see what point they are trying to make by bringing up the White House or the Elysée Palace (i.e. under a president, the cost of maintaining buildings would not be any higher than it currently is).  According to them, “the founding principles of Canada ... [are] our constitutional monarchy and federal state together with the special place of the First Nations, the existence of two European founding peoples, the inpouring of new Canadians of other backgrounds enriching our diversity through the centuries and our special status as a Northern country.”  I am not sure what that means, but it sounds like nonsense.  Maybe I am way out there on this, but I believe the founding principles of a country should only be celebrated if they make sense (see the United States).  I am not saying that Canada should abolish its traditions, per se.  I am only saying that Canada should abolish the ones that do not make sense or have any relevance.  The monarchy is a superfluous institution that has no practical value.  I am for anything that reduces the size of the government and the incomprehensible inefficiency and redundancy that exists therein.

Conclusion

From my above paragraphs, I draw the conclusion that the government should be as small as possible.  If I were an American, I would be a natural supporter of the tea party movement.  The American-style governance that I would support would have little support in Canada, but I am going on record saying that I would like to see the United States, or the values that are espoused by the tea party movement, emulated in Canada.  At the very least, I look forward to what the Conservative majority government’s future budgets will entail.    

Simply put, in a hypothetical situation in which the government is abolished and must be completely re-established, this would be, in my opinion, the most logical way in which a new government would be built.  The government, as it exists, can be intensely simplified.  Furthermore, it should not try to create prosperity, but it should create the conditions in which prosperity can exist.  The latter is demonstrably more feasible than the former.