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.        

Another Example of Leftist Ugliness and Hypocrisy

Strangely, prior to yesterday, I had not heard of the "Occupy Wall Street" protests.  For the benefit of others who apparently live under metaphorical rocks, "Occupy Wall Street" is a leftist grassroots movement opposing "corporate greed" and "economic inequality."  With the rightist Tea Party movement in the spotlight for the past couple years or so, many people are comparing the two grassroots movements.  While OWS is protesting "corporate greed" and "economic inequality," the Tea Party is protesting government greed and economic inequality.  The reason I put the object of OWS in quotation marks and not the object of the Tea Party is that I believe in the Tea Party's cause, unlike that of OWS.  Corporations have every right to be greedy, so long as they are in compliance with the law.  I do not believe the government has this right, as its purpose is nothing more than to serve its constituents.  And, economic inequality, as I see it, is caused by the redistribution of wealth.

While the fundamental difference between the two movements is the political ideology that motivates them, another key difference is the method of protest.  Tea Party protests, in general, are peaceful and law-abiding (or so I hear).  OWS protests, on the other hand, are not.  Twenty-three OWS protesters were arrested yesterday in New York City for disorderly conduct, only a few days after a much larger arrest (see quotation below).  I can't remember ever hearing of anyone arrested at Tea Party protests, nor can I find any evidence in a quick Google search (I do, however, find links about anti-Tea Party protesters being arrested).  Keep in mind that the Tea Party movement is several years old, compared to the fledgeling OWS movement.  My Google search did result in me finding this fantastic article, however.  Here is an excerpt (emphasis added):  

One aspect of the Occupy Wall Street and other leftist activism that is a definitive divergence with the tea party movement is disruptive behavior.

On October 1, over 700 Occupy Wall Street protesters were arrested — mostly for disorderly conduct — during a march across the Brooklyn Bridge.  Despite two other peaceful marches across the bridge by other groups earlier that day, the Occupy Wall Street crowd couldn’t resist blocking traffic and scuffling with police. 

When not under arrest (approximately 100 other arrests occurred over the weeks of the protest), the Occupy Wall Street crowd is actually occupying the privately-owned Zuccotti Park, whose owners are working with city officials on plans to return it “to its intended purpose.” 

This rowdy attitude of the radical left is something that, by mistake or design, is grossly unreported in the media.  As the Tea Party must fend off allegations of being violent and racist, leftist protests that are unruly don’t get similar coverage. 

I’ve been active in the Tea Party movement since 2009.  As a black woman, I define the movement’s political diversity and have always been quick to defend its inclusiveness against those who would try to slur it with racist accusations.
I have had the amazing opportunity to meet thousands of freedom-loving Americans who are involved in the movement on their own time and these individuals are sincere in their efforts to reign in our government gone wild by holding our elected representatives accountable. 

As a frequent speaker at Tea Party events nationwide, I’ve never seen the same behavior as described during Occupy Wall Street’s Brooklyn Bridge demonstration.  Tea Party activists, in my experience, police themselves.  Additionally, I’ve never been to a rally in which the grounds weren’t as clean or cleaner than when the first activist arrived. 

Doing a Google search of “tea party activist” and “arrest” brings up nothing of merit.  On the first page, I found three articles about people described as tea party activists, but the arrests were unrelated to rallies. 

Another article, about the demonstrations outside the U.S. Capitol Building on the weekend of the Obamacare vote in the House, reports one man — one single person — was detained after being accused of spitting on a congressman.  But that person was immediately released, and no one has come forward to legitimize the claim and collect conservative Andrew Breitbart’s $100,000 reward for providing proof. 

Furthermore, Teamsters president Jimmy Hoffa told people waiting to see President Obama speak at a Labor Day rally that they need to “take these [Tea Party] son of a bitches out.”  And there was a January 30 rally in Rancho Mirage, California in which progressive protesters, many of whom were attending a nearby conference sponsored by Common Cause, were caught on video saying they wanted to “torture” and “hang” Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. 

Salacious allegations against the tea party will get more coverage than actual law-breaking by the left.

It is evident that leftist protests embody the negative attributes that conservative protests are wrongly accused of embodying.  Not that you would ever be able to tell by watching the news, though.  Do we have enough proof now that many leftists are hypocrites?

And, a final note: this is not meant to apply to all leftists.  Only the crazy ones.  

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.  

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.  

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.

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.