I agree that if someone is a recipient of our highest award in the country and they prove themselves morally unfit of that honor they should not have it. However, if Mr. Fonyo Jr.’s award is being stripped due to his criminal convictions, shouldn’t Mr. Conrad Black also be stripped of his Order of Canada? He’s currently halfway through a 6.5 year sentence in a US Federal prison in Florida for millions of dollars of corporate fraud.

From the Governor General’s website:

According to the Article 3 of the Policy and Procedure for Termination of Appointment to the Order Of Canada, a revocation is considered when:

a) the person has been convicted of a criminal offence; or

b) the conduct of the person

(i) constitutes a significant departure from generally-recognized standards of public behaviour which is seen to undermine the credibility, integrity or relevance of the Order, or detracts from the original grounds upon which the appointment was based; or

(ii) has been subject to official sanction, such as a fine or a reprimand, by an adjudicating body, professional association or other organization.

I do believe that being convicted of fraud, paying a $125,000 fine, 78 months in prison, and $6.1million dollars in reparations to Hollinger International (the company he siphoned the money from) counts for all points of consideration listed above. Strip his Order of Canada too!

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

In these clips, David Letterman makes some very good points about the USA’s invasion of Iraq, and boils it down to what it’s all really about. Oil. It’s definately worth watching the whole thing.

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWOGMKQ1aHo
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_LO-BuhxW0

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Some nations enjoy government sponsored health-care, which I dare say is a very noble undertaking in a capitalist society. It is far more humanitarian to decree that all shall have free access to doctors and surgeons than to charge them for these services. It is a very alarming thing indeed that in other countries health care providers would rather let another human being suffer or die over money. What a selfish and foolish concept – applying monetary value to saving a fellow being’s life!

My point is that to say “all forms of government sponsored social services are evil” is a reckless and fatal attitude to hold. However, blind faith and dependence on these services leaves the average soul in a weakened position. One has access to the social infrastructure, but only if one subscribes to it’s cultural values. Fall out of line and you risk arrest, or denial of these same services. Essentially it is a self-supporting codependent relationship.

Children raised to trust government because it does some good might fall into the trap of accepting that all that a government does is good. And why not? We live in a democratic society, do we not? We voted for these people, as a majority, so they have our best interests in mind, don’t they?

History tells us no, at least not always. One merely has to look at the rise of the Nazi Party in Germany last century to see that. What started as a campaign of social reform and rejuvenation for a battered country was steered drastically into World War II. It was done through propaganda and the government’s realization that they could influence and orchestrate cultural changes for their own ends. By the time it was realized at large that something very evil was going on – the Nazi’s had a stranglehold on popular culture, and the strength to shut down distention.

Counter culture can serve as a check of sorts, against the masses being led astray. It questions the authority of the government and it’s actions, and the wisdom of doing something just because everyone else is. It promotes a civilization’s people to look within their own selves and find meaning, instead of chasing the neatly packaged goals set out before them. Furthermore, as long as you can find individuals living by their own terms, freely, perhaps it can be gaged that not all is lost.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

On paper, this is a very altruistic concept – and truly Canadian, to be sure. A funny thing happened to Canada when this concept came out of the court house: The law of the land had changed, but the people had not. Perhaps it’s because the concept has only been around us for a few decades, but I see a country confused.

For example, in Ottawa, it has been deemed legal for women to go topless in public. It was never illegal for men to do so and therefore this is a fair law. Regardless of law, the people haven’t changed – seldom to women appear topless (I’ve actually never witnessed it first-hand) while men still do. Most people still believe it to be morally offensive, or have simply grown up with the taboo of bared breasts.

These things are the source of the confusion, I think. The law is idealistically correct and fair, but the people it governs do not necessarily all have the same altruistic viewpoint of it. Most have the same beliefs, ideals and prejudices they had before the law changed.

I wish that at this point I had a solution to propose, but sadly, I report I do not. These are just my observations. Having grown up during these changes, and being a rather unfocused child, I rarely took any time away from the computer screen, a book or building an elaborate (and ultimately unfinished) tree fort somewhere.

Besides that, the rural schools I went to in the ’80s where not exactly pictures of diversity due to the population of the region, so there likely was little change to see had I taken the time to notice. I guess the question I’m wondering now is if Canada’s flavor of Socialist Democracy will survive test of time, or will we ultimately fail in our idealism like communism did? Nice as a theory, but never in recorded history has anybody ever tried to govern over so many people as there are in the world today.

It’s rather sobering to consider that the luxuries, freedoms, and health-care we depend on is all part of an untried system.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Do we have a shortage of people skilled in these positions? I don’t think so, since the keys to customer service and sales are the same – being nice to the customer. That is a skill that anybody can posses and develop quite easily. I think that the problem is more likely caused by the fact that most customer service and sales positions pay a wage that is to low to survive on.

Consider this: the average one bedroom apartment in Ottawa rents for about $700 a month. Most people working minimum wage earn about that a month after they get the taxes EI and CPP deducted, assuming they are getting near full-time hours. Most customer service positions don’t actually give a solid 40 hour work week, and the scheduling is generally unstable which makes it difficult to balance two such jobs to make up the income.

If your entire paycheck every month is just enough to cover your rent, how are you supposed to eat or pay utilities, let alone have any sort of quality of life? Attracting skilled workers to the country might help in the traditional trades, where the skilled workers just aren’t here, but it won’t help in customer service. An underpaid worker is an underpaid worker – no matter where they came from.

Maybe the government should look into a way to give companies incentive to pay their customer service staff more, provide benefits and keep their employees above the poverty line. I think the workers are there, they’re just treated poorly and move on.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Much like one of his Conservative predecessor, Brian Mulroney, with the Meech Lake Accord where the courts ruled that putting the term “Distinct Society” into the Constitution would change absolutely nothing other than the reading of the document.

Granted these where just words on paper, especially since there is no doubt in any Canadian’s mind that Quebec is a distinct society. Their courts are based in French Civil Law, as opposed to British Common Law as in the rest of the country. Their primary language is French to the point of having Language Police to push out too much English. Just to name a few obvious distinctions.

So why all the fuss about Quebec? For my generation most of us where too young to fully appreciate Canada’s recent history. I was only four years old when Pierre Trudeau managed to patriate our constitution from the British parliament, making Canada officially a self-governed nation. However, the Province of Quebec did not sign the new Constitution and has not to this day.

By federal law it was decided that Quebec was still subject to the Constitution, as where all of the provinces, regardless whether they signed it or now. I guess it makes sense, since the provinces are all combined together under the one Dominion of Canada, they cannot unilaterally separate or split from the country. In 1997 the Supreme Court ruled that this was indeed the case.

Basically, the Conservatives in their various forms have tried unsuccessfully since 1982 to appease Quebec objections and have them willingly signed on the constitution. A nice ideal, but their demands seem to shift depending which Premier they have, and regardless nobody in their right mind would add the kind of constitutional vito power they originally wanted.

Since the Canada Act in 1982, the last 24 years has seen a second referendum on Quebec Sovereignty, two Accords which failed due to the provinces being unable to agree. Since the provinces cannot agree enough to amend the constitution to everyone’s satisfaction, what kind of governmental chaos would we have if Quebec had the power of vito?

Back to nowadays – It’s a nice strategic move on Harper’s part to find ways to appease Quebec since getting votes there means he can steal them away from the separatist Bloc Quebecois next election. Given that Harper sits with a minority, getting things done that supports Quebec might also get BQ support in parliament, allowing him to make the most of his minority and take some more of the control away from the Liberals.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Granted, it’s good to know what’s going on over there, and what dangers our troops and civilian workers are facing. However, they’re not giving us the full picture and their surveys are thus skewed in the direction the sensationalism media would like.

Canada is in Afghanistan by request from the Afghan government. Our troops are helping to rebuild their country which the US helped cannibalize during the Cold War. We’re helping their government restore order and educate their people.

But, you say, isn’t that what the US claims to be doing in Iraq? Yes, but there’s a key difference: Our presence was requested, they invaded Iraq. Assuming the Afghan government represents the will of their people, then the majority of Afghans appreciate and welcome Canadian troops in their country.

Regardless of misled public opinion surveys here, we’re needed there and to pull back now would be internationally damaging to Canada. Chalk a mark up on the plus side for Stephen Harper for promising to stay the course on this one. It may not be the “popular” choice, but it’s the right decision.

The Government of Canada has a website full of information that doesn’t seem to be overly concerning the media as of late – such as facts.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

But what’s with this trial? Saddam himself calls it a farce, and to an extent he’s right. It doesn’t matter what kind of defense he mounts, he has been charged, he will be found guilty and more than likely he’ll be put to death. The ball is in motion, and I can’t imagine there will be much that could stop it’s momentum.

What this trial is really about is showing the rest of the world that he is a dangerous man, a murderer and a dictator. The “Coalition of the Willing” needs this trial to show they had something of substance on which to invade Iraq. Bush in particular needs the rest of the world to hate Saddam more than him.

What leaves a bad taste in my mouth is that he’s not the only murderous dictator, and perhaps not even the most dangerous one. He just happens to be the one with the most oil. He had no WMD’s. Reports showed that he had no WMD’s before the invasion and it was in the news and therefore fairly common knowledge.
So, if the primary official reason for take down of Saddam was manufactured, should it still have happened because of his other crimes? American needs this Saddam Show to convince people of this.

But why Saddam? Why not Fidel Castro, or KIM Jong Il?
Cuba is one of the US’ favorite spots to hate and not trade with due to their hate-on for Castro, and it’s right on the US’ doorstep. Why not invade Cuba, and put their government on trial for killing their citizens.

Oh, right. No oil.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites