(Republican) Change I Could Believe In…

I've been pondering an article for a while.  Basically the current political climate makes it pretty necessary for the Republican party to do a bit of revising on it's image.  If Obama overspends to insanely and America is still balls-deep in a recession come 4 years, I'm pretty sure a brain-dead chimp with a cross around it's neck leading the GOP could win the election, but if Obama is at all competent then we may be looking at a definite liberal shift in America's politics.  Now if Liberal meant "rooted in Liberty" as it did once upon a time then I'd be all for it, but today Liberal is sononomous with socialism where a single government gets more and more control over larger and larger areas.

The problem is that conservatism isn't standing against that socialistic agenda anymore, in many ways they've adopted it and have betrayed their base who are turning to religion because they feel that there's no control of big government any more.  This problem is compounded by the fact that people seem to be getting brainwashed to the point of rather than turning to organizations with enough power to act as a counterpoint to unassailable lawmaking they're integrating these organizations further into the government body.  The lines between church, business and government are getting increasingly blurred and as they do so power shifts more and more into the hands of the few and voters get less and less control.  

I consider myself fairly eclectic politically, but if you're at all familiar with my opinions on this blog you'll know that I prize one thing above all others; Freedom.  Without freedom the things we have, or we do mean nothing because they're only things we can have or can do and the joy of possibility is taken from us.  The Republican party once stood for freedom, less taxes meant more freedom to do what you want with your money, free-market capitalism meant freedom to sell and buy what you wanted with it.  Before that Socialism stood for freedom, freedom from one individual dictating how you get to live.

To me, a real change would be endeavoring to clearly define the separations between business, church and government, and this is something that I believe all Republicans could get behind and such policies would have the potential to convert many Democrats and independents.  

Policies that such a shift would include would be such as:

• Removal from religious influence around civil unions.  According to Maritime Law, a person is a corporation, and is treated as such under the law, it would be unthinkable for the church to have influence over corporate unions, so why does it have influence over personal ones?

• Less corporate taxation but greater corporate oversight.  There is a direct relation between corporate taxation and corporate growth.  This means that when a government taxes a corporation more the corporations grow less, and employ fewer people which hurts the populace.  However implementing laws that force corporations to spend money to comply with government standards generally doesn't stymie corporate growth, employs more people and protects the people from corporate opportunism.  

• A shift towards a non-intrusive foreign policy.  Currently the Liberal agenda is to increase the power of the UN to the point where the UN is able to dictate the allowed size of any nation's military.  Russia will never agree to that, and neither should the US.  Let the UN send peacekeepers to nations and try to fix the world.  Republicans need to stand for a military that stands as a third point of power to the growing UN and Russian militaries that exists only to protect the homeland and aide military allies.

These are just some of my hopes for a newer better Republican party, but my thesis on this is still incomplete, I'd like to get some input from the community about this and see what you think, from both sides of the political fence, what changes should the GOP adopt to it's party policy and image?

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Dangerous Business in Canadian Politics

In an earlier post I mentioned that Canada's government is in shambles, I'd like to quantify that a bit more, though I probably won't have a proper article about it until after Christmas.  What's going on is this, Canada isn't quite a democracy, it's actually a constitutional monarchy (not an official title but that's what it amounts to).  Basically we're allowed to self govern until we've proven for whatever reason that we can't do so.  Then a representative of the Queen steps in and makes the decisions for us.  The Governor General's position is often largely ceremonial, they usually find causes to get behind and maintain "etiquette" in parliament.  However, in situations like right now the Governor General has the opportunity to fire our elected Prime Minister and put in someone else.  In this case that someone else would be a Liberal Party leader who's incompetence has his own party voting him out leaving him in power for 5 more months.  

Canadian politics isn't like American politics.  American's only have two parties which are just basically frameworks for a set of political values.  In the US it's the candidate who gets voted in and sets up the executive branch, even if that candidate doesn't necessarily toe the party line in it's entirety.  The only reason there aren't dozens of parties being voted into Congress is because the Corporations in the US prefer having a unified entity to pay off.  Some people might think that it's a "two party system" but really it's just the powers that be like it that way.  

In canada the executive branch and the legislative branch are the same, and there are more parties to contend with.  (There's a Marijuana Party in Canada if you'll believe that.)  Some don't have seats in the Cabinet but right now there are 4 parties who do, the Conservatives, the Liberals, the New Democrats (NDP), and the Bloc Quebecois.  There is a Green Party as well who didn't win any seats but snapped up almost 7% of the vote in October.  The Libs and Conservatives are roughly the equivalent of America's GOP and Democrats, with the NDP being a group of more progressive liberals strongly opposed to any sort of Canadian military action (or funding in many cases), and who generally work to ramp up government spending by bloating the bureaucracy.  (Yes, I admit, I'm biased against the NDP, my Province had a New Democrat gov for 8 years and it was disgusting.)  The bloc are separatists, meaning the 3rd largest Political entity in Canada's political system doesn't want to be a part of the country.

The thing is, because the executive branch and legislative branch are the same, and because there are so many parties there isn't a lot of deviation from a given party line amongst the Members of Parliament (MPs).  This means that functional governments here are almost always majority governments.  However for the past decade we Canadians have not been in accord, three consecutive Liberal governments through the 90's and into this millennium created a corrupt political party, and after some sponsorship scandals we elected a Conservative government into power for the first time in my lifetime.  For 3 years that conservative government governed as a minority, outnumbered by the Liberals, the small NDP and the Bloc, then just after Liberal party leader unveiled a Carbon tax wealth redistribution program that would have crippled the Canadian Oil and Gas industry, the only healthy industry left in Canada the Conservatives smelled blood in the wind and called an election early, even though two years earlier they'd passed a mandate to prevent voters from having to put up with that sort of opportunistic politicking.  

So the Conservatives came away from October's election with a slightly strengthened minority, and they got cocky.  No stimulus plan for the Economy, no Automaker bailout, and the final straw was a political gamble to pull funding from the parties in an attempt to strike a deathblow to them.  This backfired, and in the face of these audacious maneuvers the three parties making up the majority of the seats sat down and formed a Coalition with the intent of passing a no-confidence vote against the conservatives and kicking them out of power.  

What this means is that despite what Canadians might have voted for we will now have a government aligned with a group who want to separate for the country.  Millions of taxpayer dollars have been promised to the NDP and Bloc in exchange for their backing the coalition, and you can bet that a good portion of that money is going to Quebec to fund their goodbye party.  Despite the validity of their claim to the seat of power these three parties are going to destroy the country if this no confidence vote goes through.  Here's how:

a) Canadians will have no confidence in their democracy anymore.

b) Quebec's separation will be funded with federal taxpayer money.

c) The Western Provinces, having been a disenfranchised Conservative stronghold for over 3 decades will be furious as the first move a new Coalition government will be to kneecap their finances by redistributing tax revenues away from them (see: Quebec separation) and passing legislation to inhibit the oil and gas industry.  This will result in a strong backing for a western separatist agenda.

In a nutshell Canada faces a democratic crisis that will either force my country to hold another election 6 months after the last one, or be forced to endure an unelected administration with sympathies for a group of rebels.  (No, offense to Quebec, but that's what it amounts to.)

The worst part about all this is that I don't have a solution, other than things need to change.  We need to look over our constitution and decide if we want to be a democracy in name only, a bunch of small nations with our bums planted  firmly against the wall as the USA hands out wigs and lipstick, or a first world nation, strong and secure.  

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Sitting and Thinking

I've been mostly quiet this past week, digesting the Democratic national convention, learning how things go and how things have changed and generally just taking it all in.  Now more than ever I think the media likes to tell people what to think, it's frustrating and irritating but it gives me insight.  

After last night's speech I'm kinda hoping this will become a battle of philosophies.  Obama's speech was great, but it was also quite liberal, he stretched across party lines somewhat into some of the more traditional liberal areas such as libertarianism (though not enough in my opinion) which have generally been considered conservatism for the past while, but for the most part his ideas were quite liberal, drop money into programs and somehow pay for it by cutting the fat.  Great if he can pull it off, but no one in existence ever has yet that I know of, so I'm not holding my breath.  Admittedly this is no surprise, all politicians campaign by offering far more then they can ever pull off.  

Overall his stances are by and large quite liberal, which is great if you like that sort of thing, not so great if you don't.

McCain on the other hand is going to run on the old-faithful stance.  America is conservative, more conservative than probably any country in the world shy of the more totalitarian regimes.  American's do like being conservative and despite the past 8 years there is a security and comfort in that old ideology still.  The idea that one's grandparents didn't have much and sometimes they scraped by but despite it all life seemed good back then, people helped each other and life was simple. 

I hope that it comes down to a battle of ideologies.  Obama is inspiring and eloquent and passionate and LIBERAL.  McCain is experienced and pragmatic and moody and CONSERVATIVE.  The choices aren't going to get any more clear-cut than this.  This election is not seeing two identical candidates and deciding to vote for one because one wants to focus on stem cell research and the other doesn't.  They are different in nearly every way, and that's what makes this interesting.  This election is a fork in the road, more historic than I think anyone realizes, each candidate wants to follow a very different path, and it now up to the American people to decide which way they want to go.

Not that it makes any difference, but I know which direction the rest of the world wants…

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Which Parts of the Constitution Should Be Tossed?

Here's what I don't get… whenever someone steps in front of a camera and says that maybe guns are weapons and gun owners should be held accountable for that, every GOP member and their dog hops onto their soap-box and starts screaming about their Constitutional Rights… but whenever other aspects of the constitution are outright used as toilet paper then flushed… crickets.  Kinda makes me wonder about the validity of their arguments…

Let's take a look at a few parts of the constitution and examine how they apply to some of the more recent events.

The Second Amendment

Declares "a well regulated militia" as "necessary to the security of a free State", and as explanation for prohibiting infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

This is the GOP's favorite part of the Constitution, and the Democrat's least favorite, it's been the battle ground for many drawn-out fights, one of the more recent ones being in the Washington Supreme Court.  It was a move to control firearms in the state and it was overturned and the Republicans trumpeted it a victory for 2nd Amendment rights.   The constitution was upheld and America's rights and freedoms still stand strong.

The Fourth Amendment

Guards against searches, arrests and seizures of property without a specific warrant or a "probable cause" to believe a crime has been committed.

Specifically we'll look at this particular snippet of text:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The recent FISA amendments have shredded that particular part of the constitution.  It's not needed anymore, times are different, the fourth amendment is "soft on Terror" and therefore every GOP in the Senate voted to scrap it ensuring that any phone call or e-mail or piece of electronic data leaving the country will be monitored and turned over to the government without any need of a warrant or probable cause.  Sure it's a small infringement on American's rights and freedoms, but to stop terror… well worth the price.

The Fifth Amendment

Forbids trial for a major crime except after indictment by a grand jury; forbids punishment without due process of law; and provides that an accused person may not be compelled to testify against himself (this is also known as "Pleading the Fifth").

This Amendment has also been sacrificed on the alter of the War On Terror.  Recently Guantanamo Bay detainees were told that they got a right to a fair trial, so begrudgingly the Constitution is upheld, however the evidence they gave, possibly under torture, is being used against them.  So the fifth amendment really isn't needed anymore either. 

So my point here is that in the GOP's mind the War on Terror justifies the compromise of the Fourth and the Fifth Amendments, as well as taking a few stabs at the Fourteenth Amendment, and completely ignores the 8th Amendment's stance on "Cruel and Unusual Punishment".

But this is the War on Terror, sacrifices must be made to ensure the safety of American citizens after all.

So here's what I don't get:

This guy, Jim D. Adkisson just shot two people because of their political views.  He targeted them because the church they went to was according to him, "too liberal".    This is textbook terrorism right from the elephants mouth, if he were Arabic or had any shade of skin but pasty white he would already be on his way to Guantanamo.  

Herein lies my confusion, the War on Terror is a god that demands sacrifice, and sacrifice it has gotten in plenty.  The constitution is but a virgin vestibule to be penetrated by it's frothy member.  But the Second Amendment is still somehow sacred, despite the fact that guns are infinitely more accessible than explosives, that they're more cost effective, and that we all know that terrorists DO use guns, it is the one part of the Bill of Rights that cannot be touched.  

Why?

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Soon there Shall be Blogging Once Again

Dry spell will be coming to an end soon so have no fear.  I've been catching up on a few of my horribly neglected news feeds as of late and I decided to add The National Post to my feedreader.  I've become slightly annoyed with the blatant Liberal partisanship that CTV news spouts off and the National Post takes a conservative standpoint so I decided to have both to balance each other out.  

My Dad reminded me about the National Post when I was over giving him his belated Father's Day presents.  He wasn't home on Sunday because he was up at a fly-in fishing resort in the Yukon with a bunch of other building inspectors last weekend, something he's never done before.  Anyhow he pointed out how Stephen Dion and the Liberal party are starting to tout a new Green policy for if they get elected in next year.  It's a bad policy in ways I can't begin to describe and would crater the industry I make my livelihood in like a stick of dynamite in an anthill.  

The idea of course is to tax pollutants even more than is already done now.  Taxation is the reason why Canadian's pay $1.50 more per gallon than Americans do currently do on gasoline.  This new bill would impose further taxes on fuel, place tariffs on Canadian Oil and Natural Gas going into America unless they imposed similar taxes, and tax major carbon producing industries.  The Liberals promise that all this won't cost the "average" Canadian anything because it will go hand in hand with tax breaks in other areas to make it revenue neutral.  This of course is disregarding the blow to the Canadian economy which in B.C. and Alberta makes up the majority of those provinces prosperity and subsequently their tax payouts to Ottawa.  I might also add that 30% of all federal tax revenue from western provinces stays in the East rather than going back into programs within the provinces the money originated in the first place.  This has been standard procedure in Canada since it's inception.  The West feeds the East and that won't ever change, but that still doesn't stop the east from getting jealous of all those energy revenues.  

And that is the real issue.  Dion's proposal is great for communities that don't rely on the energy sector to stay afloat, the tax breaks they'll receive will come as a welcome boon.  While out west far away from Ottawa the increase costs of operation will drive the energy companies away, eventually to the point where the additional revenues generated from the additional taxation that justified the offset tax breaks in the first place will no longer be there and Canada will see a recession.  Meanwhile the Oil companies that were driven away will move to nations where the environmental standards aren't as strict and they can operate with greater autonomy and still supply the energy demands of the world that will not have changed one bit.

It's interesting how the Conservative paper examines the proposal and points out it's issues as they are perceived, however CTV has only deigned to report on how the conservatives are "mocking" the proposal.  Now admittedly I have a personal investment in the topic, but I also drive a vehicle and plan to buy a car with fuel efficiency in mind in the fall, not because I feel it's my job to save the environment, if that were the case I would donate to saving wetlands or the rainforest that help destroy carbon built up in the atmosphere.  Instead my decision to buy a car that gets 50 mpg is based solely on cost which is dictated by supply and demand.  Though I guess that's the point the Liberals feel justifies their actions, if they raise the cost to the point where no one can drive then they must be fixing the problem… right?

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Republicans and National Security

I know that in my writings I come off as quite Liberal leaning, but in many things I have a strong conservative background. I believe in smaller government that requires less taxation, equal rights for everyone, the rule of law, and accountable government.  These days the Canadian conservative government gets high marks for everything on that list except for accountable government.  It's hard to follow what they're up to, and while when scandals arrive they're quickly brought above board, they're still doing a lot behind the scenes that aren't apparent to the majority of the people.  But overall I say they've been doing a great job and I'd vote them in again.  

The United States Republicans by contrast are a fucking disgrace.  They act like a group of inbred gun-happy hicks randomly flipping switches in a nuclear power plant and then firing off random shots in the air in celebration when a light show occurs.  

I could continue this metaphor by saying that all around this Nuclear Power Plant and the town nearby is an apple orchard of trees neatly planted in a row, but to the inbred hicks inside the plant this orchard is a vast and dangerous forest teeming with dangerous beasts and outlaws.  Nightly they rush out into the orchard to steal fruit from the trees whenever one of the farmer's hands comes out to challenge their thievery they shoot their guns off at him and burn parts of the orchard then return to the plant and the town with stories of how they were attacked and that the orchard hands are going to attack the town and the plant and that they hate Nuclear Power because they are jealous of the towns prosperity.  

Meanwhile the townspeople are trying to get the power plant technicians that actually know what the hell they're doing back in charge of the plant, but the inbreeds tell them that the technicians are elitist and won't protect the power plant from the outlaws and wild beasts in the surrounding wilderness, and whenever one of the townspeople speaks up too loudly against the hicks they accuse him of being in cahoots with the outlaws in the wilderness and lock him up.

And now they're in the process of killing all the orchard's farmers and burning the farms and then wondering why the townspeople are complaining that the cost of food is too high.

This is the state of the Republican party in the United States and it disgusts me.  

George Bush declares that Iran is the enemy of the US, and it is.  It's an enemy because the United States has made it so.  Since the 60's the US has been meddling in Iranian affairs over oil without remorse.  They've been trying to provoke Iran to attack them but this treatment is akin to my father bashing a five-year-old with the butt of his rifle in the hopes that the kid will stand up and take a swing.  In 1988 a United States Destroyer the USS Vinchennes shot down an Iranian Civilian Passenger Plane flying in Iranian Airspace.  The commanding officers of the Vinchennes were given awards for their act, and George Bush Senior announced that the United States would never apologize for killing those civilians.  This was just one of many attempts to make Iran attack the states.  To this day the US has embargoes against Iran stopping Boing from selling the Iranian government parts to repair it's ailing fleet of passenger planes.  The international community has heavily criticized the States for this because these planes are now a danger to everyone who flies on them.  They are in-effect causing innocent civilians to die in an attempt to provoke the Iranians.  

The latest tactic has been to get Israel to make passes at Iran.  And then when Iran said they would defend themselves if attacked Senator Clinton announced in lock-step with George Bush and John McCain that she would not hesitate to dispatch Nukes against Iran.  

This is not making the citizens of the United States safer.  Every time the US government presumes to get in the business of another nation it upsets the people of that country.  Get them mad enough and of course they will fight back.  This reminds me of a story I heard once from an old Pipeline operator who found a group of drug addled pipeliners who had come across a wolverine who had been caught by his hind leg in a bear trap.  They were poking it with a stick and laughing every time the wolverine lunged at them and got caught up on the trap's chain.  

Now everyone believes that Iran is trying to build nukes to bomb the US, why wouldn't they after all the abuse they've received so-far?  I'll tell you why.  Iran is currently sitting on one of the world's largest supplies of Oil in the world, part of this oil is nationalized meaning the government gets a percentage of all Oil that comes out of the ground.  This is why the US wants to overthrow the Iranian government because then the oil companies could run unfettered in Iran and produce as much or as little oil there as they want.  However, currently Iran sells a large percentage of their Oil to India, and China.  If Iran were attacked, India and China would step into the fray to protect their own energy interests. Russia would join by default backing them.  It would be World War 3, and whoever attacked Iran would LOSE. 

No one can afford to go to war with Iran.  And considering that Iranians have put up with so much already I don't think they'd make the mistake of striking out so late in the game if their enemies quietly stepped off their back.  These are people who don't hate the United States for what they have or their lifestyle, these are people who hate the United States for what it's leaders and their invasive foreign policy have done to them.  If the United States stopped these policies then it's people would be safer and more secure.  So, for those U.S. citizens who believe that the Republicans are the only ones who can keep you safe, I ask you to carefully examine the facts and realize that the actions of the Bush administration these past 8 years has made you anything but.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend