Happy Earth Day...Week...?

Well, good Saturday morning to one and all, and a very joyous Earth Day to my environmentally conscious friends.

Earth Day, as my fellow Lakeside dwellers know it is the day each year when people from here:

Tell those of us who live here:

That we're destroying Mother Earth and need to reform our wicked, wicked ways.

Later, I plan on taking some sobriety lessons from an alcoholic. Toodles!

Planes, Trains and Migraines

Often in politics the only people who are sure of their position are the ones who have made up their minds before the facts are presented.  They don't change their minds, but simply spin their way to their desired conclusion. Cherry pick the juicy - and usually embarrassing - tidbits and bobs your uncle!

The F-35 'situation' (as I know of no other word to describe it without emoting a bias) is a clear example of a muddied issue. Those who listen to the verbal jousting, the dueling spreadsheets, and the gotcha banter between the floor of the Commons and the National Press Club, seek elucidation and get a migraine for their troubles.

So, at the risk of my own tenuous hold on sanity, let's deconstruct this a bit.

1. The F-35 is needed to replace the aging fleet of CF-18 Hornets.

Okay, that should make sense. People who will trade in a car half-way through their lease expect military pilots to go faster than the speed of sound in objects built before some politics professors in Canadian universities were conceived. Drydocked subs and Sea King helicopters that spent more time being rescued than actually doing rescues should have been a big ol' red flag for those whose safety and security depends on the operators of these machines.

2. The F-35 is the best plane for the job.

I am not an aerospace engineer - just a cranky farmer. I did do some rudimentary ground school type training in Air Cadets many moons ago, but that doesn't make me Billy Bishop or Chuck Yeager. I will let you in on a little secret, though. Fully 99.999 percent of the people foaming at the mouth on either side of this issue have no clue either. For all they know, magic pixie dust and the prayers of kindergarteners keep those things afloat. Maybe Tom Cruise used a little of L.Ron Hubbard's 'Dianetics' to get afloat in 'Top Gun'. Again - I don't know, and chances are you don't know either.

The opposition politicians and press believe that Peter MacKay should know. Well, he should probably know more than most, but really? Think about it - if Thomas Mulcair became Prime Minister, and he appointed a Minister of Health, would there be any expectation that said individual could walk into a hospital, scrub down, then remove someone's appendix? Let's face it - half the New Democrats who got elected in Quebec ridings only knew enough 'francais' to say hello, order a beer, or ask where the toilet was.

Ministers have advisors. These advisors have titles. Those titles are given to them because they have lots of letters after their names, or have written books on subjects, or taught on subjects, or all of the above. 

Ministers who don't know how aircraft work ask people who have Ph.D's in aeronautical engineering and pilot's licences. If they're smart, they'll follow the advice of those who spent a few years and many sleepless nights trying to sort these things out. If that advice is found lacking, is it the Minister's fault? I don't know. If you go to a doctor and they prescribe the wrong drug to you, is that your fault? Same principle, folks.

3. It's $16 billion...no, it's $25...no, it's $16 billion...no, it's nothing.

Okay, so from what I understand, MacKay's office says the cost of the planes will be $16 billion. Auditors and opposition politicians say it's more like $25 billion. The government counters that since no contract has been signed, no money has actually been spent yet.

Here goes. MacKay is right when he says that $16 billion is the cost. If the F-35 were a used car, that is the number that would be written on the big flourescent piece of cardboard shoved under the windshield. That would be the number on the cheque that DND would cut and give to Lockheed Martin.

So why $25 billion? Well, the astute auditors say that you have to take other things into account. How about maintenance, manpower and equipment over thirty years?

This is technically true, but also a bit of sophistry. Yes, the planes will cost money beyond the sticker price, but - newsflash - so does everything else. Things break and need to get fixed - cars, houses, computers, you name it. Just drive down a city street - look, there's a mechanics garage, and there's a Rona / Home Depot / Lowe's, and over there, there's a guy who can fix a tear in your chesterfield, or patch your driveway, or flat tire. Folks, things break down, and it costs to fix them.

If we are going to say that the government is 'lying by withholding the true cost of the planes', then every real estate agent lies about the cost of a listed property because they didn't include the cost of repairing the roof in 15 years, or replacing a burnt out lightbulb, or the cost of the electricity to run your kids XBox 360. Your car? Well, did they tell you how much the cost of gas, tires, fuel filters, and pinetree air fresheners will be.

If $25 billion is the true price of the F-35's, then the true value of a three bedroom bungalow in Canada is $1.5 million, and you can't buy a Chevy Cruze for less than $75,000. 

My confusion, however, is with the PBO - the Parliamentary Budget Office. On this matter, they feel that associated and related costs to the planes should be included. Okay, I'll go with it. If we are going to do that, though, why are we getting up on our hindlegs about moving the age for collecting Old Age Security to 67. The PBO says that OAS itself if financially stable, and that the move is unneccessary. Okay, but the cost of aging also covers healthcare, which is both tenuous and supported by federal dollars. If the cost of jet fuel and pilot's pay will have a knock-on effect on the F-35, wouldn't the ballooning costs of catheters and bedpans not have a similar effect on OAS? Just asking.

The only comment that is dubious is the one where the government says that no money was spent. That is not true. The original project to develop the F-35, then known as the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), involved seed investments from a number of countries. Canada's contribution to the effort was $200 million. That cheque, however, didn't get signed by Stephen Harper. 

That little expenditure was okayed Jean Chretien.

I'm going back to the lake. Life's simpler there, and I'm getting a headache.

I knew I hated phonecalls

The first rule for political staffers is never to make yourself part of the story. Conservative Michael Sona and Liberal Adam Carroll broke that rule. Whether they did more than that is a subject for thoughtful investigation rather than supposition. The actions of these individuals, and countless others across all party lines, have contributed to the theatre of the absurd that is taking place on Parliament Hill.

The people behind both "Robocalls" and "Vikileaks" have, at the very least, suffered from major lapses of judgment and character. In some instances, they may have done things that may need to be examined.

For me, the worst thing about 'robocalls' are their annoying tendency to wake up my children at stupid hours of the evening, or interrupt my television / writing / quality family bonding time with things that I neither care about nor intend to act upon. There's nothing like a phone solicitation for cash or votes when you're waiting for a call concerning a job interview or test results from an oncologist! But, once again, I digress...

The recent confession of Liberal MP Tony Valeriote that the party making the biggest noise about these calling practices engaged in it with equal relish has only served to make a broader point about the dysfunction and moral turpitude that has inflicted the body politic like poison ivy- but first, a prediction.

The political circus that is just beginning will stretch out for weeks and months. One group will clam up, retrench, and claim that the guilty parties have been dealt with in an expeditious manner. The other side will claim a conspiracy of monumental proportions that dwarf the allegations of the Kennedy assassination and 9-11 subplots combined.

One cannot disprove a negative, so an argument will be made that every voter in Canada received a questionable call and that the results in all 308 ridings have been irrevocably tainted. In the other instance, the resolution of the dubious twitter account will be characterized as only the tip of the iceberg, and that within one party's research services office lies something no less nefarious than the group that smeared George McGovern and Daniel Ellsberg into oblivion. That is where the interests lie and that is where the narrative will go. After all, if every person who claimed to have been at Woodstock actually did roll around in the mud at Max Yeager's farm, an entire region of upstate New York would have been awash with VW Vans and tie-dyed T-shirts.

When vanity and self-interest are at stake, 1000 robocalls become 500,000, and one bone-headed online poster becomes a room-full of seedy operatives.

Given that both Liberals and Conservatives (so far) have been openly implicated in this practice, we are going to be treated to a level of sophistry that politicians often live down to.

If things are going to get better, people are going to have to get beyond both the actions and the hyperbole attaching itself to it. There is a greater problem, people, and these are but mere symptoms of this disease. The trick of the political operator, like that of the professional magician, is to distract your attention with one hand while the other performs the trick. If you follow the Robocall / Vikileaks soap opera, you will be duly distracted from the real issue.

Once upon a time, yours truly was a political wanna-be. I joined a party before I was old enough to drive, and went to conventions where free food and drink were available at fancy hotel hospitality suites. For a kid from a modest background, getting to dress up and be treated like a high-roller while talking to cabinet ministers was, and remains for some, quite the little ego trip. There were others in my midst, and not much older than me, who would dress the part, try to give the air of a 'serious young man / woman', eager to gain some currency - a summer job on the Hill, or maybe a reference letter for school.

Here's the type - a young person in their early twenties, most likely a political studies graduate, or still working on their degree. They are drawn to political activism for reasons that are unique to them, but they pursue it with all of the vigour and optimism they can muster. They get involved in local campaigns and are willing to do all of the thankless jobs, like stuffing envelopes, doing phonebanks and fetching coffee. They work long hours for no thanks, except maybe the appreciation of a candidate who may become an MP and offer them some sinecure in the local constituency office, or even a chance to walk around Parliament Hill flashing a Blackberry and looking all so formidable.

While it is never fair to generalize, it would also be a lie to say that campaigns and partisan life among the barely-legal set don't have the feel of an episode of 'Mad Men', with a soupcon of apprenticeship of Charlie Sheen's character to Gordon Gekko in "Wall Street". Political issues are often created or destroyed with all of the alacrity of a dice roll in a game of "Risk" or the summoning of a chaotic good half-elf in a marathon Dungeons and Dragons game played in a friend's basement on a ratty old chesterfield.

It is a natural match, however. Politicians and parties need smart, willing and enthusiastic people. They, in turn, are eager, willing to work dreadful hours for crappy pay, and have no life beyond 'the game.' Most people with marriages, families, homes and steady incomes would not want to contemplate the life of an MP. Certainly, taking a paycut and taking a wrecking ball to your personal life would not justify being an assistant to an MP. The only perk - that of being able to walk the hallways of the Centre Block - can easily be accommodated by signing on to one of the many public tours of the edifice.

Where do 'robocalls', anonymous hacks, and impromptu gate crashings / protests come from? Twenty years ago, I would have said a group of these people sitting in the back corner of a Byward market bar, chainsmoking Export 'A''s, quaffing pitchers of draft, and giggling like a bunch of ten year olds who snuck a naughty peek inside the girl's changeroom. Beyond the legal diktats concerning tobacco in public places with four walls and a roof, I doubt much has changed.

Politicians and partisans will wax on about the indignities and the disgust of this type of behaviour. Some will say it's a Tory thing, others will say it's 'American' influence. Some will say it's an orchestrated conspiracy, while others will say it's a rogue with a second hand Nokia and a $10 calling card.

All are right, and all are wrong.

It is a political system where parties have become reliant on a cadre of people who could use:

a) Some ethics training;

b) Some adult supervision;

c) Some real-world experience from the 'School of Hard Knocks';

d) A kick square in the ass; or,

e) All of the above

I vote for 'e'.

Readin', Writin', Arithmetic and what?

Some months ago, my 11 year old son asked me what I was - politically, that is.


It was a normal enough question, given that there were both federal and provincial elections in full swing, and that it was impossible to turn on the television without being inundated with campaign ads, news stories, and the ever present 30 second sound bite. My son also knows that his father is a politically active person, and follows current events regularly.

I told him that I was a Conservative. As I am a paid member of said party and sit on riding association boards, this can be considered a fair and accurate answer.

He, however, declared that he, too, was a Conservative.

For the typical father who wishes for their progeny to follow in their footsteps, this would seem like a point of paternal pride. I could have simply said "that's wonderful" and "I'm so proud of you" and left it at that.

But, I didn't.

I have worked campaigns for over thirty years, from all levels and angles. I've sat in University lecture halls and discussed the system inside and out. I've knocked on more doors than the average Fuller Brush man. All of this told me that this was not a gift.

"How do you know?" I asked.

His answer was to repeat that as I was a Tory, then he would be as well.

This, of course, would not do. I explained that a party affiliation was not a birthright. I gave the example that the late NDP Leader Jack Layton was the son of a Federal Conservative cabinet minister. I also explained that your party affiliation has to reflect how you see the world, what your priorities are and what your aspirations for the future may be. I added that when you join a party, you are actively supporting a set of policies and ideas, so you better be sure you agree with them.

I concluded by saying that I would rather he support another party than support the same one if it meant not being honest with himself. This I believe for both him and his sister - to one's self be true.

So, I drive to work and turn on CBC Radio. They tell about some schools that have organized fieldtrips to the Supreme Court in Ottawa in order to attend a court hearing on aboriginal education rights. The children were about my son's age, and seemed remarkably schooled in political issues. Mind you, one should never assume manipulation when ten and eleven year olds talk like third-year political studies majors. Then, of course, came the teachers, who defended that their choice of outing was not about political indoctrination - it was about combating racism.

So, let's dissect this.

Let's agree from the start that the state of aboriginal education is absolutely shameful. Let's also agree that racism still exists, and that we need to be vigilant about intolerance based on one's racial or ethnic background.

The question still remains whether it is the place of educators to impose their political point of view on their students.

Years ago, I attended a graduation ceremony for a local high school in order to present a bursary to one of the students. The valedictorian rose to deliver his address to the gathering, and while my expectation was for a thoughtful reminiscence of past years and enthusiastic hope for the future, it did not quite happen that way.

The time was when teachers unions in Ontario were at loggerheads with the PC government of Premier Mike Harris, and the valedictorian's address was one long manifesto of grievances against said government. It spoke of the cruel and vindictive nature of a government that made victims of Ontario students by going after their beloved teachers who only sought to do right by their charges.

As much as I admire anyone who has the courage of their convictions, and is willing to place their name and reputation against a cause, I have an immense amount of contempt for those who use their power and status in order to bend others to their cri de coeur. I worry about any group of people who enter into their responsibility as citizens and voters by simply parroting what someone told them to say. I refuse to believe that there are not young people who canvass for parties simply because some authority figure with an agenda abused their position.

It feels somewhat sordid to use young people as a proxy for advancing whatever political agenda you wish to advance. To convince students that they must embrace one particular point of view, and ignore the perspective of others - let alone their own gut instinct - does not reflect well on the person who does it.

My son and daughter are in the school system, and my obvious concern is that while I have made the conscious and - I believe, correct - decision not to force my political views on them, or convert them to a particular way of thought, I do not have the confidence that others will observe the same ethic.

I do not believe that either of my children should call themselves Conservatives because their father told them so. Conversely, I do not believe that an educator should presume to groom them for membership in the political party of their choosing.

The decision to call oneself a Conservative, Liberal, Socialist, Social Democrat or whatever boils down to a complex set of decisions and choices. Everything you see and hear from your earliest memories, to the individual relationships and life experiences that guide your path are the forces that will guide you to the true path as you define it.

Hate big government or big business because you hate it - not because Miss. So-and-so told you in Grade 9 that it was the right thing to do. She can knock on doors and put up lawn signs on her own time if she feels that strongly about it.

And, if you are my children, don't do it because your father said so. It may be the only instance in your childhood where I don't want you to do what you're told.

Guidelines on bedtime and homework notwithstanding of course.